Eight new public sector project proposals have been published ahead of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board’s 13th meeting scheduled to hold later this month.
Hela Cheikhrouhou, Executive Director of the Green Climate Fund. Photo credit: gettyimages.com
The proposals amount to a total request for investment of $208 million from the Fund. They will be considered at the Board’s B.13 meeting which will take place from 28-30 June at GCF’s headquarters in Songdo, Republic of Korea.
In line with the Fund’s mission to address both emissions and resilience, five of the proposals will increase the capacity of countries to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, two are aimed at lowering emissions growth, and one proposal will support both objectives of adapting and reducing emissions.
Project proposals are drawn from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America & the Caribbean and Eastern Europe regions, and cover activities ranging from energy efficiency investments through to building coastal resilience in vulnerable areas.
The proposals are taken from GCF’s pipeline, which has now reached 41 proposals totalling funding requests for $2.4 billion, with a total project value of $6.6 billion.
Approval of this tranche of funding proposals would bring the Fund’s investment portfolio to a total GCF funding amount of $376 million, with a $943 million total project cost.
Wildlife crime: a poached elephant. Photo credit: kiregodal.com
The GWP is a global partnership established to address the growing poaching crisis and an international call to action. The value of illegal trade has been estimated at between $10 and $23 billion per year, making wildlife crime the fourth most lucrative illegal business after narcotics, human trafficking and weapons.
The new $131 million programme is expected to leverage $704 million in additional co-financing over seven years. The national projects aim to promote wildlife conservation, wildlife crime prevention, and sustainable development in order to reduce adverse impacts to known threatened species from poaching and illegal trade. Additionally, a global coordination grant from the GEF will strengthen cooperation and facilitate knowledge exchange between national governments, development agency partners, and leading practitioners.
“Poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking are reaching unprecedented levels, robbing the livelihoods of local communities and eroding the global commons,” said Naoko Ishii, GEF CEO and Chairperson. “In response, the GEF has launched a major international effort to help tackle the supply, trade and demand for wildlife products. Importantly, the project is not only about stopping the slaughter of animals in the forests and savannas of Africa; it also aims at reducing the demand in Asia.”
Combating the illegal trade in wildlife is a high priority for the GEF. Last month, at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, GEF joined other partners to support the launch of the Wild for Life campaign. This new UN-led campaign urges politicians, celebrities and business leaders to help bring global attention to the fight against the illegal wildlife trade.
“The GWP is a direct response to the rampant wildlife poaching and trafficking that are destroying countries’ natural capital, eroding the foundation of important economic sectors such as nature-based tourism, diminishing the rights of local communities and their access to livelihood options, and fuelling criminal activities. The World Bank, as lead implementing agency of the GWP, is collaborating with countries and partner agencies to increase capacity and knowledge sharing, and collectively ensure the real value of wildlife is realised,” said Ms. Paula Caballero, Senior Director, Environment & Natural Resources Global Practice, World Bank.
The GEF agencies contributing to the partnership include the Asian Development Bank (ADB), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Bank Group (WBG) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator, said: “Wildlife poaching and the illicit trade of wildlife and forest products are abhorrent. This multi-billion-dollar worldwide trade is a security issue, an environmental issue, and a development issue. It is pushing vulnerable and endangered species toward extinction. The illicit trade is also fuelling corruption and conflict, destroying lives, and deepening poverty and inequality. If not addressed decisively, illicit poaching and wildlife trade will have significant national economic impacts. UNDP is thus proud to be a key partner of the new Global Wildlife Programme, spearheaded and financed by the GEF, in partnership with other organisations, including the World Bank. At UNDP, through these joint efforts, we are committed to helping to stop the illegal trade.”
“Wildlife crime is serious crime and threatens progress towards sustainable development. It destroys biodiversity, denies governments billions of dollars in revenue, prevents communities from obtaining sustainable livelihoods, and undermines law enforcement and national security,” said Nessim Ahmad, Deputy Director General from the Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department at the Asian Development Bank.
