The US on Friday, August 4, 2017 issued its first written notification that the country intends to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement climate change.
Donald Trump, US president
But in the notice to the United Nations, the US Department of State said Washington would remain in the talks process.
Friday’s announcement is seen as largely symbolic as no nation seeking to leave the pact can officially announce an intention to withdraw until November 4, 2019.
“Today, the United States submitted a communication to the United Nations in its capacity as depositary for the Paris Agreement regarding the US intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it is eligible to do so,” the US statement read.
“The United States will continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings… to protect US interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration.”
President Donald Trump drew international condemnation in June when he first announced the US intention to withdraw.
According to him, the deal “punished” the US and would cost millions of American jobs.
The process of leaving then takes another year, meaning it would not be complete until just weeks after the US presidential election in 2020.
Any new US president could then decide to rejoin the agreement.
In June, Mr Trump indicated he was open to another climate deal “on terms that are fair to the United States”.
However, key signatories to the accord quickly ruled that out. The Paris Agreement took decades to finalise.
The US stance on climate change also caused divisions at the G20 summit in Germany last month.
A joint summit statement said it “took note of the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement”.
However, leaders of the other G20 members agreed the accord was “irreversible”.
Climate change, or global warming, refers to the damaging effect of gases, or emissions, released from industry, transportation, agriculture and other areas into the atmosphere.
The Paris accord aims to limit the global rise in temperature attributed to emissions. Only Syria and Nicaragua did not sign up.
The guideline on hydraulic infrastructure development in West Africa was adopted recently during the 78th ordinary session of the ECOWAS Council of Ministers held in Monrovia, Liberia. The guideline enters into force across all ECOWAS member countries.
Monrovia, Liberia hosted the 78th ordinary session of the ECOWAS Council of Ministers
The States are expected to domesticate it into their legislation, albeit within three years in principle.
The adoption is the outcome of a regional dialogue on large hydraulic infrastructure initiated by ECOWAS in 2009, with a strong mobilisation of the civil society. The objective of the regional guideline is to make sure that ecological, economic and social issues are further considered in the implementation of transboundary hydraulic infrastructure in West Africa, so as to ensure their viability and allow sustainable development of the region.
The adoption of this guideline results from a long and participatory process supported by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) right from the onset.
According to experts, while it is preferable to invest in natural infrastructure and related ecosystem services, it is also necessary to improve large infrastructure standards in order to minimise their adverse social and environmental impacts.
In a related development, ECOWAS and IUCN have determined a strategy for self-reliant and sustainable financing.
A couple of weeks ago, six West African basin organisations held a meeting in Conakry, Guinea under the leadership of ECOWAS and IUCN to reflect on self-reliant and sustainable financing mechanisms of their organisations.
Organised within the framework of the implementation of Partnership for Environmental Governance in West Africa (PAGE) activities, the meeting was chaired by the Guinean Minister for Energy and Hydraulics. Through presentations, experience sharing, group work and plenary sessions, the organisations made a rapid assessment without complacency of the state of their financing: permanent cash flow issues, reluctance of the state to meet its commitments, and weak knowledge of issues relating to transboundary basin organisations.
In the face of such structural and short term constraints, the participants urged ECOWAS to address the issue by introducing new guidelines that can better support basin organisations. They also called for the holding of such consultations on a regular basis so as to take up the challenges facing basin organisations.
PAGE is a regional initiative implemented by the Central and West Africa Programme of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-PACO) in collaboration with its partners. It provides support to environmental policies in West Africa. It is funded by the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) over a period of five years (2014-2018).
The trillion-dollar question is how to have the right incentives and conditions to attract investors, writes Geraldine Ang in the LSE (London School of Economics and Political Science) Business Review
Renewable energy: Solar panels
Renewable-energy technologies are critically important, both in addressing the risks of climate change and achieving Sustainable Development Goal number 7 (SDG7,) relative to affordable and clean energy. They have also become increasingly cost-competitive: the capital cost of utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) energy has fallen by more than 60 per cent since 2010, and that of onshore wind energy by 20 per cent.
There is no shortage of capital available globally to finance renewable-energy projects. The financial sector encompasses more than €100 trillion of assets. So how is it that investment in renewable energy is not flowing faster?
