A group of civil society leaders from India to the USA on Wednesday 29 June, 2016 called in an open letter to the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to visit areas of the Great Barrier Reef damaged by climate change, and are demanding him to commit to actions that can save this natural wonder.
In Australia’s Great Barrier Reef – the world’s largest coral reef system – rising water temperatures are causing coral bleaching, and ocean acidification is restricting coral growth and survival. Photo credit: telegraph.co.uk
As Australia winds up for a Federal Election on July 2nd, the damage done to the reef, by the largest ever recorded coral bleaching event, have been high on the public agenda. The letter shows that Australia’s role in the fate of the reef is a concern for people around the world.
The letter reads as follows:
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull
Prime Minister of Australia
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Prime Minister
RE: Crisis on the Great Barrier Reef
The Great Barrier Reef is a natural wonder. It is a global treasure, integral to Australia’s reputation in the world and to your environmental and cultural heritage. We understand that it is also a lynchpin of the Queensland and national economies, providing around $6 billion to the economy and 70,000 jobs. It is also a UN World Heritage site, and you, as the country’s highest elected leader, are its custodian on behalf of all Australians and the global community.
We are all devastated to see it suffer an unprecedented coral bleaching event, the worst in recorded history, fuelled by global warming. Your monitoring agency, the GBRMPA has confirmed that almost a quarter of coral has died, with up to 50% coral death in far north Queensland. Director of the ARC’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, distinguished Professor Terry Hughes, calls it the “greatest environmental disaster in Australian history.”
This disaster is international, with the bleaching of reefs worldwide, driven by global warming, threatening ecological collapse and putting the primary protein food source of up to 500 million people at risk.
This disaster requires an emergency response, Prime Minister. We urge you to visit the site of this destruction, accompanied by Australia’s leading coral reef scientists. You must do this immediately, today, as you would for any other national emergency of this scale.
We hope once you have visited and seen first-hand the devastation to the reef that you will be moved to act. We are deeply concerned that your existing climate change policies are inadequate to the task. 57 eminent scientific experts have outlined essential elements of the necessary disaster response, which are priorities among the actions you must take to address climate change:
Cease all new coal mine and coal mine expansion approvals, and prohibit any new gas or oil developments.
Announce the rapid phase out of polluting coal-burning power stations, with a just transition plan for workers and communities.
Put Australia on the path to 100% renewable energy with the utmost urgency.
Restore the funds that you stripped from Australia’s commitment to fighting poverty and climate change internationally to realise a world powered by 100% renewables.
The death of the corals from a significant stretch of the Great Barrier Reef must be deeply distressing to you, as it is to all of us. But it is also your opportunity to protect what remains of this irreplaceable icon now, and to safeguard it for future generations. Australians and the world are waiting for the strong leadership and urgent action that this emergency demands.
SIGNED:
Alexandra Wandel – Vice Chair and Director at World Future Council
Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) has asked the Speaker of Lagos State House of Assembly, Obasa Mudashiru, to side with Lagos people in rejecting Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the water sector.
Anti-water privatisation rally in Lagos. Photo credit: watergrabbing.net/
The ERA/FoEN, in a letter to the Speaker titled Privatisation Is Not Solution to Lagos Water Problem, frowned at attempts to foist the PPP model of water privatisation on the people despite the World Bank withdrawal from the scheme following civil society pressure and documented failures in other parts of the world.
Quoting the Speaker’s June 9, 2016 remarks at the commemoration of one year of the inauguration of the Assembly, ERA/FoEN said that his views that if Lagosians want clean water then the state government must privatise, was very disturbing, as the much hyped PPP is basically driven by the quest for private profits and not the desire to fulfill the basic needs of the people.
In the letter, ERA/FoEN insisted that PPPs fail to invest in the kind of massive infrastructure that people need and that the most celebrated water privatisation schemes have failed as governments who fell into the trap are now opting instead for remunicipalisation.
“Rather than bring efficiency, PPPs are known to have led to cost-cutting measures, prices hikes, layoffs and the extraction of profit from the people at the expense of human rights,” it read.
Manila, Nagpur, Cochabamba and Paris were cited as examples of cities where PPP failed and the recourse to remunicipalisation – a term for taking back previously privatised public water infrastructure from the hands of the privatisers.
In the letter, ERA/FoEN said that the Lagos State Water Corporation’s (LSWC) present parlous state of affairs is a result of over 16 years of World Bank-driven policies, bad management and monumental corruption, which culminated in the ouster of immediate past Group Managing Director, Shayo Holloway, on October 16, 2015 after a strongly-worded query issued by the office of the Head of Service demanding he explain the poor state of water infrastructure in the state.
Further, it noted, “Apart from budgetary allocations, the LSWC attracted loans from the World Bank and international donor agencies to fund water supply expansion schemes such as the Iju, Adiyan, and Isashi Waterworks, as well as expansion of distribution networks. These loans, running into billions of naira have not translated into improved water supply for residents and no one is being called to account for this.”
