Countries, including members of the G20, should strengthen the credibility of their pledges to limit or reduce annual emissions of greenhouse gases in order to build confidence in the Paris Agreement on climate change, according to a new report published on Monday (February 1, 2016) by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Alina Averchenkova
The report provides the results of an analysis of “intended nationally determined contributions”, or INDCs, which were submitted by more than 180 countries ahead of the Paris climate change summit in December 2015, focusing on the credibility, rather than the ambition, of pledges about future emissions.
The report by Alina Averchenkova and Samuela Bassi concluded that “Governments have the opportunity to actively improve the credibility of their current and future commitments in their NDCs (nationally determined contributions), especially by strengthening: their policies and legislation; the transparency, effectiveness and inclusiveness of their decision-making process, and their climate change public bodies.
It added: “This can be done, for example, by: adopting framework legislation and/or implementing carbon pricing mechanisms; assigning clear responsibility for climate change policy and establishing independent consultative bodies; creating inclusive processes for consulting and involving stakeholders; increasing the frequency of preparing greenhouse gas inventories; and improving public awareness about climate change.”
Samuela Bassi
It identified key elements for the credibility against which each country’s pledges could be assessed. These were applied by the authors to the INDCs that were submitted by G20 members ahead of the Paris summit. They concluded: “Almost all the emission reductions pledged by G20 countries appear to be underpinned by policy and legislation that is at least ‘moderately supportive’ in terms of credibility. However, G20 countries’ emissions targets were found to score lower on the transparency, inclusiveness and effectiveness of their decision-making processes and the level of political constraints to limit policy reversal, and on the existence of dedicated and independent public bodies on climate change.”
The report states: “No INDC from a G20 country is found to have ‘no credible basis’ across all the determinants explored in this analysis. However, there are significant differences in the level of and balance among the determinants of credibility for the individual G20 members.
“For many G20 members, most determinants appear to be ‘largely supportive’ in terms of credibility. These include the European Union and its individual G20 members (France, Germany, Italy and the UK), as well as South Korea.
“Several G20 members have determinants that are at least ‘moderately supportive’ in terms of credibility, but display a significant weakness in one determinant; this includes Australia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and the United States.
“A number of G20 countries have scope for significantly increasing credibility across most determinants. These are Argentina, Canada, China, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.”
Less than two months after 196 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, the global community is already seeing signs of it being a decisive turning point, according to a senior UN official dealing with climate issues.
Janos Pasztor, Senior Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on Climate Change
A month and a half since 196 parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Paris Agreement, the global community is already seeing signs of it being a decisive turning point, according to a senior UN official dealing with climate issues.
“Much has been happening since Paris – the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) confirmed that 2015 was the hottest year on record, not just by a little but by a lot,” said Janos Pasztor, the newly appointed Senior Adviser to the Secretary-General on Climate Change.
For the past year, Mr. Pasztor had been leading the UN’s climate change efforts as Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change, working towards last December’s 21st United Nations climate change conference (COP21).
Recalling that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited world leaders to a signing ceremony on 22 April – which coincides with International Mother Earth Day – the climate advisor noted that it will be the first day the Agreement is open for formal signatures.
He said Mr. Ban is urging countries to quickly ratify the agreement so it can enter into force as soon as possible, adding that the event will also be an opportunity to discuss efforts to implement national climate plans, known as INDCs, and to generally “maintain the momentum of the action agenda.”
Meanwhile, he underlined the Secretary-General’s recent call for a doubling of investments in clean energy by 2020, which he said was greeted “very positively” by many investors.
“The Paris Agreement sent a clear message to markets and investors that it’s time to get serious about climate change. We’re now seeing evidence that the signal has been received loud and clear,” Mr. Pasztor stressed.
Meanwhile, in a statement issued by the UN Spokesperson’s Office, Mr. Ban expressed his deep gratitude for Mr. Pasztor’s “dedicated service and leadership” over the past quarter of a century with the world body on the key global challenges of climate change, energy and sustainability.
“In his new role as Senior Adviser to the Secretary-General on Climate Change, Mr. Pasztor will support efforts of the Secretary-General to mobilise world leaders and all sectors of society to implement the landmark Paris Agreement,” the statement indicated.
With the euphoria of Paris slowly fading, and the daunting reality of what remains to be done settling in, Richard Kinley, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, in a recent presentation takes stock of what happened and where the world now needs to go
Richard Kinley, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary. Photo credit: iisd.ca
Paris 2015 was the most successful climate change conference ever because:
The largest number of participants ever (28,000 delegates actually entered the premises), all well taken care of, with smooth logistics;
The largest number of heads of state and government together under one roof on one day – ever! – and they all could speak, providing a huge political push for success;
A remarkable spirit of cooperation and a determination among governments to reach agreement, enabled by outstanding diplomacy by the Presidency;
A huge array of events and side announcements constituting ample demonstration of momentum and engagement towards climate solutions; and
Finally, the Paris Agreement and its related decisions which constitute a turning point in the global efforts to deal with the climate change problem and chart a new course to a low carbon future.
All in all – a game changing outcome.