The trillion-dollar question is how we can shift incentives and strengthen the right conditions to make solar, wind and other renewable power more attractive to investors. To respect the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting temperature rise to well below 2°C, annual investment in renewable energy needs to increase by 150 per cent between now and 2050.
New OECD research shows that incoherent policies, misalignments in electricity markets and cumbersome and risky investment conditions are among the main factors holding back investment and innovation in renewable energy in advanced and emerging countries.
In order to meet renewable energy deployment goals, policy makers need to strengthen investment conditions, from investment policy to competition, trade and financial market policy. And most importantly, specific policy incentives and climate policies should not be considered in isolation from the broader environment for investment and innovation in renewable energy.
Creating a supportive framework for renewables
At the policy level, scaling up investment in deployed renewables requires designing targeted incentives such as: feed-in tariffs (i.e. a guaranteed minimum price per unit of renewable power generated); renewable energy certificates (a certificate proving that one unit of electricity was generated from a renewables source, which can be sold separately from the underlying physical electricity associated with a renewable-based generation source); and public tenders (which include public competitive bidding or auctions for a set capacity of renewable power).
Feed-in tariffs and certificates in particular have driven investment in advanced countries, leading, for example, to an 11 per cent increase in renewables investment for each additional unit of feed-in tariff, in USD/KWh. Auctions and tenders have supported renewables investment in emerging markets (OECD analysis shows that, historically, increasing the capacity of a tender by 1 MW leads to a 0.1 per cent increase in renewables investment flows).
Explicit carbon prices (using carbon taxes or emissions trading schemes) have driven investment in renewables in the European Union and in emerging economies, and across OECD and G20 countries in solar energy. But at the same time, pressure from fossil-fuel subsidies in the electricity sector has also deterred renewables investment in emerging economies.
Incompatible incentives are worrying on a number of fronts, not only for investment in deployed renewables but also innovation in earlier-stage renewables technologies. An example: feed-in tariffs stimulate renewable-energy patents, yet policy across OECD countries and emerging economies has been shifting away from FiTs toward public tenders, to adjust to changing market conditions, control the deployment of large-scale renewables, and reduce costs for consumers.
Also, government spending in research, development and demonstration (RD&D) for low-carbon technologies is at historic lows. This has negative implications for innovation; OECD research shows that public RD&D expenditures have thus far played an important role in stimulating patenting in renewables technologies.
In addition to aligning our incentives, we need to take advantage of the fact that some climate mitigation policies enhance the positive effects of other policies when they are combined. For example, setting carbon prices while providing public RD&D spending in renewables technologies has worked well for mobilising renewables investment in emerging markets. In OECD countries, Denmark has become a leader in renewables technologies, including by providing integrated, sector-wide policy support to RD&D and deployment of renewables.
Next, we have to make the investment environment in renewable energy – especially solar and wind energy – far more attractive, and also make it easier to do business, with improvements in the following areas:
Investment policy and investment facilitation (property registration, corruption perception, regulatory quality, licensing and permitting systems),
Competition and trade policy (direct control of the state over enterprises, ease of trading across borders)
Financial access (access to domestic credit for the private sector)
Finally, we need to work at making sure that the broader investment environment isn’t at odds with low-carbon investment. For example, the implementation of Basel III banking regulations – though they are important – also may have had the unintended consequence of constraining access to debt financing for capital-intensive renewable projects. Investment in renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies needs to take place on a far greater scale if we are to achieve the ambition of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. Evidence-based research and stakeholder co-operation are needed to help policy makers design effective public policies that facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy. The OECD stands ready to support these critical goals, as part of the OECD Centre on Green Finance and Investment.
The Lagos State Government on Sunday, August 6, 2017 unveiled a roadmap targeted at maintaining and rehabilitating roads across the state, as well as maintaining drainage channels and controlling flood. The initiative is billed to span between August and December this year.
Akinwunmi Ambode, Governor of Lagos State
Special Adviser to Governor Akinwunmi Ambode on Public Works and Drainages, Temidayo Erinle, who unfolded the plan at a media briefing held in Alausa, said that, in the coming days, the government, through the Public Works Corporation, would carry out rehabilitation works on 43 major link roads across the state, while other major highways and arterial roads found to be in bad state would be fixed.
