27 C
Lagos
Sunday, June 22, 2025
Home Blog Page 2181

IPCC concludes AR5, says climate change threatens irreversible, dangerous impacts

Michael Simire
-
0
IPCC concludes AR5, says climate change threatens irreversible, dangerous impacts

Human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed on all continents. If left unchecked, climate change will increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. However, options are available to adapt to climate change and implementing stringent mitigations activities can ensure that the impacts of climate change remain within a manageable range, creating a brighter and more sustainable future.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of IPCC
Rajendra Pachauri, head of IPCC

These are among the key findings of the Synthesis Report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Sunday, November 2, 2014. The Synthesis Report distils and integrates the findings of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report produced by over 800 scientists and released over the past 13 months – the most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever undertaken.

“We have the means to limit climate change,” said R. K. Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC. “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change.”

The Synthesis Report confirms that climate change is being registered around the world and warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Since the 1950s many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. “Our assessment finds that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, sea level has risen and the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased to a level unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years,” said Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

The report expresses with greater certainty than in previous assessments the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic drivers have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The impacts of climate change have already been felt in recent decades on all continents and across the oceans.

The more human activity disrupts the climate, the greater the risks. Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of widespread and profound impacts affecting all levels of society and the natural world, the report finds.

The Synthesis Report makes a clear case that many risks constitute particular challenges for the least developed countries and vulnerable communities, given their limited ability to cope. People who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalized are especially vulnerable to climate change.

Indeed, limiting the effects of climate change raise issues of equity, justice, and fairness and is necessary to achieve sustainable development and poverty eradication.

“Many of those most vulnerable to climate change have contributed and contribute little to greenhouse gas emissions,” Pachauri said. “Addressing climate change will not be possible if individual agents advance their own interests independently; it can only be achieved through cooperative responses, including international cooperation.”

“Adaptation can play a key role in decreasing these risks,” said Vicente Barros, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II. “Adaptation is so important because it can be integrated with the pursuit of development, and can help prepare for the risks to which we are already committed by past emissions and existing infrastructure.”

But adaptation alone is not enough. Substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are at the core of limiting the risks of climate change. And since mitigation reduces the rate as well as the magnitude of warming, it also increases the time available for adaptation to a particular level of climate change, potentially by several decades.

There are multiple mitigation pathways to achieve the substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades necessary to limit, with a greater than 66% chance, the warming to 2ºC – the goal set by governments. However, delaying additional mitigation to 2030 will substantially increase the technological, economic, social and institutional challenges associated with limiting the warming over the 21st century to below 2ºC relative to pre-industrial levels, the report finds.

“It is technically feasible to transition to a low-carbon economy,” said Youba Sokona, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III. “But what is lacking are appropriate policies and institutions. The longer we wait to take action, the more it will cost to adapt and mitigate climate change.” The Synthesis Report finds that mitigation cost estimates vary, but that global economic growth would not be strongly affected. In business-as-usual scenarios, consumption – a proxy for economic growth – grows by 1.6 to 3 percent per year over the 21st century. Ambitious mitigation would reduce this by about 0.06 percentage points. “Compared to the imminent risk of irreversible climate change impacts, the risks of mitigation are manageable,” said Sokona.

These economic estimates of mitigation costs do not account for the benefits of reduced climate change, nor do they account for the numerous co-benefits associated with human health, livelihoods, and development. “The scientific case for prioritizing action on climate change is clearer than ever,” Pachauri said. “We have little time before the window of opportunity to stay within 2ºC of warming closes. To keep a good chance of staying below 2ºC, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40 to 70 percent globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zero or below by 2100. We have that opportunity, and the choice is in our hands.”

The Synthesis Report, written under the leadership of IPCC Chair R.K. Pachauri, forms the capstone of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The first three volumes, based on outlines approved by the IPCC’s 195 member governments in October 2009, were released over the past fourteen months: The Physical Science Basis in September 2013, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, in March 2014 and Mitigation of Climate Change in April 2014.

IPCC reports draw on the many years of work by the scientific community investigating climate change. More than 830 coordinating lead authors, lead authors and review editors from over 80 countries and covering a range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views and expertise, produced the three working group contributions, supported by over 1000 contributing authors and drawing on the insights of over 2,000 expert reviewers in a process of repeated review and revision. The authors assessed more than 30,000 scientific papers to develop the Fifth Assessment Report. About 60 authors and editors drawn from the IPCC Bureau and from Working Group author teams have been involved in the writing of the Synthesis Report. Their work was made possible by the contributions and dedication of the Synthesis Report Technical Support Unit.

“I would like to thank the hundreds of experts from the world’s scientific community who have given freely of their time and expertise to produce the most comprehensive assessment of climate change yet undertaken,” said Pachauri. “I hope this report will serve the needs of the world’s governments and provide the scientific basis to negotiators as they work towards a new global climate agreement.”

The IPCC is the world body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC assesses the thousands of scientific papers published each year to inform policymakers about what we know and don’t know about the risks related to climate change. The IPCC identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community, where there are differences of opinion, and where further research is needed.

