33.1 C
Lagos
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Home Blog Page 2182

Threats to environment as US govt remains shut

0
Obama
Obama

Last Tuesday’s shutdown by the United States government has entered its second week. It resulted because the House of Representatives and Senate could not agree on a bill to fund the government.

There are wide swaths of the Federal Government that need to be funded each year in order to operate. If Congress (House and Senate) cannot agree on how to fund them, they have to close down. And that is exactly what happened.

Each year, the House and Senate are supposed to agree on 12 appropriations bills to fund the federal agencies and set spending priorities. Congress has become really bad at passing these bills, so in recent years they have resorted to stopgap budgets to keep the government funded (known as “continuing resolutions”). The last stopgap passed on March 28, 2013, and ended on September 30.

In theory, Congress could have passed another stopgap before Tuesday. But the Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House were at odds over what that stopgap should look like. The House passed a funding bill over the weekend that delayed the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) for one year and repealed a tax on medical devices. The Senate rejected that measure. They voted a few more times and still no agreement was reached.

However, not all government functions simply evaporated that Tuesday – Social Security checks still got mailed, and veterans’ hospitals stayed open. But many federal agencies shut their doors and sent their employees home, from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to hundreds of national parks.

In addition to costing hundreds of thousands of people their jobs, the shutdown has prevented key agencies from serving the American people. The EPA is one of the hardest-hit. The agency was basically shut down, and 94 percent of its 16,205 employees sent home.

U.S. EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, said that the agency left just a handful of staff members available to “keep the lights on and respond in the event of a significant emergency.”

Those protecting toxic Superfund sites stayed, but pollution and pesticide regulators got sent home.

Employees who “ensure continued public health and safety, including safe use of food and drugs and safe us of hazardous materials” were sent home. Workers who protect federal lands and research properties were sent home, as employees who provide disaster and emergency aid. 505 Superfund cleanup sites in 47 states were closed. And staff that write and implement greenhouse gas regulations could no longer come to work.

The National Parks were closed to visitors, but open to oil and gas drilling. Just a few employees were around to monitor the drilling activities. The National Park Service closed more than 400 national parks and museums, including Yosemite National Park in California, Alcatraz in San Francisco, and the Statue of Liberty in New York. The last time this happened during the 1995-96 shutdown, some seven million visitors were turned away. The Forest Service had to cut its staff, too, right in the middle of peak forest fire season.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development was not able to provide local housing authorities with additional money for housing vouchers. The nation’s 3,300 public housing authorities stopped receiving payments, although most of these agencies had enough cash on hand to provide rental assistance through the end of October.

Most of the Department of Energy’s offices closed during a shutdown, except for those groups overseeing nuclear weapons and naval-reactor programmes, and officials in charge of dams and electrical transmission lines around the country.

The Department of Interior – which oversees the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management – sent home about two-thirds of its staff. These closures caused a significant loss of tourism revenue for local communities.

The National Science Foundation – which funds 2,000 research institutions, including astronomy observatories, and science and technology centres, as well as millions of dollars in research grants each year – was gravely affected during the last shutdown. Approximately $120 million in research grants went unmade during that time, delaying the support of approximately 2,000 people to carry out research and education activities.

Additionally, 240 grant proposals for science and engineering research and education went unprocessed each day of the shutdown, resulting in a backlog of 3,000 grant proposals, 1,000 of which would normally have been accepted. Dozens of panels, meetings and workshops were cancelled.

About 5,700 employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration remained on the job because their analysis and dissemination of weather data are considered necessary “to protect life and property.”

Last week, Earth Day Network took up a campaign to mobilise the masses to persuade Congress to immediately bring the shutdown to an end, declaring: “The threats to the environment will not rest. We simply can’t afford to let this happen – there’s too much at stake.”

So far, the pleas appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

Stakeholders commit to eradicate Polio

0
Polio victims
Polio victims

The first of a series of round-table dialogues to support the Polio Eradication Initiative in Nigeria held recently in Sokoto, Sokoto State, courtesy of the Sokoto State Primary Health Care Development Agency with support from key Polio Eradication Initiative (PEI) partners including WHO, CDC, Rotary International, TSHIP and UNICEF.