Erinle said government was well aware of the challenges being experienced by commuters on Lagos roads, and that Governor Ambode had already repositioned the Corporation to comprehensively address the issues relating to potholes and drainages in the state.
He said: “As you are all aware, we are presently in the rainy season, as such much cannot be done during this period. However, we are currently carrying out palliative works on our major roads through the application of boulders, crushed stones and other construction materials to address the potholes problems in order not to paralyse the economic activities of the state.
“Similarly, we also take advantage of some dry days to carry out repair works in an effort to reduce traffic gridlock on Lekki-Epe Expressway between Adetokunbo Ademola to Samuel, section of Ikorodu Road between the new and old pedestrian bridges inward Maryland, Ikorodu Road, Ketu Bus Stop and Ikuomola Street, Idimu Alimosho Local Government Area.
“Asides that, I want to assure the people that immediately the rain subsides, the Lagos State Public Works Corporation will embark on massive road maintenance and repairs of all major highways and arterial roads found to be in bad state.”
Erinle said aside the 43 major link roads to be repaired in coming days, engineers of the Corporation have also been sent out to identify other failed spots across the State, assuring that government was determined to fix all potholes to bring about seamless driving experience to motorists.
He listed some of the 43 roads to include: Alfred Rewane Road, Ikoyi which work has already commenced; Ojota Interchange transiting the ramps on both directions, Sina Ogunbanwo Street, Agric Road Oko-Oba, Ifako Ijaiye; Club Road off Osborne Road, Ikoyi; Oroke Drive, Ikoyi, Eti-Osa LGA; Central Avenue, Apapa; North Avenue, Apapa; Maybin Road, Apapa; Lateef Jakande Road, Ikeja; Gberibe Road, Ikorodu; TOS Benson Road, Ikorodu; Oke Sabo along Imota; Itamaga, Itoikin; Oba Sekumaderd, Ogolonto, Ikorodu; Adeniran Ogunsanya Road, Ikorodu; Admiralty Way, Lekki Eti-Osa; Topo inward Ajido, Badagry; Hospital Road, Badagry; and Ijesha road network, Surulere.
Other roads include Liverpool Apapa; 1st Avenue Festac Amuwo-Odofin; Kirikiri Road, Ajeromi Ifelodun; Ojo Road, Ojo; College Road, Agric, Ojo; Baale Road, Ojo LGA; Okun-Owa street, Ajegunle, Ajeromi Ifelodun; Crowther Crescent, Apapa LG; Oba Akran Avenue, Ikeja; Shasha Road, Akowonjo; Bonny Camp Victoria Island; Musa Yar Adua Street, off Ozumba Mbadiwe; Obafemi Awolowo Way, Ikeja; Old Abeokuta Motor Road; Pen Cinema to Abule Egba; Iju Road, Ifako Ijaiye LGA; Akowonjo Road, Alimosho; Itire Road, Babalola bus stop axis, Mushin LGA; Diya Street, Gbagada Kosofe; Chivita Road, Ajao Estate; Asa Afariogun Street, Ajao Estate; Herbert Macaulay Road, Yaba; Ahmadu Bello Way, Victoria Island; Lekki Epe Expressway to Ibeju Lekki Axis.
While reeling out the plans of government to control flooding, Erinle said works have already commenced in earnest to deflood the state, adding that, in a bid to forestall flooding as witnessed few weeks back due to torrential rainfall which led to high intensity of about 465mm of water within five days, the state has been divided into five zones namely Alimosho, Ikeja, Mushin, Kosofe, Agege, Ifako-Ijaiye, Oshodi-Isolo and Somolu (Zone 1); Ajeromi-Ifelodun, Amuwo Odofin, Ojo and Badagry (Zone 2); Ikorodu (Zone 3); Apapa, Surulere, Lagos Island, Mainland and Eti-Osa (Zone 4); and Ibeju Lekki and Epe (Zone 5).
Already, Erinle said, in all the five zones, dredging of primary channels and outfalls as well as clearing/cleaning of collector and tertiary (street) drains have been carried out and still ongoing, while a drainage master plan which covered the whole of the State has been developed to improve on the earlier four master plans.