The group drew the Speaker’s attention to Resolution 64/292 of the United Nations General Assembly which explicitly recognised the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all human rights.
The Resolution urged national governments to take necessary action to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water for all. Several other global bodies like the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have recognised water as human rights.
On the way forward, it recommended that water remain in public control, urging the Speaker to support its campaign to get the Lagos government to reject all forms of water privatisation and commodification; reject contracts designed by, involving, or influenced by the IFC, which operates to maximise private profit, while fully upholding the human right to water as an obligation of the government representing the people.
The Lagos government was encouraged to build the political will to prioritise water for the people and come up with a comprehensive plan that invests in the water infrastructure necessary to provide universal water access.
Activists Nnimmo Bassey (Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation – HOMEF), Mariann Bassey-Orovwuje (Food Sovereignty Manager/Coordinator ERA/FoEN and FoE International) and Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour (Convener Nigerians Against GMO) question circumstances leading to the granting of approval for GMOs to be grown in the country. They want permits issued to Monsanto to introduce GMOs into Nigeria overturned and the Biosafety law repealed
GM Bt Cotton is said to have failed in Burkina Faso, with farmers making claims from Monsanto
The fact that GMOs are approved to be grown in Nigeria is not in doubt. What is disputed is why the approval was surreptitious, to the extent of being issued on a Sunday. We have issues with the press statement issued on the 20th of June 2016, and credited to the Hon. Minister of Environment Amina J. Mohammed, that stating: “What we have approved are for field trials.” She further stated that “All the GMOs in Nigeria officially approved are under experimental fields.” The statement further said that the insect-resistant cotton for commercial release will still be subjected to further processes for the next two years.
We doubt that the National Biosafety management Agency (NBMA) has a different understanding of a permit for commercial release and placement in the environment from what the permit document itself states in plain language.
Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Ltd did not apply for field trials of GMO cotton. They applied for a commercial release and placement in the environment. This means commercial planting of GMO cotton in Nigeria. Section 4 of the permit states and we quote “After a thorough analysis of the application dossier, Risk Assessment and Risk Management plan prepared in connection with the assessment of the application for the permit, it is unlikely that the proposed release will cause adverse impact on the environment and on human health. A permit is therefore granted to the Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Ltd as applied for.”
This was signed by the Director General/Chief Executive Officer of NBMA on Sunday 1st May 2016.
The permit does not leave room for further trials. The requirement of the applicant is merely to make reports on their experience in their farms. This is very different from confined field trials as is the case with the permit for GMO maize – which, in any case, we equally object to.
Indeed, the press statement directly contradicts the record on the Biosafety Clearing House’s (BCH) website and on NBMA’s official website. The official response to the concerns of Nigerians and massive rejection of the rushed offer of permits for failed GMOs appears to be calculated to obfuscate the issues and lull Nigerians into thinking that all is well.
In this era of change we cannot cling to wrong-headed policies or unto the wrong foot put forward by the previous government. Having a biotech policy cannot be a justification for opening up the nation’s fragile ecosystems and stressed environment to genetically modified organisms. A biotech policy cannot erase the globally accepted Precautionary Principle on which biosafety regulations hang.
While describing the concerns about GMOs expressed by the public as legitimate, the Minister of Environment stated that the Federal Ministry of Environment, in collaboration with the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), is organising an experts’ meeting involving civil society groups, national agencies and international organisations to address all concerns expressed, with a view to clarifying Nigeria’s position on the use of GMOs. Our response to this is why did NBMA not take into consideration the robust objections made by five million Nigerians to the wishy-washy applications made by Monsanto if the NBMA is ready to hear voices other than those of the biotech industry?
NBMA by its letter of 28th April 2016 acknowledged receipt of objection from Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and other civil society groups, stated: “Your observations have been noted by the Agency… That the National Biosafety Management Agency would review the application holistically and take the best interest of Nigeria, to avoid risks to human health, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The socio- economic impacts would also be well considered before taking the final decision on the application.”
We consider it intriguing and suspicious that a mere one working day after this letter, the DG of NBMA issued permits to Monsanto. This smacks of utter disdain for opinions and positions of concerned citizens who are conscious of the devastating socio-economic and environmental impacts of the failure of these crops, especially GMO cotton in neighbouring Burkina Faso as well as in India, Pakistan and elsewhere.
We are concerned that NBMA and NABDA keep going around hyping myths sold by the biotech industry to an unsuspecting public, while being careful not to reveal to citizens that they had rushed to issue permits a mere two months after they applications were advertised. NBMA obviously relishes in holding the record as the fastest GMO endorser in the world.
The Permit issued by NBMA to Monsanto also states amongst other things that the “the purpose of the dealings is commercial production of the GM cotton in all areas of Nigeria where cotton is cultivated and for products of the GMO to enter general commerce.” If the Agency insists that commercial release is the same things as filed trials, the Minister of Environment would do well to ask NBMA to issue a glossary of Nigerian GMO terminology.
