PREAMBLE: Continuing from last month’s theme, linking extreme weather patterns to longer term climate change and impacts on human displacement, this month we focus more broadly on the phenomenon of disasters. Our primary sources for this material are IDMC, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Council of the Norwegian Refugee Centre, and the 2011 United Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, both referenced below [1,3]. Our selections of material are captured verbatim, with only minor editorial amendments e.g., subheadings, paragraph breaks and use of italics, to emphasize aspects that we believe to be of interest to our readers. NOTE: This does not mean that we agree with each and every interpretation, but we do believe that the essence of the material is accurate and in the public interest. Readers who find our selection to be of value of course may visit the original documents as cited.
WHAT IS A DISASTER?
The United Nations has defined a disaster as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing widespread human, material, or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using its own resources”[2]. By this definition, only those events where the losses exceed a society’s ability to cope and external aid is required constitute a disaster.
Most classifications of disaster identify two main types: natural and human-made. Natural disasters are subcategorized as sudden impact, slow-onset, and epidemic diseases; human-made disasters include two sub-categories— industrial/technological disasters and complex emergencies:
1. Sudden impact disasters include floods, earthquakes, tidal waves, tropical storms, volcanic eruptions, and landslides. Floods are most frequently associated with sudden migration of large populations and food shortages. Earthquakes cause the greatest number of deaths and overwhelming infrastructural damage.
2. Slow-onset disasters include droughts, famine, environmental degradation, deforestation, pest infestation, and desertification. These disasters are usually the result of adverse weather conditions combined with poor land use.
3. Epidemic diseases such as cholera, measles, dysentery, respiratory infections, malaria, and, increasingly, HIV, generally do not trigger large-scale displacement even during a severe outbreak although they often threaten displaced populations, especially those clustered in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions following a major disaster.
4. Industrial/technological disasters result from a society’s industrial and technological activities that lead to pollution, spillage of hazardous materials, explosions, and fires. Earthquakes, floods as well as human factors such as armed conflict may trigger secondary disasters such as fires, industrial explosions and pollution/contamination.
5. Complex emergencies are usually human-made with multiple contributing factors (e.g., war, internal conflict and natural disaster) and are marked by large-scale displacement, food insecurity, human rights violations and elevated mortality.
DISASTER TRENDS
Over the past two decades, the number of natural and technological disasters has climbed. From 1994 to 1999, reported disasters averaged 459 per year; from 2000 to 2004, this average shot up to 728 disaster events each year, with Asia experiencing the most events. Both hydro-meteorological and geophysical disasters are more common, becoming respectively 68 % and 62% more frequent between 1993 and 2003. This reflects longer-term trends:
• between 1960 and 2003, the number of reported hydro-meteorological disasters has risen x7, while geophysical disasters have risen x5
• despite the increased number of disasters, average annual death toll dropped, from over 75,000 per year (1994-1998) to 59,000 per year (1999-2003); the death toll from natural and technological disasters during 2004 soared to around 250,000, mainly due to the Indian Ocean tsunami on 26 December 2004
• numbers of people affected (people requiring immediate assistance for basic needs, injured or homeless) continued to climb; an average 250 million people per year were affected by disasters between 1994 and 2004. Disasters during 2000-2004 affected one-third more people than during 1995-1999. Over this period, the numbers of people affected by disasters in countries of low development doubled, with Africa showing the greatest increase
• that more people are being affected by disasters reflects a range of factors. Overall numbers of reported disasters are increasing, driven partly by a more variable global climate. Meanwhile, a rapid increase of population in poorer parts of the world – combined with rapid, unplanned development (particularly in urban areas) – is putting more people at risk.
Disaster Risk Reduction: The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 [1]
The World Conference on Disaster Reduction held in Hyogo, Japan, in January 2005, pledged to reduce the risks facing millions of people who are exposed to natural disasters. The 168 delegations adopted a framework for action calling on States to put DRR at the centre of political agendas and national policies. The “Hyogo Framework for Action: 2005 – 2015” aims to strengthen the capacity of disaster-prone countries to address risk and invest heavily in disaster preparedness.
The conference also adopted a declaration recommending, among other things, that a “culture of disaster prevention and resilience” must be fostered at all levels, and recognised the relationship between disaster reduction, sustainable development and poverty reduction. These non-binding documents were to serve as a “blueprint” to guide nations and individuals to build disaster-resilient communities, calling on the international community to pursue an integrated multi-hazard approach for sustainable development to reduce the incidence and severity of disasters.
Progress in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action [1]
Disaster-related economic losses are increasing across all regions, critically threatening the economies of low-income countries and even outstripping wealth creation across many of the world’s richer nations.
The 2nd edition of the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR11) shows that damage to infrastructure continues to rise, especially in low- and middle-income countries where governments are still struggling to address the underlying risk drivers [1,3]. And while the risk of being killed by cyclone and floods in East Asian countries is today markedly lower than it was 20 years ago, the risk of economic loss due to floods has increased by over 160% and to tropical cyclones by 262% since 1980 in the high-income countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). During that time, the absolute value of global GDP exposed to risk tripled from US$525.7 billion in the 1970s to US$1.6 trillion in the 2000s.
Drawing from country examples, the report highlights that since 1982 each Mexican government has absorbed disaster losses of over US$10 billion, which is now rising to almost US$20 billion in the new millennium – a clear illustration of the loss governments have to deal with in the absence of investments in disaster risk management. The GAR11 report makes the direct correlation between disaster-related economic losses and the limited investment in risk management particularly at the local level, with resulting skewed actions. On the one hand, there is good progress in early warning, preparedness and response for example, but on the other hand, countries are struggling with addressing the underlying risk drivers such as unplanned urbanization, ecosystem degradation and vulnerable livelihoods as well as critical issues such as public awareness or gender.
This current economic scenario affects all regions, and governments need to decide how they can tip the balance so that the scale of public investment no longer dwarfs current investment in disaster risk management. They must also decide now on how much risk they are willing to retain and how much they can afford to transfer. Drawing on a large volume of new and enhanced data on both risks and risk management taken from UN, governmental, civil society, scientific and academic sources, as well as from almost 100 governments and regional inter-governmental organizations about their progress in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action, the report gives an important overview of trends and patterns in disaster risk globally and regionally. This includes analysis of new emerging risks, such as technological break-downs in highly interdependent systems, as experienced in Europe recently after the Iceland volcanic eruptions and in Japan after the Great East Japan Earthquake. The report also provides new information on earthquake mortality, which is increasing exponentially in low- and middle-income countries, and points to drought risk as mainly the product of economic decisions and social choices.
As half of humanity is now living in cities - commitment to resilience is urgently needed particularly in vulnerable groups, localities, and regions. Governments, institutions, communities and individuals need to place disaster risk reduction at the forefront of efforts to preserve and protect the balance of nature, and ensure sustainable development and well-being for generations to come. More action is needed to reduce disaster risk including supporting local governments, building on the role of women as agents of change, involving children and youth in decisions that affect their future, and fully engaging the private sector as leaders in the construction of resilient infrastructure and systems for sustainable development. Well-planned and coordinated recovery will achieve better results at lower cost, and support sustainability and disaster-resilience.
Conclusion: The imperative of disaster risk reduction [3]
Each country has its own unique risk profile or signature with different kinds and proportions of extensive, intensive and emerging risks. To reduce their risks, therefore, governments will need to adopt a mix of prospective, corrective and compensatory risk management strategies together with strategies to manage disasters and anticipate emerging risks.
Countries that have invested in strengthening their disaster management capacities have witnessed a steady decline in mortality risk, at least with respect to weather-related hazards. However, much more needs to be done to reduce economic losses fuelled by the rapid growth of asset exposure. If the objective of the Hyogo Framework for Action – the significant reduction of disaster losses – is to be achieved and if progress is to be made towards the UN’s Millenium Development Goals, a new paradigm in disaster risk reduction must emerge.
Reducing disaster risk is primarily an issue of identifying the political and economic incentives and negotiating the different trade-offs. Unfortunately, without systematically accounting for disaster impacts and comprehensively assessing the full range of risks they face, few countries have been able to find these incentives, let alone to identify the costs, benefits and trade-offs that would inform a balanced and effective portfolio of risk management strategies.
The good news is that a new paradigm is indeed emerging. It is driven by innovations in accounting for disaster losses and assessing risk, in the adaptation of development planning and public investment, and in efforts to strengthen risk governance by those governments that have recognized the importance of investing today for a safer tomorrow. An opportunity to reduce disaster risk is now appearing: learning from, building on, and scaling up these innovations; revealing risk; and redefining development.
References:
1. Norwegian Refugee Centre, Internal Displacement Monitoring Council: Training on the Protection of IDPs. http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/(httpInfoFiles)/7CE8640E88EEB381C125711500479885/$file/Protection%20during%20module%20handout%20natural%20disaster.pdf Accessed July 15, 2011.
2. From: Risks and Rights: the Causes, Consequences and Challenges of Development-Induced Displacement, by W. Courtland Robinson, the Brookings Institution-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement, May 2003, as cited by : Norwegian Refugee Centre, Internal Displacement Monitoring Council: Training on the Protection of IDPs.
3. 2011 United Nations Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR11). http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/home/executive.html Accessed July 15, 2011.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Friday, 15 July 2011
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
EXTREME WEATHER, CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN DISPLACEMENT
PREAMBLE: In this issue of Global Perspectives, we report on the essence of the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century, convened in Oslo Norway, June 6-7, 2011. As summarized by IISD reporting services (1):
Climate change is the world’s most serious threat to sustainable development, with adverse impacts projected for the environment, human health, food security, economic activity, natural resources and physical infrastructure. While global climate varies naturally, rising concentrations of anthropogenically-produced greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere are leading to changes which, over the short- and long-term, lead to an increase in the severity of droughts, land degradation, desertification, salinization, riverbank and coastal erosion, sea-level rise and the intensity of floods, tropical cyclones and other geophysical events. This in turn will negatively affect crop yields and food production, water supplies, livelihoods and human settlements.
An impact of particular concern is the potential for human displacement and migration (1): it is projected that climate change and the increasing frequency of natural disasters will trigger larger and more complex movements of people, including large-scale displacement of people, both within and across borders, and has the potential to render some people stateless. The implications for human welfare and security, and for strategies for adaptation, DRR, humanitarian aid and protection of displaced people, could be far-reaching.
While environmental migration is not officially recognized, according to the International Organization on Migration (IOM), the number of persons forced to move due to climate change and environmental degradation by 2050 is forecast to vary by a factor of 40 (between 25 million and 1 billion) and largely depends on which climate scenario unfolds. The world’s poorest and most crisis-prone countries will be disproportionately affected, with the level of vulnerability, exposure to risk and capacities of people being among the determinants of this migration (1).
