The cats’ return to Caucasus is expected to lay a foundation for new Persian leopard population in Russia. The Persian leopard population declined drastically throughout the 20th century due to poaching and habitat loss.
A leopard is fitted with a tracking collar
Three Persian leopards were on Saturday July 13,2016 released into Russia’s Caucasus (Kavkazsky) State Nature Biosphere Reserve. The event has been described as a remarkable step in restoring leopard populations to the Caucasus.
Until the middle of the 20th century, Persian leopards were common in the Caucasus. But, by 1950, their population had dramatically decreased, and was entirely extinct in some areas reportedly due to human activities.
In 2005, experts from WWF-Russia and the Russian Academy of Science developed a long-term programme to reintroduce Persian leopards in the Caucasus. Russian President Vladimir Putin has supported the programme since 2009
The work was an ambitious undertaking, according to the promoters. First, the territory was prepared for the rare cats. Ungulate populations were increased in order to provide prey and protection measures strengthened.
Adult leopards from zoos cannot be released into the wild: they are unable to catch prey and are not afraid of humans, it was gathered. In 2009, with support from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a special centre was built near Sochi to breed and prepare leopards for a life in the wild.
Initially, the Centre hosted two males from Turkmenistan and two females from Iran. Later, a leopard pair brought from the Lisbon Zoo had their first litter in the Centre in 2013. By 2016, a total of 14 kittens were born in the centre.
The leopards released have reached sexual maturity and received special training to survive independently in the wild. They also have satellite collars that will allow programme staffers to track the cats after their release.
The programme aims to create a self-sustaining Persian leopard population in the wild, which means a population of at least 50 leopards in the Northern Caucasus. Though there is still much work to do, the first release offers tremendous hope for these endangered cats, officials disclosed.
The Programme for Reintroduction (Restoration) of the Leopard in the Caucasus was initiated in 2005 by WWF-Russia. In 2007, it was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation and, since 2009, it has been supported personally by Vladimir Putin.
The Programme is implemented by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation with the participation of the Sochi National Park, Caucasus (Kavkazsky) State Nature Biosphere Reserve, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Moscow Zoo and WWF-Russia, and with the support from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA).
Rohit Singh supports ranger and law enforcement work across countries that have wild tigers as part of the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Tigers Alive Initiative. He also serves as president of the Ranger Federation of Asia, an organisation that supports those on the frontlines of conservation in Asia and connects them to the world ranger community at large. He recently spoke with the WWFE-News
Rohit Singh, president of the Ranger Federation of Asia
Can you tell us more about Tx2 – the global goal to double the wild tiger numbers by 2022? What is WWF’s role?
In 2009, we started WWF’s global tiger programme. This is to support the countries with wild tigers in doubling the world’s wild tiger numbers by 2022. All the governments came together in St. Petersburg in 2010 and committed to doubling global tiger numbers. Our job is to help them to achieve this very ambitious goal.
With regard to law enforcement and policy change, how are we going to double the global number of wild tigers by 2022?
At the moment, the biggest threat for tiger conservation is poaching. We are losing tigers every day. If we want to double tiger numbers, we need to protect tigers, and we need to improve our protection system. Protection can only be improved if we have good policies in place, and good on-ground support for rangers in place.
How can we help countries prevent all poaching of tigers and other iconic animals?
When we started talking about zero poaching, people said, “No, it’s impossible. You cannot have zero-poaching in your protected area.” But Nepal has proved it – that you can have zero-poaching.
We had a symposium two years back in Nepal where we discussed zero poaching. All the partners from all over Asia came together – NGOs, governments – and discussed how zero poaching can be modeled and replicated in other countries. In that symposium, we brought all the best practices together in the form of a zero-poaching toolkit.
The Zero Poaching Toolkit brings all those best practices under six pillars, so you put equal emphasis on each pillar if you want to minimise poaching.
What are the six pillars?
The first pillar is assessments. What’s the status of your protected area? The second is the technology. Nowadays, you need the best technology to protect animals.
Third is communities. If the people living around your protected area are not supporting you, then you cannot achieve zero poaching. Then you need to have the right capacity. There’s not one agency that can achieve zero poaching because it’s a multidimensional crime, wildlife crime. So you need to involve all relevant agencies like the police, military.
