The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that it’s mandate is to assess the state of the scientific literature on all aspects of climate change, its impacts and society’s options for responding to it.
Making this submission on Thursday, September 21, 2017 in reaction to extensive media coverage that the organisation said atimes referenced its work, IPCC explained that whenever a new piece of scientific research is published that is relevant to any the topics, it joins the ever-growing body of evidence that the IPCC assesses. The IPCC added that it does not conduct original research itself, or develop its own models or scenarios.
The IPCC explained further: “Our next major assessment report (the Sixth Assessment Report, or AR6) is due in 2021/22. Scientific understanding about the implications of a global temperature increase of 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels is growing quickly. In early October 2018, a year from now, the IPCC will be releasing a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC, to round up all the available knowledge on this important topic.
“The Special Report will also serve as an update to the IPCC’s previous comprehensive assessment (the Fifth Assessment Report, or AR5), which was published in 2013/14 before the Paris Agreement. At each stage of preparation through to completion, the Special Report will assess the fast-growing body of scientific literature relevant to 1.5ºC. Until that point, it would be inappropriate for the IPCC to comment on any single study.
“At the moment, the First Order Draft of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC is undergoing expert review until Sunday, September 24, 2017. With nearly 2,000 experts from around the world registered to take part in this process, this is a key step in ensuring our reports continue to be objective, comprehensive and balanced. All comments received will be considered in the preparation of the Second Order Draft which will be open for review by government representatives and Expert Reviewers in January and February 2018.”
Four countries between Tuesday, September 19 and Wednesday, September 20, 2017 deposited their instruments of ratification of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and bringing the total number of ratifications to 164.
Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC
While Myanmar (161st) and Bhutan (162nd) submitted on Tuesday, Ecuador (163rd) and Liechenstien (164th) did likewise on Wednesday.
All ratifications will enter into force in a month’s time.
The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste on Wednesday, August 16, 2017 deposited its instruments of ratification to become the160th country to endorse the global treaty, after Sudan and Zimbabwe on Wednesday, August 2 and Monday, August 7, 2017 respectively deposited their instruments of ratification of the Paris accord.
According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), East Timor’s ratification of the pact will enter into force in a month’s time on Friday, September 15, 2017.
Previously, Haiti, the Netherlands, Venezuela and Serbia ratified the pact respectively on on Monday, July 31; Friday, July 28; Friday, July 21; and Tuesday, July 25, 2017.
Before then, the Republic of Malawi on Thursday, June 29, 2017 likewise endorsed the agreement, ahead of Egypt and Togo, which ratified the climate accord respectively on Thursday, June 29 and Wednesday, June 28 2017.
The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention (UNFCCC) and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.
The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives. The Agreement also provides for enhanced transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework.
“Our goal has always been to deliver a clean, safe and prosperous Lagos…We love the criticism that Lagos is the second least liveable city (in the world). It is a challenge to us and we are working on it ”…..Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, My Random Thoughts…August 28, 2017.
Oba Akran Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos
Cities by simple definition are the creation of mankind. They are permanent settlements where people live, work and create time for social, cultural and recreational activities. Liveability connotes an improvement in the living conditions and quality of life through the creation of a conducive environment that would engender happier and healthier living for all residents irrespective of age and where ever they choose to live. For a settlement to be adjudged a liveable city, it must guarantee security, ease of mobility with transportation options and free-flow of traffic, affordable housing, availability of jobs, functional civic institutions, supportive infrastructure, human services and abundance of green space for outdoor recreation.
Global competitiveness of Nigerian cities
With the exception of Lagos, it is on record that no other Nigerian cities had ever participated in the global most liveable cities survey, not out of spite, but for a reason why this piece was written. Most Nigerian cities are not globally competitive in so many aspects of urban living, economy, tourism, security, and entertainment. This “negative” assessment arises from the fact that feeble attention is being paid to city management, planning, and liveability in Nigerian cities. Regrettably too, Abuja, Nigeria’s new capital city is left out in the “neglect race.” The city too is yawning and calling for attention because its newness is gradually turning seedy. The factors responsible for these shortcomings have been well-articulated in many domains on the subject matter by researchers, economists, urban planners, and management gurus, to bear repeating in this article.