BACKGROUND: This issue of Global Perspectives was stimulated mostly by media reports from the conference, particularly that which appeared on June 8th, 2011 in the Guardian newspaper (2). In “A perfect storm of stupid” Amy Goodman notes that “the news is full of extreme weather headlines – floods, wildfires, droughts, tornadoes – but the US still doesn't get climate change”. We feel obliged to add that nor do a lot of other countries that also should know better. For examples, neither Canada and Australia, both of whom have recently endured unprecedented flooding while the prospect of historically hotter and drier weather now confronts them, have in place serious policies to combat global warming. All three countries mentioned are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, as are many other countries around the world.
Goodman quotes Bill McKibben, founder of the grassroots climate action organisation 350.org, who has been advocating to stop climate change for more than two decades:
"We're making the Earth a more dynamic and violent place … We're trapping more of the sun's energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere, and that's now expressing itself in many ways. We don't know for sure that any particular tornado comes from climate change. There have always been tornadoes. We do know that we're seeing epic levels of thunderstorm activity, of flooding, of drought, of all the things that climatologists have been warning us about."
Drawing attention to the plight of climate refugees, at the Nansen Conference, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres warned of two threats: slow onset disasters like drought and desertification that lead to "a tipping point at which people's lives and livelihoods come under such serious threat that they have no choice but to leave their homes", and "natural disasters [that] uproot large numbers of people in a matter of hours" (2). He noted that most climate refugees will be internally displaced within their home countries. However, Naomi Klein (author of The Shock Doctrine – the Rise of Disaster Capitalism) goes further in a recent warning, "This crisis will be exploited to militarise our societies, to create fortress continents”. (2)
According to Linda Ngyen of PostMedia News (3), Lester Brown, for the Earth Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. stated:
“We know the best way to manage disasters is to prevent them in the first place.” “We should’ve done something about climate change years ago, which makes it all the more urgent now to begin to get serious about cutting carbon emissions,… we don’t know the point of no return… nature sets these… thresholds…”
Brown will deliver this message in Toronto to more than 1,500 participants from around the world at the upcoming 21st World Conference on Disaster Management, June 19-22.
According to Brown, the world is ill-prepared and may not survive an impending colossal natural disaster such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or record-breaking heat waves that are triggered by climate change. “At some point, these disasters will be unmanageable at the societal level,” said Brown. Furthermore, a number of recent weather-related incidents should act as a warning for the world to take action. He notes that one of the most troubling impending disasters is the current “irreversible” rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. If temperatures continue to rise, it is feared the ice sheet will melt completely and raise sea levels by a projected seven metres, which will disrupt rice production in the river deltas in Asia, where 60% of the world’s population lives. (3)
Envoi: It is sadly obvious that it is the poor and the dispossessed who are so far bearing the burden of climate change, not the overpaid CEOs in the fossil fuel and financial industries, nor for that matter the politicians and media sycophants who support them. However, a more positive scenario than the one painted still appears to be largely a matter of choice, even as most of our current political “leaders” remain negligent in not making a serious decision to come to grips with this potentially terminal threat. To quote again from the conference summary (1):
“Responding to climate change has the potential for millions of green jobs, to transform societies to energy systems that are safe, that are stable and that are based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy is being embraced now by more and more countries, although funding for alternative systems pales in comparison to subsidies for oil, gas and coal.”
References:
1) Summary of the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century. 6-7 June 2011. Linkages. IISD Reporting Services. http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/climate/nansen/html/ymbvol189num1e.html
2) Goodman A. A Perfect Storm of Stupid. The Guardian June 8, 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/08/climate-change-extreme-weather
3) Nguyen L, World needs to manage weather disasters by preventing climate change: environmentalist. Postmedia News June 12, 2011. http://www.canada.com/news/World+needs+manage+weather+disasters+preventing+climate+change+environmentalist/4933889/story.html#ixzz1PITTzgJ7
Climate change is the world’s most serious threat to sustainable development, with adverse impacts projected for the environment, human health, food security, economic activity, natural resources and physical infrastructure. While global climate varies naturally, rising concentrations of anthropogenically-produced greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere are leading to changes which, over the short- and long-term, lead to an increase in the severity of droughts, land degradation, desertification, salinization, riverbank and coastal erosion, sea-level rise and the intensity of floods, tropical cyclones and other geophysical events. This in turn will negatively affect crop yields and food production, water supplies, livelihoods and human settlements.
An impact of particular concern is the potential for human displacement and migration (1): it is projected that climate change and the increasing frequency of natural disasters will trigger larger and more complex movements of people, including large-scale displacement of people, both within and across borders, and has the potential to render some people stateless. The implications for human welfare and security, and for strategies for adaptation, DRR, humanitarian aid and protection of displaced people, could be far-reaching.
While environmental migration is not officially recognized, according to the International Organization on Migration (IOM), the number of persons forced to move due to climate change and environmental degradation by 2050 is forecast to vary by a factor of 40 (between 25 million and 1 billion) and largely depends on which climate scenario unfolds. The world’s poorest and most crisis-prone countries will be disproportionately affected, with the level of vulnerability, exposure to risk and capacities of people being among the determinants of this migration (1).
BACKGROUND: This issue of Global Perspectives was stimulated mostly by media reports from the conference, particularly that which appeared on June 8th, 2011 in the Guardian newspaper (2). In “A perfect storm of stupid” Amy Goodman notes that “the news is full of extreme weather headlines – floods, wildfires, droughts, tornadoes – but the US still doesn't get climate change”. We feel obliged to add that nor do a lot of other countries that also should know better. For examples, neither Canada and Australia, both of whom have recently endured unprecedented flooding while the prospect of historically hotter and drier weather now confronts them, have in place serious policies to combat global warming. All three countries mentioned are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, as are many other countries around the world.
Goodman quotes Bill McKibben, founder of the grassroots climate action organisation 350.org, who has been advocating to stop climate change for more than two decades:
"We're making the Earth a more dynamic and violent place … We're trapping more of the sun's energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere, and that's now expressing itself in many ways. We don't know for sure that any particular tornado comes from climate change. There have always been tornadoes. We do know that we're seeing epic levels of thunderstorm activity, of flooding, of drought, of all the things that climatologists have been warning us about."
Drawing attention to the plight of climate refugees, at the Nansen Conference, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres warned of two threats: slow onset disasters like drought and desertification that lead to "a tipping point at which people's lives and livelihoods come under such serious threat that they have no choice but to leave their homes", and "natural disasters [that] uproot large numbers of people in a matter of hours" (2). He noted that most climate refugees will be internally displaced within their home countries. However, Naomi Klein (author of The Shock Doctrine – the Rise of Disaster Capitalism) goes further in a recent warning, "This crisis will be exploited to militarise our societies, to create fortress continents”. (2)
According to Linda Ngyen of PostMedia News (3), Lester Brown, for the Earth Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. stated:
“We know the best way to manage disasters is to prevent them in the first place.” “We should’ve done something about climate change years ago, which makes it all the more urgent now to begin to get serious about cutting carbon emissions,… we don’t know the point of no return… nature sets these… thresholds…”
Brown will deliver this message in Toronto to more than 1,500 participants from around the world at the upcoming 21st World Conference on Disaster Management, June 19-22.
According to Brown, the world is ill-prepared and may not survive an impending colossal natural disaster such as flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or record-breaking heat waves that are triggered by climate change. “At some point, these disasters will be unmanageable at the societal level,” said Brown. Furthermore, a number of recent weather-related incidents should act as a warning for the world to take action. He notes that one of the most troubling impending disasters is the current “irreversible” rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet. If temperatures continue to rise, it is feared the ice sheet will melt completely and raise sea levels by a projected seven metres, which will disrupt rice production in the river deltas in Asia, where 60% of the world’s population lives. (3)
Envoi: It is sadly obvious that it is the poor and the dispossessed who are so far bearing the burden of climate change, not the overpaid CEOs in the fossil fuel and financial industries, nor for that matter the politicians and media sycophants who support them. However, a more positive scenario than the one painted still appears to be largely a matter of choice, even as most of our current political “leaders” remain negligent in not making a serious decision to come to grips with this potentially terminal threat. To quote again from the conference summary (1):
“Responding to climate change has the potential for millions of green jobs, to transform societies to energy systems that are safe, that are stable and that are based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy is being embraced now by more and more countries, although funding for alternative systems pales in comparison to subsidies for oil, gas and coal.”
References:
1) Summary of the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century. 6-7 June 2011. Linkages. IISD Reporting Services. http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/climate/nansen/html/ymbvol189num1e.html
2) Goodman A. A Perfect Storm of Stupid. The Guardian June 8, 2001. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/08/climate-change-extreme-weather
3) Nguyen L, World needs to manage weather disasters by preventing climate change: environmentalist. Postmedia News June 12, 2011. http://www.canada.com/news/World+needs+manage+weather+disasters+preventing+climate+change+environmentalist/4933889/story.html#ixzz1PITTzgJ7
Sunday, 15 November 2009
DESERTIFICATION, FOOD SECURITY & CLIMATE
PREAMBLE: For each issue of this blog, we search for topics which deserve wider dissemination and action. In this issue we feature the commentary of Max Ajl in Daily Climate News and Analysis. October 20, 2009 (reference below). The topic is critical to survival of our planet as we know it, and Ajl’s grasp of the issues is transparent. He cites conclusions from an October 2009 UN conference on desertification, which offers both warnings and potential solutions. For example, dryland populations are already some of the planet’s most vulnerable: about 90% of such populations are in developing countries, and infant mortality rates in dryland areas are among the highest. However, he appears optimistic that the process of desertification may be fixable: for example, in a northern province of Argentina, a team of soil experts worked with native plant species to restore the micro-region’s bio-diversity and soil quality through a slow, deliberate process of re-vegetation. The plants are still growing and the project is still on-going, and it appears that the process of degradation has been stopped, at least for the time being. Relevant to the global search for carbon capture methods, he notes that dry land soils are nowhere close to carbon saturated and may have enormous potential for carbon sequestration. He concludes by emphasizing the primary need to ensure that cultivation techniques are ecologically appropriate: to prevent desertification it before it starts.
