Follow The Money, a non-profit initiative of Connected Development (CODE), has been awarded a one-year grant of $100,000 (NGN19,894,994) by Omidyar Network to finance the cost of projects in local communities such as stakeholders meetings, focus group discussions, travel support, and visualisation.
Hamzat Lawal
Founded in 2012 by Hamzat Lawal and Oludotun Babayemi, Follow The Money uses traditional offline engagement methods and technology tools to track government and international aid spending at the local level.
In 2012, the initiative was able to save the lives of about 1,500 children in Bagega, Zamfara State who needed urgent medical attention for lead poisoning. And after the 2012 flooding in Nigeria, the group was able to track N17 billion allocated for intervention and document the impact on affected rural communities.
In 2015, the group’s activities convinced the federal government of Nigeria to change its controversial $49.8 million (N9.2 billion) clean cookstoves plan and ensure accountability.
“Foreign aid and government spending should be grounded in how the spending affects local community realities. Government programmes that track the impact of funds in local contexts are still remarkably rare,” said Hamzat Lawal, Chief Executive of Connected Development.
Omidyar Network’s grant comes through the philanthropic investment firm’s Governance & Citizen Engagement initiative, which works to build stronger and more open societies by increasing government responsiveness and citizen participation.
In the past, Follow The Money had received grants from The Indigo Trust, Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) through her Open Societic Initiative led by CITIC Dakar, Open Knowledge Foundation, Heinrich Boell Foundation in Nigeria and The European Union.
Biodiversity and the ecosystem services it underpins can be the basis for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies as they can deliver benefits that will, according to the outcomes of a recent technical workshop on ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, increase the resilience of people to the impacts of climate change.
Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity
The key messages from the workshop, recently held in Johannesburg, South Africa, were delivered at a side event in Ankara, Turkey, at the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. The focus of the messages is that governments should consider ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction to provide safety nets to communities in times of climate shocks and natural disasters. These findings come in advance of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“Paris 2015”).
“Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems are the building blocks that provide natural solutions which build resilience for society to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change,” said Barbara Thomson, Deputy Minister, Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa.
As climate change increases the frequency and intensity of extreme weather and climate events, ecosystems can provide protection from these extremes by stabilising the movement of water, earth, rocks and snow; serving as a buffer from climate impacts and hazards. Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation (EbA) use biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while ecosystem-based approaches to disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) are defined as ‘sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to reduce disaster risk, with the aim to achieve sustainable and resilient development’.
“Biodiversity is a critical resource, not only for climate change adaptation and mitigation, but as a tool to make countries more resilient and help reduce the risk and damages associated with natural disasters,” said Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity. “Taking ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation and ecosystem-based approaches to disaster risk reduction enables people to adapt to the impacts of climate change by using opportunities created by sustainably managing, conserving and restoring ecosystems to provide ecosystem goods and services. It is clear that these approaches should be integrated into broader adaptation and development strategies.”
Healthy ecosystems can also reduce socio-economic vulnerability by providing essential goods and services to people, such as supporting income generation and protecting human health. At the twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in October 2014, member States requested the Executive Secretary to compile and analyse experiences on ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and ecosystem-based adaptation. In response, the Secretariat is preparing a synthesis report that compiles experiences, planned activities and national targets of Parties, as well as other relevant information related to EbA and Eco-DRR. In addition, a technical workshop on ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction was organised in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 28 September to 2 October 2015, with the support of the European Union, the Government of South Africa, the Government of Sweden and the Government of Germany.
The purpose of the workshop was to review a draft synthesis report on experiences with implementation of EbA and Eco-DRR, identify gaps and share more information to strengthen the report. Workshop participants, which included national experts from key regions, including from Small Island developing States and least developed countries, representatives from indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as experts from relevant organisations, provided perspectives on implementing EbA and Eco-DRR.
The main conclusions from the synthesis report and from the workshop will be presented to the Convention’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice for consideration at its twentieth meeting.
