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.
Healthy forests protect our climate and moderate our weather. As the ‘Godzilla’ El Niño builds in the weeks ahead of Paris talks, it is a timely warning that deforestation is partly to blame for its impacts
Indonesia is smouldering and Godzilla is to blame. But even though this is reality, not a monster movie, there is still a hero: the tropical rainforest.
A man carries his son through the haze on the way to his house as fires burn peatland and fields at Ogan Ilir in Palembang. Photo credit: Ulet Ifansasti/Getty Images
This year’s El Niño, the ocean-traveling climate cycle notorious for throwing the weather off kilter, is nicknamed “Godzilla”. While it is projected to deliver plenty of rain to some parts of the world, including drought-parched California, it is already causing dangerously dry conditions in the tropics. Papua New Guinea, for example, is experiencing its worst drought in decades, which spells doom for coffee and food crops.
The last time El Niño was this intense, in 1997, five million hectares of rainforest went up in smoke in Indonesia at a time when rain usually falls in sheets. The forest fires generated gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 13-40% of the world’s fossil fuel emissions at the time. The resulting haze, which spanned an area from northern Australia to the Philippines to Sri Lanka, caused widespread health problems and grounded airplanes.
Standing, healthy forests, the Earth’s “sweat glands”, pump moisture into the atmosphere, providing the globe with its greatest defense against droughts, forest fires and other weather-related disasters. Without this buffer, we’re more exposed and vulnerable to the whims of extreme weather.
To maintain an effective buffer, it is imperative that global efforts to protect forests are accelerated. Tropical forests are important climate bulwarks, and the impact of cutting them down packs a wallop beyond the release of the vast stores of carbon they hold. Tearing down forests also changes the earth’s surface, triggering major shifts in rainfall and increases in temperature worldwide that can be just as disruptive to the climate and weather as those caused by carbon pollution.
One of the most ambitious forest commitments to date, last year’s New York Declaration on Forests, recognises the “double whammy” impact of deforestation on the climate and weather. This agreement among corporations, governments, NGOs and indigenous groups to end deforestation by 2030 includes a call to restore and regrow forests in addition to protecting already-standing forests.
Planting forests eventually stores carbon. But it takes an agonizingly slow 50-100 years or more for new forests to absorb the amount of carbon released when a tropical forest is cleared and burned. It is far more effective to prevent the forests from falling in the first place. But planted forests can provide a different, underappreciated benefit to the world’s climate and weather – and they do so more quickly than they recover carbon or the plant and animal life they once held.
Within a decade, most planted forests in tropical regions develop a closed canopy, as branches from one tree touch those of the next. At this stage of growth, they transform substantial amounts of water in the soil – which they reach via roots far deeper than found in crops or grasses – into moisture in the air, which cools the atmosphere above and the area around them. This process also generates moist conditions and rainfall locally and in the surrounding region.
It also generates the mass movement of air and conditions in the upper atmosphere that ultimately influence rainfall and temperature, both close by and far away. When forests are standing, they give us our climate and they can help protect us against a changing climate.
But when forests are cut down, these systems are disrupted. Changes in circulation due to tropical deforestation ultimately hit the upper atmosphere, where they cause ripples, or teleconnections, that flow outward in various directions, similar to the way in which an underwater earthquake can create a tsunami. The atmosphere connects climate in one place to climate in the rest of the world.
Deforestation across the tropics, therefore, might alter growing conditions in agricultural areas in south-east Asia, South America and Africa, and as far away as the US Midwest, Europe and China. This means that cutting down forests could imperil the world’s breadbaskets, even those thousands of miles away from the tropical forest belt – with dire implications for the ever-increasing demands on the world’s food supply.
As the Godzilla El Niño bears down and the climate talks in Paris heat up, remember that deforestation is partly to blame for its impacts. Deforestation worsens droughts, making El Niño more damaging than it would otherwise be. Healthy forests protect our climate and moderate our weather.
The international community assembling in Paris in December cannot keep global warming below 2C without both protecting the world’s remaining tropical forests and restoring vast areas of tropical forest that have already been lost. If we do not ensure the future of our forests, this year’s Godzilla El Niño may prove to be a puny harbinger of the monsters to come.