Read on for more detail on these timely and constructive observations, which we have taken liberty to select and paraphrase, for further dissemination in the public interest:
Desertification Threatens Food Security and ClimateAccording to Max Ajl, one must keep in the mind the distinction between deserts as a specific ecosystem and desertification as a specific process: “deserts are beguiling and wondrous…; (but) desertification is the rapid, human-induced creation of deserts — the sudden, accelerated conversion of arid or semi-arid land, usually by over-grazing, deforestation, over-extraction of groundwater, drought, over-planting, or some nasty combination of the five. Desertification, we can hopefully stop and, if we catch it early, reverse at a reasonable cost — and in the process, do a good bit to stop climate change and global warming.” That, he notes, is the idea behind a recent congress on the United Nations Convention on Desertification, which wrapped up this month (October 2009) in Argentina. The Convention is an off-spring of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), better known as the Rio Conference. Its executive secretary, Luc Gnacadja, warned that action is urgent: ‘If we cannot find a solution to this problem ... in 2025, close to 70 percent [of the planet’s soil] could be affected," Gnacadja said. "There will not be global security without food security.’ ”
Ajl summarizes the process of desertification: “When land covered with vegetation loses its vegetation, it heats up more rapidly, worsening climate change. Hotter soil leaks carbon into the atmosphere faster than non-overheated soil, thereby contributing to the world’s CO2 count. Furthermore, as vegetation is eaten up during over-grazing or destroyed, its root structure disappears. Massive amounts of plant-based carbon go directly into the atmosphere from the land, where it had formerly been securely stashed away. Furthermore, the humus that had been stored in the soil also migrates into the atmosphere, contributing to the overload of CO2 already there.” He continues: “Processes of desertification are world-wide and worsening. Even in 2000, nearly 40 percent of the world’s agricultural land was… seriously degraded, according to the World Resources Institute. In Central America, the figure was 70%; in Africa, 20%.... UN officials claim… that if current trends continue, 75% of the continent’s people will rely on some kind of food aid by 2025.”
“Dry-land — which can include forests but primarily means grasslands — is particularly susceptible to desertification. Dry-lands are 40 percent of the earth’s surface and technically refer to lands where the prevailing climate is classified as dry sub-humid, semi-arid, arid or hyper-arid. Although they have a lower per-meter amount of plant biomass, roughly 6 kg/m2, compared to other vegetation-covered ecosystems, which have between 10 and 18 kg/m2 of biomass, they are estimated to contain 27 percent of total global soil carbon. Many of these regions are also degraded, due to rampant over-grazing compounded by drought. As the United Nations Environment Program point out, such soils are not remotely close to being saturated with carbon and may have enormous potential for carbon sequestration. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), World Resources Institute, 10 to 20% of drylands are already degraded. Between 1 and 6% of the people living in drylands live in totally desertified areas."
He notes, “dryland populations are already some of the planet’s most vulnerable. About 90% of dryland populations are in developing countries, and infant mortality rates for countries dominated by drylands tower over the others. Likewise, gross national product is far lower for dryland-countries than for those countries with more diverse and moist bio-regions. Another issue is the over-use of intensive agriculture in places ecologically unsuited for it. As the MEA researchers note, ‘Transformation of rangelands and sylvo-pastoral dryland systems to croplands increases the risk of desertification.’ Such risks are worsened by the use of input-intensive and heavily mechanized cultivation practices, especially in lands that are utterly unsuited for such intensive agriculture.”
He continues: “A different source of degradation is the forced shift from grassland to shrub-land, as large-scale unsustainable ranching or pasturing practices increasingly prevail throughout the world (although properly-practiced ranching can increase the amount of carbon stores in soil). As grass-land transitions to shrub-land leads to more naked and exposed soil, accelerating run-off and heightening erosion. In savannas, the carbon flux into the atmosphere may be at least as large as that from deforestation.”
However, he appears optimistic that the process of desertification may be fixable, citing an Argentine example: in a northern province, Santiago del Estero, a team led by Italian soil expert Massimo Candelori reversed desertification in Colonia El Simbolar… the team worked with native plant species to restore the micro-region’s bio-diversity and soil quality through a slow, deliberate process of revegetation. The plants are still growing and the project on-going; it appears that the process of degradation has been stopped, at least for the time being.
More broadly, he states, “making sure cultivation techniques are ecologically appropriate, is the best weapon against desertification: preventing it before it starts…. Practices that contribute to soil degrading include removing crop residue for cheap fodder, fuel and fencing; removing top soil for making bricks; and using animal waste for household cooking rather than working it into the soil as natural fertilizer. These long-held practices can be changed through education.” He cites Rattan Lal, the world’s leading soil authority: "long-term sustainable management of soil must be given priority over the short-term gains." Ajl concludes: “Desertification is stoppable, if action begins now.”
Source: Max Ajl. Solve Climate. Daily Climate News and Analysis. October 20, 2009. http://solveclimate.com:80/blog/20091020/desertification-threatens-food-security-and-climate
Read on for more detail on these timely and constructive observations, which we have taken liberty to select and paraphrase, for further dissemination in the public interest:
Desertification Threatens Food Security and ClimateAccording to Max Ajl, one must keep in the mind the distinction between deserts as a specific ecosystem and desertification as a specific process: “deserts are beguiling and wondrous…; (but) desertification is the rapid, human-induced creation of deserts — the sudden, accelerated conversion of arid or semi-arid land, usually by over-grazing, deforestation, over-extraction of groundwater, drought, over-planting, or some nasty combination of the five. Desertification, we can hopefully stop and, if we catch it early, reverse at a reasonable cost — and in the process, do a good bit to stop climate change and global warming.” That, he notes, is the idea behind a recent congress on the United Nations Convention on Desertification, which wrapped up this month (October 2009) in Argentina. The Convention is an off-spring of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), better known as the Rio Conference. Its executive secretary, Luc Gnacadja, warned that action is urgent: ‘If we cannot find a solution to this problem ... in 2025, close to 70 percent [of the planet’s soil] could be affected," Gnacadja said. "There will not be global security without food security.’ ”
Ajl summarizes the process of desertification: “When land covered with vegetation loses its vegetation, it heats up more rapidly, worsening climate change. Hotter soil leaks carbon into the atmosphere faster than non-overheated soil, thereby contributing to the world’s CO2 count. Furthermore, as vegetation is eaten up during over-grazing or destroyed, its root structure disappears. Massive amounts of plant-based carbon go directly into the atmosphere from the land, where it had formerly been securely stashed away. Furthermore, the humus that had been stored in the soil also migrates into the atmosphere, contributing to the overload of CO2 already there.” He continues: “Processes of desertification are world-wide and worsening. Even in 2000, nearly 40 percent of the world’s agricultural land was… seriously degraded, according to the World Resources Institute. In Central America, the figure was 70%; in Africa, 20%.... UN officials claim… that if current trends continue, 75% of the continent’s people will rely on some kind of food aid by 2025.”
“Dry-land — which can include forests but primarily means grasslands — is particularly susceptible to desertification. Dry-lands are 40 percent of the earth’s surface and technically refer to lands where the prevailing climate is classified as dry sub-humid, semi-arid, arid or hyper-arid. Although they have a lower per-meter amount of plant biomass, roughly 6 kg/m2, compared to other vegetation-covered ecosystems, which have between 10 and 18 kg/m2 of biomass, they are estimated to contain 27 percent of total global soil carbon. Many of these regions are also degraded, due to rampant over-grazing compounded by drought. As the United Nations Environment Program point out, such soils are not remotely close to being saturated with carbon and may have enormous potential for carbon sequestration. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), World Resources Institute, 10 to 20% of drylands are already degraded. Between 1 and 6% of the people living in drylands live in totally desertified areas."
He notes, “dryland populations are already some of the planet’s most vulnerable. About 90% of dryland populations are in developing countries, and infant mortality rates for countries dominated by drylands tower over the others. Likewise, gross national product is far lower for dryland-countries than for those countries with more diverse and moist bio-regions. Another issue is the over-use of intensive agriculture in places ecologically unsuited for it. As the MEA researchers note, ‘Transformation of rangelands and sylvo-pastoral dryland systems to croplands increases the risk of desertification.’ Such risks are worsened by the use of input-intensive and heavily mechanized cultivation practices, especially in lands that are utterly unsuited for such intensive agriculture.”
He continues: “A different source of degradation is the forced shift from grassland to shrub-land, as large-scale unsustainable ranching or pasturing practices increasingly prevail throughout the world (although properly-practiced ranching can increase the amount of carbon stores in soil). As grass-land transitions to shrub-land leads to more naked and exposed soil, accelerating run-off and heightening erosion. In savannas, the carbon flux into the atmosphere may be at least as large as that from deforestation.”
However, he appears optimistic that the process of desertification may be fixable, citing an Argentine example: in a northern province, Santiago del Estero, a team led by Italian soil expert Massimo Candelori reversed desertification in Colonia El Simbolar… the team worked with native plant species to restore the micro-region’s bio-diversity and soil quality through a slow, deliberate process of revegetation. The plants are still growing and the project on-going; it appears that the process of degradation has been stopped, at least for the time being.
More broadly, he states, “making sure cultivation techniques are ecologically appropriate, is the best weapon against desertification: preventing it before it starts…. Practices that contribute to soil degrading include removing crop residue for cheap fodder, fuel and fencing; removing top soil for making bricks; and using animal waste for household cooking rather than working it into the soil as natural fertilizer. These long-held practices can be changed through education.” He cites Rattan Lal, the world’s leading soil authority: "long-term sustainable management of soil must be given priority over the short-term gains." Ajl concludes: “Desertification is stoppable, if action begins now.”
Source: Max Ajl. Solve Climate. Daily Climate News and Analysis. October 20, 2009. http://solveclimate.com:80/blog/20091020/desertification-threatens-food-security-and-climate
Saturday, 13 June 2009
ACTING ON CLIMATE CHANGE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
PREAMBLE: Following on from our May issue (scan down, directly below), which devoted its space to the predicament of indigenous peoples in the face of climate change, for this June issue we decided to donate our space to dissemination of another statement on climate change, this time from the UK-based Climate and Health Council whose message is that ‘Climate Change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century’.
This message is part of a campaign to elict support for action from the global health community, leading up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, December 7-18, 2009 (for more information: http://www.en.cop15.dk/ ).
As the editors of the British Medical Journal and Lancet have stated, as co-chairs of the Climate and Health Council:
“Over the coming months it is crucial that all those involved in the negotiations are made aware of this campaign, of the growing body of health professional consensus, and of the importance of the message.”
They appeal for a broader-based communication strategy, and Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc. is pleased to add its voice to this effort.
TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE, PROTECTING HEALTH
The essence of the Climate and Health Council position is this.
1. For all those involved in negotiations to control climate change, it is important to understand that mitigating climate change can have the immediate and beneficial effect of improving public health and reducing health inequalities. These health arguments have a particular, and so far unrealised, force. They should be set alongside the powerful arguments that “climate change is the single biggest global health threat of the 21st century” (Lancet May 16th)
2. In particular, the policies that are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also bring about immediate reductions in heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, mental illness, road deaths and injuries, and air pollution through promoting substantially increased physical activity (e.g. walking and cycling) and much improved diets (less meat, fat and sugar, more fruit and vegetables). Not only will overall health be improved but there is good evidence that such action will contribute to minimising the gap in health between rich and poor, promoting more biodiversity and a more sustainable food system – both important additional determinants of a just and sustainable society.