The Global Liveability Report 2017
Readers would recall the release of The Global Liveability Report in August 2017, by the Economist’s Intelligent Unit (EIU) which conducted the survey in 140 cities around the world. The Economist is an international magazine of repute. Its views are highly respected on matters of the world economy and corporate investment. The global liveability survey ranked the participating cities in order of best living conditions using certain qualitative and quantitative factors such as healthcare, education, infrastructure as determinants of how liveable the cities are by awarding scores to each factor. The scores from the factors are summed up and weighted to give a final score rated in percentage, with 100% being excellent living conditions and 1% is poor. The 2017 survey report ranked Melbourne, Australia as the most liveable city in the world, while Lagos had the second position of the least liveable city from the bottom with Damascus, Syria ranked first as the least liveable city from the bottom of the survey ladder.
The factor that really affected Lagos for the poor rating was insecurity “against a backdrop of political violence and government corruption,” the report added. The statement at the onset of this piece was Governor Akinwunmi Amode’s reaction to the Global Liveability Report 2017. Having taken the report in good faith, his optimism, and worries are of major concern when he pointed out that, “Lagos, as it is, has not reached its peak but we can see signs of progress and positive transition to the Lagos of our dreams.” But he further lamented that he does not see the same level of progress elsewhere in the country. And that he was not happy that most States in Nigeria are not advancing like Lagos.
To this writer, the Governor’s observation is the home truth and his apprehension cannot be dismissed. Nigeria has only one primate city with world visibility and a promising future for global competitiveness if well managed. That city is Future Lagos. Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city remains what it is…seat of government. It is not as enterprising and enticing as Lagos and as a result, Abuja does not have what it takes to be reckoned among the league of world capital cities of other countries such as Washington, USA; Canberra, Australia; Paris, France; London; Great Britain, Madrid, Spain; Jo’burg, South Africa; Beijing; China; Moscow, Russia; and Ottawa, Canada.
The main worry of Governor Ambode is that the primacy of Lagos, which is further reinforced by numerous developmental projects and social programmes being implemented by the Lagos State Government(LASG) will continue to attract more migrants to the megacity many of whom would be a burden on the resources of the LASG. This was why he was implicitly philosophical in his random thoughts when he said, “ if only one man is prosperous in a village, it is not progress. Rather the man is in danger.”
The way forward
How to make Nigerian cities liveable is the trinity of a policy shift, government commitment, and political will to think, plan and implement.
First, we must dissuade and discourage by regulation, the idea of constant urban development incursion into the country’s hinterlands and wetlands because of the penchant for city expansion, which leads to sprawl and growth management problems. Sprawl should be contained as much as necessary. Where avoidable, development authorities should discourage the creation of “stand-alone communities” in the middle of the wilderness, which has no nexus with existing urban settlement. The orientation of urban development must change to a paradigm shift that embraces new urbanism principles. The principles that call for civic engagement, good urban governance, smart growth, creativity expressed through design, application of technology, the transformation of blighted areas, injection of modern commerce, innovation, rich entertainment, cultural revival, the lure for tourism and people-centred communities where there are a plethora of oppourtunities for everybody to succeed.
Lagos cannot be the only viable city in Nigeria. We should maximise the advocacy for more liveable cities, which can compete favourably with other world cities.
The federal government in collaboration with the states must pay attention to the revitalisation and regeneration of other cities in the country including the overhauling of urban administration in order to make these cities functional and liveable. Such collaboration will be mutually beneficial to both governmental entities in terms of revenue generation. Overhauling of urban administration system should be the starting point.
Without a firm grasp of the knowledge about urban management and administration with strong and visionary leaders who must be committed to planning, which this writer apologetically believes are not plenteous in the country, Nigerian cities would continue to be at the backwater of new urbanism. The aspect of “visionary leaders” is imperative and worth the emphasis because it is the vision of the leader that drives the whole process of development.