The Minister also alluded that, with the “act in place, Nigeria has taken laudable strides in order to adopt the necessary legal biosafety framework and policy, bearing in mind that if Nigeria gets it right, it will guide other African countries.” An analysis of the Biosafety Act shows it as an extremely weak and ineffective law that is rigged to subvert the sanctity of the Nigerian environment and to facilitate the colonisation of our agricultural and food systems. It reads like a piece of legislation pieced together by the biotech industry.
As we have stated elsewhere, the board of NBMA is populated by groups avowed to the promotion of GMOs. It is a law that requires urgent review and we call on our President as well as the National Assembly to disband the board of NBMA and repeal or radically review the NBMA Act of 2015 for the security of our food systems, protection of our environment from toxic agro-chemicals and for the preservation of our biodiversity.
We cannot claim to be immune to the dangers that GMOs and attendant chemicals such as glyphosate pose to human and environmental health. Nineteen European countries have completely banned genetically modified crops. On Friday the 24th of June 2016, The Russian State of Duma passed a bill banning all import and production of GMOs in the country. The bill will affect all crops and animals considered to be genetically modified, except for those used for scientific purposes.
Violations of the law carry a fine of 10,000-50,000 ($150-$750) rubles for individuals and 100,000-500,000 rubles for legal entities ($1,500-$7,500). Meanwhile, Our Nigerian Biosafety Acts pegs fines for violations at N2,500,000 (about $7,000) for individuals and N5,000,000 ($14,000) for companies.
According to the report, “Russian officials insist that country’s farms will be able to produce enough food for the country without the use of yield-increasing GMOs.” This is not geopolitics; it is biosafety.
In Africa, Rwanda has resolved that it will not lift the ban on GMOs despite a sharp decline in its crop yields. Other countries are resolute in resisting the political arm-twisting associated with the actions of this industry.
Perhaps it is worthy to mention again here that the BT Cotton application that Monsanto had recycled here in Nigeria was adopted almost verbatim from the Malawian application Monsanto had sent in 2014 to Malawi. Our sources tell us that the Malawian National Biosafety Regulatory Committee recommended the nullification of the application to the designated Minister of Environment on a number of grounds: No cost-benefit analysis has been carried out to support Monsanto’s claims that this technology will benefit cotton farmers in Malawi, issues of secondary pests, exposure pathways and pest resistance not addressed, safety and environmental risks had not been adequately addressed by the Monsanto application, issues of liability and redress had been ignored by the application, just to mention a few.
We also objected to Monsanto’s applications in Nigeria on many grounds. It is also worthy of note that it took about six months for the Regulatory body in Malawi to come to a decision and recommend to the Minister that Monsanto’s application should be nullified. It took NBMA just a month after 22 days’ window period given to the Nigerian public to submit comments on the applications submitted by Monsanto to issue two Permits to Monsanto to deploy GMOs in Nigeria.
What risk assessments and environmental impact studies did NBMA carry out before issuing these permits?
Surely the Hon. Minister does not expect us to believe that NBMA will do right by Nigerians. How can NBMA really evaluate the efficacy of technologies like GMOs or assure Nigerians of their safety when officials of the agency in all their media appearances do better than GMO salesmen or spokespersons for the biotech industry? How can anyone say there is nothing wrong with a genetically modified crop, Bt Cotton, that just failed in neighbouring Burkina Faso, and the farmers are making claims of $48.3 Billion CFA Francs ($83.91) from Monsanto? Are we having regulators or GMO traders making decisions over our destiny?
Clearly, NBMA as conceived and constructed is incapable of objectively managing biosafety regulation in Nigeria. We cannot repose any confidence in an agency that never mentioned or let it slip that they had opened the doors to an influx of GMOs by issuing permits to Monsanto until we announced to the general public.
We restate our stand that the so-called permits issued to Monsanto to introduce GMOs into Nigeria should be overturned and the Biosafety law itself should be repealed. We also call on the National Assembly to urgently investigate the process leading to the granting of the permit on Sunday, 1st May 2016 to assure Nigerians that we are not pawns and that Nigerians will not be used as guinea pigs in a commercial game to open Africa to toxic technologies.
Greenpeace on Tuesday made a formal marriage proposal to Pick n Pay, calling on the retailer to commit to a 100% renewable energy future, and ditch its “dirty love affair” with fossil fuels. In a peaceful protest action that took place at the Pick n Pay head office in Cape Town, South Africa, activists delivered a three-metre high engagement ring to Pick n Pay’s CEO Richard Brasher, and two climbers unfurled a banner above the entrance to the headquarters with the message “Pick n Pay: say yes to the sun”.
