The Kyoto Protocol, the first international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions and which celebrates its 20th anniversary next month, remains an essential vehicle for developed countries to make more rapid and urgent cuts in their emissions, UN Secretary General António Guterres said on Wednesday, November 15, 2017.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Photo credit: UN Photo/ Kim Haughton
His message to leaders and delegates at the high-level opening of the COP23 UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany was backed up in the most concrete way by Belgium, Sweden, Germany and Spain, who became the latest countries to ratify the Doha Amendment, which establishes the second commitment period of action under the Protocol.
“In this 20th anniversary year of the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol and the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Climate Change Convention, I call on all relevant nations that have not yet done so to ratify the Doha Amendment,” said Mr Guterres.
The Protocol, since its adoption at COP3 on December 11, 1997, has become a beacon of climate action and an inspiring precursor to the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement, because it demonstrated that international climate change agreements not only work but can significantly exceed expectations in meeting their objectives.
The world is not yet on track to meet the central goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement – to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees.
“The latest UN Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report shows that current pledges will only deliver a third of what is needed … the window of opportunity to meet the 2 degree target may close in 20 years or less. And we may have only five years to bend the emissions curve towards 1.5 degrees. We need at least a further 25 per cent cut in global emissions by 2020,” said Mr Guterres.
The Doha Amendment covers this pre-2020 period, which is critical in the overall effort to get on track to the Paris goal. To date, 88 Parties have accepted the Amendment. To enter Doha into force requires 144 of the 192 parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
To celebrate the anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol and to encourage the ratification of Doha by more Parties, UN Climate Change is launching a social media campaign towards the December 11 anniversary asking people to send messages of support.
People can take selfies of themselves, friends or family holding up signs saying “I Love the Kyoto Protocol”, and post these images on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, with the hashtag #ILoveKyotoProtocol. We will select the best and share them on our own social media platforms.
“In 1997, we achieved a landmark agreement with the Kyoto Protocol, with its measurable reduction targets. It is the 20th anniversary of that agreement next month and is something worth recognising today,” added President of COP 23 and Prime Minister of Fiji Frank Bainimarama.
The Protocol, which set emission cut commitments by developed countries, was adopted on December 11, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and came into force on February 16, 2005.
During its first commitment period, from 2008 to 2012, 37 industrialised countries and the European Community, which as an organisation is also a Party to the Climate Change Convention, agreed to take a leading role in climate action by reducing their emissions to an average of just over five percent against 1990 levels.
In the end, they reduced them by well over 20 per cent.
“I am certain that the Kyoto Protocol was central to this exceptional result. Kyoto was behind the inspiration, innovation and sheer economic sense of renewable energy, energy efficiency, new technology, pollution reduction and new carbon markets which emerged in developed countries in this period and then began to pick up pace,” said Patricia Espinosa, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary.
“Thanks to Kyoto, we are not starting from scratch and we know we have solutions to meet the Paris goal, but only if we act now further, faster and together, led by developed nation emission cuts,” she said.
Several African countries have experimented with GMOs with limited success, for example Bt cotton in Burkina Faso
The Parliament of Uganda recently passed the National Biosafety Act 2017
The Parliament of Uganda recently passed the National Biosafety Act 2017. The law is intended to provide a legal and regulatory framework for the safe development and application of “biotechnology”, not “Biosafety”, in the country.
The advancement of modern biotechnology has been popularised as a powerful tool in alleviating poverty and enhancing food security. Uganda is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol which mandates parties to ensure an adequate level of protection in the field of safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology.
Over the years, Uganda has been progressively promoting the adoption of genetically modified (GM) varieties. A number of confined field trials have been conducted: for example, genetically modified (GM) bananas are being tested for resistance to banana bacterial wilt, black sigatoka as well as biofortifying banana with micronutrients with iron and vitamin A.
Other crops include genetically modified (GM) cassava against cassava brown streak, genetically modified (GM) maize for tolerance in drought conditions and cotton against bollworm among, others. Proponents of biotechnology in agriculture argue that genetically modified (GM) crops can potentially improve yields and livelihoods, and transform the agriculture sector hence alleviating food shortages and facilitating economic development.
Uganda’s population is estimated to approach 40 million by 2020, with an estimated 70% below the age of 30. It is argued, therefore, that applying science, technology and innovation will solve problems of food shortages, unemployment and wealth for the growing population. Biotechnology has been presented as genetic quick fix that can solve Uganda’s food insecurity problems.
This poses a number of questions: 1) Can Biotechnology overcome problems of food access, food shortages to farmers in Uganda? 2) Can the National “Biosafety” Act regulate GMOs effectively? Answering these questions requires a focused debate on the potential benefits and risks of applying genetic engineering and genetic modification in Uganda’s agriculture sector.
For one, why was it not named National GMOs Act in line with its content? The potential benefits of genetic modification should not divert our attention from the real concerns about the risks of adopting this component of biotechnology. The introduction of GMOs in agriculture hinders farmers from saving seeds from harvest for replanting the following season.
