COMMUNIQUE OF THE AFRICAN PARLIAMENTARY PRE-COP 23 PREPARATORY WORKSHOP

Midrand, South Africa
21 October 2017

We, members of the Pan-African Parliament, Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance having met in Midrand, South Africa, for a pre-COP 23 preparatory workshop on 21 October 2017 during the symposium on “Climate, Energy Transition and Agricultural Adaptation Finance in Africa”,

Aware that climate change represents a real threat to economic development and longterm prosperity, manifesting its adverse and catastrophic impacts on all people but especially the poorest and most vulnerable people on the continent;

Recognizing the impacts that climate change has on national poverty eradication and sustainable development strategies in African countries;

Recalling the objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and in particular Article 2 which provides that “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner;”

Further Recalling the progress made in 2015 with the adoption of the Paris Agreement stipulating the global goals on mitigation, adaptation and finance, and in particular Article 2.1a which provides for Parties to “hold the global temperature well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C and Article 7.1 on the Global Goal on adaptation, which aims “to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resiliency and reduce vulnerability to climate change”

Recalling the sustainable development goals adopted in New York on 25th September 2015 and particularly goal 13 on combating climate change and its impacts and which affirms the UNFCCC as the primary UN institution to coordinate climate change actions;

Mindful of African Union Assembly of Heads of State and government decision 16(xxv) 2017 on Africa’s engagements in the global climate negotiations;

Acknowledging the strong leadership provided by the Committee of African Heads of State and Governments on Climate Change (CAHOSCC), the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) and the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) in ensuring the continent continues to speak with one voice in climate change negotiations;

Further taking note of the AMCEN 2017 Decision 16/4 on Climate Change in particular “urging Parties to the Paris Agreement to recognise the special circumstances and needs of African countries in line with the relevant COP decisions and call on in the incoming President of the COP to continue consultations with Parties with a view to reaching a decision in that regard at the 24th session of the COP”;

Determined to protect Africa and her environment against adverse effects resulting from
climate change among other environmental challenges;

Affirming the paramount importance of Parliament and Members of Parliament not only to take interest in the climate change negotiations, but also to actively contribute to the formulation and enactment of enabling national climate change policies and legislation in a robust governance system and noting the African institutions involved in climate change negotiations and seeking ways of ensuring Parliamentarians inputs are captured and coordinated;

NOW RECOMMEND AS FOLLOWS:
On negotiations in general: Noting the early adoption of the Paris Agreement, calls on Parties to speed up negotiations on the Paris Rule Book to catalyse climate action and clarifying the collective efforts of Parties during the Facilitative dialogue in 2018, commitment to increasing emission reduction targets in 2020, developing methodologies to assess collective efforts in 2023 leading to 2050 net zero emissions and climate resilience.

Further the negotiations should address the following:

a. MITIGATION
Calls on the global community to continue highlighting their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in particular from developed country Parties, in line with the global temperature goal to limit temperature increase to well below 2°C, with a target towards 1.5 °C.

b. ADAPTATION
Reflect the global responsibility for adaptation in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention, taking into account national adaptation planning, adaptation needs and associated costs including support for developing countries- particularly Africa as stipulated in the Paris Agreement.

c. LOSS AND DAMAGE
Note the proposals for addressing loss and damage through insurance mechanisms and call on the global community to provide resources for loss and damage and any related actions to address such losses.

d. FINANCE
Note with concern the slow approval of adaptation projects, and the lack of parity in the provision of finance between adaptation and mitigation, and reaffirm the obligation of developed country Parties to contribute in a transparent, measurable and verifiable manner towards global climate finance.

e. THE ROLE OF markets
Recognize the critical role of non-market mechanisms for African countries and call on negotiators to focus on developing frameworks for the recognition of African communities efforts leading to  emission reduction

f. The Threat to pull out of the Paris Agreement
Note with concern the threat of the Government of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and in particular the implications for global climate leadership and provisions of finance to developing countries. We are, however, encouraged by the level of commitment of the USA citizens, non-state actors and some states and cities who have remained committed to work with the rest of the global community in addressing climate change.

Adopted this 21st day of October 2017 in Midrand, South Africa

Signed: By Hon. Jacqueline Amongin, Chair, Committee on Rural Economy
Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources, PAP

The Chairperson of the 201 African Parliamentarians’ Summit held in Midrand, South
Africa, 21 October 2017.

Full communique is available: 

Tweet

Emissions Gap Report 2017: what is in it for Africa?

The UN Environment’s Emissions Gap report (eighth edition) has been released ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn. Interestingly, national pledges for emission cuts towards 2030 as enshrined in the Paris Agreement would only bring the world to only one-third of the expected reductions. How does this gap get closed? What should Africa do?

