A collaborative international assessment of hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers published since 2005 finds significant, albeit indirect, evidence that access to voluntary family planning can contribute to an environmentally sustainable world.
A couple receiving family planning counselling. Photo credit: Sala Lewis, champions4choice.org
Among more than 900 peer-reviewed scientific papers published since 2005, the Family Planning and Environmental Sustainability Assessment (FPESA), a project of the Worldwatch Institute, found data and researchers’ conclusions suggesting that:
Major reductions in unintended pregnancies – now accounting for two out of five pregnancies worldwide – would lower birth rates in high-consuming and low-consuming countries alike.
Achieving a low trajectory of world population growth could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the first half of the 21st century to an extent comparable to eliminating all deforestation.
Greater use of family planning would facilitate more participation by women in economic activity and in civil society, which could improve environmental outcomes locally and globally.
“Linking environmental benefits to family planning can be controversial, since the use of family planning is – and should always be – a private choice that people make for their own reasons,” noted Robert Engelman, former President of the Worldwatch Institute, who directed the FPESA project. “Yet demonstrated synergies between the two might help advance both environmental sustainability and access to family planning for those who want it. Our objective has been to see what the scientific literature has to say about the connection and to assess the evidence base.”
Through collaborative evaluation of 939 papers, identified through expert interviews and database searches, the FPESA project collectively ranked 112 papers as “certainly relevant” to the hypothesis that family planning benefits the environment, with another 302 ranked as “probably relevant.”
The bulk of the “certainly relevant” papers lend support to the hypothesis, with a few papers somewhat undermining it but none directly countering it. A conceptual framework guiding the evaluation included both slower population growth and the empowerment of women as pathways through which family planning might contribute positively to environmental sustainability.
The project team and a network of international researchers collaborating in the assessment share a commitment to the human rights foundation of family planning as a choice for couples and individuals alone in deciding if and when to have a child. The group identified no research suggesting that a weakening of this foundation would make any contribution to sustainability.
A comprehensive report on the project’s findings to date – Family Planning and Environmental Sustainability: Assessing the Science – was launched on June 29 at the Woodrow Wilson Centre for International Scholars in Washington, D.C. The report includes an annotated bibliography and assessments of the 50 papers that are most compelling and relevant to the hypothesis.
No research discipline directly explores the hypothesis that family planning contributes to environmental sustainability. Not surprisingly, scientific papers making this connection proved to be scarce. A high proportion of the reviewed papers that were found to be relevant to the hypothesis, however, assert or demonstrate an influence of population size, growth, or resource demands on the environment. A smaller proportion of the reviewed papers lend credence to the idea that women who are able to make their own reproductive choices are more likely to contribute to environmental sustainability through consumption choices or participation in politics and civil society.
The assessment also explored a secondary hypothesis: that research interest in the family planning – environmental sustainability linkage is widespread among women and men in developing as well as developed countries.
“That hypothesis, we feel, is fully confirmed,” Engelman said, based on the diversity of the project’s network of research assessors and on the high proportions of relevant paper authors who are women and/or are from developing countries. “Given high levels of interest in the potential contribution of family planning to the environment, and the importance of the linkage for both sustainability and reproductive health and rights, more research – and funding for it – is critically needed, especially for young researchers and those in developing countries.”
The assessment team consists of Engelman, now a Senior Fellow at Worldwatch, and Research Assistant Yeneneh Girma Terefe, along with several consultants and an active network of 16 research assessors. Seven assessors are women, while 13 work in or are from developing countries. Articles by some consultants and assessors are included in the report.
The consultants were Vicky Markham, Kenneth R. Weiss, and Sam Sellers. Network assessors were Edward Amankwah, Alaka Basu, Wanangwa Chimwaza-Manda, Samuel Nii Ardrey Codjoe, Javiera Fanta, Bhola R. Gurjar, Gladys Kalema-Zikusoka, Hafiz T.A. Khan, Zena Lyaga, Wilkister Nyaora Moturi, Casianes Olilo, Margaret Perkins, Muhammad Abdur Rahaman, Sam Sellers, Dirk Van Braeckel, and Samson Wasao.