This is because the seeds are patented. Patenting ensures that the developers of the seed recoup their time and investment in developing these varieties. Traditionally, Ugandan farmers have shared and saved seed over generations. What will happen with the commercialisation of genetically modified seeds? It will be disaster for them, for indigenous seed varieties will be contaminated, eventually lost to GM/Seed companies. GMO seeds are sufficiently expensive compared to indigenous seeds and this will affect livelihood of small scale farmers: the result will be food insecurity.
Investing in GMO seed presents a significant financial risk for many small scale farmers especially with climate change, volatility of markets, access to markets among others. Farmers will be forced to sell all or part of their harvests to cover input costs related to buying seeds – perpetually.
Secondly, the National Biosafety Act that was passed recently is still lacking with regard to biosafety. It is not about “Biosafety” as is known in scientific structures and processes, but mainly GMOs in agriculture. The bill does not take cognisance of the Precautionary Principle as enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol.
This principle basically means there should be an adequate level of protection in the use of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology/genetic engineering taking into account risks to human health.
Our law does not mention this principle anywhere. Abandoning this principle is intended to reduce the liability of multinational companies with regard to the incalculable harm caused to small scale farmers, the environment, and public health.
With regard to liability and redress mechanisms for the farmers the Act is inadequate: while the law provides for the issuance of a restoration order to a person responsible for an activity that causes damage by unintentional release of GMOs, it does not specifically address by whom liability will be borne whether jointly or severally and does not attach liability to developers of GMO or product.
The Bill is also silent on compensation mechanisms for harm caused to the environment or costs of reinstatement, rehabilitation measures that have been incurred. The liability and redress section has been vaguely defined, possibly intended to protect multinational companies that will be promoting their technologies here.
I implore the President to insist that the strict liability principle should be inserted in our law so that whoever introduces GMOs shall be strictly liable for damage caused. Incorporating this principle operationalizes the precautionary principle, which is a key tenet of the Cartagena Protocol.
In regulating GMOs, elaborate risk assessment management provisions should be in place for the approval of genetically modified crops. Risk Assessment is done to determine the impacts and risks posed by GMO to the environment, health and biological diversity. Our law does not contain a specific provision on the requirement for socioeconomic assessment.
The socioeconomic assessment would include the ethical and social impact of the process to local populations concerned, traditional market and export earnings, health, ethical and moral considerations, actual and economic value of traditional species likely to be affected by the introduction of genetically modified crops, among others.
While it has been promised that regulations will be developed to incorporate issues on socioeconomic risks: this is a critical issue that should be incorporated in the law and should not be relegated to the regulations!
The promotion of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been touted as a solution to the food security challenge in Uganda. However, as pointed out it presents significant challenges to small scale farmers. It should be emphasised that genetically modified seeds are not a magic wand that will restore poverty, hunger with a regime of abundance.
Several African countries have experimented with GMOs with limited success for example Bt cotton in Burkina Faso where production results from farmers cultivating GM cotton were of a lower quality compared to conventional varieties. Cotton companies decided not to supply Bt cotton seeds which ended GM cotton production in the country.
Our Act is lacking in several respects and does not safeguard farmers who, at the end of the day, are the end-users of these technologies. The government should concentrate on supporting farmers’ revival of seed saving practices. Community gene banks should be established at local levels to safeguard our indigenous seeds. We need to deal with structural issues facing the agriculture sector before commercialisation of GMOs: for example, farmers should be equipped with irrigation equipment, tractors, access to markets, access to good quality indigenous seeds and fertilisers.
It is my considered opinion that Uganda should tread carefully on GMOs: we need a strong legal and institutional framework to protect Ugandans from the myriad sociopolitical, environmental, public health, biosecurity, and socioeconomic hazards associated with GMOs.
By By Barbara Ntambirweki (Research Fellow at the Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment)
As the sensitisation on biotechnology as another option for enhancing agricultural productivity gains ground among Ghanaian farmers, scientists are faced with one problem – how to immediately meet the growing demand for seeds.
U.S. Embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), Melinda Tabler-Stone, addressing the opening session of the Forum for Women in Science. She is flanked to her immediate left by Dr. Rose Gidado, Assistant Director of Nigeria’s National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) and to her right is Dr. Walter Alhassan, a Senior Advisor to the Ghana Programme for Biosafety Systems (PBS)
In various sensitisation workshops on biotechnology-related issues that have been held recently with mixed stakeholders in many parts of the country, farmers have asked where they could get the seeds to buy. The recent farmer enquiry was at the Women in Science forum organised by the United States (U.S.) Embassy and held on Thursday, November 2, 2017, at the Centre for African Wetlands, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra.
Biotechnology is defined as the scientific process through which scientists change the genes of plants and animals by introducing into them desirable genes from other related species. The produce or products of this process are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
In agriculture, biotechnologically produced seeds are said to have the ability to resist drought, diseases and pests. They also yield produce that are much more nutritionally fortified. But the process and produce of biotechnology is dismissed by opponents to the technology, as unethical and unsafe for human consumption due to perceived health risks.
Scientists and researchers involved in agricultural biotechnology say its produce are some of the safest and best food crops. This is because GMO seed production involves rigorous long term scientific processes that ascertain the authenticity of seeds produced.