3. The evidence for this being true, important, and possible comes from health professionals, a sector of society in which the public places trust, who are firmly calling for substantial action on behalf of their families, their patients and the public, and which is showing itself foursquare behind the need for action. Health professionals are amongst those who are at the front line in enabling the enormous behavioural and social changes which will be necessary if we are to achieve a transition to a low carbon economy and lifestyle.
4. These arguments are rooted in notions of equity and social justice and must occupy a much more dominant position in the minds of the negotiators in the run up to, and at, Copenhagen than they have at previous UN Climate Change conferences.
Reference: Climate and Health Council is part of a registered charity Knowledge into Action. www.climateandhealth.org
This message is part of a campaign to elict support for action from the global health community, leading up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, December 7-18, 2009 (for more information: http://www.en.cop15.dk/ ).
As the editors of the British Medical Journal and Lancet have stated, as co-chairs of the Climate and Health Council:
“Over the coming months it is crucial that all those involved in the negotiations are made aware of this campaign, of the growing body of health professional consensus, and of the importance of the message.”
They appeal for a broader-based communication strategy, and Pacific Health & Development Sciences Inc. is pleased to add its voice to this effort.
TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE, PROTECTING HEALTH
The essence of the Climate and Health Council position is this.
1. For all those involved in negotiations to control climate change, it is important to understand that mitigating climate change can have the immediate and beneficial effect of improving public health and reducing health inequalities. These health arguments have a particular, and so far unrealised, force. They should be set alongside the powerful arguments that “climate change is the single biggest global health threat of the 21st century” (Lancet May 16th)
2. In particular, the policies that are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will also bring about immediate reductions in heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, mental illness, road deaths and injuries, and air pollution through promoting substantially increased physical activity (e.g. walking and cycling) and much improved diets (less meat, fat and sugar, more fruit and vegetables). Not only will overall health be improved but there is good evidence that such action will contribute to minimising the gap in health between rich and poor, promoting more biodiversity and a more sustainable food system – both important additional determinants of a just and sustainable society.
3. The evidence for this being true, important, and possible comes from health professionals, a sector of society in which the public places trust, who are firmly calling for substantial action on behalf of their families, their patients and the public, and which is showing itself foursquare behind the need for action. Health professionals are amongst those who are at the front line in enabling the enormous behavioural and social changes which will be necessary if we are to achieve a transition to a low carbon economy and lifestyle.
4. These arguments are rooted in notions of equity and social justice and must occupy a much more dominant position in the minds of the negotiators in the run up to, and at, Copenhagen than they have at previous UN Climate Change conferences.
Reference: Climate and Health Council is part of a registered charity Knowledge into Action. www.climateandhealth.org
Friday, 15 May 2009
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE'S GLOBAL SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
PREAMBLE: Indigenous peoples from 80 nations gathered for a summit on climate change in Anchorage, Alaska, April 20-24, 2009. “Leading the Way,” organized by the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), an international organization representing Arctic Inuit nations, convened some 400 participants to exchange ideas and set strategies for responding to global warming.
The Indigenous Peoples' Global Summit on Climate Change was also designed to help strengthen the communities’ participation in and articulate recommendations to the December UN conference in Copenhagen, at which a successor agreement to the Kyoto protocol will be negotiated. The Summit concluded Friday, April 24 with the signing of the Anchorage Declaration and action plan.
Says Sam Johnston of Tokyo-based United Nations University, a Summit co-sponsor: "The rich and detailed insights of Indigenous Peoples reflects and embodies a cultural and spiritual relationship with the land, ocean and wildlife. The world owes it to both the Indigenous Peoples and itself to pay greater heed to the opinions of these communities and to the wisdom of ages-old traditional knowledge."
Source: Adapted from: United Nations University, Institute for Advanced Studies. Press Release April 20, 2009. http://www.unutki.org/default.php?doc_id=145
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AT WORLD SUMMIT SHARE CLIMATE CHANGE OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIENCE, TRAIDITIONAL COPING TECHNIQUES
With the first climate change-related relocation of an Inuit village already underway, some 400 Indigenous People and observers from 80 nations convened in Alaska for a UN-affiliated conference April 20-24 to discuss ways in which traditional knowledge can be used to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Hosted by the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Indigenous Peoples' Global Summit on Climate Change was also designed to help strengthen the communities' participation in and articulate messages and recommendations to the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, at which a successor agreement to the Kyoto protocol will be negotiated.
The Summit took place in Anchorage, about 800 km east of the Alaskan village of Newtok, where intensifying river flow and melting permafrost are destroying homes and infrastructure, forcing 320 residents to relocate to a higher site 15 km west, at an expected financial cost in the tens of millions of dollars.
While the move will be financed in part with government funds that would have been spent maintaining the existing village and on periodic emergency evacuations, NGOs say the relocation of Newtok marks an Arctic milestone - the first official casualty among six Alaskan Inuit settlements in urgent need of relocation, including Shishmaref (pop. 560), Kivalina (pop. 377), where autumn storm waves are no longer contained by shore-fast ice, which used to form in September but in recent years has appeared only in December or even January. Dozens of similar settlements are considered threatened.
At the Summit, Indigenous Peoples from every world region shared observations and experiences of early impacts in their part of the planet, as well as traditional practices that could both ease climate change and help all humanity adapt to its anticipated consequences.
With scientific experts now predicting that the effects of climate change will be more severe and appear even faster than previously believed, Indigenous Peoples presented the Summit with new observations of changes, including:
Papua New Guinea: Indigenous People are being forced to relocate due to a combination of population growth and the inundation of coastal land due to sea level rise.
Borneo: The Dayak have documented climate variations based on observations of bird species, rising water levels, and the loss of traditional medicinal plants;
Mexico: Highland Mayan milpa farmers have a shortened rain season, unseasonal frost and unusually large daytime temperature changes, forcing them to find alternative sources of irrigation and crop variations;
Andean Region: Temperature changes in the Andean region have had a drastic impact on agriculture, health and biodiversity, evidenced by an increase in respiratory illnesses, a decrease in alpaca farming and a shortened growing season. In some areas where Indigenous People depend on Alpine flora for medicines, grazing and food, the growing season could be cut in half should the loss of glaciers continue and agriculture become dependent solely on rainfall;
Kenya: Protracted droughts are killing livestock on which the Samburu People depend for food and economic survival;
Nepal: Intense rainfall and droughts have become common, having severe crop effects.
"Indigenous Peoples have contributed the least to the global problem of climate change but will almost certainly bear the greatest brunt of its impact," says Patricia Cochran, Chair of both the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the April Summit.
"Indigenous Peoples are on the front lines of this global problem at a time when their cultures and livelihoods in traditional lands are already threatened by such trends as accelerating natural resource development stimulated by trade liberalization and globalization."
At least 5,000 distinct groups of Indigenous Peoples have been identified in more than 70 countries, with a combined global population estimated at 300-350 million, representing about 6% of humanity.
Their traditional knowledge contributes to understanding climate change - observations and interpretations by Indigenous Peoples of changing Arctic sea ice, for example, has proven important across a wide range of economic and scientific interests. Traditional knowledge of fire, meanwhile, is helping to create more effective strategies for year round forest management and reducing the risk of killer wild fires.
Interestingly, in a world first, the aborigines of Western Arnhem Land (in north-west Australia) have used traditional fire practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, they have sold $17 million worth of carbon credits to industry, generating significant new income for the local community.
Over millennia, Indigenous Peoples have developed a large arsenal of practices of potential benefit in the climate change context, including:
• Traditional methods of shoreline reinforcement, land stabilization and reclamation;
• Protecting watersheds with Indigenous farming techniques; and
• Fostering biodiversity and the growth of useful species through planting, transplantation, and weeding techniques, the benefits of which have often gone unappreciated outside Indigenous communities until traditional peoples are relocated or their practices restricted.
Traditional drought-related practices used to hedge against normal climate variation include:
• Sophisticated small dam systems to capture and store rainfall;
• Temporary migration;
• Planting diverse varieties of crops simultaneously; and
• Using alternative agricultural lands, food preservation techniques, hunting and gathering periods and wild food sources as required.
Among new Indigenous climate change adaptation efforts presented at the Summit:
Honduras: With increasing hurricane strikes and drastic weather changes, the Quezungal people have developed a farming method which involves planting crops under trees so the roots anchor the soil and reduce the loss of crops during natural disasters.
East Cameroon and Congo: The Baka Pygmies of South East Cameroon and the Bambendzele of Congo have developed new fishing and hunting methods to adapt to a decrease in precipitation and an increase in forest fires;
Guyana: Indigenous peoples have adopted a nomadic lifestyle, moving to more forested zones in the dry season, and are now planting manioc, their main staple, in alluvial plains where, previously, it was too moist to plant crops.
Indigenous Peoples most at risk
According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the number of Indigenous Peoples most likely to be impacted to climate change requires additional research. However, those at greatest risk from expected extreme climate change-induced events such as sea level rise and crop-damaging droughts reside in:
• The Arctic,
• The Caribbean
• The Amazon
• Southern Chile and Argentina,
• Southern Africa,
• Pacific islands and other island states,
• Along the Asian coastline
• Across Australia
Beyond temperature flux, climate change is expected to alter the timing, frequency and intensity of precipitation, the direction and intensity of winds, waves, ocean currents and storm circulations, the volume of rivers, and the ranges of plants and animals.
UNU researchers say the greatest number of people will be affected by climate change through more frequent drought and spreading desertification, by rising sea levels that inundate coastal communities, through the expanded range of diseases like malaria and dengue fever, and by the disappearance of glaciers, which will stunt the usual supply of water in areas such as the Indian subcontinent, where more than 2 billion people will reside by 2050.
Source: Adapted from: Press Brief 20 April 2009: Indigenous Peoples at World Summit to Share Climate Change Experience. http://www.unutki.org/default.php?doc_id=144
The Indigenous Peoples' Global Summit on Climate Change was also designed to help strengthen the communities’ participation in and articulate recommendations to the December UN conference in Copenhagen, at which a successor agreement to the Kyoto protocol will be negotiated. The Summit concluded Friday, April 24 with the signing of the Anchorage Declaration and action plan.
Says Sam Johnston of Tokyo-based United Nations University, a Summit co-sponsor: "The rich and detailed insights of Indigenous Peoples reflects and embodies a cultural and spiritual relationship with the land, ocean and wildlife. The world owes it to both the Indigenous Peoples and itself to pay greater heed to the opinions of these communities and to the wisdom of ages-old traditional knowledge."
Source: Adapted from: United Nations University, Institute for Advanced Studies. Press Release April 20, 2009. http://www.unutki.org/default.php?doc_id=145
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AT WORLD SUMMIT SHARE CLIMATE CHANGE OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIENCE, TRAIDITIONAL COPING TECHNIQUES
With the first climate change-related relocation of an Inuit village already underway, some 400 Indigenous People and observers from 80 nations convened in Alaska for a UN-affiliated conference April 20-24 to discuss ways in which traditional knowledge can be used to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Hosted by the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Indigenous Peoples' Global Summit on Climate Change was also designed to help strengthen the communities' participation in and articulate messages and recommendations to the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, at which a successor agreement to the Kyoto protocol will be negotiated.