The city of Dubai, UAE has through the history of its development benefitted immensely from visionary leaders who often decided what is to be “accomplished” for the city, not how to do it. A sort of “goal-setting agenda” which they always pursue with gusto. We want to advocate that policy-makers and urban administrators must be fairly knowledgeable and familiar with contemporary and emerging urban issues such as smart growth, climate change, carbon emission, green initiative, biodiversity, tactical urbanism, transit-oriented development, bus rapid transit, uneven growth, sustainable development, global warming, funding mechanism and city inclusivity. A rudimentary understanding of the importance and interconnectedness of all these trending issues in creating a liveable city should be a boon and without it, planning is made difficult. With poor planning, the achievement of set goals and objectives go south.
Last line
All the problems afflicting Nigerian cities are cumulative effects of neglect and maladministration, weak growth management strategy, corruption, and to a larger extent, ineffective urban planning. The government cannot continue to pay lip service to city administration, the consequence of which is better imagined. When cities are made liveable, everyone benefits. As Robert H. McNulty, President, Partners for Liveable Communities rightly said, “ …liveable communities can augment economic development and benefit all segments of the resident population… Liveability is an action for the good.”
Global financial institutions Citi and JPMorgan Chase & Co. on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at the Climate Week NYC 2017 in New York joined The Climate Group’s RE100 campaign with CDP, committing to source 100% renewable power across their global operations by 2020.
Helen Clarkson, Chief Executive Officer, The Climate Group
Other companies joining the RE100 initiative are one of the fastest-growing beverage companies, Califia Farms, and UK investment management company Jupiter Asset Management.
Helen Clarkson, CEO, The Climate Group, said: “This year’s Climate Week NYC is jam-packed with the best examples of corporate leadership – from cleaner, smarter energy choices through to ambitious commitments on electric transport. Companies joining RE100 recognize that renewable power is a smart business decision. Their leadership will help to shape energy markets away from fossil fuels and deliver on the Paris Agreement at speed.”
Citi is the leading global bank, with approximately 200 million customer accounts and business in more than 160 countries, and a mission to responsibly provide financial services that enable growth and economic progress. The bank has set a new target to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2020 across its global operations, as part of its broader Sustainable Progress strategy and $100 billion Environmental Finance Goal. Citi’s strategy will consider on-site power generation and Power Purchase Agreements, along with a continuing focus on energy efficiency.
Michael Corbat, CEO, Citi said: “We are right alongside our clients in supporting the growth of renewable energy development and production. We’re committed to using renewable power sources for our global operations while continuing to provide financing for our clients’ renewable energy and energy efficiency projects around the world.”
JPMorgan Chase & Co., a leading global financial services firm with assets of $2.6 trillion, announced in July that it plans to go 100% renewable by 2020. The firm, which has offices and operations in more than 60 countries across over 5,500 properties, covering approximately 75 million square feet – about 27 times the square footage of the office space at the Empire State Building – will achieve this goal by prioritising transactions that add new renewable energy to the grids on which it consumers power.
The firm will install renewable energy technology across buildings and branches, sign Power Purchase Agreements with renewable energy projects and reduce energy consumption. JPMorgan Chase also committed to facilitating $200 billion in clean financing by 2025.
Matt Arnold, Global Head of Sustainable Finance, JPMorgan Chase & Co., said: “Business has an essential role to play in advancing the transition to clean energy and a safe climate. Our commitment to source renewable power for 100% of our global energy needs by 2020 – which is paired with a plan to facilitate US$200 billion in clean energy financing through 2025 – is driven by ‘out-of-the-box’ innovators and a commercial approach that will deliver a more resilient energy supply chain.”
Jupiter Asset Management is a leading, London-based investment management company, with a goal of sourcing 100% renewable energy for its electricity use by 2018. The company is already 94% renewable.
Maarten Slendebroek, CEOr, Jupiter Asset Management, said: “We believe our decision to target 100% renewable electricity through RE100 highlights the alignment between our corporate strategy and our investment activities. As a long-term active investor, we believe that climate change and energy transition carry risks and opportunities that warrant our attention. This initiative demonstrates Jupiter’s commitment to environmentally responsible corporate behavior.”