By Deborah Lawrence (an environmental sciences researcher at the University of Virginia), The Guardian of London
On 1 October 2015, the Indian government submitted India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It has been received to surprisingly wide acclaim, in the media, by large non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and policy experts.
Manmohan Singh, Indian Prime Minister. Photo credit: macedonianonline.eu
Climate change policy documents have become developmental road maps. In presenting either mitigation of carbon emissions or adaptation measures, the 38-page INDC touches upon existing and planned policies in the areas of urbanisation/smart cities (p 13), transport (p 14), agriculture (p 20), water (p 21), public health (p 22) and coastal regions (p 23). Preliminary estimates, it says, suggest India needs $2.5 trillion to meet its stated climate change obligations between now and 2030. India is clearly expecting “low-cost international finance.” The rightness of the principle notwithstanding, it is doubtful whether international funding on any meaningful scale will actually be received.
Some aspects of the INDC are indeed welcome: a huge expansion of grid-connected rooftop photovoltaic has been planned (p 9). It lists a number of energy efficiency measures, including standards issued to 478 industrial plants in eight energy-intensive sectors, and improved standards in appliances, lighting and buildings (p 11). The expansion of mass rapid transit systems (MRTS) of over a thousand kilometres in a number of cities has been proposed (p 15). However, India’s INDC is deeply problematic at its core.
Hiding behind the Poor
Central to the INDC are two proclamations: “to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP [gross domestic product] by 33% to 35% by 2030 from 2005 levels,” and to generate “about 40% cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030” (p 29).
Emissions intensity refers to the amount of carbon dioxide (co2) and other gases emitted per unit of GDP. A reduced intensity implies a slower rise. But working through the numbers reveals that it will result in a massive rise in India’s total emissions. Given the worsening economic crisis worldwide, let us conservatively assume that India will have an annual GDP growth rate of 5% over the period 2005–30. This would imply, after accounting for the reduced emissions intensity of 33%–35%, India’s emissions in 2030 would be 2.5 times what they were in 2005. According to an Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment (INCCA)/Ministry of Environment and Forests report, India’s gross emissions in 2007 were 1,904 million tonnes of co2 equivalent, CO2-eq (INCCA 2010: i). (CO2-eq includes other greenhouse gases, GHGS, as well, such as methane and nitrous oxide, measured in terms of their capacity to trap heat relative to co2.) So in 2030, India’s emissions would be equivalent to about 5 billion tonnes of co2, very likely more. This is staggeringly high, and would form a significant part of straining the Earth’s capacity to absorb GHGs.
This large rise in emissions is justified, by government and several independent observers, in terms of a “development deficit.” Since India needs to still develop, it is only reasonable, they say, that our emissions will grow significantly. In this is an implicit assumption that future emissions will be to everybody’s benefit. This has little basis in reality: despite electricity generation capacity more than doubling, from 1,12,700 MW in 2004 to 2,34,600 MW in 2014, 304 million people in India still have no access to electricity (INDC: 5). Or take energy/fossil fuel use: in rural areas, 87% of Scheduled Tribe and 70% of Scheduled Caste households still use firewood for cooking (Rukmini 2015). Consider poverty: incorporating multiple indicators to measure poverty beyond just calorie intake, such as hygiene, clothing, education and health, one study found that “69% of India is below the poverty line …the rural situation is much worse at 84%” (quoted in Shetty 2008: 13). Or take the nature of employment, a key factor in persistent, rising inequality: while there has been an increase in jobs in recent years, almost the entire increase has been in the unorganised sector (Shetty 2008). Crucially, real wages for factory workers in 2012 were lower than they were in 1996.
There is no denying the justified, huge demand for electricity among the common people. There is also no denial of the huge benefits of electricity on people’s lives. But there is no basis to assume that their lot is going to improve magically due to a pathway that would treble India’s emissions by 2030. Nor is the future direction promising, given the recent attacks by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government on rights of organised workers and forest communities, its attempt (aborted so far) to amend land acquisition laws and its regular criticisms of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and the Forests Rights Act.