While the state claims it has not reported cases of Polio as at the time of the round-table, environmental surveillance however has shown the virus circulating in a few local government areas (LGAs) in the state. There are also a number of households that continue to reject OPV among the key non-compliance challenges of the eradication efforts in the state. This has not been helped with the emergence of anti-OPV groups in the state whose activities remain a threat to eradication efforts in Northern Nigeria.

Participants at the forum were drawn from the following: representative of the Sultan; State Primary Health Care Development Agency; academics from different faculties in various institutions of higher learning in each high risk state; state chapters of key professional bodies, especially the Nigerian Medical Association, Paediatrics Association of Nigeria, Civil Society Organisations, traditional and religious leaders; leaders of selected elite associations such as Senior Staff Association of Universities/Polytechnics; key officials of security and para-military bodies, including the Nigeria Police Force, Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, Nigerian Prisons Service, Nigeria Immigration Service, and Department of State Services; and Polio Survivor Groups and media professionals and institutions.

The opening ceremony was chaired by the special adviser to the governor on Primary Health Care matters, Comrade Ibrahim Jibrin (represented by the Deputy Governor), who declared the round-table open. This was followed by a rundown of the objectives of the round-table and expectations of all participants. The objectives were:

  • To create a forum for PEI Managers to share the success story so far, and tap from the goodwill, knowledge, experience and wisdom of the identified stakeholders
  • To create a forum for the identified stakeholders to frankly express their views about the programme and make suggestions to help in addressing the current challenges faced by the programme.
  • To expand the platform of stakeholders supporting the programme and to encourage broader ownership of the programme and its imminent success.

The technical session, chaired by the Executive Secretary of the State Primary Health Care Development Agency, Dr. Mohammed Sani Labaran, had a series of presentations which addressed key issues around:

  • Progress of the PEI globally and nationally, with greater focus on the current situation in Sokoto State
  • Key challenges the PEI faces in Nigeria (with ample time for the stakeholders to express their views and make suggestions)
  • How the stakeholders can contribute to the success of the programme, statements of commitment for follow up.

The template of the discourse was built on a presentation on how vaccine works. With an initial basic definition, the presentation explained some of the salient points in the development of vaccines, examples of and a number of frequently asked questions on immunisation and vaccines.

This was followed by a presentation that document “PEI landscape globally, Nigeria and in Sokoto State: Success stories and current challenges.” The presentation traced the historical development of vaccines with a particular focus on OPV. It then explains the following: Brief Historical Background; Polio Eradication Strategies; Brief Global Update; Global Success Stories; PEI Update in Nigeria; Nigeria Success stories & current Challenges; Where we are in Sokoto in terms of PEI; Sokoto Success Stories & Current Challenges. The last presentation, in Hausa, dwelt on the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders to enhance the PEI in Sokoto State.

After extensive deliberations and discussions the participants therefore recommended the need for strategic approaches to PEI in Sokoto state. These approaches from the different stakeholder groups present include:

 

Polio Survivor Groups

  • Commitment to public health education and continued support to PEI as constituted presently.
  • Commitment to resolving of non-compliance during IPDs and other.

Academics

  • Organise sensitisation and advocacy among groups within school communities.
  • Address environmental sanitation within and associated health challenges within school communities.
  • Advocate for establishment of sanitary health volunteers within higher institutions in collaboration with DAP for heath talks and education.
  • Encourage collaboration between educational institutions and surrounding communities to help in house-to-house sensitisation during rounds.
  • Partner with WHO, UNICEF,TSHIP/USAID, CDC, Rotary International and other stakeholders advocate to Head of institutions and board of State Primary health institutions for sensitisation.

Journalists

  • Investigative reporting of key issues of challenges to health care delivery in Sokoto State.
  • Environmental and hygiene education at the community level for a reorientation on other health issues related to child survival.

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)

  • Collaboration with JAP, DAP and PSG on public health education and sensitisation
  • Agree to have CSO Against Polio (CAP) to be formed with institutional framework during children day celebrations and other child health related activities.