The IPCC offers policymakers a snapshot of what the scientific community understands about climate change. IPCC reports are policy-relevant without being policy-prescriptive. They do not promote particular views or actions. The IPCC evaluates options for policymakers, but it does not tell governments what to do.

The IPCC reports draw on the wisdom and dedication of the entire scientific community dealing with climate change, with the involvement of experts from all regions and diverse scientific backgrounds. IPCC authors and reviewers, including the Chair and other elected officials, work as volunteers. They are not paid for their work at the IPCC. Only a dozen permanent staff work in the IPCC’s Secretariat in Geneva.

The members of the IPCC, comprising the Panel, are its 195 member governments. They reach consensus in endorsing the reports of the IPCC as comprehensive and balanced assessments of the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic literature. They set its procedures and budget in plenary meetings of the Panel. The word “Intergovernmental” in the organisation’s name reflects this role. It is not a United Nations agency, but was established by two UN organisations – WMO and UNEP.

IPCC reports are requested by the Panel and developed by authors drawn from the scientific community in an extensive process of repeated drafting, review, and revision. Scientists and other experts are invited to participate in this review process. The Panel endorses these reports in a dialogue with the scientists who write them. In this discussion the scientists have the last word on scientific accuracy.

The IPCC produces comprehensive assessment reports on climate change every six years or so. Among its other products it also issues special reports on particular topics requested by its members, and methodology reports and software to help members report their greenhouse gas inventories (emissions minus removals).

With the release of the Synthesis Report, the IPCC has now finalised the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The AR5 is the most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever undertaken. Over 830 scientists from over 80 countries were selected to form the author teams producing the report. They in turn drew on the work of over 1,000 contributing authors and over 2,000 expert reviewers. AR5 assessed over 30,000 scientific papers.

The 1535-page contribution of Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis) to the AR5 was finalised and released in September 2013. The Working Group II contribution (Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability), consisting of Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects (1132 pages) and Part B: Regional Aspects (688 pages), was finalised and released in March 2014. The Working Group III contribution (Mitigation of Climate Change) of about 1500 pages was finalised and released in April 2014.

Working Group I’s Technical Support Unit is hosted by the University of Bern in Switzerland and is supported by the Swiss Government. The Working Group Co-Chairs are Qin Dahe of China and Thomas Stocker of Switzerland. Working Group II’s Technical Support Unit is hosted by the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, and is supported by the U.S. Government. Its Co- Chairs are Vicente Barros and Chris Field. Working Group III’s Technical Support Unit is hosted by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and supported by the Government of Germany. Its Co-Chairs are Ottmar Edenhofer of Germany, Ramón Pichs-Madruga of Cuba and Youba Sokona of Mali.

The Synthesis Report is the capstone of an assessment report. As its name implies, it distils, synthesises and integrates the findings of the Working Group contributions into a concise document, of about 100 pages.

This integrated approach allows the Synthesis Report to draw on the findings of the three Working Group reports as well as the two Special Reports brought out in 2011. It highlights contrasts and makes comparisons between findings from different Working Groups. These comparisons provide critically important information for policymakers.

The writing of the Synthesis Report is led by the Chair of the IPCC, R. K. Pachauri. Its Core Writing Team includes authors of the Working Group reports and the members of the IPCC’s Executive Committee. The Synthesis Report comprises a Summary for Policymakers and a longer report. At its recent meeting in October 2014, the Panel approved the Summary for Policymakers line by line, and adopted the Longer Report section by section, to ensure consistency with the underlying Working Group reports. The Synthesis Report Technical Support Unit is hosted by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and supported by the Norwegian Environment Agency.

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS

admin
-
0

From Marrakech to Bulawayo: African CSOs confront climate change

Michael Simire
-
0
From Marrakech to Bulawayo: African CSOs confront climate change

It took 22 days in the month of October 2014 to complete the race of about 70,707km from Morocco to Zimbabwe.

Samson, Samuel Ogallah of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA)
Samson, Samuel Ogallah of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA)

What is at stake here, the Olympics, the World Cup, Africa Cup of Nations torch or the visit of King Mohamed VI to President Mugabe? You be the Judge!

If East Africa was involved in this race, you can guess they will lift the gold medal but it was between the north and south so it can’t be it.

Well, this was the distance covered by the Morocco Network on Climate Change (MNCC) at Marrakech on October 7, 2014 and Zimbabwe Climate Change Coalition (ZCCC) on October 29, 2014 when the two national chapters of PACJA were launched respectively.

What did the two nations have in common besides been African countries – The Challenge of Climate Change!

It is no longer news that Africa remains a vulnerable hotspot to climate change and its adverse impacts continues to derail the development gains made by the continent in the past, present and even in the near future if urgent actions are not taken. These actions have to be local and global and every stakeholder has a part to play.

African civil society organisations are not taken this challenge lightly. The Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) has over the years initiated the formation of national networks of CSOs across Africa to champion the fight against climate change. It is against this backdrop that the Alliance which operates in 45 African countries with over 1000 CSOs recently launched the Moroccan and Zimbabwean chapters of PACJA.