Califia Farms is a leading provider of nutmilks, ready-to-drink coffees, juices and creamers, all of which are 100% plant-based, non-GMO, carrageenan-free, gluten-free, vegan and made with no artificial ingredients. The company is committed to sourcing 100% renewable electricity by 2020.
Eli Steltenpohl, Sustainability Manager, Califia Farms, said: “Next year, we plan on harnessing the California sunshine with more than just flavorful fruits and nuts. Califia Farms is committed to environmental stewardship across all facets of our business and we are excited to demonstrate that energy action is viable for companies of all sizes. We want to show how better-for you products can be produced in a better way, regardless of your industry or footprint.”
The eight newcomers to RE100 were announced on stage at ‘VELOCITY – Accelerating Climate Action’, a unique event at Climate Week NYC, which sees The Climate Group partner with VICE Impact, Formula E and Spring Studios to champion ambitious climate action to business and governments.
There were high level speakers from RE100 member companies, including AB InBev, DBS Bank, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, H&M, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Kellogg Company, and Philips Lighting – with H&M also speaking on their EP100 commitment on energy productivity, alongside Mahindra & Mahindra.
General Motors announced on Tuesday that it would power its Ohio and Indiana plants entirely with wind energy, meaning that renewable energy will 20% of the automaker’s global electricity load.
RE100 recently celebrated its 100 members milestone, drawing praise from global climate leaders including Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and former US Vice President Al Gore.
The Climate Group has also launched its new EV100 initiative, to boost the uptake of electric vehicles across the world, and make electric transport the new normal.
I was commuting from Ojota to Obalende a fortnight ago, in one of the big red buses used in Lagos when, perhaps taking a peek at a climate change material I was glancing through, a lady sitting beside me struck up a conversation. She wanted to know what this climate change thing really was, and why everyone was so bothered about it in foreign countries. Snickering, she chipped in an aphorism she imagined to be Nigerian by its nature, “All these things no dey affect Naija people abeg”. This got me worried.
Infographic: How climate change threatens health
The perception of climate change in these area – by that I mean Nigeria and most of Africa – has remained fairly constant for a while, affected by traditional, socio-cultural and religious narratives, an inundation that Africa does not matter in the scheme of things, and is not affected too by whatever calling card nature comes with. The snag in this narrative though, is that, it is highly fallacious and leaves us grossly underprepared. When it comes to climate change, no one is safe, and here is why.
Climate change patterns play a fundamental role in shaping natural ecosystems and the human economies and cultures that depends on them; and pragmatically speaking, which leaves no economy out of the mix. Perhaps it is necessary to demystify the concept of climate change a bit. Climate change refers to rapidly changing weather patterns over a period of time, caused by global warming which is a result of human activities, especially the use of fossil fuels. So, simply put, the weather patterns change rapidly, resulting in extreme ones; too dry or too wet, too hot or too cold. This inevitably upsets the eco-system and environmental balance; affecting agriculture, water supply, food availability and access, livelihood, keeps more people indoors and essentially affects human health. Then follows accelerated rates of evaporation, causing the skies to be heavy with humidity, and the soil to be lacking in it, the causal factors for droughts, heavy rainfalls and warmer ocean temperatures that strengthen hurricanes and tornados.
GCHA_Health Impacts and Opportunities
Climate change clearly plays a pivotal role in human existence today, and even with the greatest attempts to deny the reality of this quandary, one area we cannot fail to see climate change negatively impacting society is in the adverse health effects to communities. Climate change effects on health include direct effects and indirect effects. The direct effects span vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. Others include West Nile virus, cholera, Lyme disease and asthma resulting from air pollution. Even Ebola is not left out of this conversation. According to Kris Murray, senior research scientist at EcoHealth Alliance, an organisation that researches and educates about the relationships between wildlife, ecosystems and human health, climate change has strong potential to play a role in increasing the risk for ebola. Meningitis too, famous for its epidemic in the earlier part of this year had its outbreak peaked by extremely low humidity and severe heat waves in the Northern part of Nigeria.