Security Agencies

  • Address circulation of inciting religious materials and sermons against Polio and other immunisation efforts in the state.
  • Provide security coverage against assault and harassment of vaccinators during IPDs backed with prompt reporting of cases

Health Professionals

  • Proactive support of health professionals groups for the formation of Polio eradication committee.
  • Advocacy and health education on uptake of routine immunisation during routine medical activities.
  • Full immunisation certificates as prerequisite for enrolment into school.
  • Advocacy for the enforcements of public health legislation provisions (e.g re-introduction of sanitary inspectors).
  • Continuous training and re-training through volunteer professional members with emphasis on proper selection of vaccinators/recorders etc

Traditional Rulers and Religious leaders

  • Commitment to education of community members through dialogue at the community level, mosques and other community level focal points
  • To weigh on government to address misinformation in the community so as to safeguard the lives of the community members
  • Contribution towards proper selection of vaccinators and other team members at the community level.
  • Weighing in on the Imams, Ullamas and preachers at the community for proper health education and orientation on health issues.

The communique was attested to on behalf of stakeholders in Sokoto State by:

  1. Representative of the Sultan (Seriki Bodinga)
  2. Academics from different faculties in various institutions of higher learning in each high risk state
  3. State chapters of key professional bodies, especially the Nigerian Medical Association, Paediatrics Association of Nigeria, Civil Societies Organisations, Traditional and Religious Leaders.
  4. Leaders of selected elite associations such as Senior Staff Association of Universities/Polytechnics, etc.
  5. Key officials of security and para-military bodies, including the police, Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, Nigerian Prisons Service, Nigeria Immigration Service, and Department State Services.
  6. Journalists, Polio Survivors Group and media professionals and institutions.

Climate resilient cities: A role for the media

Dodman
Dodman

Journalists can remind city officials and urban residents about ‘hidden finance’ for climate resilience, and ensure the money gets well spent, says David Dodman, a senior researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

 

Cities are on the front-line of climate change. Journalists have important roles to play in ensuring that cities make the most of finance to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable citizens and infrastructure.

Their media reports can help ensure that these funds become available. They can also shine a spotlight on how the funds are managed to ensure they are spent in ways that deliver substantial improvements to current living conditions and build resilience to future changes in the climate. Step one will be to get to grips with the problem and the kinds of finance available.

The large and growing urban populations of Africa and Asia frequently live in places that are exposed to hazards, such as floods and tropical storms, which will become more frequent and intense in the coming decades. Many towns and cities lack the necessary basic infrastructure and resources to reduce the risk that such hazards pose.

Global discussions about finance to address this challenge seem far removed from this reality. The total amounts pledged by governments through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have not been generated – and even if they were, there are few pathways to transfer the funds to local or municipal governments.

Yet, despite this difficult situation, cities can and do act. A recent assessment of 468 cities worldwide indicated that 68 percent of them were engaging in the process of climate adaptation planning. Another survey showed 54 (of 110 cities) were acting to reduce risks from heat waves by planting trees and carrying out other activities, while 30 cities were going a step further by improving their storm water systems to reduce the risk from flooding.

Even where funds are tight, there is a range of resources available to city governments to take actions that reduce risks. This variety was evident in a conversation I had earlier this month in Dhaka, Bangladesh with people whose job it is to implement adaptation in more than a dozen cities in Asia and Africa. These city officials identified a number of sources of funding for building urban resilience, which include:

  • existing municipal budgets
  • special grants from national governments
  • public service provider investments, and
  • infrastructure loans from development banks.

Some of them argued that using money that is not explicitly labelled as being for climate change adaptation is actually an advantage – as this means that the funds are less subject to shifting priorities and opinions on climate change itself.

A more innovative approach involved handing control of financial resources directly to the communities who are most affected by climate-related shocks and stresses. These locally-managed funds have been pioneered in hundreds of cities in Asia and Africa as a means of giving low-income residents more direct control of their own lives and communities. Low-income groups have used such funds to acquire land in areas less prone to hazards, such as floods and storms, or to make small improvements to the land to improve drainage and reduce the risk of flooding. These actions directly respond to their own present day needs and build resilience to future threats.