The fifth pillar is prosecution. If your rangers are arresting poachers, but poachers are released after two days, then it’s not going to help. And finally, co-operation. This is key to success – coordinated work across areas, departments and borders.
Nepal achieved zero poaching. Are any other countries or landscapes working toward that goal?
Nepal is, of course, the benchmark. In some countries, we are picking sites to start zero poaching. In some countries, we are picking landscapes. In some countries, we’re picking the entire country. It depends on the situation. We have already started with Bhutan. We’re going to have the first national zero-poaching meeting in Bhutan in September where we’re going to discuss the gaps under each of these pillars to achieve zero poaching. Then we are moving forward in India, and also in Indonesia.
You helped conduct a survey on rangers. What does it cover and why is the information important?
We hear stories all the time from rangers that they do not have resources. So how do we quantify this information? We started a survey a year ago in Asia with countries that have wild tigers. We got some really good data about their lack of training and equipment. I would say the data is not surprising. We know all these things, but this is the first time we can quantify, we can validate the information which we have been hearing from rangers.
The survey talks about rangers’ capacity. It talks about equipment. It talks about their motivation factors, and, most importantly, about their life-threatening situations. We have recently done the survey in Africa, and are going to repeat it in Latin America also.
The purpose of this survey is to give a snapshot of what is happening with rangers. Our ultimate goal is to do a much more in-depth survey, and ultimately use it to bring policy changes. National governments have to take the initiative. We need to provide them with good, concrete, scientific data, and advocate for the policy changes that can improve ranger conditions.
Why is improving working conditions for rangers vital to the future of wildlife?
Our future depends on the future of wildlife and forests. The future of wildlife and forests depends on rangers. And if we do not adequately support rangers, we’re going to lose biodiversity, our wildlife, and forests.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) last week jointly submitted an urgent action communication to four United Nations (UN) human rights Special Rapporteurs. It cited grave human rights and Treaty violations resulting from the construction of the Dakota Access crude oil pipeline in close proximity to the Standing Rock Reservation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Dakota Access LLC, a subsidiary of Texas-based Energy Transfer.
Dakota Access pipeline protest in North Dakota. Photo Credit: “No Dakota Access in Treaty Territory – Camp of the Sacred Stones”
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (SRST) stands in firm opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The pipeline would carry nearly half a billion barrels of crude oil a day, and would cross the Missouri River threatening the Tribe’s main water source and sacred places along its path including burials sites. The communication was submitted to UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders; the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; and Environment and Human Rights, as well as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It requests that they urge the United States to halt the human rights violations and uphold its human rights and Treaty obligations to the Standing Rock Tribe. It was also forwarded to key officials in the U.S. State Department, Department of Interior and the White House.
The urgent communication focuses on violations of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty and other International human rights standards to which the United States is obligated. It also cites actions against human rights defenders, including arrests and other forms of intimidation, violations of the human right to water, and lack of redress and response using domestic remedies. The submission noted that this action violates Article 32 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms the obligation of States to obtain Indigenous Peoples’ free prior and informed consent before development projects affecting their lands, territories or other resources are carried out. The Lakota and Dakota, which includes the SRST, were part of the Sovereign Sioux Nation, which concluded the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty with the United States. The United States has legally-binding obligations based on this Treaty to obtain the Lakota and Dakota’s consent before activities are carried out on their Treaty lands.
The urgent communication also highlights environmental racism in violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination Convention (ICERD) to which the US is legally obligated. It notes that the United States has permitted Energy Transfer to divert the pipeline’s route from near the mainly non-Indigenous population of Bismarck, ND to disproportionately impact the SRST.
A primary concern expressed by the Tribe is potential devastating effects on its primary water source. SRST Chairman Dave Archambault II, who was among those arrested and is also being sued by the company for obstructing the pipeline’s construction, stated on August 15th “I am here to advise anyone that will listen, that the Dakota Access Pipeline is harmful. It will not be just harmful to my people but its intent and construction will harm the water in the Missouri River, which is the only clean and safe river tributary left in the United States.”