This is what the Ministers in charge of the environment of the two countries say about this initiative:

“…the Moroccan government will continue to support climate civil society through effective collaborations with CSOs using the credible platform already provided by the new PACJA chapter in Morocco” – H.E. Ms. Hakima El Haite, Minister Delegate to the Minister of Energy, Mining, Water and Environment, Morocco.

“Today, we launch the Zimbabwe Climate Change Coalition and we hope they will carry the country’s interests at heart, to ensure sustainable development and moving towards low carbon growth and climate resilient Pathway for the nation” – Hon. Saviour Kasukuwere, Honourable Minister, Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate, Zimbabwe.

PACJA congratulates MNCC and ZCCC and welcome the two chapters to the One Big Family.

As the Alliance awaits the birth of more new national chapters across Africa, let the race continue…..Dare to join!

By Samson, Samuel Ogallah (Pan African Climate Justice Alliance – PACJA)

Green Climate Fund urged to prioritise grassroots, women, youth-led strategies

Michael Simire
-
0
Green Climate Fund urged to prioritise grassroots, women, youth-led strategies

The Global Greengrants Fund (GGF) recently convened a Summit on Women and Climate in Bali, Indonesia.  In a letter to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the GGF, in collaboration with the International Network of Women’s Fund and Alliance of Funds, calls for the creation of a strategy for influencing the GCF to fund grassroots work, as well as indigenous, women’s and youth-led climate adaptation and mitigation ventures. The four-year-old GCF is working on a business plan, prior to the distribution of funds

 

Dear Board of Directors and Alternates to the Green Climate Fund:

Global Greengrants Fund, the International Network of Women’s Funds, and the Alliance of Funds extend our warm greetings and encouragement as you enter your 8th meeting of the Board of the Green Climate Fund this week.

Nnimmo Bassey of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF)
Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of the Board of Directors, Global Greengrants Fund

We write to briefly inform you of a recent Summit on Women and Climate, held on August 2-7, 2014 in Bali, Indonesia in which grassroots women climate leaders and grantmaking organisations that work in more than 170 countries convened to examine the landscape, strategies, and opportunities for increasing funding to women and women-led organisations around the world working to advance solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

As you already know, women in the global south are more adversely affected than men by the impacts of climate change.  And along with other groups, including indigenous peoples and youth, women are underrepresented in the decision-making spaces that establish the priorities for where and how climate finance is allocated.  Furthermore, the contributions of women in the Global South as leaders in strategies of climate resilience, food security, low carbon agriculture, forest protection, and sustainable energy alternatives are largely not visible to typical funders and finance programmes, resulting in a crucial investment opportunity being overlooked.  This has been well documented including in a recent article in the Asia Times entitled, “Carbon funds bypass Asian Indigenous Peoples.”

This problem is one that an already existing infrastructure of independent grantmaking organisations, based in 42 countries, can help address.  These funds have been designed to deliver accessible funding to local environmental and women’s rights solutions in an effective manner and at a low transaction cost.  The Greengrants Alliance of Funds consists of seven environmental funds with capacity to support grassroots environmental work in more than 100 countries through direct grantmaking and capacity building.  The International Network of Women’s Funds unites 42 funds that work in 170 countries to advance women’s rights and empowerment by mobilising funding and capacity building for grassroots women’s organisations.  Together our funds channel tens of millions of dollars a year to local, women-led organisations around the world in an effective manner with minimal transaction costs and we have the capacity to mobilise much more.  In August, we committed to working together to channel more financial resources to local women-led climate initiatives around the world.

In your work this week we ask that you consider the tremendous need for climate finance resources to directly reach the community and village level, and to make further efforts to support initiatives that are led by women, indigenous peoples and youth.

In particular, we urge the Green Climate Fund to:

  • Establish appropriate mechanisms and measureable goals to ensure that a significant percentage of Green Climate Fund resources directly reaches organisations led by women, indigenous peoples and youth to implement their strategies and solutions for adaptation and mitigation.
  • Strengthen the important work already done in the Gender Policy and Action Plan by actively encouraging the involvement of grassroots women leaders in the design and governance structures of Sub-National, National, Regional and International Implementing Agencies and other distribution mechanisms for the Green Climate Fund.
  • Consider, in discussions of modalities that further enhance direct access through funding entities, how the Green Climate Fund could partner with and leverage the existing global infrastructure of grassroots grantmaking organisations to cost-effectively channel resources to small, local, non-governmental organisations that otherwise would find it difficult to access financial support from the Green Climate Fund for their important work.
  • Consider, in operationalising the Fit-for-Purpose Accreditation approach, how intermediaries funding community-led projects with small grants could be more easily accredited to work with Green Climate Fund resources.

We believe that the Green Climate Fund is obligated to directly support the crucial work that women around the world are leading at the local level to address the causes and impacts of climate change. Our own experience, directly funding thousands of such initiatives in more than 170 countries, demonstrates that this is possible to do on a large scale. We look forward to engaging in further dialogue with the Green Climate Fund about strategies to partner with and leverage existing philanthropic infrastructure around the world that is already providing direct financial support to those who are addressing the most pressing climate change challenges of our time.