What can journalists do?

Few urban residents are aware of the range of funds that their cities could use to build resilience to climate change. Journalists can inform vulnerable citizens about them, so that citizens can in turn make the right demands from their authorities at different scales. To do this effectively, journalists need to understand the variety of these funding sources, what these can be used for, what their limits are, what else is needed, and what other demands compete for the money. They must not let the apparent small size of the funds, or the fact that they are not labelled specifically for ‘climate adaptation,’ blinds them to their potential to strengthen people’s resilience to the impacts of climate change, and to improve their lives.

City government activities play a major role in reducing risks for urban residents. But they don’t always have direct access to the funds needed to build resilience. The media and local activists can build campaigns advocating for greater ‘direct access’ to those funds and, when they do become available, they can act as watchdogs to make sure that they are used wisely.

This will entail journalists reporting on projects and activities, asking how and if low-income residents have been involved, and how the impacts will be monitored. But this will also require that both journalists and officials are not being seduced by flashier, visible infrastructure projects that may generate prestige for elected officials, but which often don’t generate meaningful long-term benefits for local communities that often smaller improvements can.

My discussions in Dhaka, and an earlier meeting with experts at IIED suggest that both city officials and urban residents often forget about the resources that they have at their disposal.

Journalists can remind them that other options exist, encourage the effective use of the resources, and question the accomplishments that result, making an important contribution to building urban resilience.

Video: Malaria control in Nigeria

0

The World Health Organisation WHO says Africa is home to moe than 80% of malaria infections and deaths in the world.
Despite the success of a recent malaria vaccine, Africans will have to wait for years before the vaccine becomes publicly available
My report is focused on prevention and control of the spread of malaria as a key solution in Nigeria.

Watch video

Fresh revelations on Shell pollution in Nigeria

0

The lawyers of four Nigerian farmers and Friends of the Earth Netherlands, who are pressing charges against Shell over the oil pollution in three villages in the Niger Delta, have obtained confidential records that shed new light on the working methods of the Shell oil company.

ND2On the basis of these documents, the lawyers are again asking the court in The Hague for access to additional internal Shell documents, which they want to use to prove that Shell head office in The Hague is liable for the oil leaks that have been occurring in the Nigerian villages. In September 2011, a similar request for access was turned down by the courts.

The lawyers have obtained the Design and Engineering Practice documents, written by Shell in the Netherlands. These documents describe in detail how subsidiaries of Shell Netherlands are to build and maintain their facilities in other countries, such as Nigeria.

Geert Ritsema, campaign leader of Energy & Natural Resources at Friends of the Earth Netherlands, said: “Up to this point, Royal Dutch Shell (RDS), the Shell head office in the Netherlands, has maintained that its operating companies across the world all work under their own authority and that therefore the head office cannot be held liable for any damage brought about by the actions of its subsidiaries. These documents prove that Shell oil company is actually a meticulously managed company. Shell Nigeria works according to guidelines as established by the headquarters in the Netherlands. That means that if damage has been wrought in Nigeria – and there is no doubt that it has – the head office here is responsible.”

In January of this year, the court in The Hague delivered its first verdict in the case filed by Friends of the Earth and the four farmers. The Shell subsidiary in Nigeria has been found guilty of oil pollution in one of the three villages being cited in the case. The company must compensate farmer Friday Elder Akpan from Ikot Ada Udo for the pollution of his land. Shell appealed against this verdict. The court judged there was insufficient proof of Shell’s culpability regarding the leaks from Shell pipelines in the other two villages. Additionally the court ruled that the Shell head office in The Hague can in no way be held accountable for the leakages from the pipelines in the Niger Delta. Friends of the Earth and the farmers appealed against these two verdicts in May.