Currently, the process for GMO seeds in Ghana is still at the field trial stage in nitrogen-use efficient, water use efficient and salt tolerant (NEWEST) rice; cowpea; and sweet potatoes. Once the final stages are completed, the seeds will be released to farmers.
Over 80 scientists, researchers, government representatives and farmers participated in the Accra forum, which was facilitated by African women involved in agricultural research, policy making and communication. They discussed innovations in agriculture and biotechnology in Ghana and in Sub-Saharan Africa, and agreed that biotechnology was crucial to addressing problems plaguing the agricultural sector and ensuring food security.
The U.S. Embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), Melinda Tabler-Stone, addressed the opening session. She expressed concern about the state of agriculture in Ghana, noting that though “agriculture remains the main driver for poverty reduction, particularly in Ghana’s three northern regions … farmers remain challenged by low productivity, poor soils, and changing rain patterns.”
Madam Tabler-Stone said over one million Ghanaians suffer food insecurity and the pressures were worsening as a result of rapid population growth. She observed that the situation, “calls for the implementation of effective and innovative solutions in Ghana’s agricultural sector.”
“Real transformation will require new approaches and efficiencies. The use of science and technology, including biotechnology, can be an invaluable tool,” Madam Tabler-Stone said. Attesting to the potential of biotechnology to enhance agricultural productivity, she stated, “We know this because agricultural biotechnology has greatly improved crop efficiency and production in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina among other nations.”
She further attested that “since the first biotechnology-derived crops were commercialized in the 1990s, they have been widely adopted in the U.S. Today, most of our corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets are produced using genetically engineered varieties. These innovations have saved farmers time, reduced insecticide use, protected crops from disease, and enabled the use of less toxic herbicides. New advances in science continue to expand options for farmers, while at the same time promoting the health of consumers.”
Madam Tabler-Stone stressed that “these innovations have tremendous potential in Africa as well, and can play a role in helping to transform the agricultural sector from low productivity to a real driver of economic development and improved food security.”
She highlighted the gains that Ghana could make by adopting agricultural biotechnology. “Ghana will have an opportunity to transform itself from an importer of food into an exporter to feed itself and the region through wise cultivation of its fertile soils. Millions can be lifted out of poverty, should we persevere in advancing this vision.”
Madam Tabler-Stone commended President Akufo-Addo’s vision of agriculture as a key component of his national economic strategy for job creation through the “Planting for Food and Jobs” programme.
The DCM also bemoaned the situation in which African women scientists were woefully under-represented in positions of leadership, even though they have a critical role to play in Africa’s development.
She said the promotion of women and girls empowerment was a key foreign policy priority for the U.S. To this end, the areas of focus included, “advancing their education in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics,” she added.
Madam Tabler-Stone described the forum as a gathering that underscored the U.S. Embassy’s “commitment to address gender imbalances and empower young women with the knowledge to be competitive for success against their male counterparts.”
In her presentation, the Assistant Director of the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NBDA) in Nigeria, Dr. Rose Gidado, underscored the need for Africa and the West African sub-regions to adopt agricultural biotechnology. She said an increasing population that must be fed; high use of chemicals to enhance yields; decreasing water for agriculture; food security risk; prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries were challenges requiring urgent attention.
Dr. Gidado, who is also the Country Coordinator for the Nigerian Chapter of the Open Forum on Agriculture Biotechnology (OFAB) in Africa, explained that these challenges have placed high demand on Africa’s agriculture and food system. She stated, “Now more than ever, there is need to grow more food with less land and less water per person, need for more nutritious and safe food, need to reduce the amount of waste and losses, and need to move up the value chain production.”
She urged Africa and the West African sub-regions to adopt agriculture biotechnology because “they are easy to cultivate, don’t require harsh chemicals, are environmentally friendly, and use less energy. Modern biotechnology provides us with tools for trait improvements in crop germplasm for increased grain yields in ways compatible to human and environment welfare.”
Dr. Gidado emphasised that it was important for African farmers and consumers of crop products, “to be given an opportunity to benefit from increased opportunities, productivity, and efficiency and perhaps costs of food by having GMO crops commercialised in African countries.”
Expressing similar views, an Associate Professor of the College of Science and Technology of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Dr. Marian Quain, said, “Sub-Saharan Africa needs substantial investment in cutting edge technologies and human resource development.”
She made a case for the continent to embrace agricultural biotechnology and said in such a situation, “farmers are using less pesticides or using less toxic ones, reducing harm to water supplies and workers’ health, and allowing the return of beneficial insects to the fields … and the ultimate aim to alleviate poverty, hunger and malnutrition in the Sub-Saharan region.”
Dr. Ouain literary walked participants through the science of biotechnology, saying that genetic engineering “allows for the transfer of a greater variety of genetic information in a more precise manner. These genes are very specific and allow the plant to precisely express the desired trait.”
On the issue of some of the concerns raised in relation to gene flow and pest resistance, she explained that these have been addressed by new techniques of genetic engineering. Dr. Quain said measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of GMO products. “Scientists call for a cautious case-by-case assessment of each product or process prior to its release in order to address legitimate safety concerns.”