 

Sincerely,

Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of the Board of Directors, Global Greengrants Fund

Artemisa Castro, Executive Director, Fondo Acción Solidária; Chair, Alliance of Funds, Mexico

Ibis Colindres, Executive Director, Fondo Vinculos Comunitarios, Honduras

Emilienne de Leon Aulina, Executive Director, International Network of Women’s Funds, Mexico

Anouk Frank, Programme Officer for Policy Development, BothENDS, The Netherlands

Aisling Nolan, Operations Manager, Small Change Fund, Canada

Teresa Odendahl, PhD, Executive Director, Global Greengrants Fund, United States

Nonette Royo, The Samdhana Institute, Indonesia

Maria Amalia Souza, Founding Executive Director, Socio-Environmental Fund CASA, Brazil

Stakeholders applaud Biosafety Bill at Senate hearing

Michael Simire
-
0
Stakeholders applaud Biosafety Bill at Senate hearing

A bill for an act to establish the National Biosafety Management Agency appeared to scale a major hurdle last week in Abuja, where it was tabled for public hearing by the Senate Joint Committee on Agriculture & Rural Development, and Science & Technology.

David Mark, Senate President. Photo: Premium Times
David Mark, Senate President. Photo: Premium Times

At the daylong event, a considerable number of speakers from government, research institutions, international agencies and the academia gave the controversial bill the all-clear, pointing out that, when eventually in place, it will do the nation a lot of good.

Biotechnology applies biological agents on human, animal, plant and soil materials for health or agricultural reasons towards achieving positive results. However, the application of biotechnology can also have negative effects leading to contaminations, infections, complications, diseases and death.

But majority of the participants at the public hearing would rather focus on the technology’s numerous advantages, as they identified and supported the process of enactment into law of the National Biosafety Management Agency Bill, 2014.

For instance, Prof Lucy Ogbadu, Director-General/CEO of the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), submitted that, besides increase in food supply with less farmland requirement, biotechnology would bring about wealth creation and industrial growth, ensure the discovery and delivery of new medicines and vaccines diagnosis in diseases, as well as finding relevance in the clean-up of oil spills, prevention of deforestation and provision of eco-friendly materials.

According to Prof Ogbadu, who is also Chair, Nigeria chapter of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology (OFAB), the bill seeks to minimise risks to human health, regulate the importation of genetically-modified (GM) products, guard against any socio-economic consequences, offer protection against any adverse effect of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) on the environment, and reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to the principles of international agreements and treaties on biosafety.

“The absence of a Biosafety Law has greatly hampered research and development in modern biotechnology in Nigeria; a biosafety law will therefore enable our research institutes to carry out their statutory functions,” she stated, adding that South Africa (1989), Egypt (1995), Kenya (2009) and Burkina Faso (2008) are among African countries that already have such a law in place.

Ademola Olorunfemi, President of the Nigerian Institute of Engineers (NSE), underlined the need for the application of biotechnology in agriculture in the light of the diminishing interest in preoccupation in agriculture/food production activities in one hand and, on the other, increasing demand for food to cater for increasing population while land mass is fixed.

A group displaying placards calling for the quick passage of the bill
A group displaying placards calling for the quick passage of the bill

“This scenario brings a serious complication to the equation of food and agricultural production and makes it difficult to meet global food demand. It is however necessary to scale up global agricultural and food production, despite inherent odds, via the application of science, technology and engineering. The application of bio-technology and bio-engineering are especially crucial in the production, processing and distribution of agricultural and food materials,” he disclosed.

While calling for legislation, labelling, monitoring, regulation and control framework for GM crop utilisation and administration, Olorunfemi described the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as a relevant internationally accepted legal framework on biosafety associated with the movement of GM crops across national boundaries.

Prof Garba Sharubutu, President of the Veterinary Council of Nigeria (VCN), describes the bill as “important”, saying that it aims to protect human and environmental health.

“It is the view of the Council that if the bill is signed into law, issues that border on research and development can be standardised,” he declared, raising concerns on parts of the bill such as Part I Section 2b, Part II Section 3a and Part III (Structure of the Agency).

Prof Malachy Akoroda, Executive Director, Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN), noted that the establishment of a National Biosafety Management Agency would act as a clearing house similar to what NAFDAC is doing for food and medicines.

According to him, a general question regarding the coordinated and/or central disposal of hazardous chemicals is missing from the draft bill, he added.

“There are hazardous chemicals arising from works in the molecular laboratory that would need to be centrally disposed as obtainable in the developed country. There is need to properly incorporate these concerns in the bill for this act to cater for this aspect.”

Dr M.B. Yerima, President of the Biotechnology Society of Nigeria (BSN), expressed support for the bill but would rather prefer the proposed agency to be referred to as National Biosafety Regulatory Agency (NABRA).

“This is particularly so, because biosafety issues border on regulatory approaches. It is the risks that are associated with modern biotechnology applications that are better managed. In this case the idea of the bill is to safeguard the occurrence of the potential risk through the proper regulations,” he stressed.

Dr Yerima likewise underscored the need to have specialised and independent laboratories with the agency for food testing, toxicological testing of pollutants, culture collection and preservation to, according to him, ensure reliability and minimise “cooking of data”.