The new request for access to documents, being submitted by the lawyers of Friends of the Earth and the Nigerians, is the first step of this appeal. The lawyers think that with the new documents in hand they will be able to prove that the plaintiffs have legitimate interest in acquiring access to other internal records of Shell. These could then be used to provide further evidence of the liability of the Shell head office. In September 2011, the court denied a similar request for access. Once the court has ruled on the request for access, the second stage of the appeal will commence. The first sitting in the appeal case is expected in early 2014.

Friends of the Earth and the Nigerians challenged Shell in The Hague court in May 2008. The court case is unique because it is the first time that a Dutch multinational is being challenged in a court in its own country for environmental damage inflicted in another country. Friends of the Earth and the farmers are suing Shell Nigeria (Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria – SPDC, a Shell subsidiary) as well as the Dutch parent company/multinational Royal Dutch Shell for oil pollution in three villages in the Niger Delta: Goi, Oruma and Ikot Ada Udo. Their demand is that Shell cleans up the oil pollution in the villages, compensates the farmers for damages suffered and ensures better maintenance of the oil pipelines.

Geert Ritsema added: “Meanwhile, the plaintiffs are still living with the consequences of the leaks. In Ikot Ada Udo, Friday Elder Akpan is waiting for compensation, in Goi the people are still living surrounded by sticky black oil residue and in Oruma fishing in the creeks polluted by Shell oil is still impossible. New leaks are still occurring on a daily basis in the Delta because Shell is not taking its responsibility. This is impossible to accept for the people living there.”

Meanwhile, compensation talks have begun in Nigeria between lawyers for Royal Dutch Shell and for 15,000 Nigerian villagers who say their livelihoods were destroyed by oil spills from pipelines operated by the company.

The Nigerians launched a suit against Shell at the High Court in London in March 2012, seeking millions of dollars in compensation for two oil spills in 2008 that polluted the waterways of the Bodo fishing communities in the Niger Delta.

The legal action is being closely watched by the industry and by environmentalists for precedents that could have an impact on other big pollution claims against oil majors.

A vast maze of mangrove swamps and creeks, the Niger Delta is home to communities of subsistence farmers and fishermen living alongside the multi-billion-dollar oil industry.

Oilwatch to Ecuadorian president: Keep oil firms out of Yasuni-ITT

0

President of the Republic of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, has been urged by Oilwatch International not to permit the extraction of crude oil from Yasuni-ITT in order to protect the region from environmental damage.

Correa
Correa

In a recent correspondent to Correa, the environment watchdog group told the president to stand firm and continue to show leadership in the area of sound environmental management.

The letter reads:

“We are shocked by the announcement you made on 15 August 2013 that you would permit crude oil extraction in the Yasuni-ITT. We strongly believe that the original decision to leave the oil in this pristine territory in the ground was the right decision and that the decision should not be revised or changed for any reason. We hereby declare our support for the original initiative to refrain from exploitation of the heavy crude oil of Yasuni-ITT.

“Ecuador has shown leadership in many ways, including by recognising the rights of nature (in your 2008 constitution), the Yasuni-ITT initiative and in generally broadening the space for freedom and democracy in the world today. This is the way the most of the world sees Ecuador.

“The single step of opening up Yasuni-ITT to national or international oil companies erases the positive image that your dear country has built with a single stroke. By allowing oil extraction in Yasuni-ITT you would be negating the rights of the indigenous people in the territory who have elected to live in voluntary isolation. Secondly you would be closing the democratic space and declining to listen to the voice of millions of Ecuadorians who have bravely voiced their dissent to your unpopular move. Thirdly, opening up Yasuni-ITT will counter your constitutionally declared rights of nature. Crude oil extraction is by no means a benign activity and the deep scars left by Texaco (Chevron) in the oil fields of Ecuador are a stark reminder that steps must be taken to heal the earth and not to inflict more harm on her.

“Finally, we call on you, Mr President, to ignore the fact that the world did not rush in with the cash you demanded in exchange for keeping the oil untapped. Accept from us that your move had inspired many peoples around the world to demand an end to expansion of fossil fuels extraction, especially into fragile eco-systems. Today, Yasunisation has come to mean the preservation of the integrity of Mother Earth from the ravages of insatiable oil companies and governments by leaving fossils underground.