What is even worse, the underclasses in whose name India’s sharp rise in emissions is being legitimised, tend to be the worst victims of climate change impacts, as seen during the Uttarakhand disaster (2013), the Mumbai floods (2005) and in the Sunderbans. The gains for the poor from much higher emissions are small, the adverse impacts huge.
Meanwhile, the better-off are growing. According to Kotak Wealth Management, the number of households with a minimum net worth of Rs 250 million has been rising steadily: 62,000 households in 2010, 81,000 in 2011, 1,00,900 in 2012, 1,17,000 in 2013–14. So when the Indian government states in the INDC that India’s per capita emissions are only 1.56 metric tonnes (p 2), it is shamefully hiding behind the poor. It has the temerity to say “this is because Indians believe in nature friendly lifestyle and practices.” This ignores the lifestyles of the 1,75,000 households with assets of one million dollars or more (RUPE 2014: 41), whose per capita carbon emissions are much higher than the average European and even American. The ecological footprint of the richest 1% of Indians is over 17 times that of the poorest 40% (Shrivastava and Kothari 2012). India’s valid position regarding differentiated responsibilities and historically unequal emissions between countries is not reflected in similar scrutiny of inequality between the rich and the poor within India itself.
This lack also pervades the INDC’s proposals regarding climate change adaptation. Reducing risk and improving the capacity of people to adapt to climate change is linked to effective poverty eradication, improving food security through sustainable farming, promoting greater biodiversity, improving public health, and strengthening community resilience. These linkages have simply not been made explicit.
Indiscriminate Expansion
This rise in wealth of and consequently higher consumption by the better-off has resulted in a huge and indiscriminate planned expansion of electricity generation, which the INDC reflects.
First, the INDC uses the term “non-fossil fuels” rather than “renewables.” This allows the government to include nuclear power. It sets a target of 63 gigawatts (GW) by 2032, a huge expansion from the current and under-construction installed capacity of 10 GW. It calls this power “a safe, environmentally benign and economically viable source!” After Chernobyl and Fukushima, to call nuclear power “safe” is delusional. And if one looks at the impacts of nuclear fuel mining, and the still-unsolved problem of safe disposal of nuclear waste, calling it “environmentally benign” is plain dishonesty. Nor is it economically viable, partly because “every reactor constructed by the Department of Atomic Energy has experienced cost overruns” and “importing 10,000 MW of foreign reactors would cost trillions of rupees” (Ramana 2012: 189). All these reasons make nuclear power the least suitable form of generating electricity in a climate crisis.
Second, within “renewable,” the INDC includes “a vast potential of more than 100 GW” of hydropower. Of India’s 46 GW of currently installed hydroelectric capacity, an overwhelming 42 GW comprises large hydro. Since there is no mention of priority to micro-hydel, the INDC clearly implies a further expansion of large hydroelectric projects. Dozens of such projects are under construction or being planned, especially across the fragile Himalayan ecosystem. The enormous displacement, ecological damage to rivers and riverine ecosystems, submergence of forests, impacts on agriculture and people downstream, and methane emissions from reservoirs will all intensify with the expansion of large hydro, which cannot by any stretch of imagination be designated as “clean energy.”
Third, the INDC also slips in “clean coal” as “clean energy.” Coal of any quality has to be mined from mostly forested and inhabited areas, so its expansion will mean massive deforestation and displacement. The INDC says “coal will dominate power generation in future,” which hardly seems like a vision of an environmentally and socially sustainable future. The Modi government has recently drastically cut down the list of forested areas in which coal mining would not be allowed. Coal combustion and fly ash cause mercury poisoning; exposure to other heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead, even to premature deaths. And as the climate scientist James Hansen has pointed out, a single large coal thermal project causes the extermination of innumerable species as a consequence of co2emissions over its lifetime. We appreciate that coal mining in particular is a huge source of employment, however hazardous, for lakhs of workers. Discussions about the possibilities of transitioning from coal and other fossil fuels to clean energy, and how “green” employment could be part of this are therefore urgent. Some union federations and other collectives in India have been engaging with these questions, but the INDC and the government in general are silent.