Prof Shehu Garki Ado, Institutional Biosafety Officer at the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR), Ahmadu Bello University in Samaru-Zaria, insists that Nigeria must take steps towards implementing appropriate biosafety and food quality standards by enacting a bill to that effect.

His words: “The bill will enhance the technical skills of laboratory personnel to ensure judicious use of GM food in the country. Such capacity building activities are part of the efforts to help develop mechanisms for confidence of smallholder farmers and marketers, and make them produce resilient crops for sustainable agriculture in the long run.

“The ultimate goal is to ensure Inclusive Market-Oriented Development (IMOD) by leveraging on the potential of the agribusiness and food processing sectors in the country.”

Prof Mohammad Ishiyaku, Programme Leader, Biotechnology Research, IAR, disclosed that instead of the expensive and harmful chemical insecticides, the institute utilised biotechnology tools to develop varieties of cowpea that are highly resistant to Maruca (a pod boring insect), leading to two-four fold higher yield than the non-resistant types. He added that the beans are under experimentation.

He said: “You can never ascertain the safety or otherwise of the products of modern biotechnology such as our insect-resistant beans without a legislation like this. To do inaction in this regard is to shut off our country from immense potential benefits there are in this technology.

“I urge you to disregard those snobbish elites among us who never tasted hunger or poverty in their lives and have no idea what it means to increase a poor farmer’s annual harvest even by one ton. We must provide the room for all technological options for the transformation of our great country which is to pass this bill into law.”

Dr Chris Ugwu, Executive Director, Society for the Improvement of Rural People (SIRP), however contends that absence of provision for public consultation is a key flaw of the bill.

He declared: “Part VIII, Section 6 of the bill has provisions for public display of applications from individuals or corporations intending to import or introduce GMOs into the country. However, Section 6(2) of the bill indicates that the announcement of the display of such applications is not mandatory. Everything in the section is optional. The announcement of where or when the display would be made is optional as well as whether the agency would convene a public hearing on the matter.

“In fact, the bill does not even say if comments made by members of the public that may get to see the application would be considered. Seeing an application by chance and commenting on it cannot be construed as public participation.”

Dr Ugwu alleges that the bill has left wide gaps that would ensure that those who wish to pollute the environment get away with slaps on the wrist sort of chastisement.

“The provision of fines of up to N2.5 million for individuals and N5 million for corporate bodies may appear huge, but they are actually not significant when we consider, as stated in the bill, the ‘potential risks that modern biotechnology may pose to the environment and human health’.”

He added: “The downside of these penalties is that there is no redress for individuals or communities who may be impacted individually or collectively. There is no clear provisions for polluters to be liable and compelled to remediate impacts. Without clear liability and redress provisions, securing our biodiversity will remain unchanged. What happens, for example, when damage is irreversible?

“The bill has provisions for confined field trials and commercial release but is silent on the possibility of large-scale field trials conducted with low or no contaminant measures. Researches have shown that there is a huge potential of GMOs to contaminate nearby farms and, by our farming practices, farmers may simply take the seeds home and mix them with natural varieties.

“Experts fear that from an ecological perspective, GM crops would lead to uncontrolled large-scale spread and persistence of transgenes within the smallholder agricultural systems in Africa. The result would be disastrous and unpredictable recombination and that would be negatively impact on our crop variety.”

Declaring open the forum, Senate President, David Mark, stated that the need to adopt modern and acceptable means of boosting food production to meet up with the growing population as conventional means were proving to be insufficient.

Represented by Senate Committee Chairman on Interior, Senator Bagudu Atiku, the Senate President urged the stakeholders to take cognisance of the economic, environmental and other benefits of biotechnology in their submissions.

“The issue of biotechnology is an international one and Nigeria is signatory to the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. But, we must domesticate the issues involved so as to benefit from the technology,” Mark added.

Senate Committee Chairman on Agriculture, Senator Emmanuel Bwacha, said the National Assembly was committed to ensuring that the law which was passed but did not get presidential assent in the life of the Sixth Assembly is passed before the end of the Seventh Assembly.

He explained that the law was necessary to put a framework to regulate biotechnology application in Nigeria, adding, “The bill provides derived benefits from modern biotechnology for economic growth, improved agriculture, jobs and wealth creation, industry growth and sustainable environment.”

Various farmers associations were at the Senate chamber displaying placards calling for the quick passage of the bill.

Syngenta sued for $1bn over China’s rejection of GM corn

Michael Simire
-
0
Syngenta sued for $1bn over China’s rejection of GM corn

US corn prices plummeted as China rejected all shipments containing traces of Syngenta’s MIR162. Farmers from five major corn growing states have filed three class action lawsuits against Syngenta, claiming damages of more than $1 billion.

A corn field
A corn field

Syngenta released MIR162, trade name Agrisure Vipera, in 2009. It is engineered to make a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein vip3Aa20 toxic to lepidopteran insect pests (butterflies and moths), and also has a gene pmi (phosphomannose isomerase) from E. coli to allow positive selection for the transgene.

It was created with Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated plant transformation, a particularly hazardous vector system that risks further horizontal gene transfer.

While MIR162 is approved for use in the US, China has not allowed its import into the country.