Recently, a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, predicts more deadly heat from climate change. The researchers further warned that by 2050, more than 350 million people living in urban areas would be hit with deadly heat waves every year. This poses an even bigger challenge for an already hot sub-Saharan Africa. Truth be told, if Africa does not act now, we will be toast, sitting ducks for climate change, especially considering that the vulnerability predictions for West Africa keeps us as being in acute health dangers from the effects of climate change . With weaker economies than developed nations, less levels of preparedness and an underfunded healthcare system, it will be a case of double jeopardy if we wait till the adverse effect of climate change hit the health of Nigerians hard. Recently, resident doctors, comprising a large chunk of doctors in Nigeria, went on strike to lament bad welfare conditions. The infrastructure leaves so much more to be desired, while access to healthcare for many is a farce.
Vulnerability and Impact index for climate change and Health
The major public health organisations of the world have said that climate change is a critical public health problem. Climate change makes many existing diseases and conditions worse, but it may also help introduce new pests and pathogens into new regions or communities. Dengue fever for instance infects about 400 million people each year, and is one of the primary causes of illness and death in the tropics and subtropics. The IPCC projects that the rise in temperatures along with projected increases in population could put 5 to 6 billion people at risk of contracting dengue fever in the 2080s. The reproductive, survival and biting rates of the Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes that carry dengue and yellow fever are strongly influenced by temperature, precipitation and humidity. Scientists at the University of Maryland School Of Public Health have also found that extreme heat and heavy rainfall may increase risk of hospitalisation for asthma.
Taking the discussion to the indirect effects, only a few weeks back, we witnessed the sad incident of flooding in Makurdi, an occurrence that was reported by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) to have claimed three lives and put 110,000 people at the risk of contracting diseases. The agency further noted, “At the Government approved IDP Camp, up to 4 families are reported to be accommodated in one room. This suggests the possible risk of an epidemic as some hospitals in affected locations are reported to have shut down due to the flood.” This is one of the adverse effects of climate change that can result in further health problems.
Climate change and health
Recently, the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated the costs to health from climate change to be linking $2-4 billion per year by 2030, across the world. With flooding comes related disasters since floodwaters act as sponges for hazards. As they bubble past city streets and fill cars and homes, they collect sharp objects, sweep up insects and wildlife, and gather human waste. In fact, in certain instances, they draw out unwelcome wild animals. Images of alligators swimming in the Lekki waters during the recent flooding in Lagos were abuzz on social media through the months of July and August.
Snakes, too, are a concern especially during landslides and Hurricanes. In the week following recent Hurricane Irma, parts of Florida were awash in millions of gallons of sewage and in Texas, following Hurricane Harvey, oil refineries and chemical plants have dumped a year’s worth of cancer-causing pollutants into the air. In both states, doctors are on the lookout for an uptick in respiratory problems, skin infections, and mosquito-borne diseases brought on by the water and mold the storms left behind.
There is also the mental effect of climate disaster displacements. Stress resulting from it jeopardizes immune systems, and it is difficult to maintain food hygiene in disaster zones. A year after Hurricane Katrina, for instance, residents reported an increase in suicidal thoughts, increasing from 2 percent to 6 percent among the 815 people studied. Post-traumatic stress disorder and depression also worsened. This brings me to the fundamental question of how ready our hospitals and emergency response organisations are for the spate of climate-related health problems that this decade is debuting.
Various recommendations have been made by scholars and public health professionals viz; improving early warning systems, better engaging disadvantaged communities, developing frameworks to link research, reducing food waste and more research into the links between conflict, instability and climate change, and I verily support them. I will however suggest some first steps.
The health industry in Nigeria clearly has little or insufficient knowledge of climate change, and needs some irradiation to enable them grasp the connection it has with health and quantify the specific effects climate change has on the overall disease burden and on opportunities and effectiveness in the public health. This will help them better mitigate their adverse effects.