In June 2015, the GEF approved 10 national projects from Botswana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Zambia. Thursday’s announcement expands this multifocal programme to strengthen the capacity of governments to combat poaching and trafficking of wildlife, and wildlife products in key range and transit countries that are in the front lines of combatting wildlife crime. The nine additional countries include Afghanistan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
“We are excited to welcome the nine additional country projects to the GWP. This is an opportune moment to scale up our collective efforts and use this global programme to enhance collaboration and achieve greater results across regions and ecosystems to promote wildlife conservation,” said Dr. Claudia Sobrevila, Global Wildlife Programme Manager. “The current crisis in illegal trade of wildlife is a reflection of how much more we need to do to conserve wildlife and promote jobs for local communities. Together with our partners, we are determined to combat wildlife crime across the value chain, engage communities in sustainable livelihood alternatives, and improve the governance of natural resources.”
“Strong partnerships are essential to tackle the complex and multi-sector issues related to wildlife conservation. Vietnam is committed to strengthening existing partnerships creating new ones to preserve our biodiversity and save endangered species from extinction. With the approval of our national project, Vietnam looks forward to collaborating with other GWP countries to strengthen partnerships and share experiences to help enhance results of the individual national projects,” said Dr. Hoang Thi Thanh Nhan, Deputy Director of Vietnam’s Biodiversity Conservation Agency.
The GWP provides an engagement platform for developing countries and the international donor community to coordinate efforts across the supply chain. Further, it aligns with existing efforts, including the International Consortium to Combat Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) that promote effective law enforcement and governance nationally and internationally.
Activities in the programme in the source countries will include enhancing anti-poaching tracking and intelligence operations, increasing the size of conservation areas and improving their management, and providing opportunities for development through nature-based tourism and other agriculture, forestry and natural resource projects that benefit local communities. In transit states, the programme will support anti-smuggling and customs controls and in the demand countries, the GWP will initiate targeted awareness raising campaigns that will help increase legal deterrents for purchase of wildlife and wildlife products.
UNEP Executive Director, Achim Steiner, said, “The victims of wildlife crime are not only the animals and ecosystems that are devastated by poaching and trafficking, they are people as well. The human cost of poaching and illegal trade in wildlife is measured in lives lost to the criminal networks involved and livelihoods destroyed by the erosion of a natural economic foundation. Ending the illegal trade in wildlife requires a concerted and cooperative effort between all sectors. These new projects will further these efforts and help bring us closer to ending wildlife crime once and for all.”
“Illegal wildlife trade in the Philippines contributes to economic losses of at least $240 million per year. We are pleased to work with our partners to strengthen the law enforcement chain and reduce demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife parts. The GEF project will reinforce implementation of the long-term Wildlife Law Enforcement Action Plan (WildLEAP) 2016-2028 – a national framework to combat wildlife trafficking in the country and promote wildlife conservation and inclusive growth,” said Atty Mundita Lim, Director, Biodiversity Management Bureau, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Collectively, the GWP countries make up an incredible repository of biodiversity and potential for sustainable development. The Programme’s integrated platform will support national governments and development partners implement targeted interventions to help reverse the impacts of wildlife lost to poaching and negative livelihood impacts experienced by local communities.
The 50th GEF Council Meeting is taking place from June 7-9, 2016, in Washington DC. The Council meeting also marks the 25th anniversary of the GEF being at the forefront of tackling the planet’s most pressing environmental problems. In its 25-year history, the GEF has invested some $14.5 billion – and leveraged an additional $75.4 billion – for nearly 4,000 projects in 167 countries.
Following a five-month progress report, the African Cassava Agronomy Initiative (ACAI) Project has established 137 limiting nutrient and 70 intercrop trials in a bid to crack the agronomy of cassava.
Agronomy implies the science of soil management and crop production. Centered on improving cassava production, the project aims to improve the livelihoods and incomes of cassava farmers in Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda.