Syngenta is blamed for destroying the export of US corn to China, which led to depressed prices for domestic corn, according to Volnek Farms, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in Omaha, Nebraska federal court. The two other suits were filed in Iowa and Illinois federal courts.

None of the farmers involved in the lawsuits planted MIR162 seed in their fields in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. But their harvested crop was contaminated with traces of the transgenic trait, and hence unsalable to the Chinese market.

Although Viptera has been planted on only about 3% of US farm acreage, it is difficult to say for sure “that any shipments of US corn will not be contaminated with trace amounts of MIR162”, the Nebraska plaintiff stated.

The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) had encouraged Syngenta to stop selling Viptera, according to the Iowa claim. The NGFA estimated that actions taken in China against US corn have caused prices to drop by 11 cents per bushel.

The Iowa suit also claims that the release of Syngenta’s Viptera caused the US-to-China export market to drop by 85%. Nebraska plaintiffs, too, accuse Syngenta of having crippled the 2013-14 corn export market to China.

The NGFA reported in April 2014 that China had barred nearly 1.45 million tons of corn shipments since 2013.

In 2011, Syngenta requested in federal court that a grain elevator firm, Bunge North America, to remove its signs that said it would not accept Vipera corn. The request was denied.

Concern over the safety of GM food may have played a role in a recent decision by China’s officials to move away from GM production.

In August, China’s Ministry of Agriculture announced it would not continue with GM rice and corn.

By Dr Mae-Wan Ho (co-founder and director of the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS), an independent, not-for-profit organisation founded in 1999 and dedicated to providing critical public information on cutting-edge science, and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science. Since 1994, she has been scientific advisor to the Third World Network.)

‘How BT cotton will transform Nigeria’s economy’

Michael Simire
-
0
‘How BT cotton will transform Nigeria’s economy’

H.A. Kwajaffa, Chairman of the National Cotton Association of Nigeria (NACOTAN), in a memorandum submitted to the Senate last week in Abuja during a Public Hearing on the Biosafety Bill, makes a case for the genetically-modified cotton (or Biotechnology Cotton), saying that its adoption will revive the presently moribund sector

 

BT Cotton
BT Cotton

Cotton is one of the most important commercial crops in Nigeria with a history of more than 100 years. Cotton used to be a very import-export revenue earner of good part of the 20th century. Prior to the advent of oil boom, indeed through the late 1980s, the cotton value chain sector was the second largest employer of labour after the public sector.

However, due to several factors, which led to the closure of the textile mills, cotton production in the country had also declined. Some other factors that contributed to the decline in cotton production are late planting, low yielding seed, pest disease attack, climate change challenges, and low price offer to cotton farmers. There is also the problem of instability in the marketing system.

The introduction of free market and structural adjustment programme (SAP) around late 1980s helped to some extent to remedy the situation but, to date, the sector never regained its pre-eminent position. SAP also introduced a serious problem of inconsistency in the marketing system which led to the problem of poor quality of Nigerian cotton especially the problem of cotton contamination by polypropylene and uncontrollable adulteration of cotton with foreign matters by farmers and buyers.

Cotton is one of the most labour intensive crops known due to not only to weeding, spraying and other requirements but also due to manual picking followed in the country. It is also one the most capital intensive crops due to the requirement of high doses of insecticides.

Cotton is such a unique crop with multi-dimensional purposes. For example, apart from being raw material for textile fabric, the seed is used for production of nutritious and low cholesterol oil, cake for animal feeds; the stalks are used for cardboards, ceiling, and planks. Therefore, there is no wastage in cotton.

Presently, Nigeria produces short and medium staples, yet long staple cotton is in higher demand worldwide given its application for special fabrics. Consequently, the production of long staple cotton is being encouraged under rain-fed condition in the southern cotton producing zone.

The above notwithstanding, cotton production, processing and marketing remains a major business sector and provides employment and means of livelihood to millions of Nigerians directly or indirectly especially in the Northern parts of the country.

 

Cotton growing areas in Nigeria

Cotton cultivation is very well suited to the Sudan and Northern Guinea Savannah where about 95% of the crop is produced. The development of different varieties of cotton with different maturity and biological characteristics has enhanced the adaptation of the crop to most ecological zones in the country. The cotton growing areas in the country covers about 25 states and they are grouped as follows:

  • Northern Cotton Zone which includes Kano, Kaduna, Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, Kebbi and Jigawa states;
  • Eastern Cotton Zone included Borno, Gombe, Bauchi, Adamawa, Yobe and Taraba states; and,
  • Southern Cotton Zone includes parts of Kwara, Ogun, Nasarawa, Niger, Kogi, Oyo, Benue, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti states, as well as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

Cotton can be grown on different types of soil provided the site selected is freely drained. Unfortunately, there has been absence of soil test in the country for many rears. This makes cotton a unique crop that can be grown in virtually all parts of the country. But, unfortunately, today, because of the challenges we have highlighted above, we are not getting anything from this crop called “white gold”.

In many countries such as India, Pakistan, China and Brazil, cotton plays a major contribution to their economies. Even though it utilises over 50% of her production domestically, India remains one of the highest exporters of cotton in the world, netting over $6 billion annually. But, with all the potential we have in terms of arable land and human resources in Nigeria, this great source of revenue and employment is neglected.