The adjectives that have flowed since the 12th of December are still music to my ears: “landmark”, “monumental triumph”, “historical moment”, “ambitious”. This makes a very pleasant change from years of coming to post-COP conferences like this and trying to sell lowest common denominator COP outcomes as progress. And even better is that, for the first time in history, the results of a COP actually exceeded the expectations of virtually everyone myself included.
“How has the game changed?” you may ask. I would offer eight ways.
Climate change mitigation is now firmly founded on national action; the orientation has shifted from a “top down” one, à la Kyoto Protocol, to one with a strong “bottom up” component based on national undertakings. This reflects the current reality of climate change politics and economics. The submission of INDCs before Paris in numbers no one ever contemplated affirms this new reality.
The global goal of limiting temperature change to below 2 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial times had been agreed five years ago. In Paris, governments locked this in and went further by agreeing to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. I see this as an important statement of solidarity with vulnerable countries. Aspirational yes, but aspirations are extremely important in politics.
The inclusion of a more popularly-understandable long-term goal, alongside the below 2 degrees Celsius global temperature goal, was for me the most significant achievement. The inclusion in a legal Agreement of the concepts of “global peaking” and a “balance” between global emissions and removals –climate neutrality in other words – means that the policy certainty that the business sector has been seeking has been provided. While the timelines are imprecise, and open to debate, it is now clear to everyone that the era of fossil fuels is ending. And real transformation of the energy sector is the will, and undertaking of all the world’s governments, including fossil fuel exporters.
Linked to the long-term goal, the agreement on a process of global stocktaking every five years will systemise moving to more ambitious action. Again, the direction is clear, with an expectation of continuous improvement (no “backsliding”). There is a new stability in the international process.
The international architecture has shifted from a situation of strong differentiation between industrialised and developing countries to one that is much more nuanced. These nuances were possible because governments realised that enhanced action by all was needed. Differentiation is woven systematically throughout the Agreement, and in extremely astute ways, but while still launching the era of a single, universal system – common commitments with flexibility, reflecting national realities. Central to this success is the significantly enhanced attention to the need for support to developing countries to enable them to do more. There is a common direction of travel, but industrialised countries must lead the way.
Adaptation has come into its own. One could debate whether parity with mitigation has been achieved but adaptation, along with loss and damage, is now a pillar of the international climate change regime.
The “game” on finance, or means of implementation, has also changed. The “$100 billion goal” from the Copenhagen Conference was reaffirmed, to the relief of many, and it will be enhanced from 2025. More noteworthy are three new developments:
Significantly enhanced attention to reporting and assessment of support to developing countries as part of the transparency system, and as fundamental conditions of the success of the Agreement;
Recognition for the first time of the possibility of developing countries providing such support; and
A surprisingly robust outcome on capacity building to enable developing countries to fulfill their undertakings.
And on the sidelines of the COP, hugely important development initiatives were announced including on renewables for Africa, solar energy and billions in additional contributions, including for important small funds, to mention a few examples.
Finally, market approaches emerged with a new lease on life. The precise details are still to be worked out, but this was another surprise from Paris
I would like to highlight in particular another game-changing phenomenon alongside the Paris Agreement. Over the past two years we have seen an exponential growth in climate action by cities, regions, businesses, and civil society, in addition to national actions. This reality was, I believe, inspired by the Paris challenge but also an enabler of the ambitious Paris outcome.
The scope and scale of initiatives and announcements during the Paris Conference, some at the highest level, are breathtaking. With the adoption of the Paris Agreement, and the directional signal provided by the long-term goal, we can now look forward to this trend accelerating through a new sustainable growth model that is becoming a virtuous circle of action. While it is true that the profile of non-state actors in the Paris Agreement was less than many had hoped for, they are clearly becoming THE engine of both mitigation and adaptation action. This is helping to define a “new normal”, especially when one looks at:
Actions by investors (e.g. a record $330 billion in new clean energy investment in 2015);
At disinvestment initiatives (with managers of $2.6 trillion in assets acting) and closing of coal fired power plants;
At the rapidly declining price of renewable energy and the explosion of mega solar and wind power installations; and
Much wider mobilisation and engagement initiatives.
I feel obliged to say a word about process and procedure in Paris. Who can remember a smoother COP, with no procedural disputes? To what can one ascribe this success (this miracle?)? There was a clear timetable from the outset, for the ADP to close, and an efficient transition to French leadership. The COP President was clear on his intentions regarding texts. First that there was no “French text” (and there really was no French text), but only text built from Party consultations. It emerged in three pre-announced iterations, carefully and sometimes almost poetically constructed with, as Mr. Fabius promised, “no surprises”.
One can only hope that this experience will put to rest forever the idea that Parties can actually negotiate complex agreements line by line amongst themselves. Negotiation through Chair’s iterations is the only viable option for climate change negotiations. The French presidency was very transparent, consulting all groups, not just the powerful, not imposing its own ideas, working closely with Peru as a partner, and truly listening to what Parties were saying.