The Paris Agreement looks to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius, with a more ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius also on the table. Meeting these targets would reduce the likelihood of severe climate impacts that could damage human health, livelihoods and economies across the globe. For the world's most vulnerable, there is no other way of looking at this situation of negative climate change impacts. But do they really have a voice?

Yes! Africa and the rest of the world that are highly vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change do have a voice and must be heard. We must seek new ways of doing things. We must go with our ideas, clearer ideas, to the table for discussion. We must always go prepared to negotiations and be forward-looking in our presentations. We must build synergies and look for whoever is willing to be part of a move towards saving humanity to be on our side to fight this.

African governments must engage their colleagues in the developing world. We have for a long time focused on adaptation to climate change and we will not change it in the foreseeable future. But we must also get actively involved in the mitigation discussion. We must engage whoever is willing to listen and help to urgently pursue actions that will bring deeper and more-rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

How do we achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through our agriculture, for example? What about other sectors such as energy, forestry, industry and transport? What can technology do to help us to reduce green house gas emissions in Africa? Where is the technology and how do we get it? There is always the point of investment in solar energy, efficient appliances, efficient mass transport systems, afforestation and stopping deforestation. These are areas that we can take charge of and pull our resources together to make a difference in our lives and that of the whole world.

The time has come. Let's stand to be counted. We are not doing it for some people; we are saving our own lives. 

Tweet

Watching the USA on Climate Change

“This is not some distant problem of the future. This is a problem that is affecting Americans right now. Whether it means increased flooding, greater vulnerability to drought, more severe wildfires — all these things are having an impact on Americans as we speak.” — U.S. President Barack Obama, interview with Al Roker, May 6, 2014

The United States of America (USA) plays and will continue to play a major role in the world as far as I can see. Not that I can really see very far, but I can smell very far. My sense of smell seem sharper than my sight. So I tend to 'see' more with my nose. And as far as my big nose can see, USA will play a major role in the world's affairs for such a long time.

Which issue concerns the everyone in the world more than the issues of climate change? Climate Change demands the attention and active involvement of all who genuinely believe they are big boys/girls in the house. They should stand and be counted. As the eldest child in a family where both Mum and Dad have passed on, I know and appreciate what it means to rise to the occasion; to stand and be counted. I acknowledge my position that destiny has bestowed on me. I accept the responsibility on me and live up to it. This is what I am watching the USA and hoping to see. Let USA stand well on climate issues.

In calling the big boys when it comes to emission of greenhouse gases, one cannot skip USA. If any meaningful agreement on reducing emission levels can be reached at Paris, the role of USA is extremely important. President Barack Obama, speaking at the League of Conservation Voters Capital Dinner, June 25, 2014, said: “Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our power plants. There are no federal limits to the amount those plants can pump into the air. None. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, and sulfur, and arsenic in our air and water, but power plants can dump as much carbon pollution into our atmosphere as they want. It’s not smart, it’s not right, it’s not safe, and I determined it needs to stop.” — U.S. President Barack Obama, League of Conservation Voters Capital Dinner, June 25, 2014.

There has been good development in recent years on talks on emission reduction in which USA has been a major player. USA has tried to bring other big emitters into discussions. Now is the time for Mr Obama to rally his country to pull the world along a path for a positive action. Mr Obama, I know you know. I know you know it is possible to get seemingly impossible things done. You said this, Mr President: “Part of what’s unique about climate change, though, is the nature of some of the opposition to action.  It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist.  When President Kennedy set us on a course for the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it; it was going to be too expensive, it was going to be too hard, it would take too long.  But nobody ignored the science.  I don’t remember anybody saying that the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.” — U.S. President Barack Obama, UC Irvine Commencement Address, June 14, 2014

It is sad to note that Mr Obama’s flagship climate policy, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, went down to defeat in 2009 as a result of Congressional opposition. That was in 2009 and a lot of water has passed under the Bridge; not Jose's Stamford Bridge. Mr Obama is coming to the end of his term and as some people claim he has been on legacy hunting, I urge him to hunt for a climate change legacy that the whole world will remember him for.

The US congress must support Mr Obama to rally the nation together and lead the world in reaching a good deal in Paris. This, my respected congressmen, you owe to yourself, your children and your children;s children. Please, this should not be about, Democrats and Republicans thinking of how to block that and delay this because it is coming from here and not there. Live above this. This is a matter of the world and the respect for USA must be put to good use.

I call on AMERICA.