To ensure maximum comfort and minimal travel time, DHL provided a dedicated Boeing 757-200 freighter to transport female eastern black rhino Eliska from Czech Republic to Tanzanian sanctuary as part of a conservation project
Eliska the Rhino flies home. Photo credit: aircargonews.net
International express delivery provider, DHL, has completed what it describes as a “landmark transportation project” with the delivery of a black rhino from its birthplace in the Czech Republic to its natural homeland in Tanzania. Three-year-old female Eliska was recently moved to a natural park in Tanzania as part of an ongoing conservation project run by the George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust, aimed at helping endangered animal populations to grow and prosper in their natural habitat.
“The delivery of Eliska to Tanzania continues a proud tradition at DHL Express of supporting international animal conservation efforts,” said Ken Allen, CEO, DHL Express. “We were very excited to have the opportunity to transport this beautiful animal home to Africa and to play our part in these critical efforts to help revive endangered Eastern black rhino populations. Complex projects like this, where failure is simply not an option, also allow us to showcase the power of the DHL global network and the expertise of our certified international specialists.”
Eliska’s move was overseen by an international DHL team, comprising around 40 specialists in areas ranging from ground transportation and aviation to customs clearance and certification across more than five countries. The 900-kilogramme female was transferred from ZOO Dvur Kralove in the Czech Republic, where she was born in 2012, to the main DHL European Hub in Leipzig, Germany. She was then loaded on to a dedicated 28-ton Boeing 757-200 freighter, specially modified for animal transport, and flown more than 6,500 kilometres directly to Kilimanjaro Airport in Tanzania, from where she was transferred by truck to her new home. Along the way, she was accompanied and monitored by a team of support staff, including Dr. Pete Morkel, one of the world’s leading black rhino veterinarians. Five containers of food and water supplies were also loaded for the journey.
“We were delighted that DHL was able to support us with this project, as we were only prepared to entrust Eliska to partners who could absolutely guarantee a safe and seamless move,” said Tony Fitzjohn OBE, Field Director, The George Adamson Wildlife Preservation Trust. “Having the support of an experienced team of international transport specialists allowed us to focus without any distraction on the comfort and well-being of Eliska and to ensure that she had the best possible introduction to her new life in Africa.”
Eastern black rhinos are one of the most endangered mammal groups, with large-scale poaching in the late 20thcentury leading to a significant decline in black rhino populations in Africa. There are estimated to be about 800 in the world today. ZOO Dvur Kralove, where Eliska was born, has a strong record of breeding Eastern black rhinos, with 43 calves of the species born to date.
“Eliska’s departure is a bitter-sweet moment for ZOO Dvur Kralove. We are sorry to say goodbye to one of our much-loved animals, but at the same time, we are extremely gratified to have played a part in this important conservation project and excited to see how she adapts to her natural habitat,” said Přemysl Rabas, Statutory Director of ZOO Dvur Kralove. “The build-up to her move to Tanzania has involved years of careful preparation, and we are sure that – with DHL – she is in the right hands for the journey.”
According to DHL, it has supported a number of major conservation projects in recent years, including the delivery of three black rhinos from the U.K. to Tanzania in 2012 and the delivery of two rare Sumatran tigers from Australia and the U.S. to London Zoo in the same year as part of a breeding program. A 2013 project to transfer two giant pandas from China to a Belgian sanctuary resulted in the ‘perfect delivery’ in June 2016, when the female gave birth to a panda cub.
Hennie Heymans, CEO, DHL Express Sub Saharan Africa adds, “As facilitators of global trade, it’s fantastic that we can use our logistics expertise for such an important conservation project, and we trust that Eliska will flourish in her new home in Africa.”
In my previous article published in EnviroNews Nigeria edition of Sunday, June 26, 2016, I touched on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the Lagos State Government (LASG) and Smart City Dubai for the creation of Africa’s first smart city, Smart City Lagos. Some issues of concern were discussed, which included location, state of preparedness by the LASG, pattern of development and Omo onile aspect. I went on to make suggestions on what government can do to avoid delay. I dwelt on style of approach to realising the big dream of a Smart City Lagos by suggesting that officials of Team Smart City Lagos must take stock and found out if the key ingredients that would propel the project to success are readily available locally. This part II of the article is a continuation of the discourse on more salient issues which, for reason of space, were not covered in part I. I consider them very significant and helpful, because all well-meaning residents of Lagos support the initiative of turning the fortunes of Lagos Mega City around for better livability, economic prosperity and sustainable urbanism. Therefore, all hands must be on deck.