So, the game has changed, but is it “game over”/ ”problem solved”? Here one has to shift from euphoria to somber assessment. In real terms, the game is actually only just beginning. As Bill McKibben, of 350.org, has said: “the most compelling thing you can say about Paris is not that it saved the planet, but that it saved the chance of saving the planet.” We must beware of complacency, and actually need to be concerned that momentum is maintained and not lost. The task ahead is huge:
The INDCs, miraculous as they may be, are inadequate to the task. They are projected to get the world to somewhere near 3 degrees of warming. While this is a major shift of the trajectory of emissions, they need to be exceeded and to be strengthened, without waiting for 2023, or even the dialogue planned for 2018.
Global emissions are still rising. Impacts of climate change are going to increase in frequency and magnitude. The Agreement calls for global peaking as soon as possible, and this must come in the next 5-10 years.
The intergovernmental process has a huge task ahead in fulfilling the mandates given to it by the Agreement and the COP decision – developing modalities and rules, getting institutions off the ground or shifted into a higher gear, putting the transparency regime in place and getting as many signatures for the Agreement on 22 April.
The promise of enhanced support for developing countries has to be fulfilled or much of the Agreement’s promise will be lost. Such support will be crucial to implementing and strengthening the INDCs, to meeting the transparency requirements, and to formulating low-emission development plans.
In conclusion, let me share my assessment of why the Paris Conference achieved what it did. There are many reasons for this, but allow me to highlight four:
First, underlying economic realities have shifted to the point where real change is not only possible, but also these realities have shaped a “new normal” in the “real economy”.
Second, there was a strong, almost palpable, determination by all governments, evident even on the first day, to have an agreement. Ample opportunities to block were not exercised; “red lines” change to “green lines”; compromise was in the air! Strong leadership, and flexibility, were demonstrated by all of the key players on issues like adaptation, loss and damage, differentiation and finance. And the leaders of the most powerful as well as the most vulnerable countries were personally involved in Paris or behind the scenes.
Third, I would point to the role of France, the host country, driven by the COP President, Laurent Fabius – the hospitality, the astute political leadership and effective diplomacy over many months, the listening, the honest-broker role, the willingness to push the envelope and insert in the Agreement ambitious language, nuanced language, so that everyone could come away feeling that they had won something.
Fourth, perhaps the most fundamental enabler of the success of Paris was the realisation that all must participate in solving the huge global challenge posed by climate change.
Keeping the world below the 2 degrees Celsius pathway presents a US$12.1 trillion investment opportunity over the next 25 years – in the light of the newly agreed Paris Agreement, a new analysis states.
The report Mapping the Gap: The Road From Paris, presented last week by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) at the 2016 Investor Summit on Climate Risk hosted by Ceres, shows the opportunities and challenges of filling the ‘gap’ between the business-as-usual (BAU) investment in renewable energy and what is needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
At the Summit, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called investors to at least double their investments in clean energy by 2020, adding that “we must begin the shift away from fossil fuels immediately.”
Last week another BNEF report showed how global clean investment attracted a record US$329 billion last year – about six times the amount invested in 2004.
BNEF forecast of total investment in lower-carbon power generation (US$ billion, real). From the report Mapping the Gap: The Road From Paris, courtesy of BNEF.
Just a month ago, countries signed at COP21 in Paris a historic agreement to tackle climate disruption and keep global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, compared to the pre-industrial era. However, the report by BNEF shows that to achieve this goal, investment in new renewable power generation must increase 75% above the BAU trajectory.
In fact, if governments and business leaders take no additional steps to what they have planned today, the investment opportunity for tackling climate change is US$6.9 trillion, or US$277 billion per year.
The ‘gap’ between this scenario and what is needed to keep the world safe is US$5.2 trillion, or US$208 billion per year. To put the numbers in perspective, authors point out this is far less than the US$454 billion per year that people in the US ask every year to get their auto loans.
Nevertheless, “there still remains much to be done,” says Mark Kenber, CEO, The Climate Group, in a recent blog. “While the leaders in the investment, corporate and sub-national communities have demonstrated that bold climate action brings economic benefits, the task now is to ensure those in the mainstream follow this leadership.”
Solar and Wind Opportunity
Investment in new renewable power generation by technology under BNEF 2 degrees scenario (US$ billion, real)
To reach this point, renewable investment must scale up quickly in the next 15 years, grasping opportunities already available today to reach 12,500 gigawatts globally by 2040.
Under this scenario, which excludes large hydropower investment, wind and solar have the lion’s share growing 46% and 43% respectively in the first decade – thanks in particular to their increasingly lowering prices and off-grid potential.
In fact, the report forecasts that the cost per unit of clean energy is due to decline consistently through the full 25 years analysed, from an average of US$1.74/megawatt (MW) in the 2015-2020 period to $1.03/MW by the 2036-2040 period.
Policies and Solutions
To scale up the opportunities offered from the 2 degrees pathway, many policies have proven to be successful. One of these solutions is putting a price on carbon, such as the system created in 2014 by Québec and California – governments that are part of The Climate Group’s States & Regions Alliance – that created the first cross-border market in North America.
Also Ontario, another valuable member of the States & Regions Alliance, last year launched a ‘cap-and-trade’ system to curb its emissions, aiming to link it to the system set up by Québec and California.