The World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry has filed a petition urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reduce the use of amalgam – a dental filling that is 50% mercury – in order to conform with the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Other petitioners include the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry, Asian Center for Environmental Health, African Center for Environmental Health, and Mercury Policy Project.
Charlie Brown
The Minamata Convention requires parties to “phase down the use of dental amalgam.” The nations deemed this measure necessary to protect the environment and human health. The U.S. government signed and accepted the Minamata Convention on November 6, 2013.
But, contrary to the Convention, the FDA dental amalgam rule insists that “any change towards use of dental amalgam is likely to result in positive public health outcomes.” It claims “any change away from use of dental amalgam is likely to result in negative public health outcomes.”
“The U.S. led the negotiations for the Minamata Convention on Mercury – from jumpstarting negotiations to supporting robust terms to ratifying the Convention first,” says World Alliance president Charles G. Brown, “But to maintain the leadership role of the United States on mercury issues, FDA must revoke and replace its mercury amalgam rule.”
Numerous non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from around the globe are pointing out the discrepancy between the U.S.’s obligation to phase down amalgam use and FDA’s policy supporting the phase up of amalgam use. Most recently, sixty environmental organizations wrote the State Department, urging Secretary Kerry to bring FDA into compliance with the Minamata Convention’s amalgam phase down requirement.
“Other nations look to the amalgam issue as a litmus test,” says Dominique Bally, Vice President for Africa. “Does the U.S. government view the Minamata Convention as merely a soapbox to lecture other nations about their mercury uses…or as a serious commitment to phase down dental amalgam, its own leading intentional mercury use?”
The World Alliance is an umbrella coalition of consumer organisations, dental associations, and environmental groups working together to phase out the dental industry’s mercury use. The World Alliance has a network of more than 50 NGOs, 10 regional vice presidents, and other leaders including dentists, scientists, environmentalists, engineers, physicians, economists, journalists, patients’ rights advocates, and attorneys.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council in Washington DC on Wednesday October 21, 2015 approved what it has described as “a first-of-its-kind multi-million-dollar” project to help protect over 80 percent of the Amazon and boost efforts to combat climate change.
Naoko Ishii, GEF CEO and Chairperson
The GEF will commit $113 million for the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes Programme, a regional programme spanning Brazil, Colombia and Peru that is expected to leverage $682 million in additional financing and span over five years.
The programme aims to maintain 73,000,000 hectares of forest land, promote sustainable land management in 52,700 hectares, and support actions that will help reduce CO2 emissions by 300 million tons by 2030. It will be implemented by the World Bank as lead agency, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
For the first time, a programme will take an integrated approach to protecting the Amazon ecosystem, the operators said in a media statement, adding that iIt will protect globally significant biodiversity and mitigate climate change by implementing policies to foster sustainable land use, protected areas management and restore vegetation cover.
“The Amazon plays a critical role in global climate regulation as well as in the region’s environmental and economic prosperity, and is the single largest repository of biodiversity on the planet,” said Naoko Ishii, GEF CEO and Chairperson. “Together, Brazil, Peru and Colombia are responsible for about 83% of the Amazon basin within their territories. For the first time the concerned countries and partner agencies have come together to design an integrated, coordinated approach to the sustainable management of a significant portion of the Amazon ecosystem,” she said
“The World Bank, as lead implementing agency, is fully committed to working with the countries and agencies involved to increase collaboration in learning and capacity building on best practices to maintain forest resources, protect biodiversity and enhance forest management within critical landscapes to benefit people’s livelihoods and long-term well-being,” said Paula Caballero, Senior Director of the World Bank’s Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice.
This Programme builds on many decades of work in the Amazon by governments, bilateral and multilateral agencies, NGOs, CSOs, and private donors.
At the 49th session of the Council meeting, Brazil and Colombia representatives expressed their desired hope for continued collaboration and celebrated the unprecedented progress already made by the programme in terms of information sharing between countries.