Under the new comprehensive master plan, Erinle said 169 primary channels/outfalls have been identified, while all the recommendations in the plan were being implemented in phases.
“I wish to reassure Lagosians that the Corporation will not rest on its oars to ensure that the people continue to enjoy pot-hole free roads and drastic reduction in the incidences of flooding in Lagos State,” Erinle said.
WHO estimates up to 10,000 lives could be saved by November through malaria prevention and control, if more funds are secured
Dr Pedro Alonso, Director, Global Malaria Programme of the WHO
Following more than eight years of conflict in Borno State in north-eastern Nigeria, some 3.7 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance and all are at risk for malaria, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).
The global health body estimates that, every week, around 8,500 people are infected with the disease in Borno State. With the high transmission season for malaria lasting through October, WHO expects these numbers will increase.
In Borno State, WHO estimates more than half of deaths recorded are currently due to malaria, more than all other causes of death combined, including cholera, measles and hepatitis E. A highly vulnerable population, consisting largely of children (58.8%), is at risk of disease outbreaks.
With more than 60% of health facilities only partially functioning, many people have not had access to regular health services, including routine vaccinations and basic medicines, for years.In addition to security concerns, acute malnutrition caused by food insecurity is rising in parts of the state. Between malnutrition and death is virtually always disease, and malaria often turns cases of malnourishment deadly.
Health emergencies and malaria
“Malaria, malnutrition, fragile states and civil strife often feed each other,” says Dr Pedro Alonso, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “Wherever we have a humanitarian crisis in a malaria endemic country, we can almost always be sure that malaria is the number one killer.”
Malaria is a life-threatening disease caused by parasites that are transmitted to people through the bites of infected female Anopheles mosquitoes. In 2015, there were more than 200 million cases of malaria and 437,000 deaths. More than 90% of malaria deaths occur in Africa.
However, malaria is preventable and curable. Increased efforts over the last 15 years have drastically reduced malaria deaths and cases- – malaria mortality rates dropped by more than 60%, averting six million deaths.
“The most effective way to reduce deaths in emergencies in fragile states, especially those facing malnutrition, is by boosting malaria prevention and control, however, this is often not viewed as the top priority during an emergency response,” says Dr Alonso. “We are working with our WHO colleagues and many partners to change this.”
Following a recent visit to Borno state, WHO malaria experts completed a modelling exercise to estimate malaria cases as well as how many deaths could be prevented if a basic set of initiatives were undertaken. The report concluded that with the right joint actions, up to 10 000 deaths could be prevented in Borno state alone.
Turning scientific evidence into life-saving action
WHO and health sector partners are taking steps in four areas recommended in the report:
strengthening surveillance systems to monitor cases and outbreaks of malaria;
increasing people’s access to care in clinics and to health facilities;
spraying insecticides and distributing bed nets as part of vector control; and
administering malaria drugs to children under five years every month (July to October).
“Like never before, WHO is on the frontlines in camps of displaced people delivering real health programmes helping people in a complex emergency,” says Dr Alonso. “Seeing the translation of our work into action is phenomenally rewarding.”
In early July, the first of four-monthly rounds of mass drug administration reached more than 880,000 of the 1.1 million children under-five who were targeted. WHO and partners are planning monthly rounds through to October. WHO hopes that the $2.5 million needed for this emergency intervention can be mobilised in time to have a significant impact. WHO is relying on the existing infrastructure of thousands of polio vaccinators to carry out this complex, logistically challenging operation in areas still facing security threats from Boko Haram.
“We will give one curative dose of antimalarial drugs to a defined population, in this case children under-five,” says Dr Alonso. “In Borno State, we are giving an antimalarial drug to a child, whether they have malaria infection or not, to ensure they are cleared of parasites at that point and to protect them for four weeks. It’s a necessary temporary fix to reduce malaria deaths for the next six months.”
WHO has trained community health workers to provide a basic package of health services to communities where many people have not had consistent health access for several years. The health workers are always on the lookout for signs of malaria. They offer rapid diagnostic tests to determine if people have malaria, provide treatment, and advise on prevention. In addition, with more funding, WHO plans to reach more areas in Borno State with antimalarial drugs and support overall malaria control interventions.