Other solutions envisaged by the report are tax incentives, to accelerate investments on clean power plants and manufacturing facilities, and feed-in tariffs to spur a widespread adoption of renewables among customers and businesses.
“Clean energy financing is poised to ‘grow up’ to more fully resemble other, better established infrastructure sectors,” conclude the authors of the report, “such as transportation or real estate, from a financial structure perspective.
“These new finance vehicles will present massive new opportunities for capital deployment. Policy makers need to ‘mind the gap’ to ensure that investment grows at the speed and scale required.”
Revenues from cocoa and other prominent farms produce in which Osun State has comparative advantages have great capacities to turn around the economy and fortunes of the state if pursued with renewed vigor.
A cocoa plantation. Photo credit: thebreakingtimes.com
Governor of Osun State, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, who stated thisrecently, assured that his administration would leave no stone unturned to make the state great again, hence the recent investment and research into cocoa production and the focus on other areas of agriculture.
The governor stated that for the state to start on a good footing at producing ‘Cocoa Omoluabi’ it has enumerated and identified 60 million active cocoa trees in the state.
Aregbesola, while meeting with Cocoa Produce Merchants in the state at the Government House Banquet Hall in Osogbo, stated that with new cocoa development initiatives in the state, there will be a new cash inflow making the economy of the state prosperous.
He stated that the state has also gone further in its bid to boost cocoa production and Agriculture with the signing of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Ibadan, Oyo State-based International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) on the development of agriculture and production of massive food production as alternative to reliance on oil sector.
The agreement, according to Aregbesola, involved releasing of 204.39 hectares of land in Ago Owu Farm Settlement to IITA for the purposes of conducting research and setting up demonstration farms for best farming practices.
IITA will also carry out cassava, plantain and other crops multiplication including cocoa as well as train the youths in the state in modern, commercial and profitable farming.
Aregbesola emphasised that in its bid to increase Internally Generated Revenue in Osun, government would establish commodity board that will be supervised directly by the office of the governor to ensure that Osun ranks among the best cocoa producers in Nigeria within the next two years.
He told the produce merchants that the economic situation of the state has been badly affected with the pillaging of the national treasury by the previous administration.
Aregbesola added that the situation with the drop in oil prices and the sharp reduction in the Federation Accounts from N1.2 trillion in 2012 to N369 billion in November allocations shared in December 2015 has reduced the running of government to little or nothing hence the need to look inward in increasing IGR.
The governor noted that the state would soon bounce back with the identification of 60 million cocoa trees presently in the state, adding that government henceforth will criminalise any action of farmers and merchants that runs foul of government laws on cocoa.
He pointed out that government would soon be registering all farmers in the state for easy implementation of government policies on agriculture, thus giving adequate room for monitoring and giving the necessary support for farmers.
He said: “To show the people of the state that we are ready to face agriculture squarely in Osun, I am establishing a commodity board that will be supervised directly from the office of the governor.
“Our bags of cocoa in Osun will be branded with this; government will be able to ensure that the quality of cocoa coming out of the state meets international quality. When there was free money coming from oil, no government was looking at what cocoa could bring to the economy; we are back to the days where cocoa will be the main stay of our economy in Osun”. The governor emphasised.
Aregbesola hinted that produce tribunals would be set up across the state and that special colour would be given to vehicles that will be transporting cocoa within the state.
The governor added that the State Executive Council meetings would be held in rural areas where cocoa farming is thriving in the state for about six months to one year after the formation of his cabinet.
Earlier, the Chairman of All Farmers Association of Osun, Chief Raheem Adeniji, stated that the association was ready to partner and cooperate with government in her bid to revamp the cocoa farming in the state.
He lamented the poor economic state the country has found itself with the neglect of cocoa which he said was the back bone of the economy in the 60s, even as he identified the cancellation of Cocoa Marketing Board by the then military government as a setback for the industry in Nigeria.
Adeniji commended government for introducing E-payment, adding that government should ensure and maintain that Osun cocoa should not go out of the state.
Parties to the Paris Agreement (or nations that end up signing the agreement) are expected to communicate their first nationally determined contribution (NDC) no later than when the respective instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession has been submitted.
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary
A feature of the Paris Agreement entails a change in status of the intended national climate action plans which almost all countries submitted to the UN ahead of COP21 in Paris. These intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), which detail what each country intends to contribute towards reducing global emissions, are set to become nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
“If a country has already submitted its INDC before joining the agreement, then that INDC will be considered the country’s first NDC, unless it indicates otherwise,” stated Nick Nuttall, the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) spokesperson.
According to him, a country has the opportunity of submitting a more ambitious NDC before it submits or when submitting its respective instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
Prof Olukayode Oladipo, a climate change expert, the NDC doesn’t have to be a fresh version of the INDC or something totally different from the initial INDC.
“Since its no longer ‘intended’, the NDC could just be a short report detailing and stating clearly how a nation will implement statements or proposals in the INDC,” he disclosed, adding that Nigeria is expected to initiate a plan of action to be taken to implement the NDC.
According to Nuttall, the authentic text of the Paris Agreement in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, will be transmitted by the UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, to the Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations in New York as soon as it becomes available.