“In Brazil over the last 10 years, we have reduced deforestation in the Amazon by 82%. We have recognised 13% as indigenous lands, and established 27% of protected areas,” said Ana Cristina Barros, Secretary of Biodiversity and Forests of Brazil’s Ministry of the Environment. “The book of destruction is over. Building on previous success, we are now writing a beautiful story on forest restoration with a happy ending.”
Meanwhile, Colombia has launched its “Visión Amazonía,” targeting the expansion of the Chiribiquete National Park and consolidation of its buffering zone as part of a larger deforestation reduction programme.
“Colombia has been working on connectivity strategies between conservation areas and strengthening of public, private and community stakeholders for the implementation of strategies which promote the maintenance of ecosystem services, traditional knowledge, low carbon rural development and peacebuilding, that we are looking forward to sharing with the other countries in the programme and learning from Brazil and Peru,” said Ms. Gaia Hernández Palacios, Head of the International Affairs Office of Colombia’s Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, and Political Focal Point for the GEF.
Peru, for its part, has a national Strategy for Forest and Climate Change that tackled the reduction of deforestation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
“The threats to the Amazon forests and rivers related to export markets, transport infrastructure development, illegal activities, social inequality and poverty are growing. It is only through strong cooperation among our three countries that we can expect to succeed in preserving biodiversity and forests in the Amazon,” said Mr. Gustavo Suarez de Freitas, Coordinator for the National Programme for Conservation of Forests in Peru’s Ministry of Environment.
The Amazon Biome is an incredible repository of biological diversity, with over 16,000 known tree species, and 2,500 species of fish. While the area is predominantly covered by dense moist tropical forest, less extensive areas include savannas, floodplain forests, grasslands, swamps, bamboos, and palm forests, and 14% of the Amazon is wetlands. There are about 33 million people living in the amazon watershed, deriving their livelihoods from rivers and tributaries, including fisheries, one of the most important services.
Following the exit of Odigha Odigha – erstwhile chairman of the Cross River State Forestry Commission (CFSFC) – as the State Coordinator for the REDD+ Programme in the state, the authorities have begun shopping for a replacement. But civil society operatives are frowning at the seeming monopolisation of the position by the CRSFC, stressing that UN-REDD+ is indeed a national project and not a state initiative. In a correspondent to Salisu Dahiru, the National Coordinator, the activists are demanding public participation, transparency and social accountability in the process of recruiting a new state coordinator in order to, according to them, engender stakeholder commitment and support.
Salisu Dahiru, National REDD Programme Coordinator
Following the outcome of the meeting of the Technical Committee of the United Nations REDD+ Programme in Cross River State (CRS) held on 7 and 8 of October, 2015 in Calabar, where the Cross River State Civil Society Network and NGO Coalition for Environment were represented as members, a meeting of relevant Civil Society Organisations in Cross River State with interest in the REDD+ Programme was convened shortly after to provide feedback on the outcome of the meeting. As a key point and outcome of the meeting, we hereby cordially intimate you of our position on the selection of a new State Coordinator for the REDD+ Programme in Cross River State on behalf of the Civil Society Organisations.
The Civil Society Forum thereby observed that:
Whereas the Nigeria REDD+ Programme document recognises the National REDD+ Coordinator from the Federal Ministry of Environment and CRS Forestry Commission’s Chairman as the programme managers.
Whereas the position of the Chairman of the Board of CRS Forestry Commission is created by law – CRS Forestry Commission Law 2010, and as such has the statutory mandate to exercise such functions as State Coordinator of an internationally funded and nationally driven programme like REDD+.