“We will not know the full impact of our efforts until November, but we are confident that taking these steps will go a long way in reducing deaths and suffering of people from malaria so they can get on with their lives,” says Dr Wondi Alemu, WHO Representative in Nigeria.
Following the success of the assessment and the start of broader efforts to more effectively control malaria in dire emergency settings, WHO is looking to apply a similar approach in South Sudan where 10 million people are at risk of dying due to a combination of malaria, malnutrition and conflict.
The Lagos State Government is seeking the partnership of relevant international organisations and other bodies to control the spread of cholera, diarrhoea and other diseases, through the provision of modern facilities for treating large volumes of waste water generated in the state.
Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, who made this known at a recent summit, blamed frequent disease epidemics in the state on indiscriminate disposal of sewage and other domestic and industrial liquid wastes, which he said must be controlled to safeguard the health of the citizenry.
Highlighting how subsidies can lead to degradation, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Erik Solheim, says that besides lowering the cost of consumption of certain products and leading to overconsumption, subsidies draw more investment to industries than the market would otherwise support
Erik Solheim, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The first COP to the Minamata Convention on Mercury will take place in September 2017 in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo credit: OECD/Michael Dean
Something is destroying our forests. In tropical regions alone, we lose an area of forest the size of Austria every year.
It is not demand from the forestry sector that is doing this. It is demand for commodities like beef, soy and palm oil. Most of our forests are being felled because of what’s in our refrigerators.
Outdated, perverse subsidies that are still on the books for these agricultural commodities are encouraging this devastation. They are singlehandedly undermining all of the good laws and incentives that aim to keep our forests intact.
A quick reminder: forests are not only the lungs of our planet. They also regulate the water systems that let us exploit hydroelectricity and prevent disasters like floods. They ensure soil quality is high for growing food hundreds of miles away. And with their massive carbon storage capacity, they are the best buffers we have against climate change.
When we lose them, we suffer financially. The catastrophic forest fires that burned across Indonesia in late 2015 were estimated by the World Bank to have cost $16 billion in lost property, ill health, and reduced economic activity. Those fires were the result of the clearing and draining of Indonesia’s peatland forests for plantations.
If we want to preserve these indispensable organs of life on Earth, we need to rid ourselves of the perverse subsidies that encourage their destruction.
Subsidies may accelerate degradation in various ways. They will draw more investment to industries than the market would otherwise support. They lower the cost of consumption of certain products, leading to overconsumption. And if commodities are sold below market price, governments lose tax income that they might normally funnel into environmental protection.
Between 1990 and 2010 in Ecuador, the government implemented a series of tax and financial incentives aiming to reduce the production cost for palm oil. Producers bulldozed forests to make room. The expanding agricultural frontier led to a 47% increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture and forest sector in those two decades.
Existing subsidies are difficult to remove even after they have outlived their original purpose. Interest groups that benefit from subsidies lobby to keep them in place, and governments often oblige them to garner political support.
Yet agricultural subsidies can benefit forests if they are designed to improve yields on less land area with fewer inputs.
For example, Indonesia’s palm oil industry achieves yields of 3.8 tons per hectare. Neighbouring Malaysia achieves 4.6 tons per hectare.
Subsidies for Indonesian smallholder palm producers helped add two million hectares of plantations between 2000 and 2009. With the right technology and financial support from the government, smallholder farms can increase output without expanding into the forest, and match Malaysia’s production density. These are the types of subsidies we need to see: the kind that remove the incentive to simply plough more land.
Brazil took bold and coordinated steps in the 2000s to rid themselves of perverse incentives. They made deforestation a crime and enforced the law strongly. They banned selling soy grown in the Amazon, and the Bank of Brazil refused to give credit to farmers who wanted to plant soy in newly cleared forest. All of the country’s rural credit is now lent only to those in compliance with legal and environmental rules in the Amazon. The Amazon then saw an incredible decline in deforestation – a success that Brazil must build upon.
Other countries will need to take bold action to achieve similar results.