A statement released by Godwin Atser, Communication and Knowledge Exchange Expert at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, disclosed that, so far, “20 limiting nutrient trials have been established in Nigeria and 117 in Tanzania,” while for “the intercrop trials, 29 cassava/maize trials have been established in Nigeria, and 41 cassava/sweet potato trials in Tanzania.”
ACAI’s Project Leader, Dr. Abdulai Jalloh, said that the trials would help researchers to answer key questions that relate to cassava agronomy. “Understanding the agronomy of cassava is a crucial step towards maximising the genetic gain of the root crop.”
The statement further disclosed that the project has plans for 667 trials in both Nigeria and Tanzania across the four use cases directly associated with field experimentation. “These are as follows: fertilizer recommendation (295); best planting practices (150); intercropping (202), and staggered planting (20),” it disclosed.
While the trials so far established represent about 44% of the targeted total number of trials, the progress report shows that, across countries, establishment of trials has been higher in Tanzania with 82%, compared to Nigeria, which has 26%.
“This is mainly due to the varying rainy season and farming systems in the two countries. The rains for the first planting during which most of the planting has been done in Tanzania are relatively earlier (March/April), while the main planting season for cassava in Nigeria is April/May. The remaining trials will be planted by the end of May/June in Nigeria while the rest of the planting in Tanzania has been shifted to the second planting in October/November. In general, the trials will be established within the window of planting by the farmers in both countries,” the statement explained.
The Central Africa Director of the IITA, Dr. Bernard Vanlauwe, said, “We hope that more trials will be set up as we enter June when rains would have steadied in Nigeria.”
Costa Rica is an especially biodiverse country, holding about 4% of the world’s known species. Sadly, the country is contractually obligated to keep two of its zoos open for another decade.
Still, after that, they plan to shut it down in favour of a cage-free habitat for the animals to live in.
Treehugger reports that the nation, which also recently banned hunting for sport, will close the last two zoos in the next 10 years and give the animals a more natural habitat in which to exist. They want to convey to the world that they respect and care for wild animals.
Environmental Minister René Castro says, “We are getting rid of the cages and reinforcing the idea of interacting with biodiversity in botanical parks in a natural way.”
We don’t want animals in captivity or enclosed in any way unless it is to rescue or save them.”
Any animals currently in captivity that would not survive in the wild will be cared for in rescue centres and wildlife sanctuaries. No new zoos will be opened.
The biological effects and medical applications of radiation from wireless communication technologies and domestic gadgets have been debatable.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) states that more than 25,000 articles have been published over the last 30 years on the subject.
This report looks at what happens when we are exposed to to electromagnetic frequencies and how we may protect ourselves.
People often buy the quality of cookware that fits their budget.
After all, the end result of a cooked meal is what matters the most.
Studies have it that the wrong kind of cookware could be endangering your health.
Following the commencement of rainy season in parts of Nigeria, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is sensitising stakeholders on the need to start early preparation against flood in the country.
UNICEF Emergency Specialist, Olusoji Adeniyi, stressing a point during the programme
In 2015, hundreds of houses and lives were destroyed by floods that affected more than 10 states across the country. Thousands of people in both rural and urban communities were displaced by the floods.
Some of the 2015 floods victims recently received government assistance from National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)
A three-day Emergency and Preparedness Response workshop on Flood was organised recently by UNICEF for emergency preparedness stakeholders in 13 states in the Northern part of the country plus the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and media practitioners.
UNICEF Emergency Specialist, Olusoji Adeniyi, stressed the need for people to start emergency preparedness in their homes, saying the rains are here and the floods are going to come whether people like it or not.
He explained that emergency preparedness and response is everybody’s business, adding: “If we prepare, we are likely to have better chance of responding appropriately.”