Whereas, the constitutional requirement for the composition of the Forestry Commission Board headed by a Chairman is representative of REDD+ stakeholders and remains the most acceptable, appropriate, and efficient platform for the Coordination of REDD+ in CRS. Specifically, PART1, Section 3(1) of the CRS Forestry Commission Law states as follows:
The Commission shall consist of:
A Chairman;
Two persons appointed from Non-Governmental Organisations, (NGOs) whose activities are relevant to the functions of the Commission provided that such NGOSs have been active and in consistent existence for at least the last five years;
Two persons from the private sector;
The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice as ex-officio member;
The Commissioners or officers charged with the responsibility of Forestry; Bio-diversity and Conservation; Environment; Finance; and International Donor Support as ex-officio member;
Conservator General who shall be a Director of Forestry;
The Permanent Secretary of the Commission who shall be the Secretary of the Commission;
A representative of the Civil Society Organisations; and
A representative of the Cross River State National Park.
In consideration of the above, the Forum thereby resolved to take the following positions and seek your immediate intervention:
While it is not the interest of the Civil Society to investigate the operations of the past Board, The Civil Society Forum however demands openness, honesty and transparency in conduct of officials of the Forestry Commission and state that we do not accept the public statement made by the Permanent Secretary of the Commission at the just concluded CRS REDD+ Technical Committee to justify her position for Forestry Commission’s dominant control of REDD+ stating that “I did not have the privilege of anything handed over to me and so I don’t have records to work with”. This statement is difficult to comprehend when the Permanent Secretary is by law the Secretary of the Forestry Commission, and as such of the Board.
Whereas the Forestry Commission in a closed door meeting in September, 2015 with other agencies of government in the State decided and circulated internal memos to government offices for the recruitment of a new State Coordinator without consultation with and input from other stakeholders of the REDD programme in State, a move that the Civil Society considers as a misguided step even before the composition of operational structures in addition to existing civil service structures by the new State Government. The Civil Society Forum would therefore like to know: What are the set criteria for selecting the New State Coordinator; how have the stakeholders been involved in the choice and implementation of this process so far; and what happens to the selection of the State Coordinator if and when the Board of the commission is reconstituted with a Chairman?
Whereas at the Technical Committee meeting the members conceded to the exclusive stance of the Forestry Commission to control the REDD+ programme from a position of dominance and not influence to facilitate dialogue among stakeholders, the Civil Society Forum strongly expresses concern that the position of the Forestry Commission and desire for power, has created and will continue to create sustained doubt and suspicion in the minds of stakeholders, especially communities whose basic asset for survival and wellbeing is the forest. This is detrimental to the implementation of REDD+.
Whereas the Civil Society has the man power and is able to provide coordination of REDD+ in the State, and whereas the Forestry Commission has assumed the leadership of the Safeguards Working Group and the Technical Committee, notwithstanding, the Civil Society does not seek the position of REDD+ Coordinator and therefore strongly advises that in the absence of a Forestry Board and a Chairman, and the necessary replacement of a State Coordinator for REDD+, the recruitment process should be overseen by the CRS REDD+ Technical Committee, the REDD+ National Coordinator and the CRS REDD+ Secretariat as a demonstration of transparency, accountability and stakeholders participation in governance that REDD+ suggests.
Whereas the Permanent Secretary at the Technical Committee meeting said ‘we are soon concluding the process of recruitment for the State Coordinator and will announce to you’, The Civil Society Forum is of the opinion that the on-going recruitment process should be reviewed and extended to allow for broad consultation, set criteria for the selection, in the event that stakeholders agree and can justify the decision to overlook the roles the Chairman of Forestry Commission Board.
Whereas the Civil Society Forum fully accepts and supports the Chairman of the Technical Committee selected by the Permanent Secretary of the Forestry Commission, however a similar unilateral decision and imposition of a State Coordinator will be counterproductive. Considering the participation of several other Ministries, Departments and Agencies of government, the Academia, and Forest Dependent Communities, pilot site communities, if there must be a replacement other than the Forestry Commission Board Chairman, without any sentiments, the civil society forum recommends that the person must be from these other stakeholder groups and satisfy basic capacity requirements for the office, and be acceptable to the various stakeholders in the overall interest of the Programme.