“When Americans are called on to innovate, that’s what we do — whether it’s making more fuel-efficient cars or more fuel-efficient appliances, or making sure that we are putting in place the kinds of equipment that prevents harm to the ozone layer and eliminates acid rain.  At every one of these steps, there have been folks who have said it can’t be done.  There have been naysayers who said this is going to destroy jobs and destroy industry. And it doesn’t happen because once we have a clear target to meet, we typically meet it. And we find the best ways to do it.” — U.S. President Barack Obama, conference call with public health groups, June 2, 2014

Tweet

Something good from Paris 2015

I have only passed through Paris once, on transit. So all I have from Paris is views of Charles de Gaulle Airport. So whilst waiting at Charles de Gaulle Airport, I sent a message to my wife, Juliet: "Ju, I'm in Paris now". Then this conversation ensued:
Ju: "Bring me something from Paris"
Benji: What do you want from Paris?
Ju: "I just want something good from Paris"

Now Paris has become so regular in my thinking. From 30 November to 11 December, governments of more than 190 nations will gather in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change. This makes Paris very important to me as a climate change researcher. This meeting in Paris is seeking to do two main interlinked issues: reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the threat of dangerous climate change.

In just about 5 years, the world's current commitments on greenhouse gas emissions will run out. Will the meeting at Paris succeed in getting a new and improved agreement on greenhouse gas emissions post 2020? How much should the world agree to cut down on Greenhouse Gas Emissions? What kind of agreement? Will it be an agreement that goes beyond the cameras?

It is estimated that a temperature rise of 2 degrees celsius  above pre-industrial levels will make the world cross a critical threshold beyond which global warming becomes catastrophic and irreversible. The current trend is that the world's emissions are heading for a rise of about 5 degrees celsius. There is every cause concern for any serious-minded person who thinks about this earth

I am not going to Paris for this very important meeting so I have a request for those going to Paris. My dear colleagues going to Paris, I believe you know you carry the aspirations of the whole world with you. The world is looking up to you to get a good deal for us all. You are not doing some people somewhere a favour. You will be helping yourself today, your children and your children's children.

As I was told, I also tell you, "I just want something good from Paris"

Tweet

Why Dedicating Land to Bioenergy Won't Curb Climate Change

This is worth reading!

I could not agree more. As someone that has worked on how vast stretches of land are being aquired by multinationals in Ghana to produce biofuels, I wish I could scream this more!

A new WRI working paper recommends against dedicating land to produce bioenergy. This is a very worrying trend which is pushing peasant farmers out of the little land they are farming on just to feed themselves and their families.

Read more at: Why Dedicating Land to Bioenergy Won't Curb Climate Change

Tweet

Climate Change, GM Crops and Food Security

"Our partners in Europe have blocked all new bio-crops because of unfounded, unscientific fear" -- George Bush, 2003

Genetically modified foods (GM foods, or biotech foods) are foods that have specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. Generally, the aim of genetically modifying food is simple, either to make the food more marketable or make it easier to produce. So far America seems to be leading in the cultivation of GM crops as they are reported to have grown some 66.8m hectares of GM crops, even in 2010. GM technology has been enthusiastically embraced in the Americas and in many Asian countries. Same cannot be said of Europe, though, where many countries are subject to severe restrictions on growing GM crops. Developing countries are also moving quite fast with the cultivation of GM crops. Brazil, Argentina are embracing GM crops. In Africa, Burkina Faso and South Africa are the leaders in cultivation of GM crops. I am not writing to support or fight against the adoption of GM crops but I would like to provoke more thinking along climate change, GM foods and Food Security, especially in Africa. Should the continent just say “NO” to it or we need to look a little more closely?

African countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change because of their dependence on rainfed agriculture, high levels of poverty, low levels of human and physical capital, and poor infrastructure. The negative effects of climate change on crop/food production in Africa are well researched and documented. In Africa, agriculture sector accounts for a large share of GDP, export earnings, and employment. Many studies point to decline in yields of crops such as rice, wheat, and maize. Irrigation water supply reliability is expected to worsen in Sub-Saharan Africa due to climate change. Increasing temperature, low rainfall, altered rainfall patterns and even droughts, flooding, pests and diseases is likely to worsen Africa’s food security and the likelihood of having and an increase in the number of malnourished children on the continent. So, what is commonly heard on the lips of many African climate scientists is how to adapt to these changes. How can we continue to grow crops that can tolerate the changing climatic conditions, withstand pests and diseases and increases yield? If there are issues that should consider any African leader, these are!

When a continent is faced with such difficult future, one is likely to grasp at any offer that seems to address these big challenges of food security. One of such offers is Genetically Modified Crops. Two forms of stress resistance especially relevant to climate change are to drought and temperature and there are a number of studies which shows that genetic modifications to major crops such as corn and soybeans have increased their water-deficit tolerance. Enhanced resistance to pests and diseases, salinity and waterlogging, change in flowering times or enhanced responses to elevated carbon dioxide levels have all been demonstrated with GM crops.

There has been so many articles and debates on the advantages and disadvantages of GM crops or foods. When it comes to climate change, some of the argument in in support of GM crops are that through the use of low- and no-till farming methods, fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions can be decreased thanks to less tillage. In effect, GM crops can help farmers fight climate change in the following ways:

•Less fuel consumption on farms due to a reduced need to spray crops.