“Money cannot pay for the gains that the Yasuni-ITT position has given Ecuador and the world. We affirm that the rights of the people of Yasuni and the rights of nature deserve to be respected and defended and that the oil in Yasuni-ITT should be left untapped. And we urge you and the Assembly of Ecuador to do likewise.

“Moreover, Mr. President, we urge you to order a halt to the repression of young people who are standing in support of life and Yasuni!”

The letter was endorsed by: Noble Wadzah – Ghana (Oilwatch Africa), Siziwe Khanyile – South Africa (Oilwatch Africa), Clemente Bautista – Philippines (Oilwatch South East Asia), Faikham Harnnarong – Thailand (Oilwatch South East Asia), Tom Goldtooth – USA (Indigenous Environmental Network), Winnie Overbeek – Uruguay (World Rainforest Movement) and Nnimmo Bassey – Nigeria (Health of Mother Earth Foundation/Oilwatch International).

Unveiling a new global low-carbon spirit

0

In a recent blog, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Christiana Figueres, sums up highlights of a new low-carbon pioneering spirit, made all the more urgent by increasing climate change impacts

 

Figueres
Figueres

Last month, I did some holiday reading and was inspired by Amy Larkin’s account of how the world in general – and businesses in particular – has run up enormous amounts of environmental debt over the years. Her book is also about the private sector waking up to the opportunities posed by climate change, and how governments need to play a crucial role in catalysing climate action. I agree that the right signals from policymakers help create a new generation of low-carbon pioneers. This trend urgently needs to accelerate, in the truest sense of the word.

Part of the world’s accumulated environmental debt mentioned by Amy Larkin in her book came due in August, in the form of yet more extreme weather. According to the 2012 State of the Climate report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published last month, the last decade was among the warmest on record, and the warming trend continues unabated. Unusually hot, dry weather in Alaska wreaked havoc on fisheries, with thousands of fish dying in overheated waters. In China, extreme drought left nearly six million people short of water, causing economic losses in the billions. And, a new World Bank study puts the estimated cost of flood damage to global cities at $1 trillion a year by 2050. So the costs are only set to grow if we do not act. With a growing global urban population, cities across the world have much to lose.

Thankfully, there are signs that decision-makers in boardrooms around the world are indeed rethinking their business models. A new report published in August finds fund managers in charge of investments worth $14 trillion are taking climate change into account when making decisions, and would be willing to do a lot more if they received the appropriate signals from policymakers.

I was encouraged by the good news in August of how renewable energy continues to gain traction around the globe, notably in countries with strong incentives and policies. Germany succeeded in shattering its solar generation record. The country now leads the world in per capita solar capacity, quite an achievement for a northern country that gets as much sunlight as Alaska! If record amounts of solar power can be produced under grey skies, then the potential for countries with sunnier weather is almost limitless. The African continent is a prime example of this untapped potential, with South Africa setting the pace for clean energy investment across the continent. And in a further boost for solar, a recent report by analysts from the Deutsche Bank says that 75% of the global solar market will soon need little or no subsidy.

Tapping away on my computer to write this, I am heartened by the good news from the IT sector about the growing use of renewable energy by computer server farms.

Clearly this is all positive news, but we need to move ahead faster and more efficiently into a low carbon world. And we need to do that quite literally.

August saw the emergence of several impressive sustainable transport innovations that stand to benefit communities and change the investment landscape.In South Korea, the Online Electric Vehicle, or OLEV, electric bus can charge while in transit. This  reduces emissions and associated pollution, while reducing operating costs.

In Copenhagen, where 52% of citizens commute by bike every day, residents and visitors can get around more easily with an innovative bike sharing program that includes built-in GPS to connect bikes and rail transit. I myself enjoy my daily bike commute along the Rhein – it’s an excellent way to stay fit and healthy, while reducing emissions!

Perhaps more relevant for those who need to travel long distances quickly, and a good example of pioneering thinking, entrepreneur Elon Musk has revealed an “open source” vision of 21st century intercity travel with the near-supersonic “Hyperloop” that would link San Francisco and Los Angeles in a 30 minute trip that generates more energy than it uses. These examples represent a rethinking of transportation that is an insight into today’s innovative low-carbon possibilities.