She concluded on the note that biotechnology was certainly the way for Africa and the West African sub-regions to go. Dr. Ouain also admitted that “genetic engineering is an expensive process, requiring specialized expertise, and is not a panacea for all our agriculture problems,” adding, “it should be utlised when all other options have failed.”
African groups participating in the 23rd Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP23) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have expressed their frustrations over the seemingly endless trail of negotiations.
Roger Nkodo Dang (MP), President of the Pan African Parliament (PAP)
Speaking at a press conference on the side-lines of the ongoing climate talks, leaders of the Pan African Parliament (PAP) and the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) expressed dismay over the slow progress of negotiations and inertia on the part of developed country parties.
“Time is up for negotiations,” Roger Nkodo Dang (MP), President of the Pan African Parliament (PAP) said.
“For 21 years we have negotiated, and now we have the Paris Agreement. There is nothing more to negotiate, its time to implement the Paris Agreement,” Nkodo Dang added. According to the Chair of the Pan African Parliament committee on Rural Economy and Agriculture, Jacqueline Amogine, “climate change in Africa has a gender imperative as women are the most affected when there is no food on the table and no water to drink.”
“If the COP must remain relevant, it has to move from talk to action especially on the implementation of the key aspects of the Paris Agreement,” Amogine said.
Evaluating the progress after one week of negotiations, the coalition of African civil society groups, under the aegis of Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), expressed their concern over the little progress which brackets many issues regarding the means of implementation of the Paris Agreement.
“We are worried that the aspect of differentiation relating to climate finance is vanishing in the negotiations so far,” PACJA’s Mithika Mwenda said.
“We are concerned about the fulfilment of the pre-2020 finance commitment on the provision of $100 billion per year up to 2020 and we urge the COP Presidency to initiate talks of the new finance goal here in Bonn to show urgency of the matter,” the PACJA Secretary General added.
African groups also expressed their strong support for adaptation to serve the Paris Agreement and they warned that the current discussions on the agenda should not be dragged to next year.
“The agreement should be concluded here at the COP23 and parties should maintain the current governance structure as well as ensure sustainability of funding sources,” the groups added.
Meanwhile, frustrated NGOs are again thinking of suing the governments of rich nations over their inaction in combatting climate change-induced loss and damage.
An abiding nightmare of many developed country governments, the thirdpole.net says, is a slew of lawsuits seeking compensation in the International Court of Justice, as these countries have been responsible for most of the build up of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere.
This is why developed country delegations pushed for legal liability to be removed from the Paris Agreement at the UN climate talks two years ago. The trade-off was that rich nations would “enable action and provide support to developing countries” to deal with the loss and damage.
Harjeet Singh, the global lead on climate change at ActionAid, said: “There has been hardly any work on this”. An international mechanism to work on the issue of loss and damage – called the Warsaw International Mechanism – was set up at the 2013 climate summit in Poland.
Minister of State for Environment, Ibrahim Usman Jibril, meets the Executive Secretary of the UNCCD, Monique Barbut, on addressing desertification in Nigeria though collaborative partnershipMinister of State for Environment, Ibrahim Usman Jibril, with H.E Mary Robinson, former Presient of IrelandDirector, Department of Climate Change, Dr Peter Tarfa, representing Nigeria at the High Level Assembly of Climate and Clean Air CoalitionDeputy Director, Department of Climate Change, Mrs Halima Bawa-Bwari, speaking at the IUCN side-event on Bonn Challenge on Restoration of Degraded Forests and LandMinister of State for Environment, Ibrahim Usman Jibril, receives representatives of Conservation International and HURIDAC at the country Delegation Office, where ongoing Projects in Nigeria were discussedR-L: Director, Department of Climate Change, Dr Peter Tarfa; Director General, National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), Dr Lawrence Chidi Anukam; Minister of Water Resources, Suleiman Adamu; and Deputy Director/Head of Climate Change Unit, Ministry of Water Resources, Segun BabarindeL-R: Deputy Director, National Population Commission, Aisha Abdul-Azeez Adamu; Director, Department of Climate Change, Dr Peter Tarfa; Federal Commissioner/Chairperson, Climate Change Unit, National Population Commission, Patricia Iyanya Kupchi; and Focal Person, Climate Change, National Population Commission, Dr Jennifer SpiffDirector, Environmental Quality Control, National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), Simon B. Joshua; with Federal Commissioner/Chairperson, Climate Change Unit, National Population Commission, Patricia Iyanya KupchiNational Project Coordinator, Nigeria Erosion and Watershed Management Project (NEWMAP), Salisu Dahiru
Evicted residents of Otodo Gbame community on Wednesday, November 15, 2017 stormed the Lagos State Government House at Alausa, Ikeja, demanding resettlement and compensation from the authorities.
The protesters at Government House
Some of the protesters, including a pregnant woman, who marched from MKO Abiola Park at Ojota, slumped at the Government House.
It was alleged that policemen at the Government House used tear gas on the peaceful protesters, causing some of them to slump.