•Better carbon sequestration. With less tillage or ploughing, over time soil quality is enhanced and becomes carbon-enriched since more crop residue can be left on the fields. In addition, since the soil is not inverted by ploughing, less carbon in the soil will be released into the atmosphere.

•Reduced fertilizer use and N2O emissions. Nitrous oxide has a global warming potential 296 times greater than carbon dioxide. And it stays in the atmosphere for more than 100 years. These emissions can be limited by reduced fertilizer use, which will also mean less water pollution.

•For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed.

•There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases

In a report titled, GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2010, UK-based PG Economics concluded, ‘crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops. In 2010, this was equivalent to removing 19.4 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 8.6 million cars from the road for one year.’

But there are arguments against the adoption of GM crops too. Here are some of them:

•Changing plants may have lasting effects on other organisms in the ecosystem. The change in a plant may cause it to be toxic to an insect or animal that uses it as its main food source.

•Due to the widespread use of insect resistant genes in crops the insects may become resistant to the genetic modifications. This would cause a widespread loss of crops and plants that have the natural immunity leading to a loss in biodiversity.

•Breeding and cross pollination across unintended species could occur resulting in things such as insect resistant weeds.

•Genetic modification could cause allergies in humans due to gene modification of plants.

•Some studies have shown that it may affect the human digestive system in a number of ways. The incorporation of substances that may interact badly with one another in food or in fact be poisonous to people may happen. The modification of certain genes may make some plant substances difficult to digest at all.

•A major economical concern is that the control of world food sources may be limited to large companies because they own the GM seeds and have the money to start and finish the accreditation process.

•Genetic modification can also make it difficult to know what you are eating, as a plant could contain animals products via genetic engineering. This could cause issues for those with dietary restrictions and religious commitments.

These are samples of the arguments as I have presented them here. But where should Africa go? Technology is good for climate change adaptation. Why shouldn’t we go for it? If we go for it, are we ready for the negative consequences if they are true?

I believe the continent must tread carefully. Our leaders should commit resources into research that can be independently conducted to inform our position on whether to accept or not to accept GM foods and GM crops production.

"Let those with the luxury to choose whether to have red meat, white meat or whatever other colour meat not stand in the way of those who are simply asking to have a meal" -- Hon William Ruto, 2010

Tweet

CLIMATE-DRIVEN MIGRATION IN GHANA

Climate change impacts continue to draw thousands of households below the poverty line, especially areas where rain-fed agriculture is the mainstay of households because their livelihood is heavily affected by reduced and erratic rainfall.

The three regions in the north of Ghana (Northern, Upper East and Upper West Regions) have persistently been among the poorest in the country. While other regions such as the Central Region and parts of other regions are also poor, the north comprises the poorest large geographical area. Generally, most parts of Ghana have two rainy seasons; major season from April to July and minor season from September to November . But in the north of Ghana, there is only one rainy season which begins somewhere in late April and lasts until about late August or sometimes September. Annual rainfall in the north is about 1000 mm on the average. As in many African countries, poverty is concentrated among farmers and the major livelihood of the people in the Northern, Upper East and Upper West Regions are farmers, rain-fed farmers.

Last year, when I had the opportunity to be part of a team that undertook a study in four districts in Ghana’s northern savannah zone, I came close once again to the reality of how climate change is impacting livelihoods. There, I encountered young men who narrated how they are so pushed to their limits in trying to stay in their communities and work; mainly farming. They revealed to me what used to be a previous cycle of young men moving southwards to find work during the long dry seasons in the north, by which time the rainy season would have started in the south, and returning to make their own farms when the rainy season in the north begins. But now, they say, this cycle has changed. Young men now make a one-off trip to find work and stay in the south. This is the result of reduced and erratic rainfall and prolonged dry periods in the northern savannah which makes the annual return trip to their own farms less profitable compared with staying down south to work and remit families back home.

Households with a son or two living and working in the south in places like Kumasi (the second biggest city) and Accra (Ghana’s capital) have a better coping capacity to the impacts of climate change because they receive remittances from relations in Accra or Kumasi. This has then become a great force attracting young men and women to also migrate. Parents who are old and fragile are advising their children, and even sometimes push them, to migrate to the city to find work and remit them. Such is the gravity of the situation that young men who are not yet migrating and struggling to still make a living from their farms are helpless and feel the pressure everyday to migrate. They cannot stay and see their families starve and wallow in poverty.

I am aware of many interventions aimed at addressing the north-south migration in Ghana. But I am convinced and would like to draw our attention to the fact that any of such programmes to address north-south migration in Ghana that does not include adaptation to extreme climate variability is likely to be unsustainable.

Tweet

Goodnews on Groundwater in Africa: what next?