In response to the Tribe’s opposition, Dakota Access LLC, the developers of the $3.8 billion, four-state oil pipeline, has waged a concerted campaign to criminalise and intimidate Tribal leaders, Tribal members and their supporters who have consistently been peaceful and non-violent. The IITC and SRST are calling upon the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders to call upon the United States to immediately cease all arrests and other forms of intimidation, drop any pending lawsuits, and ensure that all legal charges against these human and Treaty Rights defenders be lifted. The urgent action communication cited this case as an example of the criminalisation of Indigenous human rights defenders around the world, as noted by various UN bodies.
Despite 28 arrests reported to date, the peaceful protesters have succeeded in temporarily halting the pipeline’s construction. A hearing is currently scheduled for next week in federal court to consider the Tribe’s request for an injunction. Construction has reportedly been halted until the hearing, providing an important initial victory for the Tribe and their supporters.
The joint urgent UN communication requests the intervention of these UN human rights mandate holders to call upon the United States to uphold its statutory, legal, Treaty and human rights obligations and impose an immediate and ongoing moratorium on all pipeline construction until the Treaty and human rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, including their right to free prior and informed consent, can be ensured.
An appraisal of the Civil Society Organisations (CSO) Network under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has thrown up a wide range of recommendations aimed at ensuring that the campaigners engage better with the financial organisation.
Naoko Ishii, CEO and Chairperson of the GEF
The Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of GEF, in an assessment aimed at unravelling how the GEF CSO Network has fulfilled its role, recommends that a contemporary vision for the Network should be created within the new GEF architecture.
The vision, it adds, should, besides clarifying the Network’s role and setting out a shared understanding amongst all parts of the Partnership of the Network’s contribution in guarding the global commons, likewise identify a modality to appropriately finance Network activities.
The GEF unites 183 countries in partnership with international institutions, CSOs, and the private sector to address global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives. It is believed to be the largest public funder of projects to improve the global environment.
The IEO also wants the Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility (GEFSEC) and CSO Network to develop clear rules of engagement that guide cooperation and communications, saying that this could be adjusted as needed.
Furthermore, the evaluators demand that the CSO Network should continue to build itself as a mechanism for strengthening civil society participation in the GEF at the global, regional and national levels, even as the Network pays particular attention to: membership development, capacity building and value-added working relationships across the Partnership.
The CSO Network has also been called upon to strengthen its governance, with particular attention to: annual work plans, cooperation with IPAG, terms for the Network’s Regional Focal Points and the complaints process.
Juha Uitto, Director of the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of GEF
On request by the GEF Council at its 47th meeting in October 2014, the GEF IEO launched the evaluation of the GEF CSO Network, which reviewed the Network’s performance, relevance, effectiveness and results in promoting knowledge dissemination and CSO involvement in GEF policies and programmes.
The evaluation assessed network performance in the context of other forms by which the GEF engages with civil society. According to Juha Uitto, Director of the IEO, the evaluation required wide-ranging consultations across the GEF partnership as well as intensive efforts to gather evaluative evidence from a variety of data sources and stakeholders.
He adds that the evaluation conclusions are organised according to two key evaluation questions: “To what extent is the CSO Network meeting its intended goals and strategic objectives and adding value to the GEF Partnership and its membership?” as well as “How are Network features contributing to the effective and efficient functioning of the Network?”
On question one, the evaluation reached the following conclusions:
The GEF CSO Network continues to be relevant and is delivering results to the GEF Partnership.
The CSO Network’s activities are distant from the country level where GEF projects make their mark and from where the majority of Network CSOs operate. As such, the Network’s is compromised in its ability to inform Council with country perspectives and in servicing its members.
Concerning question two, the evaluation of the GEF CSO Network concluded:
The CSO Network today is operating in an expanding GEF Partnership without a shared contemporary vision of the role the Network can play within the changing architecture and the resources that it needs to be effective.
Within the context of an increasingly complex operating environment, the Network has strengthened itself organisationally over the evaluation period but governance challenges remain.
Based on the conclusions, the evaluation formulated the recommendations.
Uitto adds that, during the last few months, the IEO consulted with several stakeholders on the approach to the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS6) that will inform the next replenishment negotiations of the GEF.