In the spirit of participation and commitment to the wellbeing and development of our dear State, Cross River and Country, Nigeria, we thank you for paying attention to and acting on our suggestions to get CRS and Nigeria REDD-ready. God Bless.
The City of Oslo in Norway on Monday October 19, 2015 became the first capital city in the world to ban investments in fossil fuels, as it announced it would divest its $9 billion pension fund from coal, oil and gas companies.
The announcement follows a previous pledge in March to ban investment in coal.
Lan Marie Nguyen Berg of the Green Party. Photo credit: norskklimanettverk.no
Lan Marie Nguyen Berg of the Green Party in Oslo said: “We are very happy to announce that Oslo will take responsibility for the climate, both through our own policies and our investments. The time for climate action is now, and the new city government will address climate change both locally and globally. The reduction in pollution will make the city even better to live in, and ensure that we take our global responsibility.”
In June this year, the Norwegian Parliament also announced the country’s Sovereign Wealth Fund – worth $900 billion – would sell off over $8 billion in coal investments.
Oslo’s “brave decision” just weeks away from the UN climate talks in Paris has been welcomed by but national and international environmental groups.
Arild Hermstad of Norwegian environmental NGO Future in Our Hands said: “There’s a strong symbolism when the capital city of our oil producing nation says ‘no’ to investing in fossil fuels. It shows that fossil fuels are history, and that shifting away from them, and to renewables, is the future. We expect and we encourage other oil producing countries to follow suit.”
350.org Europe Team Leader Nicolò Wojewoda said: “Oslo sets an example for cities around the world and shows investors like the Norwegian pension fund that if you have committed to divest from coal, it’s time to take the jump to divest from all fossil fuels now. If you want to see climate action, you can’t continue investing in the coal, oil and gas companies that are ruining our climate.”
Oslo joins a growing movement of 45 cities around the world that have committed to ban investments in coal, oil and gas companies.
Last month, a study showed that to date more than 400 institutions and 2,000 individuals from across 43 countries, and managing more than $2.6 trillion have pledged to ditch their holdings in fossil fuels.
As it becomes clear that large swathes of known fossil fuels must be left in the ground if the world is going to limit global temperature rise below the internationally agreed danger threshold of 2C, more and more institutions are pulling their funds out of these risky, dirty energy companies, and shifting their investments into fueling a renewable energy future.
What began as half a dozen college campuses in 2011, has grown to a global movement that is reaching right to the heart of the financial sector.
And the pressure is now on other to follow Oslo’s suit as the fossil fuel divestment movement challenges more investors to commit to divest from fossil fuels in the lead-up to the climate negotiations in Paris.
Wojewoda said: “Through this win and strong campaigns in London, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm and many more cities, divestment is moving on to an even bigger stage – we hope that national governments in capital cities around the world will take notice, and start breaking their own links with the fossil fuel industry.”
France has frowned at Nigeria’s inability to submit its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) ahead of the 1st October 2015 deadline.
Stephane Gompertz, France’s Ambassador for Climate Change
Stephane Gompertz, France’s Ambassador for Climate Change, who was in Abuja recently, wondered why Nigeria, a major stakeholder in the 2015 Paris climate talks, is yet to submit its climate action plan. The ambassador stated that every country is supposed to produce an Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), and submit to the UNFCCC ahead of the last set of pre-conference negotiations which began in Bonn on Monday.
“That document presents the intentions of specific government regarding the fight against climate change as far as what we call mitigation is concerned, limiting or diminishing emission of greenhouse gases.
“The document also contains the intentions of government regarding adaptation, helping people, communities or villages to cope with the consequences of climate change, which are here really,” he said.
Gompertz further expressed worry over Nigeria’s inability to submit its INDCs before the Oct. 1 deadline, in spite of the extension of the initial deadline from March. According to the French ambassador, Nigeria, as an influential country in Africa, is needed to spur other countries into action and not the other way round.