A girl slumped during the protest
The protesters, who blocked the road to Government House, some lying on the road, vowed not to leave until Governor Akinwunmi Ambode comes out to address them.
The evictees were demanding resettlement and compensation from government, since the land out of which they were sacked would not be used for public infrastructure but to be sold to individuals for private development.
Thousands of evictees, including the aged, women with babies, children, youths as well as able-bodied men and women, took part in the protest march from the Ojota part to Government House.
The protest was used to mark one year since the first phase of forced eviction of over 30,000 people from Otodo Gbame community in Lagos. It was organised with the support of Justice and Empowerment Initiatives – Nigeria (JEI), Nigerian Slum/Informal Settlement Federation and Amnesty International Nigeria.
A pregnant woman also slumped during the protest
The grouse of the evictees was that “the Lagos State government was yet to implement any relief or resettlement in line with its own promises and the judgment of Hon. Justice S.A. Onigbanjo of the Lagos High Court.”
Counsel to the evictees, Chioma Ngoka, said the 30,000 evictees occupied a massive land at the now highbrow Lekki Phase 2.
It appears babies were also actively involved in the protest
Even as it is suspected that the area would be developed into a luxury estate, the people were just asking for resettlement and compensation.
Asked how much compensation the people were looking at, Ngoka said the government should engage the people first.
Olutimehin Adegbeye of JEI corroborated Ngoka that the land would be used to develop private property.
Nigerian Slum/Informal Settlement Federation alleged that the now homeless evictees were facing extreme poverty, sickness and untimely death.
“Our children are no longer in school. Meanwhile, our stolen land is being turned into a luxury estate,” they stated in a flyer endorsed by JEI.
She is optimistic that, despite Nigerian governments’ penchant for not honouring court injunctions, with persistent pressure, Lagos government will yield to their demands.
The evictees’ demand, aside compensation and resettlement, include “no more forced eviction and justice for the murder of Daniel Aya and Elijah Avonda.”
Addressing the protesters at the Gate of Government House, Saheed Ayodeji, security officer in Government House, urged the people to calm down as a committee had been set up by government to address the issue of Otodo Gbame.
The protesters wore T-shirts with different inscriptions as “Informal is not illegal”, “We demand Justice for Otodo Gbame”, “End forced evictions”, “Housing is a human right”, “#SaveTheWaterfronts: Forced eviction, never again”, and “#OurLagos” (written in Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo and another local language).
The political phase of COP23 began on Wednesday, November 15, 2017, as ministers and some heads of state arrived for the high-level talks. Negotiations at the technical level have reportedly been reasonably successful, but observers wondered if political leaders of wealthy nations will recognise the urgency of moving beyond the cautious limits their negotiators were working within.
Emmanuel Macron, President of France, is one of the leaders making an early appearance
“During the past 10 days, they have wasted too much time being unwilling to advance on key and legitimate issues,” said Lucille Dufour, International Policy Adviser, Reseau Action Climate France. “Now is the time to send a strong wake-up call to developed countries so that they come to terms with the urgent need to deliver more action before 2020 and provide sufficient support to the most vulnerable populations, especially for loss and damage.
“Developed countries should remind themselves that these questions are not only about negotiating text or negotiating spaces. This is a matter of people’s lives being affected on a daily basis by the growing impacts of climate change.”
French president, Emmanuel Macron, is one of the leaders making an early appearance.
Dufour set out clear expectations for the French government: that France pushes for greater ambition with the European Union, that at the summit Macron will host in Paris next month, France delivers on the $5 billion it has promised for adaptation and loss & damage, and that Macron’s government aligns its positive statements at the international level with bold domestic climate policy, including swifter action on a transition to renewable energy.
The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, addressed the UN climate conference on Wednesday, and Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director, Greenpeace International, said Germany risks failing to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement.
“The key issue on the table is that ten years ago her government committed to a 40% reduction by 2020 and Germany is now missing that target. And the only way that we think that can be changed is if the coalition supports a coal phase-out by 2030. Our expectation is that she’s heard the voices of the vulnerable, she’s seen the candlelight vigils around the world at embassies that have been occurring and that she will signal that she supports a coal phase-out by 2030,” said Morgan.
Mere Nailatikau, Regional Communications Advsior, Oxfam Pacific Region, said, “Our Pacific civil society family is concerned that emissions still rise globally. Many countries are still investing in fossil fuels, while wealthy nations try to block discussions to address loss & damage incurred by their emissions.”
“Support for our affected communities has been at the forefront of our hopes at this Pacific COP. We are concerned that proposals on the table now are weak. Communities hit by climate-related disasters may have to wait longer for help since negotiations here are failing to make meaningful progress on loss & damage finance. We welcome commitments to show real progress towards $100 billion.”
Sven Hamerling, Climate Change Advocacy Coordinator, CARE International said, “There has also been a lot of resistance from developed countries, unfortunately, to even start looking into a process which is about generating additional finance. I think in the overall political setting of this debate, there was a conclusion that we can only get to a certain point and leave further conversations and further fights for more finance to the future.”
The Bonn climate talks are being presided over by Fiji, the first for a small island developing state and are expected to close on Friday.