“Following this, certified true copies will be distributed to all Parties to the Convention and the Paris Agreement will open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 April, 2016 to 21 April, 2017,” he said, adding that the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, is convening a high-level signature ceremony for the Paris Agreement on 22 April, 2016 and is inviting all Parties to the Convention to sign the agreement at this ceremony, or at their earliest opportunity.
The Agreement shall enter into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 % of total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary. The Secretary-General of the United Nations will act as the Depositary of the Agreement.
“To this end, the UNFCCC secretariat has made available information (http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/9354.php) on the most up-to-date total and per cent of greenhouse gas emissions communicated by Parties to the Convention on the website on the date of adoption of the Agreement.”
On 12 December 2015, countries under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement.
The English version of the final report of COP 21 is expected to be published shortly and this will be made available on the UNFCCC website and also announced through the UNFCCC Newsroom. The report is expected to be available in the other UN languages by the end of February.
As the Zika virus outbreak spreads across Central and South America, it appears to have landed in North America, where 31 people have been reportedly infected in the US. The infection has been linked to birth defects in newborns
Aedes aegypti mosquito larvae are seen in a lab at the Fiocruz institute, Jan. 26, 2016 in Recife, Pernambuco state, Brazil. Photo credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images
There are currently 31 people in the U.S. who have been diagnosed with the Zika virus, including three pregnant women – two in Illinois and one in New York.
Those infected are spread across 11 states and Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All of those infected contracted the virus outside of the U.S. before returning, according to health officials.
Another woman in Hawaii is believed to have had the Zika virus after her infant was born with the associated birth defect called microcephaly – characterised by an abnormally small head and brain, which can lead to developmental delays. The birth defect has been associated with the virus in Brazil, where more than 4,000 children have been diagnosed with the condition.
Houston Woman Recounts Zika Infection
A Houston woman described what it was like to be infected with the Zika virus during a trip to El Salvador over Christmas.
Lizzie Morales told ABC’s Houston station KTRK-TV that she spent a week experiencing the extreme fatigue, nausea and a large rash that covered her body.
“You have no strength or energy to sit down. You just want to lay down and sleep,” she told KTRK-TV.
Morales said she had fatigue for a week and nausea towards the end of her virus.
“Christmas Eve, I was scratching. My chest, bumps on my lips, eyes, ears,” she said.
Origin of Zika Virus Outbreak in Brazil May Be Linked to Major Sporting Events
Scientists have traced the Zika virus spreading through the Western Hemisphere to a strain from French Polynesia. The virus was first confirmed in this hemisphere in Brazil last May, but quickly spread leading to more than 1 million estimated cases in Brazil by the end of 2015.
In a research paper, scientists said the outbreak might have been linked to major sporting events that brought together thousands of people across the globe to Brazil. This revelation raises concern over the safety of athletes at the forthcoming Olympics game scheduled to hold this year in Brazil.
“It is very likely an infected traveler from French Polynesia that traveled to Brazil was likely the source of the Brazilian invasion,” Dr. Peter Armbruster, professor of biology at Georgetown University, who was not involved in that study, told ABC News. “Whether it is someone associated with the [World Cup], we do not know for sure.”
Where Is the Zika Virus Outbreak Happening?
The virus has been reported in Africa, South Asia and Polynesia but now it’s also being found in Central and South America.
Those countries and territories are: Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, French Guiana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Martinique, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Suriname, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Dominican Republic, Barbados, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guadeloupe, Saint Martin, Guyana, Cape Verde and Samoa.
What Does the Virus Do?
Common symptoms of the Zika virus include fever, rash, joint pain and conjunctivitis, according to the CDC. Approximately one in five people infected with the virus show symptoms. Severe complications from the virus that require hospitalisation are rare, according to the CDC.
The virus has also been associated with a rise of microcephaly birth defect cases.
The CDC is also investigating if a rare paralysis syndrome called Guillain-Barre is related to the virus. The syndrome is an immunological reaction that can also occur after other viral or bacterial infections.
Matheus Lima,22, and Kleisse Marcelina,24, tend their two-month-old son Pietro suffering from microcephalia caught through an Aedes aegypti mosquito bite, at the Obras Sociais Irma Dulce hospital in Salvador, Brazil on January 27, 2016. Phto credit: AFP/Christ Photo
Virus Spreading Explosively
The Zika virus is “spreading explosively” in the Americas, the head of the World Health Organisation (WHO) said Thursday, as the global health body warned that it expected up to four million cases of the disease.
WHO chief Margaret Chan called for an emergency meeting on February 1 on the outbreak of the virus, which has been blamed for the birth defect microcephaly, a condition that causes babies to be born with an abnormally small head.
“The level of alarm is extremely high,” Chan said, adding that the meeting of WHO’s Emergency Committee on Monday will seek to determine if the outbreak qualifies as an international public health emergency.
The virus “is now spreading explosively,” in the Americas, where 23 countries and territories have reported cases, the WHO chief said.
Marcos Espinal, the head of communicable diseases and health analysis at the WHO’s Americas office, said the region should expect “three to four million cases” of Zika, without proving a timeframe for the outbreak to ramp up to that level.