Pick n Pay’s CEO, Richard Brasher
Greenpeace Africa launched the “Renewable Energy Champions” campaign in April this year, which aims to get South Africa’s top five retailers to commit to 100% renewable energy. The report, “Shopping Clean – Retailers and Renewable Energy” released at the start of this campaign, outlined how retailers in the country have made a start in the transition to 100% renewable energy, but that there is much work to do.
“It has become clear to us that Pick n Pay is not yet prioritising their transition to a clean electricity future and so we’re calling on them to make the difference and show solar some love. Pick n Pay has a clear opportunity and an ethical obligation to show the millions of South Africans who shop in their stores that they really care about the future of our country,” stated Penny-Jane Cooke, Climate and Energy Campaigner for Greenpeace Africa.
Pick n Pay has the highest per annum electricity consumption out of the five retailers researched by Greenpeace, which equates to the annual electricity consumption of 65,000 South African households. Renewable energy not only makes good business sense for the retail sector, as can be witnessed by the increasing number of shopping malls that are choosing to power their buildings with solar photovoltaics, but also provides a more sustainable development pathway for South Africa.
“Renewable energy provides a real opportunity for South Africa to move away from a development path based on polluting fossil fuels and expensive nuclear power, and retailers can take the lead to kick-start a renewable energy revolution for the benefit of all South Africa’s people, many of whom are Pick n Pay consumers,” added Cooke.
Greenpeace disclosed that it seeks to constructively engage with the retail sector around committing to a 100% renewable energy future through the Renewable Energy Champions campaign. To achieve this, it added, retailers need to be open to discussion and engagement, but more than this they need to commit to renewable energy and take urgent action.
“Greenpeace is calling on Pick n Pay to make the commitment to 100% renewable energy, to articulate how they will achieve this vision in the most ambitious timeframe possible, make the required investments and take the next step to lobby government to remove the barriers to renewable energy. Ultimately, by committing to 100% renewable energy, retailers will be opening up the space for millions of South Africans to generate their own power through lobbying government for better renewable energy legislation, and we’re calling on Pick n Pay to step up and take the lead,” concluded Cooke.
Ahead of Tuesday’s engagement ring delivery, other activities during the lead up included 200 stickers being placed on 11 Pick n Pay shops in Johannesburg, followed by a phone-in day when Greenpeace supporters called on Pick n Pay to take the lead. Earlier in the month, over 2,000 South Africans joined Greenpeace to send love letters to Pick n Pay’s CEO calling for a solid commitment to the sun.
A new study of the forest and peatland fires that burned across maritime Southeast Asia in 2015 has found that the carbon emissions were the largest since 1997, when an even stronger El Niño also resulted in extended drought and widespread burning.
Forest fire in Indonesia
Using a pioneering combination of regional satellite observations, on-the-ground measurements in Kalimantan, Indonesia, and the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) modelling framework, the study’s authors determined that the daily carbon emissions released by the fires in September and October 2015 were higher than those of the entire European Union (EU) over the same period.
The study, published in Scientific Reports, was carried out by a team led by Vincent Huijnen of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and Martin J. Wooster of King’s College London and the NERC National Centre for Earth Observation, and included Daniel Murdiyarso and David Gaveau from the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
In September and October 2015, dry conditions and the delayed onset of seasonal rains contributed to extensive landscape fires, with the resulting smoke strongly impacting air quality in the region and the health of millions of people.
This research team is the very first to have measured the ground-level smoke composition from active peatland burning in the region. They combined that data with satellite information to derive the first greenhouse gas emissions estimates of the 2015 fires, finding that 884 million tons of carbon dioxide was released in the region last year – 97% originating from burning in Indonesia. The corresponding carbon emissions were 289 million tons, and associated carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions 1.2 billion tons.
Satellites provided data on the heat output being radiated by the fires, as well as information on the amount of carbon monoxide present in the surrounding atmosphere. From this, the total carbon emissions were calculated by combining those measurements with the newly determined emission factors of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane measured at fires burning in October 2015 outside of Palangka Raya in Central Kalimantan province – one of the hardest-hit fire sites.
“There have been some isolated studies before where people artificially set fires in the lab to try to understand the chemical characteristics of peatland fire smoke in Indonesia. But no one had done this on natural fires, and especially not on the kind of extreme fires seen in 2015. We are the first people to do that,” said Wooster.
The results indicate that regional carbon dioxide emissions from landscape fires were 11.3 million tons per day in September and October 2015, exceeding the EU’s daily rate of 8.9 million tons. Further, 77% of the regional fire carbon emissions for the year occurred during that time – at the peak of the fires.
The scientists also compared their results to those of the 1997 El Niño-related fires in the region.
“In 1997 the drought lasted longer, the fires were more severe and a lot more forest burned. In 2015, fires mostly burned on degraded peatland covered with shrubs and wood debris,” said CIFOR scientist David Gaveau.