Developed countries can meanwhile help close the gap to finance these efforts. At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Germany, Norway and the UK pledged $5 billion for the UN’s Programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, which pays developing countries for reducing deforestation. Much more is needed.
The private sector is a large source of credit as well, but they too are pitching in. In February, HSBC announced it will require its palm oil industry borrowers to commit to protecting natural forests and peatlands. Other banks and lenders should follow suit.
Forests are immensely valuable, worth more intact and sustainably managed than any of the industries that are destroying them outright. Its past time we rid ourselves of the backward subsidies that are the invisible bulldozers of the forest.
The Solomon Islands, in the heart of the Pacific, relies on expensive imported fuel for nearly 100% of its electricity. It has some of the highest energy costs in the world, and one of the lowest rates of connection in the world; just 9% of Solomon Islanders are connected to the electricity grid. Succour has however emerged with the approval of funds towards a major renewable energy project
Manasseh Sogavare, Prime Minister of Solomon Islands
Reliable renewable energy is a step closer for Solomon Islands, a country facing some of the world’s highest per capita energy costs, following the World Bank Group’s commitment to the Tina River Hydro renewable energy project.
The Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank recently approved $33.6 million in funding for the Tina River Hydropower project in the Solomon Islands, which aims to reduce the cost of electricity and end the country’s near-total reliance on diesel fuel for power.
Electricity costs in the Solomon Islands are among the highest in the world, placing huge strains on all facets of life in Solomon Islands; health, education, business and livelihoods. The Tina River Hydropower Project aims to reduce spending on expensive diesel power while also paving the way for the country to exceed its 2025 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.
“The World Bank support to Tina River Hydro is an important milestone for Solomon Islands as we move towards a green energy future,” said the Manasseh Sogavare, Prime Minister of Solomon Islands. “We are grateful to the World Bank for its strong commitment to reduce electricity costs for Solomon Islands, and for its dedication in supporting the preparation of this complex nation-building project.”
The renewable energy project, one of the largest projects ever planned for the Solomon Islands, will bring expertise in infrastructure development and operations to the country – and pave the way for further investment and new jobs.
“Energy costs for Solomon Islanders have been too high for too long, burdening lives daily: children cannot study at night, businesses are forced to close early, and basic services continue to suffer,” said Michel Kerf, the World Bank Country Director for Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea & the Pacific Islands. “This project will contribute to reducing energy costs and help to improve the lives of Solomon Islands families and their communities.”
Under the financing arrangement, the World Bank Group is providing a $23.4 million credit and a $10.2 million grant through the International Development Association, the World Bank’s fund for the world’s most in-need countries.
The World Bank joins other partners in supporting the Tina River Hydro Project, including the International Renewable Energy Agency/Abu Dhabi Fund for Development (IRENA/ADFD) facility, the Green Climate Fund, and the Government of Australia. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank Group’s private sector arm, has also provided support throughout the development and negotiation process.
Other development partners, including the Asian Development Bank and the Economic Development Cooperation Fund of Korea, have indicated their potential support. Total funding support for the project is expected to be concluded in September 2017.
As leaders from the 12 snow leopard range countries prepare to meet this month to further deliberate on the future of the endangered cat, conservationists have called on them to take the next step and pledge concrete action to ensure the animal’s survival.
The snow leopard. Photo credit: wikipedia
The snow leopard lives in the Himalayas, the mountains of Central Asia and the Mountains of Southwest China as well as the Tibetan plateau. Their range covers Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, India, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
At the close of a meeting in 2013, the leaders pledged to secure at least 20 snow leopard landscapes of Asia by the year 2020. They are however coming together again from Thursday, August 24 to Friday, August 25, 2017 for the International Snow Leopard & Ecosystem Forum in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Besides the 12 leaders, the International Snow Leopard & Ecosystem Forum brings together other interested nations with leaders from international institutions, donor agencies, conservation organisations, and scientific institutions.
The high-level event aims to further strengthen the range countries’ ongoing effort to protect the snow leopard, and to galvanise international support for their ambitious plan of securing 20 snow leopard landscapes by the year 2020.
“The snow leopard is under threat. If we do not take drastic steps, we might permanently lose this priceless gift of nature – as we have already lost forever thousands of other rare and amazing species.