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". -- Lao Tzu

In many places in Africa, water remains a scarce commodity. Many households travel long distances in search of water. Water availability and accessibility continues to create tension between communities and countries. When it is said that water is life and you do not understand it, come to Africa and you will come to appreciate that statement very much. On a continent that has about 60 percent of the total labor force, engaged in agricultural labor, the importance of water cannot be over-emphasised. Many communities are still struggling to get access to drinking water.

The UN suggests that each person needs 20-50 litres of safe freshwater a day to ensure their basic needs for drinking, cooking and cleaning; in most parts of Africa, this is a luxury. The population of Africans without access to improved drinking water sources increased by 61 million, from 280 million in 1990 to 341 million in 2006. Whereas the population is increasing, increases in coverage are not keeping pace with population growth. It is already established that Africa is not on track to meet the MDG drinking water target and even when the MDG drinking water target is met, 253 million Africans will still be without access to an improved drinking water source.

Agriculture in most parts of Africa is rainfall dependent; only 3 percent of land in sub-Saharan Africa is irrigated, compared to more than 20 percent globally. Already some 218 million people in Africa, around 30 percent of the total population, are estimated to be suffering from chronic hunger and malnutrition. In most African countries, agriculture supports the survival and well-being of up to 70 percent of the population. So it becomes very scary when projections of climate change seem to suggest that the continent is likely to suffer from reduced rainfall; something likely to worsen the water situation of the continent.

The above information on the importance of water in the daily life of many people in Africa made me shout for joy upon learning of a positive study on groundwater resources in Africa, “Quantitative maps of groundwater resources in Africa” by MacDonald and others. In Africa, groundwater is very important to us. It is the major source of drinking water and its use for irrigation is forecast to increase substantially to combat growing food insecurity. Here are a few of the highlights of the report that made me happy:

1. Africa has huge reserves of water underground and it is estimated that total groundwater storage of 0.66 million km3 (0.36–1.75 million km3) in Africa

2. The groundwater reserve is estimated to be more than a hundred times the annual renewable freshwater resources

So, isn’t there good news? There is good news! It is also known that groundwater possesses a high resilience to climate change in Africa and should be central to adaptation strategies.

Whichever way I look at it, I think it is good news! But the issues do not end there? I asked myself the question is accessibility. How can we tap into this resource to meet our adaptation needs? The researchers found that "for many African countries appropriately sited and constructed boreholes will be able to sustain community handpumps and for most of the populated areas of Africa, groundwater levels are likely to be sufficiently shallow to be accessed using a handpump".

BUT, I won’t end without this advice: “we should not just start sinking boreholes everywhere to tap the water, like how many interventions on our continent have been handled haphazardly”. The researchers emphasise the importance of taking into consideration the rate at which this stored water can be replenished. For instance, in the arid region of North Africa where the largest groundwater reserves lie, the reserves, about seventy five meters, deep, were filled five thousand years ago when the region was much wetter. Whatever is taken out is not replenished so we need to plan well.

Whichever way I look at it, I think it is good news! The study by McDonald and others does not deal with the issues of salinization or contamination, but generally the stored water is purer than surface water, according to one of the report's authors, Helen Bonsor of the British Geological Survey.

So the report is out! Let the debate begin! Where do we go from here? Surely, there is the need for more local research in moving forward.

“What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step”. -- C. S. Lewis

Tweet

From Durban, with HOPE!

Coming from Durban, world governments committed themselves to write a comprehensive global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, covering both developed and developing countries, for the first time. Despite this good progress at Durban, the conference could not arrive at a legally binding deal to bail out the planet. This global agreement that has received commitment is to come into force in 2020. I wish it would be earlier than 2020, though. It has been a long and tiring journey. Sometimes I ask myself, “Why is it so easy to save the banks – but so hard to save the earth?”

There have been such climate change agreements before, but never like this. The 1997 Kyoto protocol is an example of a treaty stipulating cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, but the cuts only apply to developed countries and the US never joined in. Several accords were struck under the Kyoto Protocol but they were voluntary, not legally binding. Politicians could easily walk out of such non-binding agreements, compared with legally-binding treaties. Coming out of Durban, the new phase of negotiations about to start should be "a protocol, a legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force", which will effectively mean countries are legally bound. Unfortunately, it is worrying that the Durban talks had nothing on how how far and how fast countries should be cutting their carbon dioxide.

Scientists say when global temperatures rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius, climate change will become catastrophic and irreversible. And emissions have risen by nearly 50% in the past 20 years, and still rising. With every year of increase, we have much less chance of keeping global temperature rises to less than 2 degrees Celsius. But the earth needs to wait till 2015 when governments will wrap up negotiations and a legal document will be ready to for signing; and a further 5 years for ratification. In between now and 2015 and then 2020, advocacy must go on to ensure that nothing goes wrong. It’s a delicate process but “working together, we will save tomorrow today”. I have HOPE!