“So, if you know you are living in a place that was flooded before, this is the time you should know that it’s likely to flood again and you should have a Plan B of when you need to relocate to higher ground or to clear your drains. Make sure that sufficient provisions are made for the water to flow away rather than flow into your apartment, if your environment is clean and the drains are well taken care of you are likely not to suffer flood,” he said.
in his remarks, Media and External Relations Officer, UNICEF Kaduna, Rabiu Musa, who delivered a paper on “Media Engagement in Emergencies”, noted that emergencies are facts which is part of people’s daily lives and as such must be prepared for, addressed and responded appropriately and timely too.
He sought the cooperation of the media which he said has a greater role to play in sensitising the public on emergency response.
Rabiu called on the media to continue to deliver on positive reportage in constantly educating and informing the people on issues of emergencies and to also respect people’s privacy especially when it concerns children and women.
A coalition of civil society groups comprising the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria/Friends of the Earth International (ERA/FoEN/FoEI), has accused the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) of defying government policy statement and going ahead to issue permits for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in the country.
Critics fear genetically modified foods can cause environmental harm and damage human health. Photo credit: dailymail.co.uk
The coalition disclosed in a statement issued on Wednesday in Benin City, Edo State that the NBMA also acted contrary to efforts by millions of Nigerians to resist the product.
Nnimmo Bassey (Director, HOMEF) and Mariann Orovwuje (Food Sovereignty Manager/Coordinator, ERA/FoEN/FoEI) disclosed in the statement: “Despite the promise of the Minister of State for Environment, Ibrahim Jibril that ‘Nigeria would not mortgage the safety of its citizens by introducing unproven products into the country’ and the concerted efforts by over five million Nigerians (made up of 100 groups comprising farmers, faith-based organisations, civil society groups, students and local farmers) to prevent the introduction of genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize into Nigeria’s foods and farming system, the NBMA has issued two permits, one for the Commercial Release and Placing on Market of genetically modified cotton and the other for the confined field trial of maize, to Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Limited.”
The two permits have been posted on NBMA website. They were signed by the Director-General of NBMA, Rufus Ebegba, on Sunday, 1st May, 2016 and issued to Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Limited. The first is entitled: “Permit for Commercial release / Placing on Market of Cotton (MON15985) genetically modified for lepidopteran insect pest resistance” with Permit No: NBMA/CM/IM/001. The second is entitled: “Permit for Confined Field Trial (CFT) of maize (NK603 and MON 89034 x NK603) genetically modified for insect resistance and herbicide tolerance” with Permit No: NBMA/C FT/001.
Reacting to the development, Bassey stressed: “This is extremely shocking. Little wonder officials of NBMA, National Biotech Development Agency (NABDA) and their pro-GMO train have been fighting tooth and nail to fool Nigerians by claiming that GMOs are safe! They approved the poorly concocted applications and issued these permits on a Sunday when government offices do not open. In fact, 2nd May was also a public holiday.”
Orovwuje disclosed: “Several main areas of concern had been identified regarding objections to the release (and placement in the market) of GM Cotton and confined field trial of Maize in Nigeria. There are serious concerns and they include amongst many: health concerns, environmental concerns, socio-economic concerns, technical and administrative concerns, molecular concerns, safety assessments, environment risk assessment, secondary pests and insect resistance and many more concerns have been extensively laid out in our submissions to NBMA objecting to Monsanto’s applications.”
In the objection to Monsanto’s applications, the concerned Nigerians stated that in its application MON 15985, Monsanto is using genes referred to as cry2Ab2 and cry1Ac, which produce Bt toxins that have been synthetically manufactured with no history of safe use in nature. The insertion of the antibiotic resistant marker gene (ARMG) causes concerns regarding the potential transfer of antibiotic resistance to other living organisms. This concern, which is dismissed by the applicant, has been raised by a scientific panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), stating that this particular ARMG should be restricted to field trial purposes and should not be present in GM plants to be placed on the market – this is what NBMA has released into the Nigerian market.
The groups also complained that there is no baseline data regarding the quantity, spread and use of cottonseed meal/cakes/oil used for human or animal consumption in Nigeria, and therefore no foundation for the assessment of food and feed safety.
Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour, a concerned consumer, faults NBMA’s decisions, saying: “The claim of the agency shocking when it claims that in arriving ‘at this decision the National Biosafety Management Agency took into consideration the advice of National Biosafety Committee National Biosafety Technical Sub-committee and public views. The Agency was convinced that there are no known adverse impacts to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity taking into account risk to human health.’ The agencies they consulted are in the business of promoting these toxic and risky GMOs in Nigeria. We do not also know which public NBMA consulted.”
Bassey said, “We have always said the NBMA Act of 2015 is gravely defective, because its governing board is filled with GMO promoters such as NABDA and the Biotechnology Society of Nigeria. Those GMO promoters are concerned with ensuring the profit of biotech entrepreneurs rather than the health and environmental concerns of Nigerians. A case in point is that NABDA a member of the Board of NBMA is a co-sponsor with Monsanto of the application for the field trials of the GMO maize. We are also appalled that an agency saddled with defending Nigeria’s biodiversity is actively promoting these risky technologies.
“NBMA approved Monsanto’s proposal for Bt cotton despite the fact that on the 14th of April, 2016, our neighbours, Burkina-Faso’s cabinet announced their goal to reduce the acreage for genetically modified cotton this season until it’s completely phased out in 2018 and replaced by conventional cotton. The reached that decision because GMO cotton yielded shorter fibres and they were thus suffering economic loses.
“NBMA approved the glysophate herbicide resistant maize despite the IARC report, that linked the active ingredient glyphosate to cancer. It is no surprise that nations like Sri Lanka, amongst others, heeded and took action by banning Monsanto’s roundup herbicide because of its link to Kidney disease. That NBMA is considering giving us this ‘Trojan horse’ gift is indeed unfortunate knowing the low level of use of protective gears by our rural farmers and communities living close to farms. References used in support of claims made by Monsanto are too old and none referred to the two GM maize events specifically but are general references for normal maize research. This may be due to the lack of thorough scientific peer-reviewed research carried out in support of the claims made in the application, or is a deliberate effort at hiding information. We note that no details of feeding studies whatsoever were provided by the applicant.
“No data is given on the safety of the chemicals to which the events are resistant, namely glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs). In fact, no information on experiments carried out has been made available. The application is of extremely poor quality. The application ends on page 50 without comprehensive information on insect pest resistance, which is a critical aspect of the information required to justly appraise the application in relation to the insect-resistance trait and in particular to purpose 3 of the field trials to evaluate the efficacy of the MON 89034 × NK603 against certain Lepidopteran pests.
“Throughout the application, Monsanto asserts that NK603 and MON 89034 × NK603 are equivalent to conventional maize. The theory of ‘equivalence’ is a worn out argument that has been discredited by independent science, including in a joint South Africa – Norway biosafety project published in 2011. (See SANBI (2011). Monitoring the environmental impacts of GM maize in South Africa: The outcomes of the South Africa – Norway biosafety co-operation project (2008 – 2010). Department of Environmental Affairs.
“NBMA Approved this herbicide resistant GMO knowing full well that The EU nations have refused to back a limited extension of the pesticide glyphosate’s use, threatening withdrawal of Monsanto’s Roundup and other weed killers from shelves if no decision is reached by the end of this month.”
Commenting on the decision, Bart Staes MEP environment and food safety spokesperson said: “We applaud those EU governments who are sticking to their guns and refusing to authorise this controversial toxic herbicide. There are clear concerns about the health risks with glyphosate, both as regards it being a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor. Moreover, glyphosate’s devastating impact on biodiversity should have already led to its ban. Thankfully, the significant public mobilisation and political opposition to re-approving glyphosate has been taken seriously by key EU governments, who have forced the EU commission to back down.”
On May 26, 2016, a St. Louis jury ordered Monsanto to pay $46.5 million in damages for negligence in the production of polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. This case, which went on trial April 28 2016, involved just three of nearly 100 plaintiffs “claiming that exposure to PCBs caused cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bassey adds: “Sadly, while a number of plaintiffs have died as a result of the cancers they developed from Monsanto’s toxic PCBs, their claims were made by surviving relatives. The suit claims that Monsanto knew about the dangers of PCBs decades ago, but gave false testimony and scientific information to the public saying it was safe.