In my last blog, I wrote about the daring journey of the solar impulse plane that flew across the US from LA to New York. Bertrand Piccard, pilot of the solar impulse, says that “Pioneering spirit should continue, not to conquer the planet or space … but rather to improve the quality of life.” I agree with Bertrand Piccard and say that the key to improving our quality of life comes to a large degree with the power of innovative low-carbon solutions.

Stockholm forum explores ways to build water partnerships

Scientists, non-profit organisations and policymakers all over the world convene this week at the Stockholm International Water Institute in Sweden for this year’s World Water Week (WWW) to discuss new research and developments in water conservation – and most importantly, what needs to be done to ensure the protection of one of earth’s most valuable resources for future generations.

Stockholm, Sweden
Stockholm, Sweden

In line with the U.N. General Assembly’s declaration of 2013 as the International Year of Water Cooperation, the WWW 2013 theme is Water Cooperation: Building Partnerships.

According to a recent estimate by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation, 768 million people do not have access to clean water, and two and a half billion people do not have access to adequate sanitation facilities. Contaminated water plays a significant role in malnutrition – vomiting and diarrhoea caused by water-borne diseases prevent the absorption of key nutrients in food, and are responsible for the deaths of approximately 1.3 million children every year.

Meanwhile, crops that are nourished with contaminated water can carry dangerous pollutants, such mercury and arsenic, which can inhibit crop growth and potentially sicken people who consume the crops. Unfortunately, agriculture is not only a primary contributor to global water use – approximately 70 percent of the world’s water use is concentrated in farming – but also to water contamination. U.N. Water estimates that the food sector contributes 40 percent of organic water pollutants in industrialised countries, and 54 percent in developing countries. And the Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition reports that if everyone in the world had the same consumption habits as North Americans and Europeans, a 75 percent increase in water resources would be necessary to sustain them.

During the WWW, Food Tank will also highlight research and innovations that are working around the world to conserve water resources and make clean water available to everyone.

But most importantly, these should serve as inspiration for cooperation. Research institutions, private businesses, governments, and the donor community can all work together to:

  • research simple innovations for providing clean water to households. There are already several low-cost, simple innovations that are available to households in areas with limited access to clean water.

For example, SODIS is a method of solar water purification by which untreated water is placed in transparent bottles and heated and disinfected by UV rays. Charcoal filters and biosand filters can also remove impurities and pathogens from water. The organisation ECHO is training development workers to construct low-cost biosand filtration systems. However, further research and funding needs to be directed toward similar methods for at-home water purification.

  • Build infrastructure for communities. Giving communities the means to access water for personal consumption and for agriculture is a crucial step in global development. In Niger, theInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has constructed solar drip irrigation systems for market gardens. Their model has been replicated by other organizations, such as the Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF), which implemented a similar system in a women’s farming cooperative in Benin. Drilled wells, although expensive to implement, are useful in helping communities access underground aquifers. Governments and nonprofits, such as The Water Project, primarily fund construction of this infrastructure, but there are also opportunities for the private sector to contribute. For example, People Water is a for-profit company, and its Drop for Drop program puts money from bottled water sales toward building and maintaining drilled wells in Haiti, India, and other developing regions.
  • Mainstream organic agriculture. Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and antibiotics in animal waste all contribute to water pollution, causing health problems for eaters and damaging the environment. Water runoff from land treated with chemicals can contaminate water supplies. By implementing organic fertilizers, agro-ecological pest-management methods, and raising livestock holistically and without antibiotics, farmers can prevent contamination of already scarce water supplies.
  • Implement low-resource farming practices. For centuries, farmers across the world have used traditional methods that conserve water. As population demands on agriculture increase, global agricultural water consumption is expected to increase by 19 percent by 2050, indicating a need to expand on water-conserving farming methods. Both new techniques – such as solar-powered drip irrigation methods in Benin – and old – such as zai, an effective form of rainwater harvesting in Burkina Faso, should serve to inform the future of farming.
×