There are more positives which make the Durban conference great, in my opinion. Compared with previous meetings, it seems this time Africa had a better representation. The African Group made up of 54 nations presented a united front throughout the negotiations, with few disagreements among them. The group had clear priorities and stood by them. The leader of the African group made this statement "Whether we are reducing our priorities to two, while yesterday I spoke about five priorities, I will even go further and say that the priority that we have is only one: to keep one billion Africans safe as regards the adverse effect of a climate change phenomenon to which they did not contribute." Reports were still rife that some of the African delegates were just out of touch with the issues that were being discussed but it is a great improvement on previous delegations. As usual, some African delegates were reported to have found the shopping malls and streets of Durban a better conference room. Some were obviously there on holiday! But this time, the continent had better representation and I believe it is getting better and a time will come that National Delegations will be made up of people who really understand what is to be discussed and not because they are government functionaries and there is an opportunity to travel.

Tweet

Clear more forest; cause more climate change

Deforestation in Ghana has undoubtedly had an effect on greenhouse gas emission contributions from Ghana. The cumulative effect of the volume of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere annually from clearing and burning of forests in Ghana over the last century has surely had devastating effects on the world's climate. when forest are burnt, the carbon stored in trees are released into the atmosphere via carbon dioxide gas coming from the burning of biomass.

When our forest are allowed to stand, carbon is removed from the atmosphere and absorbed in wood, leaves and soil. Due to the ability of forests to absorb and store carbon over an extended period of time, they serve as “carbon sinks”. In effect, when forests are removed, this unique role that they play to keep carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere at normal levels is lost and rather the carbon stored in them is released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide gas, upon burning. Overall, the world’s forest ecosystems are estimated to store more carbon than the entire atmosphere (Greenfacts, 2007).

From 1990 to 2000 and to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions in Ghana have increased steadily from 0.2419 to 0.3075 and to 0.326 metric tonnes per capita, respectively (UNEP, 2008). This is not surprising considering the deforestation rate and how “slash and burn” method of farmland preparation is widely practised all over Ghana. Unfortunately, as we contribute to climate change through deforestation, Climate change will in turn affect the remaining forests profoundly through increasing damage to forest health through proliferation of forest fires, pests and diseases (FAO, 2007).

Unfortunately, both the “1948 Forest Policy” and the “1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy” had no real policy direction on climate change. Let's assume that at the time these policies were developed. climate change was not a 'major issue'. This means at it stands now these policies can not help in mitigation and/or adaptation to climate change which is a major environmental issue. At this juncture, I think a review of Ghana's forest and wildlife policy is long overdue.

Tweet

Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMet) and the climate change adaptation process

The impact of changing climate in Ghana is so evident even to the ordinary man on the street. One does not have to be a farmer who depends on solely rainfall to plant his crops to notice that there has been a major change in our rainfall pattern. The excessive heat in recent years is felt by all and how many of us have not paused once to wonder how warm our world is becoming? Some of us living in the urban areas like Accra and Kumasi may not be depending directly on streams and rivers for our water needs like the people in Adubinsu and Mmoframfaadwen do, so we may not be seeing at first hand the drying of streams and rivers. However, since our water invariably comes from dams built on rivers whose sources are drying up, we are equally vulnerable.

Whether we stop producing greenhouse gases (very impossible) or not, we are already committed to some level of climate change and there is the need to adapt to these changes since we have nowhere else but this earth to stay. How then can Ghana adapt to the impacts of climate change? Effective adaptation to impacts of climate change requires a careful assessment of impacts of and vulnerability to climate change and subsequently working out adaptation needs of the people. A critical requirement of such an exercise is good quality information. This is where the usefulness of institutions such as the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMet) cannot be over-emphasised. GMet is mandated to collect climatic information for further development into useable products for the country. Where the capacity for collecting such relevant information and assessing climate change is not adequate, our ability to plan adaptation measures and adapt effectively becomes highly constrained.

A cursory look around the few GMet stations scattered around the country will give even a day-old baby an idea of how resourced the agency is in leading the country’s adaptation efforts. Ghana cannot go on like this. We cannot plan adaptation strategies in a vacuum! We cannot just guess what is likely to happen by how we feel or what some people elsewhere say. We need to know the current situation to project what is likely to happen in the future judging from the current situation, before any meaningful climate change adaptation strategies can be planned. This entails improved observations; improved regional, national and global data, as well as denser networks; recovery of historical data; building of support among user communities that have a demand for climate information; and promoting greater collaboration between providers and users of climate information.