The Summit took place in Anchorage, about 800 km east of the Alaskan village of Newtok, where intensifying river flow and melting permafrost are destroying homes and infrastructure, forcing 320 residents to relocate to a higher site 15 km west, at an expected financial cost in the tens of millions of dollars.
While the move will be financed in part with government funds that would have been spent maintaining the existing village and on periodic emergency evacuations, NGOs say the relocation of Newtok marks an Arctic milestone - the first official casualty among six Alaskan Inuit settlements in urgent need of relocation, including Shishmaref (pop. 560), Kivalina (pop. 377), where autumn storm waves are no longer contained by shore-fast ice, which used to form in September but in recent years has appeared only in December or even January. Dozens of similar settlements are considered threatened.
At the Summit, Indigenous Peoples from every world region shared observations and experiences of early impacts in their part of the planet, as well as traditional practices that could both ease climate change and help all humanity adapt to its anticipated consequences.
With scientific experts now predicting that the effects of climate change will be more severe and appear even faster than previously believed, Indigenous Peoples presented the Summit with new observations of changes, including:
Papua New Guinea: Indigenous People are being forced to relocate due to a combination of population growth and the inundation of coastal land due to sea level rise.
Borneo: The Dayak have documented climate variations based on observations of bird species, rising water levels, and the loss of traditional medicinal plants;
Mexico: Highland Mayan milpa farmers have a shortened rain season, unseasonal frost and unusually large daytime temperature changes, forcing them to find alternative sources of irrigation and crop variations;
Andean Region: Temperature changes in the Andean region have had a drastic impact on agriculture, health and biodiversity, evidenced by an increase in respiratory illnesses, a decrease in alpaca farming and a shortened growing season. In some areas where Indigenous People depend on Alpine flora for medicines, grazing and food, the growing season could be cut in half should the loss of glaciers continue and agriculture become dependent solely on rainfall;
Kenya: Protracted droughts are killing livestock on which the Samburu People depend for food and economic survival;
Nepal: Intense rainfall and droughts have become common, having severe crop effects.
"Indigenous Peoples have contributed the least to the global problem of climate change but will almost certainly bear the greatest brunt of its impact," says Patricia Cochran, Chair of both the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the April Summit.
"Indigenous Peoples are on the front lines of this global problem at a time when their cultures and livelihoods in traditional lands are already threatened by such trends as accelerating natural resource development stimulated by trade liberalization and globalization."
At least 5,000 distinct groups of Indigenous Peoples have been identified in more than 70 countries, with a combined global population estimated at 300-350 million, representing about 6% of humanity.
Their traditional knowledge contributes to understanding climate change - observations and interpretations by Indigenous Peoples of changing Arctic sea ice, for example, has proven important across a wide range of economic and scientific interests. Traditional knowledge of fire, meanwhile, is helping to create more effective strategies for year round forest management and reducing the risk of killer wild fires.
Interestingly, in a world first, the aborigines of Western Arnhem Land (in north-west Australia) have used traditional fire practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, they have sold $17 million worth of carbon credits to industry, generating significant new income for the local community.
Over millennia, Indigenous Peoples have developed a large arsenal of practices of potential benefit in the climate change context, including:
• Traditional methods of shoreline reinforcement, land stabilization and reclamation;
• Protecting watersheds with Indigenous farming techniques; and
• Fostering biodiversity and the growth of useful species through planting, transplantation, and weeding techniques, the benefits of which have often gone unappreciated outside Indigenous communities until traditional peoples are relocated or their practices restricted.
Traditional drought-related practices used to hedge against normal climate variation include:
• Sophisticated small dam systems to capture and store rainfall;
• Temporary migration;
• Planting diverse varieties of crops simultaneously; and
• Using alternative agricultural lands, food preservation techniques, hunting and gathering periods and wild food sources as required.
Among new Indigenous climate change adaptation efforts presented at the Summit:
Honduras: With increasing hurricane strikes and drastic weather changes, the Quezungal people have developed a farming method which involves planting crops under trees so the roots anchor the soil and reduce the loss of crops during natural disasters.
East Cameroon and Congo: The Baka Pygmies of South East Cameroon and the Bambendzele of Congo have developed new fishing and hunting methods to adapt to a decrease in precipitation and an increase in forest fires;
Guyana: Indigenous peoples have adopted a nomadic lifestyle, moving to more forested zones in the dry season, and are now planting manioc, their main staple, in alluvial plains where, previously, it was too moist to plant crops.
Indigenous Peoples most at risk
According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the number of Indigenous Peoples most likely to be impacted to climate change requires additional research. However, those at greatest risk from expected extreme climate change-induced events such as sea level rise and crop-damaging droughts reside in:
• The Arctic,
• The Caribbean
• The Amazon
• Southern Chile and Argentina,
• Southern Africa,
• Pacific islands and other island states,
• Along the Asian coastline
• Across Australia
Beyond temperature flux, climate change is expected to alter the timing, frequency and intensity of precipitation, the direction and intensity of winds, waves, ocean currents and storm circulations, the volume of rivers, and the ranges of plants and animals.
UNU researchers say the greatest number of people will be affected by climate change through more frequent drought and spreading desertification, by rising sea levels that inundate coastal communities, through the expanded range of diseases like malaria and dengue fever, and by the disappearance of glaciers, which will stunt the usual supply of water in areas such as the Indian subcontinent, where more than 2 billion people will reside by 2050.
Source: Adapted from: Press Brief 20 April 2009: Indigenous Peoples at World Summit to Share Climate Change Experience. http://www.unutki.org/default.php?doc_id=144
Saturday, 15 December 2007
INTERNATIONAL & GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT - YEAR IN REVIEW 2007
LATE BREAKER: For a thought-provoking critical analysis of what the Bhutto assassination on December 27 means for Pakistan and the "war on terror", see the new addition in our sidebar.
PREAMBLE: This issue also completes our first full year of blogging. Drawing from topics covered during the year, we offer below: overviews views on three major issues for humankind, followed by paraphrases from our monthly themes in 2007.
THREE LEADING ISSUES FROM 2007: Flowers or Fertilizer?
1. GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP: In our view, the lead issue here is Climate Change (May, October), which is already displacing some of the world’s vulnerable populations, and ultimately threatening life on this planet. This is followed closely by global food security (February) and displacement by rich countries of grain for use as automotive fuel, thereby creating pressure on its use in food in developing countries, and even the price of food in developed ones, impacting on access and affordability. Flowers: to the European Community for its global leadership on climate. Fertilizer: To Canada’s Conservative government which has set the world’s worst example of procrastination on climate.
Note: At the recently concluded UN Climate Summit in Bali, Canada received a “Fossil Award” for its dismal performance on addressing climate change, while the tactics adopted by our Conservative government to undermine the developing global consensus on the need for binding targets now were described by numerous observers as "hypocritical" and “deceitful”.
2. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Viewed broadly, we consider the leading issue here to be Maternal & Child Health (April, November). The determinants include gender inequality, global poverty, and insufficient policy and program development at all levels. Even in developed western countries this is an issue: taking our own country Canada as an example, the “new” Conservative government’s reneged on the Kelowna Accord to improve conditions for aboriginals, and failed to ensure an adequate child care platform (March, April). Further, with the exception of the Nordic nations, official development assistance from wealthy developed countries is still far less than targets agreed decades ago. Flowers: Norway, whose 4.7 million people already contribute almost $4 billion a year to aid developing countries ($850 for each Norwegan man, woman and child). Fertilizer: The powerful G7 nations for allocating proportionally less Gross National Income (GNI) for international development: 0.30%, compared with .50% for non-G7 nations.
3. HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES: Still topping the list continues to be the War in Iraq (January, August). Primary responsibility is shared between the Bush and Blair regimes (not equally) for promoting false rumours of weapons of mass destruction, unsupported by UN inspections led by Hans Blix. While insurgents share responsibility for the mayhem and catastrophe, the end results include over half a million Iraqis killed (a genocide?), massive numbers of refugees, and the undermining of Geneva Conventions that were born out of the worst excesses of World War 2. Flowers: Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892-1984). Fertilizer: George Bush (most dangerous US President in history).
Historical Notes:
1) For a revealing 2003 interview of Hans Blix, visit: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/041203A.shtml
2) For an October 2006 update on JHU estimates of Iraqi deaths: http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
2007 AS WE RECORDED IT:
January: PEACE, SECURITY, HEALTH & HUMAN RIGHTS: In our first issue of 2007, we took note of the incoming UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, acknowledging the immense contribution of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, focused on war and peace in the Middle East, and completed the transfer of reports and commentaries from our News & Reports site (as announced in our December 2006 posting).
February: GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY – A MATTER OF SURVIVAL: In 1996, the World Food Summit set a target to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015. However, in 2007, it appears unlikely that this target will be met. This issue focused on the conflict between grain for fuel or for food, the stalled Doha round, and food security.
March: COLONIZED MINORITIES IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: Colonized racial, cultural or religious minorities exist throughout the world, within powerful societies eg., Tibet in China, Japan's Ainu, India's Dalits, Amerindian enclaves in the Caribbean, tribal minorities in Africa, Boznian Muslims, the Kurds of Iraq, others in all continents and among the Pacific islands. The issues apply to several economically advanced western countries where it is sometimes said that one may find “3rd world conditions in 1st world settings”. Because these countries claim leadership for human rights, they also must live up to these principles.
April: EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT – POLICY SHIFTS, GLOBAL VIEWPOINTS, AND THE EVIDENCE BASE: This issue focused on Canadian policy shifts of global interest. Sadly, Canada’s reputation for enlightened social policy is being undermined by a neo-conservative ideology. Over a million Canadian children live in poverty and cannot access child care. In support of child-friendly interventions, we included evidence reviewed by the US-based RAND Corporation showing that childhood intervention programs yield benefits in behavior, educational progression and attainment, delinquency and crime, and labor market success, among other domains.
May: CLIMATE CHANGE, KYOTO ACCORD, EUROPE RESPONDS & CANADA REMAINS CHALLENGED: The European Community (EU) takes Climate Change seriously, and is making progress towards its Kyoto targets. On April 26, 2007, Canada’s Conservative government released its first “climate-change plan”. Despite Canada leading the world in reducing ozone destroying chlorofluoro-carbons (Montreal Protocol 1987), signing the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and hosting its ratification (2005), this plan is incapable of meeting Canada’s Kyoto targets. Ranked 27th of 29 by the OECD on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, Canada remains among the most environmentally delinquent industrialized countries.