The study’s results have wide implications for future research, whether it is in respect to studies of landscape burning or the impacts of fire emissions on climate and public health, and they contribute to better understanding the need for fire prevention and improved landscape management.
“What is important is the applicability of a study like this in helping policy makers to use more accurate fire emission factors to design policy and act to prevent further fires and greenhouse gas emissions,” CIFOR scientist Daniel Murdiyarso said.
The Melka group has unveiled plans to sell off controversial oil palm plantations in the Peruvian amazon. Public auctions will be held in Lima, Peru, over the next few weeks as the Melka group decides to sell land in Ucayali.
Peruvian amazonian indigenous people
A public notice placed in the Jakarta Post on June 23 outlined plans to sell the estate and plantations on the estate in public auctions on June 30, July 7 and July 14. Interested parties were invited to make contact in order to hear further details of the property.
The properties in question are said to be highly controversial and subject to numerous challenges and complaints in the Peruvian courts, at the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and by investment regulators. The Peruvian government has investigated these properties and already ordered the suspension of operations as the owners failed to secure the relevant authorisations prior to clearance of the forest.
Satellite imagery has shown that these companies are clearing primary forests without permits and contrary to Peruvian laws and RSPO norms.
The RSPO itself has insisted on a suspension of operations as indigenous peoples have filed complaints accusing the company of taking their lands without their consent.
The same indigenous people have filed a lawsuit in Peru in which they are suing both the regional government and the company called Plantaciones de Pucallpa for the illegal acquisition of their traditional lands. Meanwhile, the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange is investigating the complaint by more than 60 Peruvian organisations which requests the delisting of United Cacao Ltd, which is also part of the same consortium operating in Peru.
According to Marcus Colchester, senior policy advisor at Forest Peoples Programme, “The proposed sale of these properties in Peru reflects the dark side of the palm oil sector whereby companies professing to uphold sustainability and business ‘best practice’, in line with RSPO and IFC standards, choose to sell off their properties when they are caught violating the standards or the law. When the International Finance Corporation (IFC) was challenged over its financial support for Wilmar in Indonesia in 2009 and found to be in violation of its own Performance Standards, it promptly divested from all its other palm oil properties in Indonesia. When Jardines was challenged over its palm oil property in Tripa, it sold the company off instead of sorting out the problems on the ground.”
Additional government regulations, in both host and home countries, are needed to hold transnational companies to account for their legal, human rights and environmental violations.
Forest Peoples Programme has contacted the Jakarta Post, urging further investigations of the Peru case and prospective buyers to be aware of these ‘trash and run’ practices.
Solar Impulse, a zero-fuel aircraft powered entirely by the sun, made history last Thursday morning by completing its crossing of the Atlantic Ocean. It had taken off days earlier from New York to cross the Atlantic on a trip around the world.
The Solar Impulse in flight
The pilot, Bertrand Piccard, was able to reach Seville in Spain in about four days. Solar Impulse, the experimental, sponsor-funded airplane, is said to be wide as a Boeing 747 but only as heavy as an SUV.
The UN’s top climate change official Christiana Figueres congratulated the Solar Impulse team, which includes the pilot André Borschberg, in flying the aircraft to circumnavigate the globe.
Alluding to Solar Impulse and the potential of solar energy to replace the bulk of polluting fossil fuels world-wide, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, said: “Solar Impulse is breaking through self-imposed barriers of possibility. We did not think before that it would be possible to traverse long distances with zero emissions in any flying vehicle. The fact that the two pilots have proven that this is possible, the fact that they are up in the air again and finishing the around the world flight they initiated proves that impossible is not a fact, it is an attitude.”
With the recent Atlantic crossing, observers say the Solar Impulse team are popularising renewable energy technology and energy efficiency. Borschberg disclosed in a tweet: “Making the #impossible possible is a question of mindset: seeing obstacles as opportunities, welcoming #change.”
Solar Impulse gets its energy from 17,000 photovoltaic cells that cover the top surfaces of the craft. These cells power propellers during the day, but also charge batteries that the vehicle’s motors can then use during the night.
Bertrand Piccard and his team tried to circumnavigate the world last year, but the vehicle’s batteries overheated during the trip, forcing the project to layover on the Pacific archipelago while repairs were conducted.
The plane is now expected to return back to Abu Dhabi, its point of departure.
Once again, Governor Akinwunmi Ambode of Lagos State is blazing the trail. Recent report in Environews Nigeria including other local Nigerian daily newspapers gave prominence to the news item concerning the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between Lagos State Government and Dubai authority (represented by Smart City Dubai, a company) for the creation of Africa’s first smart city, the Smart City Lagos. It was a news item with euphoria and one that gladdens the heart, in the sense that, finally, Lagos is swimming with the tidal wave of contemporary urban development instead of remaining stagnant and be left at the base of progress among other world Mega Cities.