Following its initial discovery in a monkey in Uganda’s Zika forest in 1947, the disease “slumbered” and “occasionally caused a mild disease of low concern,” in humans, Chan said.
“The situation today is dramatically different.”
Chan highlighted the growing concern over Zika’s possible link to microcephaly and a neurological disorder called Guillain-Barre syndrome.
“A causal relationship between Zika virus infection and birth malformations and neurological syndromes has not yet been established, but is strongly suspected,” Chan said.
The emergency meeting will seek advice on the severity of the outbreak and what response measures might be taken.
It will also aim to identify priority areas for urgent research, Chan said, after US President Barack Obama called for swift action, including better diagnostic tests as well as the development of vaccines and treatments.
Espinal warned that Zika “will go everywhere the mosquito is.”
“We should assume that. We should not wait for it to spread,” he said.
Drawing a contrast with Ebola, Espinal stressed that Zika needs a carrier to spread and that controlling the mosquito was therefore crucial to controlling the outbreak.
WHO has previously said that it expects Zika to spread to every country in the Americas except Canada and Chile.
Brazil has been the country hardest hit so far, and concerns are growing about this summer’s Olympics, which is likely to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors to host city Rio de Janeiro in August.
Zika originated in Africa and also exists in Asia and the Pacific, but has not been associated with microcephaly there. It first came to prominence in Brazil in October.
Microcephaly can cause brain damage or death in babies.
In Brazil, cases of microcephaly have surged from 163 a year on average to more than 3,718 suspected cases since the outbreak, according to the health ministry.
Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador and Jamaica have warned women to avoid getting pregnant for the time being.
By Gillian Mohney (ABC News)/AFP (Seychelles News Agency)
My criticisms of the excesses of the online phenomenon in terms of its brazen abuse in an unregulated environment has often made me the target of attacks, with many insisting on quoting the opening paragraph of a piece I once wrote along these lines as if it is a memorial verse, but further developments have shown that indeed, liberal, accommodative, useful and open as the growth of the new media may seem in Nigeria, we may well, if care is not taken, be dealing with a dangerous tool in the hands of the unscrupulous which could drive society towards the lunatic fringe.
Dr. Reuben Abati
The beauty of the new media is its democratic temper. With any electronic device, anyone at all, can set up a communications unit, using a phone, a tablet, a laptop, a desktop, and simply occupy the social space and broadcast information which in a matter of minutes may go viral and condition public opinion. It grants the person involved absolute freedom, even anonymity, dangerous anonymity of self, space and location, but the worst part of it is the freedom from decency, responsibility and conscience. And so while so much good can be done by persons exchanging information, and as has turned out, creative jokes and skits which entertain and amuse, a lot of evil can be committed through resort to blackmail, abuse, and mischief.
This dangerous dimension is beginning to grow in different directions and the latest that I have seen is what seems to be the emergence of cartels, or perhaps cabals in the online industry, with various persons organising themselves into groups, and if this were to be a sign of freedom of association exercised by like minds, it would be commendable. But rather what is emerging is bitter rivalry among the various groups, a fierce struggle for territory, unhealthy, cut-throat competition, and a desperation to out-do each other. The group warriors are not necessarily fighting for any great ideal, but ego, power, privilege and access to the corridors of power.
I happen to have suddenly become a victim in the midst of this turf-fighting, as my name this week was drawn into a cat fight between two groups: the Guild of Corporate Online Publishers (GOCOP) and the Online Publishers Association of Nigeria (OPAN). These are two of the emerging groups but there are others: Association of Online Bloggers, Association of Nigerian Online Publishers (ANOP), the Online Magazines Publishers Association (OMPA). And who knows, there may well be the Association of What’s App Users, the Nigerian Association of Twitter Voltrons, Association of Nigerian BBM Users, National Association of Chat Group Administrators, all of them fighting over influence, space, and patronage. This politicisation of the online business can only in the long run diminish its influence and promote opportunism.
The case that I refer to was triggered by a meeting in Lagos, between the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed and a group of online publishers under the umbrella of GOCOP. This prompted a rival group, the OPAN to issue a statement accusing Alhaji Mohammed of meeting with the wrong group and ignoring the main stakeholders. There has been serious “blood-sharing” since then. GOCOP issued a rejoinder in which it attacked OPAN. And my name was brought in. I was accused of being the spirit behind OPAN, and an attempt was made to set me up against Femi Adesina, my successor as Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to the President of Nigeria. Femi was given special praise, he being a Trustee of GOCOP, so the whole thing is projected as OPAN being pro-Jonathan and GOCOP being pro-Buhari.
I was also accused of having influenced the Corporate Affairs Commission to block the registration of NOPA, the first name that the other group had chosen when it sought formal registration. I was alleged to have used the powers of the Presidency to victimize members of then NOPA, who eventually adopted a new name and got registered. But obviously, the aggrieved were looking for an opportunity to go after me. And they believe the time is now right and that their facts are right, hence they threatened to release “documents”.