“This evaluation and its various sub-studies will occupy the office for the several coming months,” he says, adding that the consultations identified important areas to be addressed in the evaluation including the role of the GEF in the changing landscape for environmental finance, the new focus on programmatic and integrated approaches by the GEF and the overall health of the GEF partnership.
“The findings of this evaluation will be ready by June 2017. The IEO will have a very busy year completing this evaluation, and we will continue to request inputs from many of you into this important exercise,” Uitto submits.
An independently operating financial organisation, the GEF provides grants for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants.
Since 1991, the GEF has reportedly achieved a strong track record with developing countries and countries with economies in transition, providing $12.5 billion in grants and leveraging $58 billion in co-financing for over 3,690 projects in over 165 countries. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP), the GEF has also made more than 20,000 small grants directly to civil society and community-based organisations, totaling $653.2 million.
The National Space Research and Development Agency (NARSDA) on Thursday said 15 states in Nigeria may lose two million hectares to flood.
Flooding in Lagos some years ago
Felix Ale, the Head of Media and Corporate Communications of the agency, disclosed this in a statement in Abuja.
Ale said the areas were identified following a preliminary research and analysis conducted by the agency on flood prone areas.
The statement said: “Based on satellite imagery from Nigeriasat-2, Nigeriasat-X and the shuttle radar topography mission, over two million Hectares of land are at risk of flooding with potential impact on Agriculture and settlements’ displacement.
“In the investigation, the Space Agency developed a geospatial information system depicting areas that are at risk of flooding across the nation.
“The affected states, after a critical analysis and scientific research through space applications, are Taraba, Benue, Kogi, Plateau, Nassarawa, Kebbi, Edo, Delta and Anambra.
“Others are Rivers, Bayelsa, Lagos, Sokoto, Kano and Niger.
“Against this background, NASRDA hereby appeals to the affected state governments to urgently put adequate measures in place for the relocation of communities in the flood plain areas in their respective states to high grounds.
“This is in order to mitigate the colossal loss of lives and to prevent a repeat of the 2012 experience.
“NARSDA reassures the general public of its close collaboration with relevant stakeholders for the dissemination of space-based solutions to any flood challenge in the country.”
Ale also said the agency had developed a digital terrain model to identify areas of high grounds for potential relocation of affected communities.
The agency recently made public its findings on the recent earth tremor in some parts of Rivers and Bayelsa states.
Dr. Emmanuel Okafor, the Director of Public Health, Anambra State Ministry of Health, on Thursday confirmed the death of a medical doctor and two others due to new cases of Lassa fever in the state.
Minister of Health, Professor Isaac Adewole
The director confirmed the report at a one-day workshop on Lassa fever organised by the ministry to sensitise health professionals in the state on the disease in Awka.
However, Okafor said the outbreak was not yet in an epidemic proportion in the state. Okafor said the workshop was aimed at training the health professionals who would go to the grassroots to educate the people on the prevention of the disease.
“In Anambra, we don’t know the number of cases of the disease, but we have three confirmed deaths,” he said.
He urged health workers to exercise high standard of professionalism in handling Lassa fever cases. Okafor said the state government had put in place proactive measures to handle the scourge.
Speaking earlier, Dr. Jane Ezeonu, a resource person at the workshop, first broke the news of the death of the doctor and the two other persons. Ezeonu said the medical doctor died three days ago at the Nnamdi Azikiwe General Hospital, Nnewi.
She, however, said the late medical doctor was referred to NAUTH from Asaba, Delta State.
Ezeonu stressed the need for adequate prevention mechanism to be taken on the issue.
The doctor warned people against drinking raw garri (cassava flour), advising residents to ensure protection of their food and related items from rats.
“People don’t acquire immunity after suffering from Lassa fever. General hygiene is the key for prevention,” Ezeonu said.
Also speaking at the occasion, Dr. Okwuchukwu Chukwuka, the Permanent Secretary in the ministry, said there was no epidemic of the disease in the state.
Chukwuka, who represented the Commissioner for Health, Dr. Josephat Akabuike, said the workshop was part of the proactive measures adopted by the state government.