With the aid of an impression of the development, a representative of Smart City Dubai explains details of the proposed Smart City Lagos to state officials
The snippets from the news item about the MOU covered the anticipated benefits: “…. it is expected to bring multi-billion-dollars investments to the city, create thousands of jobs and transform the Ibeju-Lekki axis in particular and the entire Lagos State in general.” (Steve Ayorinde, Lagos State Commissioner for Information and Strategy). The reasons for Smart City Lagos: “…. a deliberate attempt by us to establish a strong convergence between technology, economic development and governance,” and “…. part of the larger vision to make Lagos cleaner, safer and more prosperous.” (Governor Akinwunmi Ambode). The import of the project: “…. Lagos will become an important center for innovations in smart technologies, wellness and destination for green tourism.” (Governor Ambode). The anticipated feat of the project. “…. the project would become world’s first carbon neutral city.” (Governor Ambode). Lastly, the features: “…. 12-lane road, hotel resorts, world-class technological education facilities and a rail metro line.” (EnviroNews, Friday, June 24, 2016).
Clarity of the operative word. The operative word being referred to here is “smart city.” What exactly is smart city? A search by this writer brought to the fore a few of the following definitions among several others: “A city equipped with basic infrastructure to give a decent quality of life, a clean sustainable environment through application of some smart solutions.” (Smart Cities website). “Smart City is an invention arising from the NEED to live a good, healthy life, intelligently, by solving most of our problems that we face today and fulfilling our needs for the future.” (City Urbanes). “Smart cities are cities of the future where technology will be used to improve efficiency of infrastructure and public services.” (IBM). A city can be defined as “smart” when it fulfills the need of a high quality of life with the help of modern technology.” (Infographic).
When the different definitions cited above are further deciphered, the common thread is the ubiquity of ICT and its application to facilitate high quality of life premised on advanced social, cultural, economic, environmental development, infrastructural development and efficient delivery of urban basic services. Therefore, the MoU that the LASG signed with Smart City Dubai is to introduce a “new urbanism” as a way of life, by creating a city that “works” and where life more abundant is guaranteed for its residents. This of course is a clear departure from what obtains in present day municipal Lagos, where uncontrolled urbanisation has taken its toll on city planning, service delivery, security, environment and the economy. As a first step, Governor Ambode should be commended for having the laudable vision for “Future Lagos” both in words, deeds and actions.
Where is the geographic location of the Smart City Lagos? While the objectives and beneficial impacts of the Smart City Lagos project are unambiguous, there is a cloud hanging over the form the development of the Smart City will take. Is it going to take the form of a new city to be developed from scratch on a tabula rasa location (undeveloped/pristine land). If yes, where is the intended area located? Or is it a “vest pocket” development in the midst of a sparsely populated rural area at the outlay of the Mega City? Or is it a blanket urban renewal and rejuvenation project that would touch every nook and cranny of the Mega City Region? Or is it a twin development of the on-going Eko Atlantic City (a prospective smart city) whose site preparation and sand filling had already taken off at the Lagos Bar Beach? Would the Smart City Lagos have any affiliation with the Lagos Free Trade Zone (FTZ) along the Ibeju- Lekki axis of the Lagos Mega City?
A specific answer needs to be provided by the LASG for the reading public in order to sensitise Lagos residents about the ambitious project. If the Smart City Lagos is going to be developed at a new site, definitely a large parcel of land would have to be acquired for the purpose. For this reason, the LASG would need to be proactive about how to deftly handle the issue of Omo onile, who are likely to be antagonistic of government for usurping their ownership of their ancestral land, whenever the project is about to kick off. The recurring issue of Omo onile which snowballed into unending/fatal fracas between this group of people and the LASG officials at the site acquired for the development of the Lagos Free Trade Zone is a sad reminder that should never be repeated in the course of developing the proposed Smart City. Therefore, the government should go the extra mile in properly sensitising the locales (villagers) where the project will be located, through their village heads so that their support could be made facile. This is necessary to be done and must be done in order to avoid any hitches that could delay the project or scare off prospective foreign investors. Government must not portray itself as a brazen usurper of people’s land or underrate the reaction of the people when treated shabbily, no matter the goodness of government intention to bring development to the specific location, for the benefit of the residents. Once the approach is inclusive and participatory by involving all concerned, particularly the local communities, the project would have a smooth sail. This is a first assumption to one of the questions asked earlier in this piece.
The second option is premised on the assumption that, if the government chooses to develop the Smart City as an “oasis” of modern/affluent settlement, amidst existing impoverished village settlements, which are unplanned and lacking the trappings of modernity in terms of road infrastructure, electricity and social amenities. We try to hazard this guess, purposely to zero in on the implications of such decision or choice by the government. In the case of the painted scenario, the issue of accessibility to the new site of the Smart City should be a major consideration. Government would need to provide high grade road connectivity to the new city such that its accessibility from any directions of the Mega City Region would not be a challenge. Excellent road accessibility is one of the determinants that investors would consider in making the right decision whether to be a willful participant in the joint venture to establish a business concern in the Smart City.