My contact with the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMet) has always left me thinking about how serious Ghana is when it comes to issues of climate change; something that threatens food production and water resources, life and death. GMet needs major attention. This agency is critical to the security of our country! Some serious attention should be paid at providing the Agency with the needed equipment for effective climate observation. There should be more observation stations in many parts of the country to ensure effective monitoring. GMet staff needs regular and constant upgrading to help them catch up with the fast evolving field of climate science. The many self-motivated, hardworking and enthusiastic young men and women at the agency has should be helped to help this country.

Tweet

Climate Change and a limitless earth; we are just ignorant!

The earth has always provided for its people and there is no reason to believe that one day the earth can no longer fulfil its duty. This earth will only cease to function, in my opinion, at the command of God who created everything including the earth, just by commanding them to come to being! Different challenges arise at various times and the earth has always risen to the occasion. The real issue then becomes not the inability of the earth to provide for its inhabitants, but the ignorance of its inhabitants to know where to find what.

Increasing food production to feed a projected over 9 billion people in the face of changing climate is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. Success in meeting this challenge will undoubtedly require a steady stream of technical and institutional innovations in adapting to changing climatic conditions. Climate change is being made to look like a monster that has come to kill all of us. But the truth is climate change will not kill all of us; in fact, it cannot! It is just a challenge we must overcome to prove our usefulness to this earth as a people and re-emphasise our desire to live and enjoy the earth.

Man’s love for hearing of disaster and threats of disaster makes it is so easy for us to get carried away by the alarm of negative climatic effects being sounded all over the world; thus preventing the world from seeing the benefits such changes may be presenting to us. Regardless of the extent of negative effects, there may be some positive effects and taking advantage of the least of the positive effects is a sure means of reducing vulnerability and enhancing adaptation to climate change. The ability to carefully identify the risks as well as opportunities that climate change presents and maximise the benefits of the opportunities is major step in reducing our vulnerability to climate change.

There are reports of likely positive climatic changes in the highland tropics and in temperate regions; that changes in temperatures and precipitation forecast by the standard models of climate change will actually benefit agriculture in some parts of the world; climate changes may also provide opportunities for agricultural investment, rewarding early action taken to capitalize on these options; rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, driven by emissions from human activities, can act as a fertilizer and enhance the growth of some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans; and some estimates suggest that higher CO2 levels could increase crop productivity substantially, by 50% or more. These are all pointers to show that the earth is limitless and when we look deep enough, we will find where the resources are to cater for its people. Inadequate consideration of adaptation options, including not taking advantage of potential benefits, could result in the vulnerability to climate change being significantly over-stated. The earth is limitless and constantly provides opportunities for its people to survive but mostly such opportunities are either overlooked or only seen in the last minute when many people would have already lost heavily. It is time to make conscious effort to always look out, first, for the opportunities in every seemingly unfortunate development.

It’s time to kill our ignorance of climate change issues and be optimistic. We have heard enough of the negative impacts. It’s time to identify and fully utilise the opportunities climate change presents to us. We can’t lose the opportunities and sit crying over negative impacts. A lost opportunity can be as bad as a negative impact and such lost opportunities add up to swell the negative impacts.

“O come let us reason together …”

Tweet

Climate Change and Adaptation in Urban Areas

Everywhere I go my mind is filled with climate change: vulnerability and adaptation. I live in the capital of Ghana, Accra, at a suburb called South La Estates. La is also known by many as Labadi. When I first got to my new place about a year ago, I thought that was all Labadi was until Monday when I had to pick a mini-bus (known in Ghana as trotro) to work and I got to know Labadi proper. Whilst the driver meandered through the streets of the “other Labadi” I was seeing, I couldn’t help but think of how differently Climate Change would affect the two Labadis I am seeing: the well-planned South Labadi with clean drains and the slum Labadi I was seeing now.

In places like Labadi and other slums in Accra and other places most of the buildings are sub-standard and obviously not suitable for habitation. Most of these residents are tenants and have no power to develop quality buildings and their landlords are exploiting them. Such residents are usually economic refugees who have moved to the city to seek greener pastures; most of whom inhabit very marginal areas. The influx of people into such marginal and usually flood-prone areas coupled with lack of planning in infrastructure makes them highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change including extreme flooding and storms.

We are all vulnerable to climate change but the effects will be disproportionate depending on how one will be able to adapt. The recent floods that have happened in Accra and other places bring to the fore the unfortunate reality that urban communities are increasingly becoming very vulnerable to the effects of climate change. One may argue that such flooding as witnessed may be due to other factors other than climate change but I believe that climate change is one of the factors. Even if it is not, we are being awakened to the vulnerability of urban populations to floods and storms; which are projected to increase in the face of climate change.

It is time to act locally to save our people and urban communities to adapt to the effects of climate change. The local governments should be resourced well to plan adaptation strategies for urban dwellers, especially those in slums. This is not the time to decide which communities or settlements are legal or illegal. It is time to plan and save. This will need everybody to get on deck: local governments, donor agencies, central government and vulnerable communities. People should be made aware of climate change and its effects and also whip-up their willingness to act.