There also needs to be a symbiotic and synergised approach from the health and environmental sector, two sectors that seem to be on two far ends of government in Nigeria. The health sector can also use climate information effectively in epidemic early warning systems as useful indicators to support early detection of disease outbreaks and prepare ahead of time for epidemics that are likely to occur. This synergy should importantly include the Emergency response agencies to enable them also be prepared for these disasters and obliterate the rate of climate-related illnesses.
Essentially, climate change is not a game of hide and seek where one can play into the safe zones and eclipse their corner of the world from its balefully warm hands. The health effects of climate change are enormous, and we must first understand and accept that in order to prepare ourselves for solutions. We must also be reminded, however subtly, that with each activity we do to hurt the environment, we hurt our health; individually and collectively. Hence, there must not just be increased ambition, there must be increased action until we can bend the emission curve and slow down global warming.
In the words of UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres: “This may not be easy at times, but for the sake of today’s and future generations, it’s the path we must pursue.”
The Director General/CEO, National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), Dr Rufus Ebegba, has assured Nigerians that the Agency will continue to ensure that any genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) allowed into the country will pose no threat to human health or the environment.
DG/CEO NBMA, Dr. Rufus Ebegba (second left), receiving an award from the Director, National Youth Council of Nigeria, Comrade Adedotun Omoleye
Dr Ebegba, who said this while receiving an award bestowed on him by the National Youth Council of Nigeria in Abuja on Wednesday, September 19 2017, urged Nigerians to trust the federal government to safeguard their health and the environment from potential adverse impacts of modern biotechnology.
According to him, NBMA was established by government to ensure safety in the application of modern biotechnology and the use of its products, adding that the future and wellbeing of Nigerians are paramount to the government.
“The present administration sees the need for the youths to be gainfully employed that is why most of the staff of the Agency are youths. This is a deliberate attempt to ensure that the youths are empowered,” he said.
He urged them to shun violence and work together for the unity of the nation, noting that the youths are key to the development of the nation.
DG/CEO NBMA, Dr. Rufus Ebegba (left), receiving an award from President of the Association of Northern Nigerian Students, Comrade Haruna Hamza
While presenting the award, the President of the National Youth Council of Nigeria who was represented by his Chief of Staff, Ugwumba Kelechi, commended the DG/CEO for his outstanding leadership in ensuring that the Agency is up and doing in the regulation of modern biotechnology and its products.
Also on Wednesday, the Association of Northern Nigerian Students (ANNS) presented an award of excellence to Dr Ebegba for his outstanding service to humanity.
Comrade Haruna Hamza, the president of the ANNS, while presenting the award, said the award was well deserved, adding that the DG is an ambassador of peace and urged him not to rest on his strides as the Northern students who are over 18 million in number are in support of his activities on GMOs regulation in the country.
The DG/CEO thanked both bodies and pledged to keep up the standard of the Agency for the good of the country.
Nigerian business leader Aliko Dangote told investors that going by its prowess in agriculture, Africa has the potential to become the food basket of the world.
Rwandan president, Paul Kagame (second left) with Nigerian businessman, Aliko Dangote (right)
In a packed room at a side event during the ongoing UN General Assembly in New York, business leaders and international diplomats invited by the Corporate Council for Africa heard Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, and Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, openly converse on Africa’s opportunities and challenges. The event held at the headquarters of global law firm Shearman and Sterling LLC.
Both leaders underscored the ongoing movement to diversify the African economy. In the case of Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, Dangote stated: “We should pray that oil prices remain low. This helps wean us off the dependency on revenues from petroleum. We must take oil to be the icing on the cake. We already have the cake,” he added.
In addition to agriculture, Dangote cited Nigeria’s vast mineral resources and gas as well as the need to manufacture more goods locally for domestic consumption. Both he and President Kagame cited continued need for heavy investments in education and connected the need for young people to be well trained for the jobs of tomorrow.
Dangote predicted that “five of the 12 million jobs needed in Africa soon must be created in Nigeria.”
Dangote’s fortune, which stems from cement, sugar, and other household commodities, has expanded into fertiliser and other processed high-value goods. “Technology of course helps us a lot and our factories are state-of-the-art with the use of robotics, but we shouldn’t be overly tech oriented to create wealth,” he told investors.