An international initiative aimed at providing insurance to 400 more million poor and vulnerable people by 2020 moved into a higher gear with the announcement of additional funding and many more partners.
Frank Bainimarama, Prime Minister of Fiji and COP23 President
The InsuResilience Global Partnership for Climate and Disaster Risk Finance and Insurance Solutions, launched on Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at the 2017 UN Climate Conference (COP23) in Bonn, now brings together G20 countries in partnership with the V20 nations.
The V20 is a group of 49 of the most vulnerable countries including small islands like Fiji which holds the Presidency of this year’s conference.
Germany has joined forces with its partners, the Ethiopian Chair of the V20, the United Kingdom and the World Bank, in order to launch this Global Partnership.
“The Global Partnership is a practical response to the needs of those who suffer loss because of climate change. And I am very proud that it has happened under Fiji’s Presidency of COP. At the same time, it is a means of preparing for a more resilient form of development for those who will have to adapt to the great challenge of climate change,” said the COP23 President and Fijian Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama.
Thomas Silberhorn, Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, announced support for the new global partnership of $125 million as part of Tuesday’s launch.
This follows the £30 million commitment made by UK Government in July 2017 to the Partnership via its Centre for Global Disaster Protection.
The announcement comes in the wake of a year of damaging and devastating extreme weather events that have hit countries and communities in Asia, the Eastern Caribbean and the Americas with some of the events described by scientists as unprecedented.
The Global Partnership supports data and risk analysis, technical assistance and capacity building according to countries’ needs and priorities, solutions’ design of concrete risk finance and insurance solutions, smart support for the implementation for such schemes and monitoring and evaluation efforts. This will range from sovereign risk pools in the Pacific, Africa and the Caribbean. The insurance schemes focus on the meso and micro level benefitting smallholders, the urban poor and other vulnerable groups.
The next phase, announced under the Global Partnership, is aimed at meeting the pledge of providing cover and support to an extra 400 million vulnerable people by 2020 while the efforts of the Global Partnership go beyond that original G7 goal.
The InsuResilience Initiative was launched in 2015 by the G7 group of nations under the German Presidency.
Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UN Climate Change secretariat, said: “People devastated by recent weather events and communities vulnerable to climatic impacts are looking to the nations meeting in Bonn for an answer, for support and hope for the future”.
“This new and higher ambition initiative represents one, shinning, example of what can be delivered when progressive governments, civil society and the private sector join hands with creativity and determination to provide solutions,” she said.
“This Global Partnership brings important groups like the V20 group made up of those countries most vulnerable to climate change and the G20 group of the world’s strongest economies together around one table so that they can join forces to increase the resilience of poor and vulnerable people to the impacts of climate change. Instead of only reacting to catastrophes we want to shift to planning, preparing and protecting,” said Thomas Silberhorn.
The new Global Partnership comes as the UN Climate Change secretariat has also launched this week an online platform or Clearing House for Risk Transfer under the Paris Climate Change Agreement that will use artificial intelligence to connect countries seeking innovative insurance solutions with countries needing them
In July 2017, at their Summit in Hamburg, the G20 welcomed the creation of a Global Partnership for Climate and Disaster Risk Finance and Insurance Solutions. It is therefore known as the “InsuResilience Global Partnership”.
The aim of the Global Partnership is to increase the resilience of developing countries and protect the lives and livelihoods of poor and vulnerable people against the impacts of climate change and against natural disasters.
Under the framework of the Global Partnership, key players from developing and industrialised countries, international organisations and development banks, the private sector, civil society and the scientific community will work together to develop concrete and practical solutions that will provide financial protection against climate risks and natural disasters.
Innovative finance and insurance solutions for individual countries, which are tailored to the specific needs and challenges of poor members of the population in particular, are to be developed and implemented through the Global Partnership.
The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), for example, is being supported with the help of InsuResilience.
The most recent example of support was in September 2017,when more than $55 million were paid out to 10 Caribbean countries within just 14 days after hurricanes Irma and Maria had wreaked disaster on the islands.
The money was used in various ways, for example to quickly buy urgently needed medicines and to build emergency shelters for the people affected by the storms.
In Zambia, InsuResilience supports the NWK Agri-Services cotton company, which offers direct weather and life insurance to small contract farmers.
In 2015, some 52,000 farmers decided to buy insurance. Following a major drought in 2016, more than 23,000 farmers received payments.
On the one hand, the Partnership is meant to enable governments to react faster and more specifically following a natural disaster.
On the other hand, the Partnership is meant to support and enhance the future efforts of governments to prepare to meet risks due to climate change and natural disasters, linking these preparations to the use of risk finance and insurance.
This combination of a fast, targeted response and acting with foresight can reduce the number of humanitarian emergencies, and help poor and vulnerable people get back on their feet more quickly after a disaster has occurred.
The Director General/ CEO, National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), Dr. Rufus Ebegba, has said that the imported GM maize that was impounded at Apapa Wharf was repatriated back to its country of origin because the importers failed to comply with the NBMA 2015 act.