We are not against all forms of electricity generation. But an indiscriminate expansion of power generation which the INDC proposes will have huge adverse impacts on communities everywhere. Even climatically benign large solar parks and wind farms have social and environmental hazards, such as grabbing land from farmers and pastoralists, and damaging ecosystems. Rooftop solar aside, we are concerned about the ultra mega solar power projects and 25 solar parks mentioned (INDC: 9), with several private corporations making blistering profits.
Hence, it would have been heartening had the INDC stated instead that much of the 40% generation from non-fossil fuels would be decentralised renewable energy (DRE, including solar, wind, hydro, biomass). DRE is not only ecologically less damaging but also more easily managed (and even set up) by communities, and therefore more able to provide quick energy access to the poor. Large-scale electricity production goes into centralised grids, from where access to the underprivileged has been poor. This issue of energy justiceis mirrored by the issue of energy democracy: who decides about energy source, distribution and price? With DRE, decision-making can much more easily be with communities who need the energy.
A Sinking Feeling
Another important area is potentially harmful. The INDC says India will create by 2030 an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of co2-equivalent. India will enhance carbon sequestration by 100 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year, by afforesting 5 million hectares (mha) and improving forest cover over another 5 mha (pp 16, 29).
It is hypocritical to talk of new areas under forests when existing forests, some of it millions of years old, are being axed in the name of development. Forestland diversion for mining, irrigation, power, industry, expressways and urbanisation is intensifying, with over 6 lakh hectares of forestland diverted since 1992 (CSE 2012). Compensatory afforestation of a few species can never replace this loss. Now funded under compensatory afforestation schemes, afforestation also takes over lands from communities dependent on them, often in violation of their rights. What is more, the NDA government proposes to hand over 40% of “degraded” forests to private capital. This will entail the further enclosure of commons lands. All of this has harmful implications for all forest communities, so it is not clear exactly what “increasing the forest/tree cover” would imply.
Beyond Tipping Points
We also need to situate India’s INDC within a larger frame. By now, all the major carbon emitters and 148 countries overall have submitted their INDCs. What do their proposals imply for the planet?
The US says it will reduce its absolute emissions by 26%–28% below 2005 levels by 2025. It has shifted its baseline year from 1990, which it was in the Kyoto Protocol, to 2005. With a 1990 baseline, the US’s reduction target is a mere 13%–15%, much less than needed. Its emissions in 2013 were actually 7.4% higher than its 1990 levels (Narain and Bhushan 2015). China proposes to lower its carbon emissions intensity by 60%–65% from 2005 levels. It has also said it will try to peak its emissions before 2030, but has mentioned no target, and its emissions by then should be in the range of 13–15 billion tonnes. If one adds India’s 5 billion tonnes of CO2-eq, and the US figure, then just the big three will have taken emissions well beyond what the planet can absorb.
Include the emissions of all the other big emitters, and we have a recipe for massive disaster. The Delhi-based research and advocacy organisation, Centre for Science and Environment, says the carbon budget is being overshot:
INDCs submitted by all major emitters indicate that cumulative emissions between 2012 and 2030 would be in the range of 700–800 billion tonnes of CO2…the world is not on a path to the 2 degrees C target. This would be disastrous for poor people across the world (CSE 2015).
It would be even more disastrous for innumerable species, with a staggering proportion of all species worldwide committed to extinction.
Completely missing from India’s and all these INDCs is a sense of urgency. Last year was the hottest year in recorded history. July 2015 was the hottest month in 1,627 months, since monthly records began in January 1880. Several feedbacks in the climate system (ecosystem responses that cause further warming) such as melting Arctic ice, methane escaping from thawing permafrost, more water vapour in the atmosphere, etc, have already kicked in. They will soon begin to feed on each other on a scale that will make it impossible for us to intervene. The INDCs and negotiating positions that India, China, the US and other major emitters bring to the table at the COP21 in Paris in December would need to be far more ambitious and qualitatively different if the planet is to avoid crossing dangerous levels of global warming.