A view of the Lagos Marina
A smart city is not “from-the-shelf or ready-made project”. It is not something that could be done in a hurry. It is not a project of immediate result, but an incremental development which will gradually evolve along a time-line Plan of Action, premised on Strategic Planning with specific elements of achievable targets. Smart City Dubai (SCD) Project is a “glove-fit example” of what I am trying to explain here. Based on my research findings, the SCD project was designed to achieve targets in six focus areas: “smart life, smart transportation, smart society, smart economy, smart governance and smart environment.” The umbrella plan where SCD idea emanated from is Dubai Plan 2021, which the SCD project derived its six areas of focus.
I quote the mission statement of Dubai Plan 2021, which perfectly aligns with the six focus areas of SCD project:
A city of happy, creative and empowered people
A smart and sustainable city
An inclusive and cohesive city
A pivotal hub in the global economy
The preferred place to live, work and visit
A pioneering and excellent government (Dubai Plan 2021).
The strategy to achieve all of the above planning goals relies on a tripod principle: efficient communication, integration and co-operation.
It is instructive to note that, as far back as 1990, the Dubai Authority had started laying the foundation of the essential infrastructure and high-yield economic activities that would make her economy very buoyant: tourism, world-class malls, sporting complexes, high end hotels, globally linked telecommunications, clusters of hi-tech industries/ business townships, efficient air and surface transportation, home-grown and high-skilled workforce, good governance and prudent fiscal management aided by a supportive government from with emanated policies and regulations that encouraged friendly business environment. With all of these essentials, a strong foundation for the development of Smart City Dubai became a fait accompli.
The Smart City Lagos is a smart initiative. It is an initiative that would outlive its initiator(s) long after they have left office. What LASG must ensure and entrench is a solid foundation which will guarantee uninterrupted implementation of this laudable project, even when there is a change of administration from one election circle to the other. As the political head of the current administration in Lagos, State, Governor Akinwunmi Amobde is credited for his progressive visions for “Future Lagos” including the Smart City Lagos, the focus of this piece. However, expectations must not be raised too high that all the visions he has for Lagos would be accomplished in one “fell swoop” during his tenure. Government job is always a “work-in-progress”, a continuum. Where an administration ends, is where the next administration will take off. Smart City is an unending process. “Governments will continue to explore, refine and continuously revive ideas until they get it right.” (Infographic).
As pointed out earlier, Smart City is a product of painstaking/strategic planning. It even goes beyond that assertion. This now brings me to the central focus of the part II article.
Steps Team Smart City Lagos should consider taking
Engage the citizens and other perceived stakeholders to jointly create a Smart City Lagos (SCL) vision. Avoid elitism. Stimulate citizen-led public discussions using different avenue/forum for both the educated and non-educated citizenry as a way of enlisting everybody’s support/collaboration. Use the opportunity of the public engagement to sell the SCL’s ideas and its focus. For example, elaborate on how government would make “Lagos cleaner, safer and more prosperous”, the job creation aspect, and what the citizenry stands to gain from “the project becoming a world’s first carbon neutral city(?).” Whittle down the jargon to a language the masses will easily understand. Avoid use of terminologies, which the educated can’t even decipher, talk less of the majority of illiterate population. Task the Ministry of Information and Culture to do appealing Radio and TV jingles in local dialects including zonal Town Hall meetings to arouse the interest of the populace about the SCL project. Using these communication channels for a largely illiterate population would go a long as an effective outreach approach.
Set an achievable target: Smart City Lagos can have a couple of objectives such as provision of core urban infrastructure, a decent quality of life for the citizens and sustainable environment, centre for innovations in smart technologies and destination for green tourism. This is a general statement of purpose. Smart cities all over the world set achievable target that would stand them out among their peers. For example, Vancouver, Canada set a clear target to become the greenest city in the world by year 2020; Dubai Plan 2021 aims to make Dubai the smartest city in the world where smart applications are used for every day transactions. A target of five years (2021-2016).