“Let’s work together and shape the world’s joint response to the threats that this cat – and our mountain ecosystems – are facing,” says Almazbek Atambayev, President of the Kyrgyz Republic (or Kyrgyzstan).
In line with Mr Atambayev’s submission, environmentalists fear that the snow leopards, which are iconic to the high mountains of Central Asia, face the threat of extinction. They posit that there may be as few as 4,000 remaining in the wild, and their numbers continue to drop at an alarming rate.
Sara Thomas, Director, Activism and Outreach at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), suspects that the snow leopard population has declined by 20% over the last 16 years. She attributes this development to:
Poaching. Snow leopards are killed for their beautiful coats, but they are also hunted for their bones and other body parts – resulting in an increase in the illegal trade for snow leopard parts.
Conflict with communities and retaliatory killings. As their natural prey becomes harder to find, snow leopards resort to killing livestock for survival – increasing the risk of retaliatory killings.
Habitat loss. Expanding human and livestock populations are fragmenting the historic habitat range of the cats.
Climate change. The impact of climate change on the fragile mountain environment puts the future of snow leopards at even greater risk.
“Climate change poses the biggest long-term challenge snow leopards face – the impact of climate change could result in a loss of up to 30% of the snow leopard habitat in the Himalayas alone,” she adds.
Besides allowing leaders of the 12 snow leopard range countries as well as the international community to work together and achieve tangible progress in their effort to protect and conserve the snow leopard and its mountain ecosystems, the International Snow Leopard & Ecosystem Forum will also explore several approaches to improve financing mechanisms including regional and national trust funds, investment funds, and other emerging tools, it was gathered.
“Donor agencies, governments, corporations and international financial institutions will find an excellent forum to explore investment opportunities in sustainable forestry and agriculture, ecotourism, climate adaptation, and clean energy (micro hydro, solar). Successful green investment models can be showcased and best practices on integration public policy will be highlighted,” the organisers stressed.
Dr. Godwin Uyi Ojo, Executive Director, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN), at an event to commemorate one year of flag-off of the Ogoniland clean-up exercise by the President Muhammadu Buhari administration, said in Port Harcourt, Rivers State on Thursday, August 3 2017, that the motion without movement is enough, and that the time to clean up Ogoniland is now
L-R: Chief St Emma Pii from Bodo community; Dr. Godwin Ojo, Executive Director, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN); Professor Margaret Okorodudu an ERA/FoEN board member; Festus Eguaoje, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Desk Officer in the Ministry of Environment; and Wolfgang Richard – a training expert from the Netherlands
On August 4, 2011 (exactly six years ago), the Nigerian government received the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Assessment report on Ogoniland. The report x-rayed the Ogoni environment – land, vegetation and water, and came out with damning findings on how Shell callously ruined the environment and livelihoods of the people. Notably, benzene a cancer causing chemical was found in drinking water 900 times above World Health Organisation (WHO) standards, and soil contamination was found over the depth of five meters in places claimed to have been cleaned up by Shell.
Most of you know the story, including the cosmetic complacency and lip service past administration paid to the cleanup process. It was only in 2015 that any semblance of action began with President Muhammadu Buhari’s approval of a $10 million grant for commencement of the clean-up of Shell’s mess in Ogoniland.
The flag-off of the clean-up proper was in June 2016 and the exercise was performed by Acting President, Yemi Osinbajo. Though the people greeted the event with joy, they are now disappointed that the road to justice is still bugged down with bottlenecks and meaningless bureaucracies.
The unease of the Ogoni people has been further heightened by statements credited to the minister of state for environment that government was not in a hurry to commence clean up and fail, and would rather take its time to get it right before commencing. The recourse to such lame excuse for the delayed commencement shows that government is yet to grasp the challenges the Ogoni communities face and the need for deliberate speed in the cleanup process to protect the environment and rural livelihoods of the people.