“Nigeria is a country which has great potential in UN renewable energies. So, Nigeria should set an example for other countries,” he added. Gompertz pointed out that the impact of climate change in Nigeria is manifesting in the form of coastal erosion, desertification and deforestation, adding that African was more affected than other continents.
He, however, expressed confidence in the commitment of President Muhammadu Buhari to climate change issues.
“It is a bit of a paradox because we know that on a personal basis, President Buhari is committed to preserving the environment.
“This, he has said repeatedly to our President when they met with each other,” he said.
The French envoy also said that the late or non-submission of the INDCs carries implications for the country.
“There is an implication; recently, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat has set a deadline for the submission of INDCs and that deadline was October. 1.
“Why? Because the secretariat has to make a synthesis of all the INDCs received and make a report for COP 21. They cannot do it in one week. That means that there is a risk that Nigeria’s INDC might not be taken into account. I hope that if Nigeria’s INDCS comes up, let’s say this week, it would still be possible to catch up. But then, I think it will be a pity because what Nigeria is trying to do might be a reference for other countries.
“But in all respect, I think it will be very good for Nigeria to submit its INDC as soon as possible even if the secretariat cannot use it as it plans to do, it might be very useful in the future,” he said.
Gompertz said the change of government might have contributed to the late submissions but expressed the hope that the INDCs would still be submitted. “I have heard that, technically, the INDCs is almost ready. So it needs the political blessing.
“Obviously, the political blessing at the highest level meaning is that of the President. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Nigeria’s INDCs will be produced in the forthcoming days,” Gompertz said.
Dr. Samuel Adejuwon, Director, Department of Climate Change in the Federal Ministry of Environment
Meanwhile, Dr Samuel Adejuwon, Director, Climate Change Department, Federal Ministry of Environment, has explained that Nigeria’s INDCs has been prepared and forwarded to the Presidency for vetting. He disclosed that the ministry has concluded the technical aspect of the document. According to him, “when you are preparing a document that has financial implication and has some developmental implications, the Federal Government must approve it.”
“You must let government buy in into what you are doing otherwise; you cannot be committed to implementing it so we have advised the Federal Government look into the document and approve.
“We have asked them to look at it with little considerations of key members of inter-ministerial committee on climate change and make adequate recommendations to Mr President.
“It is only then, that we can submit our INDCs, there is nothing binding about the day of submission what is important is that we submit and we should be able to submit before the conference,” he said.
Adejuwon added that the good news about the Paris agreement is that it is not going to be operationalised until 2020.
On 13 October, China switched on the $1.5 billion Zam Hydropower Station, set at the highest altitude among all hydel power plants in the world. And that should worry India.
The Zam Hydropower Station. Photo credit: http://s3.india.com/
The river that the Zam plant is built on is known as Yarlung Zangbo in China; in India it is called Siang and is among the main tributaries of the mighty Brahmaputra – yes, the lifeline of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.
So, how would the 510-megawatt project affect India?
China says there wouldn’t be much of an impact as Zam is a ‘run-of-the-river’ project. Beyond that, it has only assured that any adverse impact on India would be sorted out diplomatically.
But how comforting is China’s assurance?
Siang is only a tributary of Brahmaputra. It flows through Arunachal to Assam where it combines with Lohit and Dibang.
As the jargon suggests, ‘run-of-the-river’ projects do not need to store water to generate electricity. The tiniest form of such a project is a simple turbine placed in a river, spinning with its normal flow. They are known to be less harmful than standard dams that block the flow of water, depriving regions downstream of the river.
Problem is, the Chinese dam is much bigger.
In such projects, all the silt is removed before the river water hits turbines. Thus, the flow emerging from there is almost silt-free. That’s harmful. Such water is more powerful and has a greater capacity to erode. Silt deposits also make the river banks fertile.
Large run-of-the-river projects do not store water, but they also don’t generate power only from a river’s natural flow. Instead, water is diverted through long channels and the force of its flow is manipulated. This harms aquatic life.