The Lagos experience in terms of pressing urban problem is that of “mobility and chronic traffic congestion.” The situation has defied effective solution over the years despite humongous government financial injection to improve the transport sector. One of the objectives of a smart city is the ease and convenience at which people travel within the city. A Smart City Lagos must aim to set a target within a given timeframe to drastically reduce vehicular congestion on Lagos roads by putting in place efficient public transport by year 2026, a timeframe of 10 years. In terms of smart transportation, Smart City Lagos should strive to be “an advanced city not where the poor move about in cars, but rather a city where the rich use public transportation.”
Strong Institutional Framework. Without very strong institutions that will drive the dream of Smart City Lagos, it will be very difficult to achieve any result. These institutions vary from governmental institutions, educational institutions to organized private sector. All Lagos State Ministries must be challenged to move with the ICT age. It is shocking to find out by this writer that 25 numbers of Government ministries and 86 Agencies/Parastatals in Lagos do not have online services that citizens can hook on to. The common information on most of their websites are descriptive/administrative information such as vision and mission statements, names of past Commissioners and Permanent Secretaries, Departments, and photo reels. They lack downlandables, statistical information for research, pdf application forms for specific-purpose transactions and sundry IT information the public can easily access. How can these government Ministries provide smart services to the public or smart solutions for functions under their purviews…traffic congestion, motor vehicle licensing, water provision, security, health etc? The point being stressed is that a Smart City cannot be created in a vacuum. Information – a combination of telecommunication network, internet, wireless broadband, and using various sensors to connect them to the internet for communication and exchange of information – is a perquisite to making a city smart.
Smart City Lagos would require a mass pool of government workers knowledgeable in ICT to key in into the vision of the LASG. It is impossible and difficult to perform e-government functions with no staff capacity. This will necessitate wholesale in-service training and turn-around orientation from an analog to digital, smart transactions.
Establish a Think Tank Technical Team. The appointment of swot Pat Utomi of the prestigious Lagos Business School as the Chairman of Smart City Lagos by Governor Ambode is encouraging. Utomi’s pedigree as an intellectual and someone with penchant for excellent performance, it is guaranteed that he would provide the right leadership for the SCL project. But it transcends beyond that school of thought. A Think-Tank Technical Team (TTTT) comprising intellectuals, galaxy of professionals, IT-solution experts and versatile administrators should be established to work closely with the Pat Utomi-led Group. The TTTT would serve as the “brain” behind the provision of smart ideas and smart/practical solutions to nurture the growth of the SCL. Prof. Utomi with his well-grounded background in political economy together with other members of his team will preoccupy itself with issues of administration and management; and investment matters. The two groups must have an open –door policy and participatory in their style of operation. They should be open to constructive criticism and receptive to external ideas from city residents.
Parting piece of Advice
Smart City Dubai might be the first choice of LASG as a learning laboratory to create a similar smart city in Lagos, because of the latter’s excellent experience in the venture of developing functional and sustainable city. We make bold to say that, as good as Smart City Dubai, the authority in Lagos should spread its tentacles of “city learning” wide and far. Lagos State Government should not put its egg in one basket. There are other global smart cities, which the SCL can learn from. This point is ably demonstrated in a recent presentation about New York’s PlaNYC, where Mayor Bloomberg stated that his team:
“drew on the experiences of Berlin for our renewable energy
and green-roof policies; from Hong Kong, Shanghai and
Delhi for our transit improvements; from Copenhagen
for our pedestrian and cycling upgrades;
from Bogota for our plans for Bus Rapid Transit;
and from Los Angeles and Chicago for our plan to plant one million trees.”
(United Cities and Local Governments, 2010: 1)
I consider the above statement as the height humility from a former Mayor of a city globally acclaimed as the World’s Capital. The handlers of the Smart City Lagos can use it as a lodestar for their important assignment.
Concluded.
By Yacoob Abiodun (Former Secretary, National Housing Policy Council; Urban Planner; Planning Advocate)
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.