Chukwuka said: “It is a training workshop for health professionals in the 21 local government areas of the state who would sensitise and disseminate information about Lassa fever to the grassroots. We are having the workshop for prevention, not that we have an epidemic in the state.”
Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, on Thursday sought the understanding of members of the private sector in the ongoing policy review by the current administration.
Kemi Adeosun, Finance Minister
The minister, who spoke during the visit of the leadership of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group, (NESG) to her office in Abuja, challenged the private sector body to come up with policies which are implementable in view of the current economic situation in the country.
Extending her hand of fellowship to the NESG, the minister said the Ministry of Finance is ready to work with them and therefore challenged the private sector group to keep track of some of the recommendations to the Federal Government.
She said: “I want to challenge you by asking you to keep track of how many of your polices are implemented and those not implemented. You also need to find out why those policies were not implemented. They may be great policies at wrong times, or they may be wrong policies. They may even be un-implementable policies.
“I’m giving you the commitment of the Federal Ministry of Finance to assist you. You are invited to the Federal Ministry of Finance and spend a day and sit with our people and see how government affairs are being run.”
The minister also stressed the need to prioritise in the face of the revenue challenge in the country.
She stated: “Yes, the economy is challenged and people are extremely frustrated and we need to rebuild fundamentally, we need to prioritise. We have to rebuild this country and it has to be data driven.
“We are already overhauling our tax policy. We want to have a realistic picture of tax. We need to realise that with the collapse of commodity prices we don’t have enough foreign exchange to buy as many imported goods as we like to, so when there is import substitution, we must embrace it.”
She justified the stoppage of the policy on Export Grant which, according to her, has been seriously abused.
Responding to the explanation sought by NESG on the current status of Export Grant, the minister stated that, although her predecessor in office halted the implementation of the policy, she believed the decision was in order going by harvests of startling revelations on the abuse of export grant.
She stated: “On paper, why will you cancel Export Grant? The EG is set up to encourage export business. However, in a situation, where we do not have control, we open up doors for the kind of abuse, which are only imaginable. We have people exporting stones, describing them as high valued goods, collecting an import credit and using that to import fish.
“We do need to look for how to support export, but we have to be very realistic in the recommendations we are coming up with.”
Waste management is a major challenge in Kenya, especially in Nairobi, the rapidly growing capital. Nairobi produces around 2,400 tons of waste every day, of which only 38% is collected and less than 10% recycled. The remaining 62% is left on illegal dumpsites and next to houses or burned, causing severe health and environmental problems. Additionally, the private sector overlooks the income generating opportunities from waste, such as recycling and composting.
Under the NAMA, up to 600 tons of waste will be recycled every day (which accounts for 25% of Nairobi’s total waste). This will save more than 800,000 tons in CO2e emissions over the 15 years’ lifetime of the NAMA and add 1,600 jobs to the economy.
By diverting waste from dumpsites to recycling points, waste collection companies will reduce their operating costs. This will make collection services more affordable to more than half a million low-income residents, thereby adding improved health to the environmental and socioeconomic benefits.
The NAMA will also test and operationalise new recycling technologies, as well as strengthen existing recycling industries. This will include conversion of organic waste to insect based protein, terra-preta production (enriching compost with waste-based charcoal), using residual waste for cement kilns, and a study on the treatment of hazardous waste fractions.
The NAMA is fully aligned with the policy goals of the Kenyan government, as set out in Kenya Vision 2030, National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), which promote the provision of sanitation services and recycling.
The total cost of the NAMA is estimated to be around $39 million. Approximately $25 million is to be funded by international finance ($13 million in grants and $12 million in loans), while the Kenyan government will fund $10 million in grants and the private sector will invest $4 million.
The NAMA will be carried out in two distinct phases over a period of 15 years: Infrastructure development phase (years one to 5) and full-scale operations phase (years six to 15). As private sector companies will operate each part of the NAMA, all activities will continue operating past the end of the NAMA timeline.
On Monday, 15th August, I was privileged to be a panelist at the “Experts meeting on Bio-safety & Bio-technology-GMOs” organised by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture. In attendance were the Ministers of Science &Technology, Agriculture and Environment.