Thus, such projects impact the biodiversity of the river downstream. Fewer varieties of and quantities of fish in the river in Siang is likely to affect livelihoods of riverside communities downstream.
Who regulates
The flow of water coming from such dams needs to be regulated. This has been a sore thumb with most such projects worldwide.
Take the example of Canada’s British Columbia province, which has many such projects. There were more than 700 instances in just 2010 when dam authorities flouted rules and changed water flow too suddenly, killing thousands of fish, found the Globe and Mail newspaper.
As changing water flow at the Chinese dam will affect India, regulations should involve both. Any mechanism will have to be a diplomatic measure.
But India and China do not have any river-use agreement, which will make enforcement of such a mechanism nearly impossible. Despite concerns raised by India for several years about the impact of China’s projects on Brahmaputra, no joint mechanism has come up.
China’s Zam dam will kill thousands of fish, reduce soil fertility in India. What can India do?
And the impact would not only be on fish: if China suddenly releases a lot of water, or if the dam ever bursts, it would be disastrous for India, especially along Siang and to an extent, Brahmaputra.
The project would also affect India’s own ambitions in generating hydel power from Siang. Over 40 projects have been planned along it, though none of them have taken off as they have not received environmental clearances. If they do become operational, they will also be at risk of such sudden increase in water flow.
So what can India do?
There are almost no studies in India to try and understand the impact of these projects put together, according to Himanshu Thakkar of the South Asian Network for Dams, Rivers and People.
India first needs to get all information on such projects from China. It also needs to conduct a separate study to analyse the cumulative impact of all dams taken together. Combining the impact of individual projects may not be enough.
“Even if India were to take this issue to the United Nations or to the International Court of Justice, it needs to have these assessments in place to build a case,” Thakkar said.
As the eleventh part of the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) (ADP2.11) kicks off this morning in Bonn, Germany courtesy of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), capacity building will be a key aspect of the deliberations. The meeting will take place from 19 – 23 October 2015.
Saleemul Huq, a Senior Fellow in the Climate Change Group at the IIED. Photo credit: cdn.ipsnews.net
At a pre-ADP2.11 meeting held on Saturday, Parties underlined the need for capacity building in all countries (developing as well as developed). The need for support to capacity building in developing countries was also acknowledged by Annex 1 Parties.
The difference between Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1 Parties, however, lies in how to achieve it, according to a team of participants under the global civil society platform – CAN-I.
Saleemul Huq, a Senior Fellow in the Climate Change Group at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), stated: “As in so many other areas Annex 1 do not feel the need for UNFCCC to do anything more than just continue to talk about it endlessly but not do anything more. While developing countries (especially LDC Group) are pushing for a new Capacity Building Committee (or something similar) to be set up under SBI.
“The purpose of today’s workshop was to thrash out the ideas and for us to convince Annex 1 of the need for a new Committee. We did not win the argument outright but we made a strong showing.”
Describing the Paris Text on Capacity Building as “very weak”, Huq, a Bangladeshi scientist based in London, added: “CAN should support the developing countries position for a separate Capacity Building Committee.
“Incidentally one reason that many Annex 1 countries favour status quo is because they tend to provide funding for climate change capacity building through their own bilateral channels (eg DFID in UK, GIZ in Germany, etc) and their default modality is to hire a British or German consulting company who will then send an “expert” to each developing country to do a “training workshop” for a day or so and thus tick the Capacity Building box by having a few people attend their workshop.
“This is totally the wrong approach for any genuine Capacity Building initiative which needs to invest in developing Capacity Building SYSTEMs at national level.”