June: OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE & GLOBAL HEALTH TRENDS: This issue reviews the vexing issue of development assistance from wealthy developed countries such as Canada, references a report on global social and economic trends, then selects reports from a discipline essential to understanding global health trends: Health Situation Analysis. Selected examples included Africa, the State of the World Children, and Projections of Mortality and Burden of Disease to 2030.
July: CELEBRATING THE AFRICAN MEDICAL AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION: In 1957, three surgeons in Kenya had a vision that could revolutionize health care in Africa. They launched a Flying Doctor Service (FDS). Over the next 5 decades, men set foot on the moon, satellites explored our solar system, the universe was probed with powerful orbital telescopes, robots explored the surface of Mars, and shuttles began servicing an international space station. In the meantime, with poverty and ill-health still pervading the planet, FDS became Africa’s largest indigenous health organization: the African Medical and Research Foundation.
August: FIRST THEY CAME... VIGNETTES IN THE DISMANTLING OF DEMOCRATIC MYTHS: In this issue we offered a selection of extracts from reputable sources that focus on the disastrous trajectory of the current US administration in undermining the beliefs that underpin western democracies. We dedicate the issue to Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892–1984), whose famous poem “First they came…” about the inactivity of German intellectuals during the Nazi rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group by group, most devastatingly to German Jews.
September: THIRD WORLD AID TO FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES: This issue featured the "brain drain" from sub-Saharan Africa, citing a report from Juan Ramos of ProCOR (website listed in sidebar). Practical responses re examined: striving for better compensation for indigenous health professionals, attention to policies that determine recruitment and retention of health professions in low income countries, fixing the ethics of western firms that raid poor countries to meet the service demands of rich ones, and finding ways to compensate third world "donor" countries for their loss of human resources. Through official inaction, "first world" countries benefit from a massive subsidy from the "third world", equal to the direct and indirect costs of their investment in this health human resource, and the opportunity costs entailed by its loss.
October: IS CLIMATE CHANGE AN ACT OF AGRESSION?: In this issue we abstracted an article carried by The Economist (on-line Sept 24th, 2007) that reported on Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni's declaration that climate change is an act of aggression by the rich world against the world’s poor. We also noted a statement from the Church World Service (CWS): "The issue... is how climate change frames development and justice", said Rajyashri Waghray, CWS director, education & advocacy.
For stark contrast we noted Canada’s uncertain posture, quoting from a Globe and Mail Editorial (September 26): “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s progress from a climate-change skeptic to an environmental convert has been a perplexing odyssey. After a half-hearted attempt to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions late last year, his Conservative government hurriedly introduced new regulations and incentives, which made a good start in fostering reductions. Earlier…(in September), in Australia, he even announced his personal commitment to ‘careful environmental stewardship’. That seemed heartfelt. Now it is fair to question the sincerity of that conversion. On… (Sept 24), at a UN climate change conference aimed at saving the Kyoto Protocol, Mr Harper announced that Canada had asked to join a rival climate-change pact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership. The six members of that pact include nations that have refused to ratify the protocol, such as the United States, and others among the world’s worst polluters, such as India and China. Together they account for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions”.
November: MATERNAL MORTALITY: WHAT DO SOUTH ASIA, THE UNITED STATES, AND AFRICA SHARE?: Maternal Mortality represents the largest rich-poor disparity tracked by the World Health Organization. On the heels of a study released by the United Nations (UN), the Women Deliver Global Conference in London, 18-20 October, assessed high levels of maternal mortality round the world. Little progress has been made in reducing maternal deaths in many countries. Areas of major focus were South Asia, parts of Africa, and even the United States, as it lags the developed world in its maternal health performance. The conference was supported by non-governmental, intergovernmental and development agencies as well as private sector and philanthropic entities aiming to create the political will to improve the health of pregnant mothers and their children, and to strengthen health systems around the world to prevent the deaths during pregnancy or childbirth of "one woman every minute of every day ".
“The eradication of poverty and hunger… cannot be achieved if questions of population and reproductive health are not addressed”. Kofi Annan
HOLIDAY GREETINGS: We extend to readers our best wishes for the holiday season and the New Year. We hope you found our selections during 2007 thought provoking and factually informative, and that you will continue to monitor this report.
PREAMBLE: This issue also completes our first full year of blogging. Drawing from topics covered during the year, we offer below: overviews views on three major issues for humankind, followed by paraphrases from our monthly themes in 2007.
THREE LEADING ISSUES FROM 2007: Flowers or Fertilizer?
1. GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP: In our view, the lead issue here is Climate Change (May, October), which is already displacing some of the world’s vulnerable populations, and ultimately threatening life on this planet. This is followed closely by global food security (February) and displacement by rich countries of grain for use as automotive fuel, thereby creating pressure on its use in food in developing countries, and even the price of food in developed ones, impacting on access and affordability. Flowers: to the European Community for its global leadership on climate. Fertilizer: To Canada’s Conservative government which has set the world’s worst example of procrastination on climate.
Note: At the recently concluded UN Climate Summit in Bali, Canada received a “Fossil Award” for its dismal performance on addressing climate change, while the tactics adopted by our Conservative government to undermine the developing global consensus on the need for binding targets now were described by numerous observers as "hypocritical" and “deceitful”.
2. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Viewed broadly, we consider the leading issue here to be Maternal & Child Health (April, November). The determinants include gender inequality, global poverty, and insufficient policy and program development at all levels. Even in developed western countries this is an issue: taking our own country Canada as an example, the “new” Conservative government’s reneged on the Kelowna Accord to improve conditions for aboriginals, and failed to ensure an adequate child care platform (March, April). Further, with the exception of the Nordic nations, official development assistance from wealthy developed countries is still far less than targets agreed decades ago. Flowers: Norway, whose 4.7 million people already contribute almost $4 billion a year to aid developing countries ($850 for each Norwegan man, woman and child). Fertilizer: The powerful G7 nations for allocating proportionally less Gross National Income (GNI) for international development: 0.30%, compared with .50% for non-G7 nations.
3. HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES: Still topping the list continues to be the War in Iraq (January, August). Primary responsibility is shared between the Bush and Blair regimes (not equally) for promoting false rumours of weapons of mass destruction, unsupported by UN inspections led by Hans Blix. While insurgents share responsibility for the mayhem and catastrophe, the end results include over half a million Iraqis killed (a genocide?), massive numbers of refugees, and the undermining of Geneva Conventions that were born out of the worst excesses of World War 2. Flowers: Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892-1984). Fertilizer: George Bush (most dangerous US President in history).
Historical Notes:
1) For a revealing 2003 interview of Hans Blix, visit: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/041203A.shtml
2) For an October 2006 update on JHU estimates of Iraqi deaths: http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
2007 AS WE RECORDED IT:
January: PEACE, SECURITY, HEALTH & HUMAN RIGHTS: In our first issue of 2007, we took note of the incoming UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, acknowledging the immense contribution of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, focused on war and peace in the Middle East, and completed the transfer of reports and commentaries from our News & Reports site (as announced in our December 2006 posting).
February: GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY – A MATTER OF SURVIVAL: In 1996, the World Food Summit set a target to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015. However, in 2007, it appears unlikely that this target will be met. This issue focused on the conflict between grain for fuel or for food, the stalled Doha round, and food security.
March: COLONIZED MINORITIES IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: Colonized racial, cultural or religious minorities exist throughout the world, within powerful societies eg., Tibet in China, Japan's Ainu, India's Dalits, Amerindian enclaves in the Caribbean, tribal minorities in Africa, Boznian Muslims, the Kurds of Iraq, others in all continents and among the Pacific islands. The issues apply to several economically advanced western countries where it is sometimes said that one may find “3rd world conditions in 1st world settings”. Because these countries claim leadership for human rights, they also must live up to these principles.
April: EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT – POLICY SHIFTS, GLOBAL VIEWPOINTS, AND THE EVIDENCE BASE: This issue focused on Canadian policy shifts of global interest. Sadly, Canada’s reputation for enlightened social policy is being undermined by a neo-conservative ideology. Over a million Canadian children live in poverty and cannot access child care. In support of child-friendly interventions, we included evidence reviewed by the US-based RAND Corporation showing that childhood intervention programs yield benefits in behavior, educational progression and attainment, delinquency and crime, and labor market success, among other domains.
May: CLIMATE CHANGE, KYOTO ACCORD, EUROPE RESPONDS & CANADA REMAINS CHALLENGED: The European Community (EU) takes Climate Change seriously, and is making progress towards its Kyoto targets. On April 26, 2007, Canada’s Conservative government released its first “climate-change plan”. Despite Canada leading the world in reducing ozone destroying chlorofluoro-carbons (Montreal Protocol 1987), signing the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and hosting its ratification (2005), this plan is incapable of meeting Canada’s Kyoto targets. Ranked 27th of 29 by the OECD on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, Canada remains among the most environmentally delinquent industrialized countries.
June: OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE & GLOBAL HEALTH TRENDS: This issue reviews the vexing issue of development assistance from wealthy developed countries such as Canada, references a report on global social and economic trends, then selects reports from a discipline essential to understanding global health trends: Health Situation Analysis. Selected examples included Africa, the State of the World Children, and Projections of Mortality and Burden of Disease to 2030.
July: CELEBRATING THE AFRICAN MEDICAL AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION: In 1957, three surgeons in Kenya had a vision that could revolutionize health care in Africa. They launched a Flying Doctor Service (FDS). Over the next 5 decades, men set foot on the moon, satellites explored our solar system, the universe was probed with powerful orbital telescopes, robots explored the surface of Mars, and shuttles began servicing an international space station. In the meantime, with poverty and ill-health still pervading the planet, FDS became Africa’s largest indigenous health organization: the African Medical and Research Foundation.
August: FIRST THEY CAME... VIGNETTES IN THE DISMANTLING OF DEMOCRATIC MYTHS: In this issue we offered a selection of extracts from reputable sources that focus on the disastrous trajectory of the current US administration in undermining the beliefs that underpin western democracies. We dedicate the issue to Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892–1984), whose famous poem “First they came…” about the inactivity of German intellectuals during the Nazi rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group by group, most devastatingly to German Jews.
September: THIRD WORLD AID TO FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES: This issue featured the "brain drain" from sub-Saharan Africa, citing a report from Juan Ramos of ProCOR (website listed in sidebar). Practical responses re examined: striving for better compensation for indigenous health professionals, attention to policies that determine recruitment and retention of health professions in low income countries, fixing the ethics of western firms that raid poor countries to meet the service demands of rich ones, and finding ways to compensate third world "donor" countries for their loss of human resources. Through official inaction, "first world" countries benefit from a massive subsidy from the "third world", equal to the direct and indirect costs of their investment in this health human resource, and the opportunity costs entailed by its loss.