Critics fear genetically modified foods can cause environmental harm and damage human health. Photo credit: dailymail.co.uk
In their opening remarks, they made it clear that they look to these conversations to give them guidance in respect to policy direction of GMOs in agriculture. The event though apparently organised by the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, was dominated mainly by pro-GMO voices such as NABDA and OFAB, as well as several pro-GMO scientists and bio-safety administrators.
All the keynote speeches and papers presented were by pro-GMO DGs and scientists. In a meeting apparently put together to shed light on this GMO controversy, it was unfortunate that these presentations were mostly half-truths, belittling health concerns as well as contrary scientific opinions that have been on the rise.
Several presenters pointed out to the fact that this technology is not new, it has existed for over 20 years and has been used in America and Canada. None of them were interested or curious to explain, if a technology has been used for over 20 years, shouldn’t it be normalised by now? If indeed there was no cause for concern, should it not be controversy-free by now? Why is it that Japan, a science and technology powerhouse and the third largest economy in the world, has tight restrictions on GMO commercialisation and consumption?
Why is it that six out of the G8 countries (the most powerful in relation to their economy and development), have strong restrictions on the cultivation and consumption of GMO? Apart from USA and Canada who are the main originators and producers of this technology?
Regulatory Framework and Infrastructure
In June 2015, The EU banned the importation of Nigeria’s dried beans because the produce contained extra-ordinarily high levels of pesticides which are dangerous to human health. The rejected beans were found to contain between 0.03mg per kilogramme to 4.6mg/kg of dichlorvos pesticide, when the acceptable maximum residue limit is 0.01mg/kg. The embargo is a reflection of our inability to adhere to global standards. Despite efforts by the Federal Government and its relevant agencies to lift the ban this year, the ban has been further extended for another three years. According to the EU officials, the ban was extended because “due to the continued presence of dichlorvos (pesticide) in dried beans imported from Nigeria and maximum residue levels of pesticides shows that compliance with food law requirement as regards pesticide residual cannot be achieved in the short term.”
There are four key points to take from this.
The EU does not compromise the health of its citizens.
The Nigerian regulatory system does not have the capacity to look out for the wellbeing and health of Nigerian citizens. After all, we are still eating these toxic beans. No one told us that the beans we have been consuming is toxic and this would not have been an issue if the EU did not raise the alarm.
Contamination of our food occurs because our farmers are not getting the extension services they should be getting. Most of them are illiterates and can barely read the instructions.
Extension services are important to help farmers learn best practices.
From this example it is clear that Nigeria does not have the robust infrastructure required to regulate and monitor basic agricultural practice. How then do these agencies imagine they can monitor and regulate GMOs?
None of the presenters spoke about contamination of natural varieties caused by wind drift of pollen, neither did any of them speak about the fact that these Monsanto, Sygenta, Bayer and Dupont GMO products do not self-proliferate. Every year, our government would have to buy these seeds from these foreign multinationals at prices significantly higher than those of natural seeds. This will add further pressure on our currency. It is for this reason that India is considering kicking Monsanto out of India and reverting to its indigenous cotton. They have also put price controls and restrictions on Monsanto’s cotton seeds.
The price was too high
None, not one of the presenters spoke about weed and pest resistance that has emerged in America, India, Brazil and everywhere GMOs are planted, leaving farmers to resort to older more toxic pesticides and herbicides.
Labelling
Despite everyone agreeing that GMO foods should be labelled, not one presenter explained how labelling would be achieved in a country where 95% of food consumed are purchased unpackaged in their raw state from market stalls, and on roadsides, as opposed to grocery stores. Do they plan to revolutionise the food processing and packaging industry overnight? How would the woman selling roasted corn on the side of the road label her roasted corn? With Monsanto as a major sponsor and partner of NABDA and OFAB, why don’t these institutions take Monsanto and Sygenta to task as to why they repeatedly fight labelling laws in America, consistently denying the consumers the right to know if their food is GMO? Are they not proud of their products? What do they have to hide? For a technology that is not new, how is it that, in its birthplace, it is still riddled with controversy, so much so these companies would rather hide rather than proudly label their products?