“Further damaging evidences pile up against indicted Monsanto: A trial in Redlands, California in May 2016 on the dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup reveals that ‘it is not only glyphosate that is dangerous, but also chemicals listed as inert ingredients.’ A high court in Paris has punished a high ranking official representing Monsanto’s interests for deceitfully covering up research data proving that Monsanto was hiding toxicity of its own corn. The information showed that it could promote neuro-developmental disabilities including autism, attention-deficit, disorder, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments affecting millions of children worldwide and seem to be increasing in frequency.
“Essentially, therefore, GMO maize and cotton into Nigeria must be rejected because they would not only create health challenges, sterilise agric-potentials of the nation but scuttle the change agenda of the current government just as they would lead to neo-colonisation of Nigeria and Africa. The time to stop it is now.
“It is a mark of utter recklessness that NBMA would rush to issue approvals for GMOs to be released in Nigeria less than a year of the NBMA Act coming into force. We demand that the permits surreptitiously issued to Monsanto on a platter of gold without regard to the concerns of millions of Nigerians should be revoked immediately. We also urge that the recently enacted National Biosafety Agency Management Act should be quickly repealed to prevent NBMA from running amok with GMOs and flooding our country with these risky organisms.”
To help developing countries monitor and report progress in a transparent manner under the Paris Climate Agreement, a new financial initiative and an associated trust fund was approved on Tuesday in Washington, DC by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council.
Naoko Ishii, CEO and Chairperson of the GEF
Set up in response to a Paris Agreement decision, the Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) trust fund will help countries in their efforts to build institutional and technical capacity for meeting enhanced transparency of action and support needs.
Many developing countries still lack the necessary capacity to effectively monitor and report their progress vis-à-vis national greenhouse gas emission reduction, and track progress made in the implementation of their Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs.
“The Paris Climate Agreement represented a watershed moment for the global commons,” said Naoko Ishii, GEF CEO and Chairperson. “One key success factor to the Agreement is its bottom-up approach, building on countries’ INDCs. Transparency of reporting is the linchpin to the credibility of, and mutual confidence in, the agreement.”
Addressing the 50th GEF Council meeting in the US capital, Ishii said, “I am honoured that countries have put their trust in the GEF to take on this important task. We are fully committed to support the CBIT, which I believe is key to ensure the success of the Paris Agreement. I also want to express my appreciation to donor countries, who are considering to make voluntary contributions, and to the recipient countries, who are committed to start implementing the CBIT.”
A number of donor countries have expressed their support for the new fund, including pledges of US $15 million from the United States, £10 million from the United Kingdom, and CAD $5 million from Canada. Others, including Germany, Italy and New Zealand have also confirmed their intention to announce pledges of support in the near future. The World Bank has been invited to serve as the Trustee for the CBIT Trust Fund.
“Transparency is a bedrock of the Paris Agreement. The United States recognises that an enhanced transparency system will require greater efforts from all countries,” said U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing. “Our $15 million pledge is an indication of our strong commitment to building developing countries’ institutional and technical capacity to meet these enhanced transparency requirements.”
COP21 in Paris last December requested the GEF to support the establishment and operation of the CBIT as a priority reporting-related need, including through voluntary donor contributions. The aims of the CBIT are to strengthen national institutions for transparency-related activities in line with national priorities, to provide relevant tools, training and assistance for meeting the provisions stipulated in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement, and to assist in the improvement of transparency over time.
At COP21, the GEF was reconfirmed as the financing mechanism for the climate convention. Parties also requested the GEF to consider how to support developing country Parties in formulating policies, strategies, and programs and projects to implement activities that advance priorities identified in their respective climate action plans, or INDCs, in a manner consistent with the operational policies and guidelines of the GEF, starting in 2016. To respond to this guidance, the GEF is now encouraging governments to align the GEF programming for GEF-6 with INDC priorities, i.e., asking for more explicit linkage between INDCs and how GEF resources are programmed.