October: IS CLIMATE CHANGE AN ACT OF AGRESSION?: In this issue we abstracted an article carried by The Economist (on-line Sept 24th, 2007) that reported on Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni's declaration that climate change is an act of aggression by the rich world against the world’s poor. We also noted a statement from the Church World Service (CWS): "The issue... is how climate change frames development and justice", said Rajyashri Waghray, CWS director, education & advocacy.
For stark contrast we noted Canada’s uncertain posture, quoting from a Globe and Mail Editorial (September 26): “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s progress from a climate-change skeptic to an environmental convert has been a perplexing odyssey. After a half-hearted attempt to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions late last year, his Conservative government hurriedly introduced new regulations and incentives, which made a good start in fostering reductions. Earlier…(in September), in Australia, he even announced his personal commitment to ‘careful environmental stewardship’. That seemed heartfelt. Now it is fair to question the sincerity of that conversion. On… (Sept 24), at a UN climate change conference aimed at saving the Kyoto Protocol, Mr Harper announced that Canada had asked to join a rival climate-change pact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership. The six members of that pact include nations that have refused to ratify the protocol, such as the United States, and others among the world’s worst polluters, such as India and China. Together they account for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions”.
November: MATERNAL MORTALITY: WHAT DO SOUTH ASIA, THE UNITED STATES, AND AFRICA SHARE?: Maternal Mortality represents the largest rich-poor disparity tracked by the World Health Organization. On the heels of a study released by the United Nations (UN), the Women Deliver Global Conference in London, 18-20 October, assessed high levels of maternal mortality round the world. Little progress has been made in reducing maternal deaths in many countries. Areas of major focus were South Asia, parts of Africa, and even the United States, as it lags the developed world in its maternal health performance. The conference was supported by non-governmental, intergovernmental and development agencies as well as private sector and philanthropic entities aiming to create the political will to improve the health of pregnant mothers and their children, and to strengthen health systems around the world to prevent the deaths during pregnancy or childbirth of "one woman every minute of every day ".
“The eradication of poverty and hunger… cannot be achieved if questions of population and reproductive health are not addressed”. Kofi Annan
HOLIDAY GREETINGS: We extend to readers our best wishes for the holiday season and the New Year. We hope you found our selections during 2007 thought provoking and factually informative, and that you will continue to monitor this report.
Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Climate Change, Kyoto Accord, Europe Responds & Canada Remains Challenged
PREAMBLE: The European Community (EU) takes Climate Change seriously, and is making progress towards its Kyoto targets. On April 26, 2007, Canada’s Conservative government released its first “climate-change plan”. Disappointingly, despite Canada leading the world in reducing ozone destroying chlorofluoro-carbons (Montreal Protocol 1987), signing the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and hosting its ratification (2005), this plan is incapable of meeting Canada’s Kyoto targets. Ranked 27th of 29 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, Canada remains among the most environmentally delinquent industrialized countries (ref: http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/indicators.htm). In this edition, adapting material from Global Vision (GV), a British NGO not linked to any political party, we examine Europe’s valid experience in reducing Greenhouse Gases (GHG), and close with an editorial advocating that Canada reconsider all options.
THE EU APPROACH TO KYOTO
Commitments: In 1997 the EU15 signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol), agreeing to cut Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, by 8% by the 5-year period 2008-12 (annual average emissions over the period) compared with the base year 1990. Under the "burden sharing" scheme of 2002, different member states were allocated different emissions targets: Germany agreed to a 21% cut (possible because of the collapse of much of east Germany's industry) and the UK agreed to a 12.5% cut; Spain was permitted a 15% increase and Greece a 25% increase. In 2004, new member states took different approaches: six (including the Czech Republic) adopted an 8% cut, Hungary and Poland have a target of 6%, while Cyprus and Malta have no targets.
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS): EU environment ministers have set up an ETS market to trade pollution permits for CO2, the main GHG. The scheme caps the amount of CO2 that industries can produce and allows companies to trade emissions rights within the EU (a "Cap and Trade" scheme). Firms that exceed their emissions limits can buy "allowances" from firms whose emissions are under target levels. The ETS began operating in January 2005. The first trading period (“phase”) runs from 2005 to 2007, to be followed by subsequent 5-year phases. Under ETS, Member States compile a National Allocation Plan (NAP) for each phase. They decide a "cap" for total emissions allowances and then allocate the capped total (in the form of permits) to individual plants and other "installations" according to predetermined criteria. Permit recipients can use their allowances for their own CO2 emissions, sell surplus allowances to others if they have any or, if short, buy the necessary allowances from others through the EU-wide market.
Performance: 2004 data (table in GV link) indicate that, of the EU15, 4 (UK, France, Germany, Sweden) are on track to meet commitments under the accord; 11 are not: Ireland, Portugal by >20%; Spain by >30%. Seven of 8 new countries are within target - the exception is Slovenia. The EU15 overall, are well off target.
Critique: Emissions Trading Schemes can work successfully but the EU's ETS has attracted criticism. Because national governments were left to choose their own targets, problems arose concerning allocation of emissions permits for 2005-07. The UK set stringent targets, whilst most other Member States did not. As a result, UK firms paid nearly £½bn for extra permits from business rivals in other Member States in 2005, whilst (for example) German firms received nearly £300m. Some UK firms, especially electricity companies, reduced their emissions and hence output because they were short of permits, which led to higher UK electricity prices. Other problems: in 2005, member states issued free permits for 1,830m tonnes, whilst emissions were only 1,785m tonnes. When this was realized in April 2006, a secondary market for emissions permits crashed.
The Future: Planning for the period 2008-12 is now underway. The EU claims that it will be tougher and fairer than the first; the UK has submitted plans with a 3% reduction target for CO2 emissions; Germany's plans again are less stringent.
Source: Global Vision (GV) http://global-vision.net/facts/fact10_3.asp (Feb 2007).
EDITORIAL: The European experience is instructive in many ways, but three lessons for Canada are clear: 1) curbing GHGs requires transformational thinking, not business as usual; 2) realities, commitment and performance vary across jurisdictions; and 3) respect for the Kyoto Accord is globally responsible.
Canada has suffered from Prime Minister Harper’s state of denial regarding the environment generally and Kyoto in particular (eg., in a 2002 letter to his party, Harper ridiculed the accord as “a money-sucking socialist scheme”). His hostility to the treaty while in opposition damaged the potential for consensus then, and carries over to his role now. On January 2007, an opinion poll nonetheless revealed environment to be Canada’s No.1 public concern, which caused the Conservative leadership finally to take the matter seriously, albeit still struggling to come to grips with it. However, Canada’s Green Plan, released April 26, 15 months into the term of the government (no longer “new”), falls so far short of what Canada is capable of doing, that energy stocks abruptly gained in value following its announcement! By contrast, the EU achieved consensus in 2005 and is far ahead in all aspects of the process. While rejecting Kyoto, highlights of the Conservative plan include short (2010) and medium term (2015) emission reduction targets, national emission caps (2012), and a domestic ETS (failure to meet Kyoto targets disqualify Canada from the global ETS). But there are many loopholes: although a technology fund will be financed by industries failing to meet targets, new facilities are exempt from any targets for 3 years, while those that prove unable to reduce emissions with existing technology will be exempt from any requirements to make reductions. Climate change activist Al Gore, invited speaker to a Canadian exhibition on green technologies, described the plan as a “fraud… designed to mislead the Canadian people”.
The debate clearly must not stop there. All policy options deserve ongoing consideration, including a carbon tax: fossil fuels taxed in proportion to carbon content, to represent the environmental cost of doing business. Although little new bureaucracy is required, this option was rejected outright by the “new” Environment Minister John Baird with more bluster than brilliance.[1] Meanwhile, south of the border, a Carbon Tax Center (CTC) was launched in New York in January; its aim is: to educate policymakers, opinion leaders, and the public about the benefits of taxing fossil fuel emissions. CTC advocates a carbon tax system because of "predictability, immediacy, transparency, universality, and equity."[2] This deserves more study in Canada, and the novel idea of educating policy-makers is appealing. Critically important is the need for incentives for operational research into cleaner energy systems. Not least, having nuclear technology, Canada should expand this source of clean energy. Combining approaches will more likely succeed than blind adherence or resistance to any given approach.
References: 1. Carbon tax proposal stirs political debate in Canada. Mar 5, 2007 http://www.corporateknights.ca/info/news/page.asp?name=platts_carbon_tax
2. Carbon Tax Center. Mar 31, 2007 http://www.carbontax.org/
THE EU APPROACH TO KYOTO
Commitments: In 1997 the EU15 signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol), agreeing to cut Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, by 8% by the 5-year period 2008-12 (annual average emissions over the period) compared with the base year 1990. Under the "burden sharing" scheme of 2002, different member states were allocated different emissions targets: Germany agreed to a 21% cut (possible because of the collapse of much of east Germany's industry) and the UK agreed to a 12.5% cut; Spain was permitted a 15% increase and Greece a 25% increase. In 2004, new member states took different approaches: six (including the Czech Republic) adopted an 8% cut, Hungary and Poland have a target of 6%, while Cyprus and Malta have no targets.
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS): EU environment ministers have set up an ETS market to trade pollution permits for CO2, the main GHG. The scheme caps the amount of CO2 that industries can produce and allows companies to trade emissions rights within the EU (a "Cap and Trade" scheme). Firms that exceed their emissions limits can buy "allowances" from firms whose emissions are under target levels. The ETS began operating in January 2005. The first trading period (“phase”) runs from 2005 to 2007, to be followed by subsequent 5-year phases. Under ETS, Member States compile a National Allocation Plan (NAP) for each phase. They decide a "cap" for total emissions allowances and then allocate the capped total (in the form of permits) to individual plants and other "installations" according to predetermined criteria. Permit recipients can use their allowances for their own CO2 emissions, sell surplus allowances to others if they have any or, if short, buy the necessary allowances from others through the EU-wide market.
Performance: 2004 data (table in GV link) indicate that, of the EU15, 4 (UK, France, Germany, Sweden) are on track to meet commitments under the accord; 11 are not: Ireland, Portugal by >20%; Spain by >30%. Seven of 8 new countries are within target - the exception is Slovenia. The EU15 overall, are well off target.
Critique: Emissions Trading Schemes can work successfully but the EU's ETS has attracted criticism. Because national governments were left to choose their own targets, problems arose concerning allocation of emissions permits for 2005-07. The UK set stringent targets, whilst most other Member States did not. As a result, UK firms paid nearly £½bn for extra permits from business rivals in other Member States in 2005, whilst (for example) German firms received nearly £300m. Some UK firms, especially electricity companies, reduced their emissions and hence output because they were short of permits, which led to higher UK electricity prices. Other problems: in 2005, member states issued free permits for 1,830m tonnes, whilst emissions were only 1,785m tonnes. When this was realized in April 2006, a secondary market for emissions permits crashed.