Export market jeopardised
With the current state of our economy, it is of vital importance that we produce products that can access as many markets as possible. This is a quote from leaked cables between American Ambassador Howard F. Jeter to Washington: “Many agricultural experts in both the private and public sectors have close professional connections to Europe and are sympathetic to European opinions. This is particularly true of Nigeria’s limited agricultural export sector, which exports mainly to Europe (though sometimes through Third World countries – such as India – where processing takes place) and could face the dilemma of having to chose between biotechnology and continued access to European markets.”
Organic foods can access all markets GMOs cannot.
Health risk
One would hope that a regulatory agency whose mandate is to secure the lives as relates to GMOs, would at least investigate all the scientific claims linking cancers to GMO consumption, endocrine disruption, colorectal cancers as well as the effects of these pesticides and herbicides associated with GMOs on human health. Yet not a single mention of these considerations was made.
So what do these anti-GMO activists want?
We want truth, we want an honest conversation that looks in to all these considerations and puts the health and wellbeing of Nigerian citizens first. We the people must remind the government that they work for us. It is us that would determine what is good for us to eat. Not half-truth telling scientists that choose to ignore not only scientific data but precedents set by some of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world.
Our research institutions need to be strengthened, so that our scientists would not be susceptible to the manipulations of foreign interests. Food security is a major aspect of National security and solely Nigerian scientists with the interest of Nigeria at heart should be giving clearance to operate in these high impact programmes.
Our government needs to start investigating and researching the natural and organic agricultural practices of nations like Russia, Japan and France. Our government needs to investigate and invest in agro-economic agriculture and integrated pest management as well as technologies that use nature to fight nature e.g. new technology that uses air propulsion to remove weeds as well as low tech roller weed cutters.
This conversation cannot and should not be dominated by an extremely costly and non-dependable technology that has been riddled with failures and controversy all over the world, when there are cheaper more natural approaches to solving these problems. Our government needs to actively seek out the full breadth of the conversation in order to make sustainable policies for the Nigerian people.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Patricia Espinosa as the new Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in May this year.
The Mexican national comes to the job with more than 30 years of experience in international relations. This includes serving as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico from 2006 to 2012 and serving as her country’s representative to Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Germany, as well as to multilateral bodies and international organisations in Vienna, Geneva and New York. Her areas of specialty include global governance, sustainable development, gender equality, the protection of human rights and climate change. In relation to the last area, she was the Chair of the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC leading to the adoption in 2010 of the Cancun Agreements – a set of key steps forward in global plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help developing nations protect themselves from climate impacts.
She was also in the French capital of Paris last year for the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UNFCCC, at which the Paris Climate Change Agreement was adopted. The historic pact to combat climate change and to intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable, low-carbon future builds upon the UNFCCC and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so.
The Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
As of 3 August 2016, the Paris Agreement has 180 signatories. Of the 180 signatories, 22 have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval. The agreement will enter into force 30 days after at least 55 countries, accounting for 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, deposit their instruments of ratification or acceptance with the Secretary-General.
Ms. Espinosa recently spoke with the UN News Centre about her work and the challenges ahead.
Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
What do you hope to accomplish as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC?
I am coming to the head of UNFCCC at a very exciting time. We have the approval of the Paris Agreement, whichwas an historic agreement, after many, many years of negotiations. Now we have on board a huge amount of political will of governments but also the willingness from private sector, from civil society, from individuals everywhere in the world, to work towards a low-carbon economy, a low-carbon global society. So I wish to make a contribution in that respect. I wish to support all those actors, governments, private sectors, and civil societies – everybody who is willing to participate in this big challenge that has to do with the future of our planet.
Do you think the Paris Agreement is strong enough to get the world to limit climate change to well under two degrees celcius to 1.5 degrees?
The Paris Agreement actually provides a very comprehensive framework for action by all the actors that I mentioned earlier. Of course, the governments are in the centre of this agenda but its not only about the governments. In fact, in the case of the Paris Agreement, if we want to have full compliance with the Paris Agreement we need, not only action by governments, we need the action by all of society. I believe it depends really on all those actors whether the Paris Agreement can deliver as to how we would want it to deliver.
What will be the main driver to ramp up ambitions of countries to do more to reduce emissions and build resilience?