 

What we stand to gain if Biotechnology Cotton is introduced

  • Increase in the yield: One of the greatest challenges we have today in Nigeria in cotton production is low yield. The average yield of Nigerian cotton is about 800kg/hectare whereas in India, US and China, the yield is about five tons/hectare. In African countries such as Burkina Faso and Egypt where Biotechnology Cotton (BT) has been introduced, over four tons/hectare is achieved.
  • BT cotton reduces the usage of insecticides and therefore makes it cheaper to produce.
  • Increased earning for farmers: Farmers will earn four times more than they are currently earning from cotton. More farmers will return to cotton production and the national production will greatly increase, thereby increasing our foreign exchange earning therefrom.
  • Massive employment generation: Needless to mention that this is what we need to curb the menacing insecurity in the country especially in the North.
  • Reduce drastically rural-urban migration and its attendant adverse social consequences.
  • Increased standard of living for farmers, families and dependants.
  • It will enhance mechanised farming in the country.
  • BT cotton will make cotton production to become a business in Nigeria and encourage more local and foreign investment in the sector.
  • Because of the low production of cotton, over 30 ginneries in the country are closed down. All these will be reactivated and contribute to the economy by providing employment.
  • We will be able to compete with other cotton producing nations all over the world in terms of pricing and quality.
  • Our textile industry will be reactivated as they will be able to source good and relatively cheaper raw materials and thereby compete more effectively with textile products from other parts of the world.

Despite the wonderful work the current administration is doing to transform cotton production, cotton farmers in the country have over the years suffered a great deal and are still suffering. They have only remained in the production just to fulfil cultural practices. If nothing is done to make cotton production attractive, farmers may eventually turn their backs on the business and, at that stage, its revival would be near impossible.

We however still have a glimpse of hope as some older farmers are still in the business. We believe, very strongly, that BT Cotton, if introduced will be the panacea that we urgently require to restore the glory of cotton in Nigeria. We, therefore, recommend that the Biosafety Law should be passed.

COP11: African Lion, Polar Bear, others require strict protection

Michael Simire
-
0
COP11: African Lion, Polar Bear, others require strict protection

The 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CMS COP11) to the UNEP Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) will take place from 4-9 November 2014 in Quito, Ecuador.

The African Lion. Photo: images.nationalgeographic.com
The African Lion. Photo: images.nationalgeographic.com

A High Level Ministerial Panel will be held on 3 November to discuss how to reconcile the rights of nature with the green economy in the context of sustainable development.

Topics on the agenda of CMS COP11 include:

Species Proposed for Listing

A total of 32 species have been proposed for listing on the Appendices. Appendix I listing requires strict protection, while Appendix II requires coordinated management by the countries through which the species migrate. At COP11, all eyes are on sawfish, rays and sharks, which account for 21 of the total of 32 proposals under consideration. Other iconic species have been put forward for listing, notably the Polar Bear, which is threatened by disappearing sea ice and the African Lion.

Wildlife crime and poaching have become major threats to the survival of many migratory species worldwide. The COP is expected to strengthen transboundary action to fight poaching and illicit wildlife trade within and beyond borders.

Illegal killing, taking and trade of migratory birds put the survival of viable populations at risk. A proposal to convene an international task force to address this issue will be considered by the COP.

Marine debris injures and kills many migratory marine mammals, turtles, seabirds and sharks. Actions to reduce pollution of the marine environment will be discussed.

Renewable energy technology such as wind farms can have negative impacts on migratory species such as bats, birds, fish, marine turtles, whales and dolphins. Based on best practice examples, new guidelines to minimise the impact of this technology will be presented to the COP.

The Central Asian Mammals Initiative is a new innovative approach which embraces an entire region instead of focusing on individual species. Measures are presented to address key threats to save the last migrations of large mammals such as the Bactrian Camel or the Saiga Antelope in this important region.

Single Species Action Plans for Argali Sheep, Pacific Loggerhead Turtles and the endangered Saker Falcon have been elaborated to be adopted at the conference.

World Food Day 2014: Family farmers key to alleviating global hunger – FAO

Michael Simire
-
0
World Food Day 2014: Family farmers key to alleviating global hunger – FAO

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) has recognised family farmers as central to solving global hunger and malnutrition.

Family farmers in Kenya
Family farmers in KenyaFarming

According to FAO, family farming includes all family-based agricultural activities. Family farming is a means of organising agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production, which is managed and operated by a family and is predominantly reliant on family labor. In addition, FAO reports that, based on data from 93 countries, family farmers account for an average of 80 percent of all holdings, and are the main producers of food that is consumed locally.

“The world cannot do without the family farmer,” says Amy McMillen, Partnerships and Outreach Coordinator for FAO. “It’s because of the family farmer that we eat a variety of healthy foods every day. And yet, family farmers still make up the majority of poor and hungry people in the world. We must do more to incentivise, celebrate and exponentially improve the lives of family farmers to ensure all people have access to fresh, healthy food.”