They are wrong. Here are the facts: I was invited to be a Trustee of OPAN in 2010 when I was still Chairman of the Editorial Board of The Guardian. I was at the time involved either as a Trustee or contributor to many social causes – motherless children’s homes, special children, book reading clubs, girl child education projects, and hence, adding to that list a group that defined its objective as developing standards in the emerging online space was not a problem for me. I agreed to be a Trustee of OPAN and I made inputs into the drafting of the philosophy of the group. It had become clear by then that the online space was bound to grow and that there was a need for an articulation of ethical and professional standards, which may not be officially imposed but which could provide a basis for the insistence on a responsible use of the internet to promote serious issues. OPAN secured registration with the CAC, but it remained in a formative stage throughout the period I was in office, and was only formally launched late 2015. I did not even attend the launching ceremony. Having seen that the group had finally found its rhythm and its objectives properly defined, I offered to step down from the Board of Trustees. I got to know of the bitter fight over CAC registration between GOCOP and OPAN in the press release issued by the former.
Let me make this clear: I could not have been involved in that fight. The CAC is a statutory body and I believe it is in a position to defend its integrity. Anyone knows that the CAC conducts name-search before registering any organization and where any conflict in identity is subsequently reported, it has its own mechanism for resolving such. If NOPA and OPAN were fighting over nomenclature, it was the job of the CAC to resolve that, not the Presidency. In any case, my office could not have supported one group of online publishers against another, because that would have been counter-productive. My assignment required me to relate regularly with website owners, bloggers, and all categories of journalists and they all published our materials. I have made it clear privately that I probably received more support from members of GOCOP, many of whom I had always known and with whom I had shared happier moments, particularly at the St Bottles’ Cathedral in Lagos: our hang-out in those days.
But I see that twice in the past eight months, there have been curious attempts to pitch me against my successor, Femi Adesina. In the imagination of a dubious minority, I am supposed to be fighting him and make his work difficult. I can imagine the kind of stories that may have been going back and forth, invented by persons looking for what to eat. I have been there and I know how it is. But Femi and I have never fought over anything and we have absolutely no reason to fight. I am out. He is in. Life goes on. I have nothing against him or the PMB government. In 2015, the Nigerian people made a choice and spoke. It is a choice that we respect.
But as if all that is not plain enough, the latest that I have seen is a 2012 private e-mail “document” purportedly leaked to Sahara Reporters giving the impression that I worked with an online group to undermine Sahara Reporters in defence of the Jonathan Government, and of course the sub-text is to link me with the current war of the online publishers. This has to do with an e-mail, which the Association of Nigerian Online Publishers (ANOP) sent to a third party which was forwarded to me. I was then hearing about ANOP for the first time.
I forwarded the mail to the main promoter of OPAN, the only one of such groups that was known to me then and I only wanted to know if this was the same group, given the striking similarity. The leaked mail is one of many such unsolicited proposals and suggestions that came to my desk. Nothing came out of it thereafter, and I had no reason to worry about that innocuous incident until now. I took an oath of office to defend the interests of the people, President and Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and I did my bit, but it was not the style of that administration or my office to intimidate, gag, frustrate or undermine the free media. I had direct access to Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters.
Throughout my four years on the job, he used every single press release that we issued and always listened to my many protestations. He always insisted however, that he had his facts, and that he knew more insiders than I could ever imagine. I was always shocked how State House documents and inside stories regularly found their way to his desk, and how on the day the President’s brother died, he had published the story even before anyone in Aso Rock knew. If the leaked e-mail proves anything, it is that he and his own colleagues are involved in a bitter rivalry, and that there is indeed a war of online operators and this can only get worse with everyone these days, becoming a blogger or online publisher.
This poses a serious challenge for media, reputation, and perception managers who must continuously swim in an ocean of sharks, alligators and piranhas. If you relate with A, you could offend B. And if you receive a mail from C, you could get into trouble, not knowing which cartel or cabal you are dealing with.
The truth, if we must say so, is that the social media in Nigeria has become a battle-ground for survival. It is no longer about young people playing with a phone or a laptop, it is big business, and where the stomach or sheer rivalry, is involved, we can see that persons are ready to shed blood, shred reputations and break jaws. It is most unfortunate that this positive force that could be used for the good of society is finally going the way of all things. The other truth is that the big war of communications is no longer fought on the pages of newspapers, but online and all the bad habits of old have been transported, without any ethical restraint. This is where the real danger lies.
The challenge is to insist that online journalists, publishers, bloggers and tweeters must be held down to certain prudential standards of practice. The in-fighting is unnecessary. The various associations can be useful as vehicles of self-regulation, and for promoting values and best options. They should not become special purpose mechanisms for patronising politicians and political office holders.
Dr Abati was Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to President Goodluck Jonathan
Efforts are underway to prosecute and convict criminal gangs involved in piracy and maritime crime in Nigeria, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has said.
Pirates
The UN body made this submission just as it disclosed that, with financial supports from the United States’ Department of State, it trained more than 30 participants consisting of Federal High Court Judges, Federal Prosecutors, the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) legal officers, Nigerian Navy on international legal framework on piracy and maritime crime.
The four-day capacity building workshop aimed at building the capacity of relevant officers connected with investigating, prosecuting and adjudication of piracy and other maritime related offences and the need to forge regional cooperation among nations in the Gulf of Guinea. The workshop was anchored by two international legal experts appointed by UNODC: Mr. Phillip Drew from Canada and Mr Giuseppe Sernia, the Programme Officer from the Global Maritime Crime Programme at the UNODC Regional Office in Dakar, Senegal.