Mr. Dangote, who is often cited as one of the most inspiring business leaders in the world today and a model for young entrepreneurs, offered advice to Americans who tend to rely on outdated news and wrong perceptions of Africa, “Don’t be lazy. Go there and find the real story for yourself. Things have changed.”
Dangote cited the Rwanda success story where he has business interests as an example of positive change, good governance and leadership, and where corruption has been cured. He cited a personal experience of offering a $100 tip for services at the Kigali Airport to staff who refused to take money for work they were paid to do. President Kagame was praised for delivering the environment for growth he promised. “There is nothing African about corruption,” the Rwandan president added.
The session was moderated by Rosa Whitaker, former US Trade Representative and author of the AGOA (African Growth Opportunity Act), whose business consultancy is credited for helping both African governments and US companies develop commerce.
Seventeen non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have jointly dragged the Federal Government before an Abuja Federal High Court, over permits allegedly issued by the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) for genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize in Nigeria.
The GM Bt Cotton
The groups, led by the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), are asking the court to declare as null and void the permits granted Monsanto Agricultural Nigeria Limited for the commercial release of BT Cotton (MON 15985).
They are also asking for the revocation of the permit allegedly granted the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) for the confined field trial of NK603 and MON89034X NK 603 Maize in Nigeria.
According to the groups, the permits given to Monsanto were issued on May 1, 2016, a Public Holiday being Sunday and Workers Day were “illegal, null and void.” They also contended that the permit issued to NBDA violates the fundamental human rights of the general public.
They are therefore asking the court for a perpetual injunction to restrain both Monsanto and NBDA from carrying out any activity or further activity pursuant to those permits.
Listed as defendants in the suit (FHC/ABJ/CS/846/201) are: NBMA, the Minister of Environment, Monsanto, NABDA, Minister of Agriculture, the Attorney General of the Federation and the National Agency for Foods Drugs and Administration (NAFDAC).
The groups averred that the issuance of the permits to both Monsanto and NABDA constitute threat to the fundamental human rights of the general public and a breach of the 1999 Constitution as amended in 2011.
In response to the diesel scandal, the diesel tax advantage should be completely abandoned within the European Union (EU), according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC).
Air pollution from diesel-powered cars
In Germany, for example, diesel would then be about 20 cents per litre more expensive at the pump. In return, however, this measure would allow Germany but also France to reduce the emissions of CO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by about 10 percent over five years. This is because diesel drivers in particular are much more sensitive to fuel price changes than previously assumed: a price hike of 20 cents per liter would lower their overall consumption by an estimated 14 percent.
These are core findings of a new study conducted by the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC). MCC researcher Nicolas Koch together with Anne Zimmer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) have presented these findings in their article “Fuel Consumption Dynamics in Europe: Tax Reform Implications for Air Pollution and Carbon Emissions”, which was recently published in the journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
The new results are of particular relevance against the backdrop of the diesel scandal. The automobile industry is in a deep crisis, and bans on diesel vehicles are currently being considered in more than a dozen German cities. The mobility transition from fossil fuels to electricity could even play a role in the coalition negotiations following the Bundestag elections.
In Germany, the Greens are demanding a ban on new diesel cars from 2030 onwards. France and Britain have already announced a ban on new gasoline and diesel cars to be introduced at the latest from 2040 onwards. To date, however, the debate has been largely limited to prohibitions rather than looking at the tax break currently granted to diesel drivers.
The diesel scandal shows that emission standards alone are not sufficient to achieve climate protection targets and improved air quality. In contrast to emission standards and thresholds, a different diesel tax policy would provide significant revenues to EU countries. In fact, the fiscal households of Germany and France each stand to gain around €4 billion in the year of the reform, and those of Italy, Spain and the Netherlands €1 billion each. According to the study, these revenues could be invested in public transport or the research and development of cleaner driving technologies.