The Lagos-Lekki Expressway seems to be the only carriage road that would serve as arterial link to the Smart City site. That stretch of road has been “a-work-in-progress” for unduly long time and still is. Second, the carrying capacity of the road is far inadequate for the present volume of vehicular traffic along that axis and, as a result, it is always plagued with daily traffic congestion. Road users are often held in traffic most especially during the morning and evening rush hours, wasting a lot of man-hour struggling to get to their work places on the Island, Victoria Island, Mainland and Ikeja.
The Lagos-Lekki Expressway is going to play a pivotal in the success of the Smart City project, because of the road’s usefulness as a major link road along the presumed axis where the new Smart City is likely to be developed. This being so, it logically follows that the LASG would need to embark on massive rehabilitation of that expressway through expansion and addition of more lanes to enhance ease of vehicular passage. The construction would involve large scale demolition of all the eyesore mumbo jumbo developments which impede smooth traffic flow on the expressway. It is the only solution that would allow for the acquisition of more land space for additional right of way for the road expansion. This seems a herculean task in construction time and cost, which can neither be ignored by the state government nor procrastinate the rehab work, for reasons of the country’s parlous economy, paucity of funds and galloping inflation. As they say in local parlance, delay is costly.
For space constraint, I will fast forward this piece and focus on other very important aspects and offer useful tips (though unsolicited), which the core group of Smart City Lagos may find worthy of consideration. I am bringing my random musing to the fore of public conversation on the Smart City Lagos project as an engaged citizen (citizen participation) of Lagos and also from the perspective of a professional Urban Planner who views the city with “trained eyes.”
There is no template for developing a Smart City. The approach that works well in one city might fail in another city. Ask the Indian Government. India is home to over 100 pilot Smart Cities and what the officials of the participating cities found out is that the success or failure of a Smart City basically depends on the level of development of the city, willingness to embrace change and reform, available resources and aspirations of the city residents. Another research finding concluded as follows: “In order to compete in the international economy, cities…must demonstrate the availability of certain key assets, including a better educated and more highly educated workforce; globally linked telecommunications; efficient air and surface transportation; knowledge-based research institutions; flexible, mission-oriented, public and private organizations; an attractive quality of life; and fiscal soundness.” (N.R Pierce, 1993).
I strongly recommend to Governor Ambode and cerebral Pat Utomi with his Team in charge of the Smart City Lagos project to diligently take stock of each of the key assets listed above as they relate to the situation in Lagos and do a critical analysis of them as part of the preparatory stage for the take-off of their assignment. The review of the key assets would guide the Group to take informed decision as appropriate, instead of making decision in a vacuum of information.
Learning far and near. There is no monopoly of knowledge about what makes a Smart City works well. Inter-city cross pollination of ideas, collaboration, and exchange programme, C2C or city consultancy is perfectly okay. We make bold to say that the LASG’s MoU with Smart City Dubai is a leap in the right direction. It is spot on. But what the LASG must begin to understand is that the height Dubai attained today among notable global cities, to the level of a “poster child” of a successful Smart City, was not a sudden flight. It was through a diligent urban planning exercise that was embarked upon in the early 1990s, which the kingdom/emirate of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) tenaciously and committedly followed through with the elements of the plan. There was no undue interference from any “strongman” or sheik to distort the course of the plan, unlike what obtains in the Abuja Master Plan, which every appointed Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (except El-Rufai, who restored sanity to the implementation of the plan circa 2007) distorted the master plan with impunity.
The level of governmental and citizen discipline regarding obedience of the law and stickler to development regulations in Dubai, with due respect, is not what we are used to in Nigeria, albeit we all know the adverse effect of our aversion to government regulations. It is an ill-wind that does no good to our cities’ development and the quality of life of the people that live in these cities. What works in other cities, miraculously does not work in Nigerian cities because the government lacks the political will to obey its own laws while the citizenry lacks the discipline to comply with development regulations. Let us cast our minds back to the incidences of collapse buildings in Lagos and other parts of the country over the years, to buttress the point being advanced in this piece. Many of the causes were attributed to violation of set rules and building regulations.
The LASG will surely learn the know-how or the rudiments of a Smart City development, from the Dubai experience; but the political will and discipline to practice the ideas undiluted, is another topic for another day.
By Yacoob Abiodun (Former Secretary, National Housing Policy Council; Urban Planner; Planning Advocate)
The Earth passed another unfortunate milestone on May 23 when carbon dioxide (CO2) surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) at the South Pole for the first time in four million years.
South Pole
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the South Pole has shown the same, relentless upward trend in CO2 as the rest of world, but its remote location means it’s the last to register the impacts of increasing emissions from fossil fuel consumption, the primary driver of greenhouse gas pollution.