While damages from piracy in 2014 is estimated to be about $1 billion for the international community in the Gulf of Guinea with more than 1000 sailors attacked by pirates in the same region, prosecution for piracy in the Gulf of Guinea is currently almost absent as most states lack the relevant legal framework to handle such matters. In West and Central Africa, and particularly in the Gulf of Guinea (home to some of the biggest offshore oilfields in the world), maritime crime involves the hijacking of petrochemical tankers and attacks to other oil and petroleum storage and transportation platforms.
In her opening remark, the newly appointed Representative for the Nigerian office of UNODC, Ms. Cristina Albertin, called on participants to take advantage of the capacity building workshop and work together against piracy and maritime crime in line with international legal frameworks and conventions.
Declaring the workshop open, the Director of Prosecutions of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Saidu Diri, stressed the need for capacity building of prosecutors, investigators and judges to prepare for the challenges ahead; even as he observed that the paucity of judicial precedents on piracy in Nigeria suggests clearly that the prosecution of such offences is nearly absent. Adding that, “The challenge of narrowing facts of particular offences of piracy to existing law is most harrowing for the prosecutors. In some cases, the facts may have to be used to state lesser offences and the suspect escapes appropriate criminal sanctions. This consequently erodes confidence of the public.”
The Director of Prosecution who was represented by Mrs Nkiruka Jones-Nebo called for speedy passage of the NIMASA Bill on the suppression of piracy in Nigeria and praised the “the technical assistance being rendered by the UNODC, the United States Government and other development partners”, assuring all that “this workshop will bear fruits that will last.”
On his part, the Adviser on Maritime at the US Embassy in Nigeria, Mr. Ayodele Olosunde, said the US Government will like to see “Prosecution of piracy and maritime criminal activities prosecuted domestically and internationally.”
Currently with the financial support of United States of America, the Global Maritime Crime Programme of UNODC particularly assists in legal reforms, coordination and awareness raising for prosecutors, judges and legal experts in Nigeria, Togo, Benin, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Sao Tome and Principe, Gabon and Cameroon.
While mornings were dedicated to lessons on the different subjects, during which participants were stimulated to intervene with questions or comments, afternoon sessions were dedicated to mock trials. These mock trials were based on some of the most important cases by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), or fictional, addressing the application of all major maritime conventions and the weak spots in prosecution when a maritime crime is involved, including evidence collection and chain of custody and jurisdiction.
Newly appointed Country Representative of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in Nigeria, Ms. Cristina Albertin, has promised robust engagements with stakeholders towards successful delivery of the global mandate of her agency in the country. This she intends to do by ensuring timely and successful delivery on-going projects while also working closely with the media to create appropriate visibility and awareness.
Country Representative of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in Nigeria, Ms. Cristina Albertin
She promised to increase awareness about the risks and impact of trafficking in persons, smuggling of migrants, drugs and related organised crime, corruption, the rule-of-law and counter and security of the people in Nigeria, and to build capacity towards ensuring comprehensive implementation of the UN Conventions to counteract these threats.
According to her, “At the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, we assist countries in the implementation of various UN conventions and universal instruments related to preventing and controlling drugs, crime, corruption and terrorism. All over the world, we partner with institutions and organisations to enhance legislation, conduct research, collect and analyse statistics, build and strengthen institutions and capacities through expert advice, dissemination of our tools, publications, and sharing of international good practices.”
Ms Albertin who, from April 2009 to early 2016, headed the UNODC Regional Office for South Asia (ROSA) in New Delhi, India covering six South Asian countries – Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka – resumed office in Nigeria two weeks ago. She brings to her new assignment 25 years of extensive practical experience in developing, negotiating, implementing and supervising the implementation of UNODC technical assistance programmes, as well as in forging and maintaining close partnership arrangements with all relevant stakeholders.
Prior to her deployment as UNODC Regional Representative in South Asia in 2009, in which capacity she played an instrumental role in maintaining UNODC’s agenda, she served as Representative, UNODC Country Office in Bolivia for two years. Cristina also occupied the positions of Assistant Representative, UNODC Country Office in Peru; Programme Manager, Regional Section for Latin America and the Caribbean; and Chief, Regional Section for Latin America and the Caribbean in Vienna. Before joining UNODC in 1994, she was a Junior Professional Officer with the World Food Programme in La Paz, Bolivia.
She then joined the United Nations Drug Control Programme (which later came to be known as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime – UNODC) in Lima, Peru as Assistant Representative. In 1997, she moved to the UNODC Headquarters in Vienna, Austria, where she first worked as a Programme Manager for South America and later became the Chief of the Regional Section for Latin America and the Caribbean, working on technical cooperation projects in drug control and crime prevention. In early 2007, she joined UNODC in La Paz, Bolivia as Representative, where she worked with communities on different projects.
Cristina holds a Master’s Degree in Agronomy from the Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Germany, as well as a Postgraduate Certificate in Development from the Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik in Berlin.