According to Surveyor Efik, who heads the Climate Change Network Nigeria, the capacity building workshop identified the following:
Gaps and Needs
Institutional and systemic processes for the implementation of adaptation and mitigation
Low capacity for MRV
Execution/implementation of INDCs
Coordinated plans and monitoring mechanisms to identify gaps
Evaluation of performance
Best practices/clear follow up and improvement of delivery
Adequate/appropriate finance
Focus/sustainability
Private sector engagement/stakeholder support/gender stakeholder support
Human capacity
He said: “In the draft decision from Warsaw, the idea is to have two representatives of each of the existing bodies, TEC and CGE) as each is doing or looking at capacity building on different themes. And it should be a dedicated team and not just a committee. Capacity to manage data, engage other stakeholders, create a framework that brings everyone on board – these are important functions that vary from country to country.
“Capacity to develop regulatory frameworks/create the enabling environment. Need for a process to better align with global and local to address the disconnect. This will also have implications for how finance is spent.”
Coherence and Coordination
Roles and responsibility
Parties must have some way of bringing that information to the fore – better reporting or other processes
Need for strong analysis to enable follow-up and coordination
Assessment of gaps can also inform the process
Parties can put the information in better reporting (BR) if they wish to
Countries need to be able to provide information, possibly through focal point
Have a lot of reporting/information portal, possibly complementary at strengthening international coordination.
Countries can help support compliance with the goals of the convention per experience of the Montreal protocol
Regional centre can also support coordination in some cases
Notion of funding institutional strengthening in countries
Need to pin down what it can do beyond a reporting/gap analysis function, given the diversity of bodies in the convention.
Need for stronger analysis to enable follow-up and coordination, take an overview/do a mapping and recommend appropriate actions (possibly tailored to the sub-groups needs.
Timeframe: May start working January 2016
On how to strengthen the MRV system, he added: “We may need to prioritise / look at immediate term functions that need to be filled to make progress more viable. This agreement needs to set out the direction of travel on strengthening capacity building. The decision will set out practical steps to be taken, if there are unfulfilled functions that can be prioritised.
“More work needs to be done to clarify and decide the options and review the institutional arrangement for coherence of purpose.”
Further Clarification on the Initial Mode of Work at ADP 2.11
Following 22 pre-consultation meetings held by the ADP Co-Chairs, a meeting of heads of delegation was convened on 18 October 2015 to consider the initial mode of work at ADP 2.11. It was agreed that the outcome of ADP 2.11 should be a short, concise and coherent Paris package on workstreams 1 and 2 for further negotiation at COP 21. As far as possible it will include text with broad acceptance, as well as crystalized, clear options requiring final decision during the ministerial segment at COP 21.
To this end it was agreed that, following a short opening ADP plenary, an open-ended ADP contact group will be convened. Negotiating groups and interested Parties will be asked to introduce their proposed surgical insertions in textual form to the non-paper contained in document (ADP.2015.8.InformalNote). Insertions will first be invited on the draft agreement. Thereafter, insertions will be invited on the draft decision, including the draft decision on work stream 2. Such insertions should be presented orally in the room and submitted immediately to the secretariat electronically.
Parties agreed to exercise restraint in submitting proposals that in their view must be included in a revised non-paper if it is to serve as a starting point for text-based negotiation among Parties at ADP 2.11. Parties also agreed that all proposals submitted throughout the week will have the same status.
It was agreed that a meeting of heads of delegation will be convened immediately after this first session of the ADP open-ended contact group to agree on the way forward and the mode of work.
The Green Climate Fund has published its first set of funding proposals that will be reviewed by the Fund’s Board on the occasion of its eleventh meeting in Livingstone, Zambia, next month.
The fact sheet presents an overview of GCF’s early portfolio development. Since July 2015, the Fund received a total of 37 initial funding proposals for projects and programmes from public and private sector entities, eight of which have been submitted to the GCF Board for its consideration.
The proposals cover a range of funding themes, including water access, disaster risk management, land-use management, energy efficiency, and small-scale renewables. They come from various types of entities, including those at the national, regional, and international levels. Three proposals were submitted by direct access entities and five through international access entities. More than 80 per cent of the projects are located in LDCs, SIDS, and African countries.
Detailed information about the funding proposals have been published on the GCF website at http://bit.ly/1hHJcug.