“The transition towards sustainable mobility with electric cars won’t in itself solve the diesel problem. Diesel would remain attractive in the countryside and for long-distance transport, especially since a lower fuel demand would lead to a price drop,” explains MCC researcher Koch, who supervised the study. “However, the fact that diesel vehicles are used primarily by companies, which are particularly sensitive to price changes at the fuel pump, gives us a great opportunity for introducing behavioral changes through policy.”
On the basis of EU data about fleet composition and fuel consumption, the researchers determined how strongly drivers of gasoline and diesel cars react to increases in fuel prices. They then calculated how emissions would change under two policy scenarios, one being the abolishment of diesel tax breaks and the other the introduction of a carbon tax. To emphasise the pure price effect, they assumed that the drivers’ income as well as the vehicle fleet remain the same. According to the study, both policies can significantly contribute to the reduction of NOx emissions and the compliance with CO2 reduction targets in the EU.
“In the electrification of the mobility sector, policy can embark on different paths,” says Ottmar Edenhofer, MCC Director and PIK Chief Economist. “In order to avoid having to impose diesel driving bans, policy makers should use every opportunity including the removal of the diesel tax advantages, as that measure already would allow for significant emissions reductions. The new revenues could be used to help absorb the burdens on commuters and heavy road users through new socially balanced mobility concepts.”
A complete elimination of the EU tax benefits for diesel fuels would also bring the ambitious EU climate protection targets for 2020 into reach. The transport sector, with its steadily rising emissions, is considered a key challenge to achieving these targets. “In terms of climate and environmental policy, there is really no reason for the diesel privilege. Per liter, diesel is significantly dirtier than a gasoline fuel. An end to the tax benefits for diesel would reduce as much CO2 emissions as a carbon price of 50 euros per ton,” says PIK researcher Anne Zimmer. “Yet a carbon tax of that magnitude would be difficult to implement in Europe. In contrast, abolishing the diesel tax advantages would provide EU member states the required funds to build new climate- and environmentally-friendly infrastructures.”
As concern mounts that the world will fail to meet its targets to reduce carbon emissions, the Swedish government, the Ford Foundation and other funders will throw their weight behind a proven, yet underutilised, climate solution: recognising the land rights of the indigenous and forest peoples of Africa, Latin America and Asia, who have emerged as the globe’s most effective tropical forest protectors.
Peruvian Amazonian indigenous peoples
In the lead-up to the UN Climate Change Conference (COP23) scheduled to hold in Bonn, Germany in November 2017, indigenous leaders, forestry experts and investors will on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 in Stockholm, Sweden join Swedish aid officials and Ford Foundation President to tackle major cause of climate change, violence and costly conflicts in the global South.
At least one quarter – or 54,546 million metric tons – of the carbon stored above ground in the world’s tropical forests is found in the collectively managed territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This is equivalent to almost four times the world’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2014. Research has shown that where rights are secure, deforestation rates are lower and carbon storage and biodiversity higher.
Leaders attending the Development Talks will call on international climate negotiators to act on a growing body of evidence demonstrating the role that secure land rights for Indigenous Peoples and local communities can play in protecting the tropical forests that are crucial to keeping global warming below two degrees. Secure land rights are also central for ending land conflicts that erupt when palm oil plantations, mines and massive dams drive Indigenous Peoples and local communities from their homes and destroy the tropical forests.
The event will formally launch the International Land and Forest Tenure Facility, a new institution dedicated to scaling up recognition of collective land and forest rights globally, thereby reducing conflict and furthering achievement of global goals on human rights, equality, the environment and development. An analysis of Tenure Facility pilot projects in Mali, Peru and Indonesia, to be released in Stockholm, will demonstrate significant progress, as local peoples use innovative legal tactics and GPS systems to map and monitor their territories and secure legal rights to their lands.
A new study released alongside these results will examine community-company conflicts in Southeast Asia, the latest in a series of papers documenting the significant cost of conflict to investors and companies that fail to address insecure land rights. An earlier paper by the same authors concludes that land conflict with local peoples can increase companies’ operating costs by as much as 29 times the baseline – often leading to outright abandonment of up-and-running operations.