The Future: Planning for the period 2008-12 is now underway. The EU claims that it will be tougher and fairer than the first; the UK has submitted plans with a 3% reduction target for CO2 emissions; Germany's plans again are less stringent.
Source: Global Vision (GV) http://global-vision.net/facts/fact10_3.asp (Feb 2007).
EDITORIAL: The European experience is instructive in many ways, but three lessons for Canada are clear: 1) curbing GHGs requires transformational thinking, not business as usual; 2) realities, commitment and performance vary across jurisdictions; and 3) respect for the Kyoto Accord is globally responsible.
Canada has suffered from Prime Minister Harper’s state of denial regarding the environment generally and Kyoto in particular (eg., in a 2002 letter to his party, Harper ridiculed the accord as “a money-sucking socialist scheme”). His hostility to the treaty while in opposition damaged the potential for consensus then, and carries over to his role now. On January 2007, an opinion poll nonetheless revealed environment to be Canada’s No.1 public concern, which caused the Conservative leadership finally to take the matter seriously, albeit still struggling to come to grips with it. However, Canada’s Green Plan, released April 26, 15 months into the term of the government (no longer “new”), falls so far short of what Canada is capable of doing, that energy stocks abruptly gained in value following its announcement! By contrast, the EU achieved consensus in 2005 and is far ahead in all aspects of the process. While rejecting Kyoto, highlights of the Conservative plan include short (2010) and medium term (2015) emission reduction targets, national emission caps (2012), and a domestic ETS (failure to meet Kyoto targets disqualify Canada from the global ETS). But there are many loopholes: although a technology fund will be financed by industries failing to meet targets, new facilities are exempt from any targets for 3 years, while those that prove unable to reduce emissions with existing technology will be exempt from any requirements to make reductions. Climate change activist Al Gore, invited speaker to a Canadian exhibition on green technologies, described the plan as a “fraud… designed to mislead the Canadian people”.
The debate clearly must not stop there. All policy options deserve ongoing consideration, including a carbon tax: fossil fuels taxed in proportion to carbon content, to represent the environmental cost of doing business. Although little new bureaucracy is required, this option was rejected outright by the “new” Environment Minister John Baird with more bluster than brilliance.[1] Meanwhile, south of the border, a Carbon Tax Center (CTC) was launched in New York in January; its aim is: to educate policymakers, opinion leaders, and the public about the benefits of taxing fossil fuel emissions. CTC advocates a carbon tax system because of "predictability, immediacy, transparency, universality, and equity."[2] This deserves more study in Canada, and the novel idea of educating policy-makers is appealing. Critically important is the need for incentives for operational research into cleaner energy systems. Not least, having nuclear technology, Canada should expand this source of clean energy. Combining approaches will more likely succeed than blind adherence or resistance to any given approach.
References: 1. Carbon tax proposal stirs political debate in Canada. Mar 5, 2007 http://www.corporateknights.ca/info/news/page.asp?name=platts_carbon_tax
2. Carbon Tax Center. Mar 31, 2007 http://www.carbontax.org/
Sunday, 1 April 2007
Early Child Development - Policy Shifts, Global Viewpoints, and the Evidence Base.
PREAMBLE: In this issue we maintain our focus on Canadian policy shifts that are of global interest, assuming Canada’s reputation for enlightened social policy. Unfortunately this reputation is being undermined by a neo-conservative ideology. Over a million Canadian children live in poverty and cannot access child care support. In support of child friendly interventions, we include evidence reviewed by the US-based RAND Corporation showing that childhood intervention programs yield benefits in behavior, educational progression and attainment, delinquency and crime, and labor market success, among other domains. Well-trained caregivers and smaller child-to-staff ratios offer more favorable results. Economic studies have shown that well-designed early childhood interventions generate a favourable economic return on this social investment.
CANADA’s SLIPPAGE ON CHILD CARE PROVISIONS
In 2005, after many years of educational research, advocacy and negotiation, early learning and child care agreements were reached between the Government of Canada and its provinces, laying a foundation for a system to meet the needs of all Canadian families. Canceling them, as the incoming Conservative government did in 2006 in favour of family income supplements only, was a major set-back to the evolution of a national child care program, and represented a net reduction of $4 billion in child care funding. While family income support in itself may be a valid policy goal, it will never substitute for early learning and child care services that are of quality, available and affordable.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: Perhaps the most historically surprising feature of this policy shift is that the idea of a national child care programme was first proposed in 1970 by Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives (the “PCs” were an ancestor of the Conservative Party of Canada). Evidently today’s Conservatives are now dominated by the social philosophy of the former far right Alliance Party which cobbled with the former PCs to spawn the party. Unfortunately, the new party seems to lack the capacity to accept a sound initiative launched under the previous Liberal government, even one which originated with the PCs, and that was at its grassroots non-partisan. As noted by the New Democratic Party (Denise Savois MP, personal communication): without child care, many parents (mostly mothers) can’t fully participate in the workforce. This undermines their equality, and many children also lose out on vital early learning opportunities when quality child care is scarce or unavailable.
UPDATE: In response to widespread criticism of it’s lack of coherent policy in this area, in March 2007 the Conservative government announced additional federal-provincial transfers of money ostensibly for child care spaces, and a scheme of tax credits for businesses to create child care; opposition critics note that such transfers can be readily clawed back or reallocated, and reflect a massive cut in the support originally intended for child care, and that such tax credit schemes are an inadequate response to the needs. A private members bill, The Early Learning and Child Care Act, will be studied by a parliamentary committee this month; if not supported in favour of Canada's children, this will become an election issue.
PERSPECTIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)
In October 2004, the OECD described Canada's child-care system as “a chronically under-funded patchwork of programs with no overarching goals”. It found a shortage of available regulated child-care spaces – enough for fewer than 20 % of children 6 years and younger with working parents. By contrast, the following estimates apply to other OECD countries: UK, 60 %; Belgium, 63%; France, 69%; Denmark, 78%. The OECD recommended that Canada double its child-care spending to reach the OECD average.
For more in-depth on Day Care in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/
THE EVIDENCE – HOW IMPORTANT IS EARLY CHILDHOOD?
As part of a recent study, RAND researchers synthesized what is known from the scientifically sound research literature about the short- and long-term benefits from early intervention programs, the features that are associated with more-effective programs, and the economic gains (attractive benefit: cost ratios) that accrue from investing additional resources in early childhood. There is increasing recognition that the first few years of a child’s life are a particularly sensitive period in the process of human development, laying a foundation in childhood and beyond for cognitive functioning; behavioral, social, and self-regulatory capacities; and physical health. Yet many children face stressors during these years that can impair their healthy development. Early childhood intervention programs are designed to mitigate the factors that place children at risk of poor outcomes. Such programs provide supports for the parents, the children, or the family as a whole. These supports may be in the form of learning activities or other structured experiences that affect a child directly or that have indirect effects through training parents or otherwise enhancing the care-giving environment.
The research brief linked below describes work documented in Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise by Lynn A. Karoly, M. Rebecca Kilburn, and Jill S. Cannon, MG-341-PNC, 2005, 200 pp, ISBN: 0-8330-3836-2
Source: RAND Corporation. RAND Research Briefs
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html
Note: We selected RAND for their review in part because we appreciate that this think tank normally enjoys support from across the political spectrum, including Conservatives.
CANADA’s SLIPPAGE ON CHILD CARE PROVISIONS
In 2005, after many years of educational research, advocacy and negotiation, early learning and child care agreements were reached between the Government of Canada and its provinces, laying a foundation for a system to meet the needs of all Canadian families. Canceling them, as the incoming Conservative government did in 2006 in favour of family income supplements only, was a major set-back to the evolution of a national child care program, and represented a net reduction of $4 billion in child care funding. While family income support in itself may be a valid policy goal, it will never substitute for early learning and child care services that are of quality, available and affordable.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: Perhaps the most historically surprising feature of this policy shift is that the idea of a national child care programme was first proposed in 1970 by Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives (the “PCs” were an ancestor of the Conservative Party of Canada). Evidently today’s Conservatives are now dominated by the social philosophy of the former far right Alliance Party which cobbled with the former PCs to spawn the party. Unfortunately, the new party seems to lack the capacity to accept a sound initiative launched under the previous Liberal government, even one which originated with the PCs, and that was at its grassroots non-partisan. As noted by the New Democratic Party (Denise Savois MP, personal communication): without child care, many parents (mostly mothers) can’t fully participate in the workforce. This undermines their equality, and many children also lose out on vital early learning opportunities when quality child care is scarce or unavailable.
UPDATE: In response to widespread criticism of it’s lack of coherent policy in this area, in March 2007 the Conservative government announced additional federal-provincial transfers of money ostensibly for child care spaces, and a scheme of tax credits for businesses to create child care; opposition critics note that such transfers can be readily clawed back or reallocated, and reflect a massive cut in the support originally intended for child care, and that such tax credit schemes are an inadequate response to the needs. A private members bill, The Early Learning and Child Care Act, will be studied by a parliamentary committee this month; if not supported in favour of Canada's children, this will become an election issue.
PERSPECTIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)
In October 2004, the OECD described Canada's child-care system as “a chronically under-funded patchwork of programs with no overarching goals”. It found a shortage of available regulated child-care spaces – enough for fewer than 20 % of children 6 years and younger with working parents. By contrast, the following estimates apply to other OECD countries: UK, 60 %; Belgium, 63%; France, 69%; Denmark, 78%. The OECD recommended that Canada double its child-care spending to reach the OECD average.
For more in-depth on Day Care in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/
THE EVIDENCE – HOW IMPORTANT IS EARLY CHILDHOOD?
As part of a recent study, RAND researchers synthesized what is known from the scientifically sound research literature about the short- and long-term benefits from early intervention programs, the features that are associated with more-effective programs, and the economic gains (attractive benefit: cost ratios) that accrue from investing additional resources in early childhood. There is increasing recognition that the first few years of a child’s life are a particularly sensitive period in the process of human development, laying a foundation in childhood and beyond for cognitive functioning; behavioral, social, and self-regulatory capacities; and physical health. Yet many children face stressors during these years that can impair their healthy development. Early childhood intervention programs are designed to mitigate the factors that place children at risk of poor outcomes. Such programs provide supports for the parents, the children, or the family as a whole. These supports may be in the form of learning activities or other structured experiences that affect a child directly or that have indirect effects through training parents or otherwise enhancing the care-giving environment.
The research brief linked below describes work documented in Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise by Lynn A. Karoly, M. Rebecca Kilburn, and Jill S. Cannon, MG-341-PNC, 2005, 200 pp, ISBN: 0-8330-3836-2
Source: RAND Corporation. RAND Research Briefs
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145/index1.html
Note: We selected RAND for their review in part because we appreciate that this think tank normally enjoys support from across the political spectrum, including Conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