One year after the flag-off exercise, the relief measures and clean water supply to the impacted communities have not been carried out meaningfully. The communities are yet to get a breather as the polluted soils, blackened waters and foul-smelling mangroves remained. In Ogale – one among the many documented impacted communities, the locals are left with no other source of water than contaminated boreholes. Here, immediately the taps are turned on, noxious odour and smell of petroleum assail the nose and hang thickly in the air. The situation is so bad that a stroke of match could ignite a fire. Residents depend on the polluted water source or forced to expend a fortune on water from vendors. The situation is so bad that that many are asking: When will the pre-clean up measures be put in place? When will a drop of oil be cleaned in Ogoni?
Even with all these tales of woe, the polluter – Shell – has continued with business-as-usual. Shell has failed to properly decommission its corrosive oil facilities in Ogoni as recommended by UNEP. We have said it time and again that decommissioning of Shell’s facilities should be the first step as it would stop the continuous oil spills from ill-maintained pipelines in the Ogoni environment. Added to this, are reports that the oil company has not stopped engaging in divisive activities to split the agitating youths.
In light of the above it is worrisome that even with the governing structures already in place, there is still no phased workplan covering one to five-years in the short term. In the long term, a phased workplan covering the entire clean-up process that will take 25 years should be put in place. Transparency and accountability demand that Workplan should be put in place before public advertisement to hiring of contractors. There is little or no CSOs engagement on the process. Critical stakeholders and community members have been sidelined and have not been invited to make input. Clearly, when the clean-up proper will commence or when equipment will be deployed to site is still up in the air. Cumulatively, these foot-dragging activities have further lengthened the period for which the people have to wait for justice to come.
Notwithstanding President Muhammadu Buhari’s seemingly good intentions, there is gross inadequate funding and only $10 million has been released from the $200 million pledged by Shell and the federal government of Nigeria for the 2017 fiscal year. Furthermore, there is no statutory budgetary provision for the clean-up in the 2017 national budget. We condemn in strong terms the piecemeal approach to the clean-up planning and implementation process by the Hydrocarbon Pollution Restoration Project (HYPREP) and the “snail pace” approach of the federal government that is motion without movement.
In particular, the UNEP report indictment of Shell for the company’s deployment of a one size fits all clean up measures through the Remediation by Enhanced Natural Attenuation (RENA) technologies that are widely used by Shell in Nigeria. Rather the UNEP report had recommended site-specific remediation measures that require soil excavation, and overlaying by new sediments. The report said that RENA is inappropriate because of the proximity of communities to spill sites or degraded areas, shallow aquifer and heavy and lengthy periods of rainfall.
That Shell sits comfortably in the Governing Board with oversight functions wielding undue political and financial influence may have already compromised the cleanup process hence we call for their immediate removal from such governmental institutions.
As we mark two years of the flag off exercise, ERA-led coalition of civil society groups and Host Communities (HoCON) join voices with the Ogoni people to insist that, so far, the Ogonis have been short-changed and no justice in sight. They join their voices to ask: “When will the Ogonis get justice? When will the first drop of oil be cleaned up in Ogoni?” Justice delayed is justice denied.
The UNEP recommendations and clean-up is non-negotiable. Clean up should commence without further delay and to serve as prelude to a comprehensive environmental and social audit of the entire Niger Delta and other impacted regions. We urge the federal government and Shell and the other transnational oil companies to establish a $100 billion restoration fund for the clean-up and remediation of the entire region.
Our Demands
The federal government should declare the Ogoni clean up as environmental state of emergency and channel resources to it so that clean-up will commence immediately. No more delays, clean up now.
HYPREP should put in place a definite work plan and timeline for the clean-up process through an inclusive planning process that accommodates input from stakeholders.
Shell and the federal government should be compelled to commit fully to funding the clean-up costs, including but not limited to, the initial fund of $1 billion. They should declare their contributions for the year 2017 and pledges for 2018.
The National Oil Spills Detection and Remediation Agency (NOSDRA) and other government agencies being starved of funds and roles in the clean-up process should be empowered to monitor the process.
Shell should not force HYPREP to use RENA technologies that is inappropriate to the Ogoni environment.
Shell should not use the clean-up process as a guise to re-entering Ogoni oil fields for drilling. They should vacate the governing council, and decommission its old oil pipelines responsible for frequent oil spills.
Conduct an environmental and social audit of the Niger Delta and ensure the establishment of $100 billion remediation fund to be funded by Shell and all the oil companies operating in the region.