Actually, climate change is really about the wellbeing of people. It is not a very vague concept or a vague problem that is out of our everyday lives. It is actually affecting our everyday lives and this is the fundamental fact that everybody should keep in mind while working toward a low-carbon society. If we think about the people that are affected in their health by the effects of climate change – for instance, the quality of air that we are breathing and how much children and older people are suffering from that; if we look at people who are living in poverty, who are suddenly victims to flooding and they lose not only the little property that they have but they also lose members of their families; if we look at disasters that are destroying infrastructure, leaving completely isolated communities in different parts of the world – we are talking about the lives of people. So having that consideration in mind, it’s a big driver towards more ambitious and urgent action by everybody.
Do think it possible that we will see the Paris Agreement enter into force this year?
We have, as of today, 22 ratifications. That is, in my opinion, very good news and very encouraging. And we have also the invitation to the Secretary General’s special event on 21 September in order to promote early ratification. So I’m very hopeful. I think it would send a very strong message about the willingness to comply with the commitment each country assumed in Paris.
And now that an agreement has been reached, what will be the focus of UNFCCC?
Of course we need to work on different areas. First of all, we need to continue to supporting the governments in their intergovernmental process, in their negotiations because the Paris Agreements provides this very comprehensive framework and it requires a lot of tools that need to be developed still.
For instance, in terms of rules for transparency, rules for measurement – these are issues that are not easy to solve and easy to really to get everyone’s minds together. So that will be one part, an important part, of our work. Of course, the Convention is mandating us to support the conference of the parties that takes place every year, but besides that, because what we really need is to have full compliance with the Convention, we would need to focus a lot on implementation of the Paris Agreement and which translates to the national programmes on climate change for each and every country. We will need to reach out to all those actors – to governments, to civil societies, to businesses – and help in mobilising them to help in this fight against climate change.
Many action areas that are essential for addressing climate change also happen to be a part of the Sustainable Development Goals. How will the two tracks be integrated?
This is a very important area of work for the future, not only work for the UNFCCC but for the whole United Nations system. I would actually say for all of our societies in general too, because of what I was mentioning earlier – the fact that climate change has to do with development. There is only one development process in each country. We need to generate the frameworks, the legal frameworks, the institutional frameworks, the policies that are required in order to allow for countries to have those types of structural transformation processes that are required. So in that sense, this is an area of work that will take a lot of the resources of the UNFCCC and one on which I will be also dedicating myself too.
You mentioned the annual Conference of Parties, the COP, and you were the Chair of COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico, which turned around fortunes of the UNFCCC process. Do you see you a change in the way countries are approaching climate change since that meeting in Cancun?
Absolutely. We are in a completely different environment. When we had the conference in Cancun it followed the conference in Copenhagen where, unfortunately, we were not able to achieve a consensus document and that situation, of course, discouraged many of the participants in the process of negotiations. So it was a very critical moment then we needed to restore trust in the Parties and we needed to restore trust in the process and we managed to do it. Today, there is not only trust – there is an enormous enthusiasm about participating in this agenda and about being apart about this transformation process. So I am very happy to be heading the UNFCCC right now at this very fortunate juncture.
The Paris Agreement has now been signed by 175 countries, which is a great achievement, what needs to happen next and what is the main goal of the September Conference?
Now is the time for ratification and for implementation it is the time to act together, it is the time to avoid any disastrous consequences of climate change.
Finally, on a more personal note: what made you accept this job?
I could see as a civil servant, particularly in my role as foreign minister of my country, that I had the opportunity to travel a lot and to be close to the reality and to the challenges that many countries are facing, especially, in this case, the region of Latin America and the Caribbean. I was responsible, for instance, for coordinating the help that we offered to countries in the region when there was flooding, when there was drought and people were starving. So I could see very clearly how much suffering this causes, really, a lot of suffering that should not happen. And, of course, I have been working all my life, more than 35 years, as a civil servant and trying to make a contribution to better conditions of living for our people in Mexico but not only for the people of Mexico, as part of my career has been in multilateral affairs. So in many senses the responsibility, the possibility of becoming the UNFCCC Executive Secretary brings together a lot of these issues for which I’ve worked for all my life.