The 50th session of the GEF Council opened with strong endorsement by many member governments for the strategic direction the organisation is heading.
In her opening remarks to the Council, Ishii, said, “The worsening global environment is an ever increasing threat to our global aspirations for growth, jobs, security and prosperity. In many ways, the GEF’s support for Earth’s life support systems is needed more than ever.”
Referring to the opportunities presented by the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement, she said, “We need to build on the momentum created by the SDGs and Paris and strengthen this emerging global movement for safeguarding the global environmental commons. It’s the wisest investment we can make.”
“I am convinced that only when everybody plays their part, can we achieve the massive transformation in our economies that we need to safeguard the global commons,” she added.
The GEF Council meeting is also marking the 25th anniversary of the GEF being at the forefront of tackling the planet’s most pressing environmental problems. In its 25-year history, the GEF has invested some $14.5 billion – and leveraged an additional $75.4 billion – for nearly 4,000 projects in 167 countries.
The African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE), an Agency of the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) and Nigeria’s Godfrey Okoye University, Enugu will hold a training programme for African policy and decision-makers on Biosafety, in collaboration with the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) and the Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
Main gate to the Godfrey Okoye University campus, permanent site, Ugwuomo Nike, Enugu. The institution is hosting the biosafety training
According to a Concept Note developed by the organisers, the training is in recognition of the “opportunities and challenges that modern biotechnology offers for enhancing agricultural productivity in Africa.”
Similar short courses, ABNE states, had been held in partnership with African universities including “the Polytechnic University of Bobo Dioulasso in Burkina Faso (2013), the Makarere University in Uganda (2014 & 2015) and the University of Ghana in Ghana (2015),” adding that “the courses aim at empowering policy and decision makers and other important stakeholders with current information on biosafety and biotechnology to enable them effectively support regulatory processes.”
The Concept Note further stated that the choice of Nigeria as a host country and Godfrey Okoye as the host University was informed by Nigeria’s participation in the inaugural short course in Ghana and noting its relevance in garnering stakeholders support for biosafety processes.
“The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) requested ABNE’s support for the hosting of the Short Biosafety Course in Nigeria as well as Godfrey Okoye, a private and one of the fastest growing universities in Nigeria with strong competencies in biotechnology as hosting university. GO also offered to share the cost of the training.
“With the Biosafety Act being passed in 2015 and the subsequent establishment of the NBMA, it is necessary to build a critical mass of stakeholders that will offer support at both institutional and national levels to the biosafety regulatory system,” the Note further stated.
The objectives of the short course are: “To introduce policy and decision makers with evidence-based information on biosafety and biotechnology to help demystify the science and regulation of the technology; to increase awareness among key actors on their role, and the significance of having functional regulatory systems for biotechnology; to provide a platform for networking among key actors and to foster inter-agency collaborations and to promote biosafety awareness amongst key stakeholder and actors to facilitate their participation in biosafety decision making.”
The course program comprises: Environmental issues associated with agricultural production;
Overview of environmental biosafety, and crop biology; Environmental and food safety issues associated with GM crops; functional Biosafety Administration during the GM crop development (laboratory, greenhouse testing and field testing); Biosafety of GM crops considerations beyond confined field trial (CFT); post release consideration of GM crops; a visit to biotech laboratories; and confined field trial (CFT) of GM crop at National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike, Nigeria.
It is expected that, at the end of the course, capacity would be built in regulators for science-based risk evaluation and justified decision making process as well as development of regional biosafety experts and establishment of a network.
Those expected to attend the three-day training include policy makers, technocrats, regulators and legal practitioners in government ministries, departments and agencies who may be directly or indirectly involved in regulating biotechnology, news editors in selected government and private media organizations, leaders of farmers’ groups and other interested stakeholders.