“The far southern hemisphere was the last place on earth where CO2 had not yet reached this mark,” said Pieter Tans, the lead scientist of the NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. “Global CO2 levels will not return to values below 400 ppm in our lifetimes, and almost certainly for much longer.”
Over the course of the year, CO2 levels rise during fall and winter and decline during the Northern Hemisphere’s summer as terrestrial plants consume CO2 during photosynthesis. But plants only capture a fraction of annual CO2 emissions, so for every year since observations began in 1958, there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere than the year before.
Last year’s global CO2 average reached 399 ppm, meaning that the global average in 2016 will almost certainly surpass 400 ppm. The only question is whether the lowest month for 2016 will also remain above 400.
Upward trend continues
And the annual rate of increase appears to be accelerating. The annual growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii jumped 3.05 ppm during 2015, the largest year-to-year increase in 56 years of monitoring. Part of last year’s jump was attributable to El Nino, the cyclical Pacific Ocean warming that produces extreme weather across the globe, causing terrestrial ecosystems to lose stored CO2 through wildfire, drought and heat waves.
Last year was the fourth consecutive year that CO2 grew more than 2 ppm – which set another record. This year promises to be the fifth.
“We know from abundant and solid evidence that the CO2 increase is caused entirely by human activities,” Tans said. “Since emissions from fossil fuel burning have been at a record high during the last several years, the rate of CO2 increase has also been at a record high. And we know some of it will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.”
Paris is this year’s Global Earth Hour Capital. WWF’s Earth Hour City Challenge recognises the “City of Light” as a role model for climate action and awards Paris for its ambitious vision and successful engagement with business, civil society and other cities on its journey toward sustainability.
Paris, France
Paris hosted last year’s historic global climate summit and has shown strong climate leadership, creating a model for other city governments to replicate. In addition to setting up an effective centralised Climate Agency, ensuring clean vehicles, extending public transportation and developing waste-to-fuel conversion, Paris has also incorporated a regular review process to ensure that the city is on track to meet its sustainability goals as well as the current and future needs of its citizens.
“As the world works to bring the Paris climate agreement into action, the ‘City of Light’ is leading by example,” said Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF International. “Winning WWF’s Earth Hour City Challenge reflects Paris’ commitment to inspire global action to reduce emissions and build environmental sustainability through green urban development.”
Selected from a shortlist of 18 national finalists, Paris impressed the international jury with its innovative actions, long-term vision and willingness to collaborate and share knowledge capital with cities around the globe.
WWF’s Earth Hour City Challenge 2016 saw participation from 125 cities representing 21 countries. Cities were evaluated on their level of ambition and innovation in developing climate-smart solutions that advance sustainable development under local circumstances.
National winners included Belo Horizonte, Brazil; Boulder, USA; Chiangrai, Thailand; Edmonton, Canada; Hue City, Vietnam; Jakarta, Indonesia; Lappeenranta, Finland; Montería, Colombia; Murcia, Spain; Petaling Jaya, Malaysia; Quito, Ecuador; Rajkot, India; Santa Rosa, Philippines; Shenzhen, China; City of Singapore, Singapore; Tshwane, South Africa and Umeå, Sweden.
Paris now joins the ranks of previous global Earth Hour City Challenge winners such as Vancouver, Cape Town and Seoul, all of whom have shown extraordinary leadership in developing innovative solutions for tackling climate change and reducing the ecological footprint of urban lifestyles.
“Paris, as a member of ICLEI, is a global forerunner in sustainability. The city’s ambitious, long-term, holistic vision, supported by concrete climate actions and ambitious targets set the bar high for the Earth Hour City Challenge this year. Paris has demonstrated its commitment to inspire, collaborate and exchange knowledge with cities around the world, taking this to new heights as the host of the COP21 last year,” said Gino Van Begin, Secretary General of ICLEI.
WWF works closely with ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability to mobilize cities to participate in the Earth Hour City Challenge. ICLEI provides the use of its carbon Climate Registry as the reporting platform for the initiative.
“I am very happy and honoured to see Paris and Parisians being rewarded with the prestigious Earth Hour City Challenge award by WWF. As Paris acts in concrete terms against air pollution, this recognition encourages us to go further in linking public health and protection of the environment,” said Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris. “Cities have always been on the front line of change, and have always foreseen, prefigured and pre-empted the future. This makes them key actors of the ecological transition. Paris will take up this 21st century challenge,” continued Hidalgo.
Separately, on 30 June, WWF will announce the winner of the We Love Cities campaign – the public engagement arm of the Earth Hour City Challenge – on welovecities.org and through social media. The We Love Cities campaign engages citizens around the world to express their support for cities committed to sustainability through votes, tweets and Instagram pictures. To date, more than 230,000 people have voted for their favourite urban area from the 46 cities profiled on the campaign’s website. Voting closes on 26 June 2016 at 11:59 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