Dr. Rufus Ebegba with National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) officials at the press conference
Dr. Ebegba, who stated this while addressing a press conference on Wednesday, November 14, 2017 in Abuja, noted that the Agency, after an intelligence report on the arrival of the shipment, alerted the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS), and that both government agencies worked together to impound the cargo ship, while samples of the maize was collected and analysed.
He noted that scientists from the Agency’s laboratory carried out the analysis while a private laboratory was also commissioned to conduct another analysis, and that results from both analyses confirmed that the imported maize seeds were genetically modified (GM).
The DG/CEO encouraged potential business individuals and retailers interested in importing GM products to seek proper approval and recommendation from the Agency before doing so, adding that NBMA has the mandate is to ensure the safety of GM products to both human health and the environment.
Dr Ebega said at the briefing: “The Agency wishes to make it clear that it is actively safeguarding the health of Nigerians and the environment by performing its biosafety regulatory functions.
“The Agency wants to sound a note of warning to Seed and grain companies that the GM status of their grain imports must be known, and that import Permits must be obtained from the NBMA for GM seeds without exception. Failure to obtain Permits will result in the immediate repatriation of import consignments.
“The Agency recently had to step in to avert the importation of a maize consignment due to the failure of the importing company to obtain a GM seed import Permit from the NBMA.
“In late October, the Agency was informed of a large Maize import consignment. Representatives of the company were invited to provide more information on the GM status of their import after which the NBMA proceeded to obtain samples and conduct laboratory tests to ascertain the GM status of the imported maize.
“The results of the NBMA’s analysis and the tests of an independent laboratory of six samples showed categorically that the maize imports were actually Genetically Modified. This goes against the Part VII, Section 24 of the NBMA ACT 2015 which states: ‘No person, institution or body shall import, export, transit, or commercialize any GMO or a product intended for direct use as food or feed or for processing unless with the approval of the Agency’.
“The essence of ensuring that permit is granted before the release of any genetically modified seed, grains or organism is to ensure risk assessment is carried out to ascertain safety to the environment and human health.
“In view of this information, the Agency, in fulfillment of its mandate and in collaboration with Nigeria Customs Service, ordered the repatriation of the maize consignment with immediate effect.
“Seed and grain companies are warned to follow due process. The NBMA is proactive and will tolerate no illegalities or shortcuts in its effort to protect the lives of Nigerians and the integrity of our environment.
“To avoid costly consequences and other severe punitive actions on them and their companies, they are hereby advised to apply for permit for GM seeds and crops. They are also advised to know the GM status of their imports. They should know that ignorance is no defense.”
No country has developed without access to reliable electricity. With a weak electricity infrastructure marred by insufficient capacity, poor reliability and with 625 million people un-electrified, sub-Saharan Africa’s electricity poverty has hugely inhibited its economic growth. Nigeria unfortunately leads the way with 93 million people lacking energy access and the country largely dependent on alternative energy sources primarily diesel/petrol generators, battery backup solutions, kerosene and biomass. With growing attention towards renewable energy and its potential to alleviate Nigeria’s electricity crisis, more battery backup systems have been deployed for renewable energy storage. Solar rooftops are gradually becoming a common sight in the country especially in the major cities such as Lagos and Abuja. The large battery market is becoming much bigger and lucrative especially for lead-acid batteries. Currently, almost all backup solutions use lead-acid batteries primarily due to their lower cost and availability compared to other battery options.
Used lead acid batteries
Lead-acid batteries are the most common and popular battery type used for energy storage in Nigeria. While alternatives such as Lithium-ion batteries exist and are increasing popular in developed countries due to their better energy density and growing use in electric vehicles, lead acid batteries dominate Africa’s energy storage market primarily for their use in cars, Uninterrupted Power Solution (UPS) systems, and now increasingly for energy storage in the emerging renewable energy market.
Currently, it is estimated that nearly 99 million lead-acid batteries are generated annually in the country. With a growing renewable energy industry and positive developments in the sector including government’s 30,000MW renewable energy 2030 target, the signing of PPA with 14 solar companies, mini-grid development through the now approved Mini-Grid Policy, and other developed renewable energy policies, the inflow of lead acid batteries is expected to increase to a whole new level. While these are positive developments for the industry, there is a very critical but currently overlooked aspect which has the capacity to undermine and potentially ruin the reputation of the renewable energy industry – The Management of Used Lead Acid Batteries (ULAB). For every 6 kilowatts of installed solar PV system, about 16 units of lead-acid batteries are required (200Amp, 12V). Over the next decade should the renewable energy industry grow as predicted, millions of lead-acid batteries are expected to flow into the country for the renewable energy storage.
Used lead-acid batteries are potentially dangerous due to the toxicity of the lead which comprises a significant percentage of the battery weight and the sulphuric acid solution electrolyte. The acid is corrosive and environmentally polluting while exposure to excessive levels of lead can lead to brain and liver damage, respiratory issues, impaired hearing, amongst many other health issues, particularly in young children. Currently Nigeria serves as a regional hub for the transportation of ULAB across West Africa due to its large ULAB market.