The face of family farming in North America is dynamic. Results from a new survey of 75 North American family farmers, led by Humanitas Global in collaboration with FAO and Food Tank, were unveiled at the Borlaug Dialogue in Des Moines, Iowa last week. The results demonstrate what is at play for those who have stayed on the farm, chosen to leave the farm or taken up farming for the first time. A consistent takeaway from the results demonstrates that North American-based family farmers remain committed to family farming, despite the challenges that exist.

“The survey results and our conversations with farmers reinforce a deep affinity for family farming, but they also show that farmers are torn between a love for the land and trying to make ends meet,” said Nabeeha M. Kazi, President & CEO of Humanitas Global and Chair of the Community for Zero Hunger. “For those who no longer work the family farm, the importance of feeding their communities and the world remains very much part of their identity.”

Seventy-nine percent of survey respondents who have left the family farm said they remain involved in agriculture in their current careers. In addition, a majority of those who have left the family farm said they intend on returning in the future.

“We do not want the universe of family farmers to shrink, and we must have policies, programs and resources to enable family farmers to stay on the farm if they desire to do so and perform at their potential,” says Kazi. “However, we also cannot overlook the power of those who have left the farm. These individuals have tremendous and highly credible voices as we promote and protect the family farm. We should deploy them to inform policy, shape programs and amplify the story of the family farmer in diverse spaces.”

The greatest challenges for family farmers today include the cost of land, labour costs, government regulations and policies, climate change and the inherent risk of farming, as well as the disproportionate amount of work required given the financial returns.

“The survey results show that family farmers do not rely on farming alone to pay the bills,” says Kazi. “Approximately 67 percent of respondents to the survey said that a family member’s income or additional part-time work supplements income from farming.”

On the positive side, a connection with the land and food systems, independence and working outdoors were all cited as the principle advantages of being a farmer. Those who grew up and remained on farms, those who left farms to pursue other careers and new family farmers all spoke of tending to the land and watching food grow as the most fulfilling aspects of being a farmer.

Family farmers are facing economic challenges and beyond. In addition to tools and resources, family farmers are concerned about issues that all Americans worry about – including providing health care for their families and higher education for their children.  And yet, so many people stay on the family farm or are committed to returning, because farming is fulfilling, intellectually stimulating and challenging – and it has shaped their values.

The challenges that family farmers face in the United States and throughout North America mirror the challenges seen globally. Climate change, low profitability and better off-farm opportunities all emerge as the greatest global threats to family farming.

“Recognising the external pressures on family farming, many which the global community can help alleviate, is crucial if we are to make family farming viable and desirable for the next generation,” says McMillan. “FAO celebrates family farmers. We have to be very deliberate and responsive to the needs of the family farmer so they can successfully and profitably do what they love, and that love is feeding and nourishing the world.”

‘Smallholder farmers are key to sustainable management of world’s natural resources’

Michael Simire
-
0
‘Smallholder farmers are key to sustainable management of world’s natural resources’

Smallholder farmers throughout the world play a key role in maintaining natural resources through the use of sustainable practices, and can significantly contribute the conservation of biodiversity, the Convention on Biological Diversity stressed on Thursday, in a joint press conference with the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), held in the margins of COP 12 in Pyeongchang, South Korea, on the occasion of the World Food Day 2014.

Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity

The theme for this year, “Family farming: Feeding the world, caring for the Earth”, seeks to raise the profile of the more than 500 million family farms, which produce about 80 percent of the world’s food and are crucial to ensure global food security.

“These 500 million families of farmers should be considered key players in the management of the world’s biodiversity – they are the largest group of biodiversity managers.  Achieving the Aichi biodiversity targets relevant to agriculture will require their efforts,” said Eduardo Mansur, Director of FAO Forest Assessment, Management and Conservation Division.

Achieving food security is intrinsically linked to the conservation of biodiversity. Family farms use a vast array of plant varieties and animal breeds in the most diverse and challenging environmental conditions. By using these breeds and varieties, family farmers conserve a broad genetic diversity. These genetic resources are indispensable for breeding new varieties and breeds and allow people to cope with present and future environmental and social changes.

 

Towards achieving Aichi biodiversity targets

Family farmers also possess unique knowledge and understanding of the local ecology and land capacity, which allows them to manage diverse landscapes. Their sustainable management of land and fisheries makes family farmers important contributors to the achievement of sustainable development and the global biodiversity goals known as the Aichi Targets.

The 20 targets, which are due in 2020, include having all fish stocks managed and harvested sustainably, as well as areas under agriculture and forestry. They also aim to halve the rate of loss of all natural habitats and significantly reducing degradation and fragmentation. Through practices like crop rotation and using alternatives to chemical pesticides, family farmers prevent soil erosion and degradation of ecosystems.

Sustainable farming practices also increase the resilience of ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.

“Supporting the work of family farmers throughout the world would contribute substantially to eradicating poverty and to reaching global food security.  These important stakeholders also have a role in implementing many of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, such as contributing to developing and implementing sustainable agriculture, forestry and aquaculture practices, maintaining genetic resources for food and agriculture, to reduce the loss of natural habitats and others,” said Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

1...2,1802,1812,182...2,252Page 2,181 of 2,252

TV Report

Archives

2025 EnviroNews Nigeria. All Rights Reserved.

×