But what does this really mean considering the high environmental and health risks associated with ULAB recycling and disposal? The Heinrich Boell Foundation, as part of its mission to encourage sustainable development, carried out a research on the ULAB market in Nigeria and discovering a huge level of environmental pollution and health risks from the activities of illegal ULAB smelters and recyclers in the country. It was discovered that over 106,000 tons of ULAB are generated in the country with 96,000 tons collected and sold annually. A separate study estimates that about 50,000 tonnes of lead are recovered from ULAB in the country. Most prominent was the fact that no form of safety or health measure was adopted from the transportation to the recycling and disposal of the ULAB. More worrisome is that some of these smelters were located in residential areas or close to institutions such as schools and hospitals with lead poisoning risks. With the huge inflow of lead-acid batteries into the country – most times sub-standard batteries – there are concerns that the booming renewable energy industry will lead to a wave of toxic battery waste in Africa due the lack of standard recycling facilities.
But there might be a ray of hope as shown by one private sector player in the ULAB market who has invested significant resources into making sure ULAB is recycled following international standards and assessed as one of the best ULAB facilities in Africa. In the heart of Nnewi, Anambra State, Union Battery ULAB Recycling facility boasts of a ULAB recycling capacity of 100,000 batteries with modern recycling equipment, a waste gas treatment system and proper safety standards. The facility recycles almost 100% of the ULAB component except the slag waste. With such a huge battery market in the country, its facilities do not only have the capacity to drive economic growth but generate huge job opportunities. Unfortunately, this facility operates below 10% of its capacity. The reason is simply a case of “dirty money”, with the informal recyclers who have not invested in any health, safety or environmental measures paying much more for the waste batteries from battery collectors than formal standards recyclers such as Union Batteries can afford in order to make profit. As such, a huge percentage of ULAB goes to the dirty informal recyclers, polluting our environment and causing health issues. With an increasing number of such informal recyclers, one should not be surprised should part of the smoke or air one inhales in the environment contain lead particles especially if residing close to any form of battery activity.
So what is the solution? One would think that, with such a huge market especially from the automobile industry, there should not only be specific policies and standards regulating the battery market, but also enforcement mechanisms. Unfortunately, such a policy is unavailable with the closest laws related to ULAB, according to the National Environmental Standards and Regulatory Enforcement Agency (NESREA) including the National Environmental (Sanitation and Waste Control) Regulations S.1 28 of 2009 and the National Environmental (Motor Vehicle & Miscellaneous Assembly Sector) Regulations. Following extensive stakeholder engagement, research and training workshop organised by the Heinrich Boell Foundation involving ULAB exporters, recyclers, renewable energy companies and organizations, research bodies, the Federal Ministry of Environment and NESREA, proposed key steps to ensure a well-regulated and sustainable ULAB market include:
Adopting the Basel Convention and Benchmarking Assessment Tool: The Basel Convention is an international treaty which Nigeria is a signatory to, designed to reduce the movement of hazardous waste between nations particularly from developed to developing nations. The Basel Convention has a set of standards and framework for regulating ULAB including the Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste Lead-acid Batteries, and Standards and Best Practices for Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of Used Lead Acid Batteries Recycling. The Federal Ministry of Environment should implement the Basel Convention and adopt these tools following the Convention’s Training Manual for the Preparation of National Used Lead Acid Batteries: Environmentally Sound Management Plan in the Context of the Implementation of the Basel Convention.
While it is okay having general guidelines on hazardous waste, without an independent inspection, monitoring, evaluation and verification framework, there would most likely be no conformance with good practice or compliance with the adopted Basel Convention tools. The Federal Ministry of Environment should therefore also adopt and use the Benchmarking Assessment Tool, developed in accordance with the International Lead Association (ILA) Guidance Notes and the Basel Convention, to provide a consistent approach in assessing any phase of the ULAB life cycle particularly ULAB recyclers.
Develop a ULAB Policy and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Framework: The Federal Ministry of Environment should develop a national policy for ULAB management and regulation covering all aspects of the business from transportation to recycling and disposal, as well as an EPR system for the battery market especially in the renewable energy industry, similar to the developed EPR system for the Nigerian EEE Sector. The policy should have legal backing to ensure enforcement.
Create a level playing ground in the sector: The government through the development of this policy and its implementation of standards across the ULAB market will create a level playing field for ULAB recyclers forcing the informal smelters to adopt best environmental and safety businesses, and encouraging the standard formal recyclers to continue good business practices. The key element of this is not just the development and adoption of the proposed tools, but its enforcement. The government environmental MDAs in collaboration with organizations such as the Heinrich Boell Foundation can organize training for these informal recyclers highlighting the health risks as some of them might be ignorant, and help them adopt good practices.
There are significant economic opportunities in the ULAB market especially when properly regulated by the government. With the volume of ULAB generated daily in the country, massive opportunities exist for similar standard recycling facilities to be set up, serving not only the Nigerian market but the regional African market. With the potential to create massive job opportunities and a thriving battery market for the renewable energy industry, government and the private sector should work together in developing this market properly and reaping its economic benefits. However most importantly, our lives and environment should be protected through safe and environmentally friendly ULAB recycling practice.
By Kelechi Ekwegh (Freelance Writer, Lagos; Kelechi.writingpen@gmail.com)