Tweet

Climate Change and Non-Wood Forest Products

Talk about the forest and what readily comes to mind is Timber! But timber is not the only benefit the forest gives. But a major player in the forest economics is Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) or Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). These are goods of biological origin other than wood, derived from forests, other wooded land and trees outside forests. NWFPs include foods (nuts, fruits, mushrooms, honey, game, gums); food additives (spices, herbs, flavorings, sweeteners); fodder; fibers (furniture, clothing, construction); fragrances for perfumes; ornamental pods and seeds; resins; oils; plant and animal products with medicinal value. Forests also provide many spiritual, aesthetic and recreational benefits. The FAO estimates that 80% of the developing world relies on NWFPs for some purpose in their everyday life and NWFPs also play an important role in the international marketplace with over US$1.1 billion in trade.

As it is, “different things mean different things to different people”. When we talk about the impacts of climate change, we easily tend to think about tsunamis, hurricanes, massive flooding and many more. A relatively less mentioned issue is that of Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs). NWFPs such as fuelwood, charcoal, chewing sticks, are particularly important to the forest-dependent poor in the tropical and subtropical regions where people rely on them for their livelihoods and for meeting domestic energy, food- and health-security needs. To some people, the NWFPs are all they have but they are usually forgotten in the climate change debate. In regions with large forest-dependent populations, such as large parts of Africa, expected decreases in rainfall and increases in the severity and frequency of drought are likely to impose additional stresses on people. A decline in forest ecosystem services reduces the ability of forest-dependent people to meet their basic needs for food, clean water and other necessities and can lead to deepening poverty deteriorating public health and social conflict.

Generally, the impact of climate change on NWFPs is difficult to assess because of the high level of uncertainty about the ecological effects of climate change and because knowledge of the current and projected future demand for these products is incomplete. In Ghana, for example, despite the high dependence of rural livelihoods on NWFPs, there has not been any comprehensive assessment or database on them which will make a case for these NWFPs and inform any interventions to protect them in the face of recent climatic changes. Why will we want to protect them when we have no empirical evidence of their importance? What evidence will back our claims of their importance? But this may not be very difficult in doing because already, there is substantial local/indigenous knowledge on NWFPs and their management and this is critical in the response of forest-dependent people to climate change and can contribute to the development of adaptation strategies.

Tweet

Crime Against Humanity Underway in Ghana?

In 2007, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, described rapid investments in the production of biodiesels as “a crime against humanity”. Mr. Ziegler said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger judging from the haste in which arable land is being converted to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. How serious are we to take Mr Ziegler’s observations? Was it only an attempt to make the headlines or the situation is that serious? Isn’t there anything that can be done to prevent this “crime to humanity”? These are some of the questions that keep bothering me since I learnt of the “land-grabbing craze” going on in some parts of Ghana just to produce biodisels. If this is going to be crime against humanity, will Prez Mills be mauled before the International Criminal Court in The hague one day to join Mr Taylor?

I must first make it clear that I am not against the production of biofuels, neither will I try to make a case for the production of biodiesels in Ghana. Instead, I will try to be objective in my assessment of where Ghana stands in this whole Biodiesel/fuel brouhaha. First of all, why are so many people concerned with biodiesel investments in Ghana? Biodiesel is part of the family of biofuels (biomass, bioethanol and biodiesel) which is any solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel produced from organic (once-living) matter. Biofuel can be produced either directly from plants or indirectly from industrial, commercial, domestic, or agricultural wastes.

I ask again, why are many people concerned about biodiesel investments in Ghana. Why was the Ghana Investment Promotion Council set up? Yes! To look for investments and we are getting investments so what’s the problem? Ghana is, as usual, setting the pace. As a country, we seem to be very happy to be the number in so many things, whether good or bad. We don’t seem to really look at things critically before endorsing it but we endorse it before we start thinking about what we did. Can you count the number of charters we have signed/ratified and how many of them we were the first to do so. We pride ourselves in “Ghana was the first country to ratify the UN charter on ….”. I wonder what we have benefitted from doing that. Come to think of it…does any per diem come in with these ratification? If yes, then I think I understand.

Back to the business of biodiesels. As a country what do we need? Biodiesels are good but is it the priority now? Have we prepared adequately to handle the effects of largescale biodiesel production? What policies are in place to govern the production of biodiesel in Ghana. What makes biodiesel investments in Ghana woth thinking about is the fact that, our agricultural lands are being used to produce sugarcane, jatropha, etc, for biodiesel for export whiles we can not produce enough food to feed ourselves. Oh, Prof Kwasi Andam, I miss u: “this is nonsensical”. It is sad that our arable lands in some parts of the Northern, Upper East and West and Brong Ahafo regions are being grabbed by multi-national companies to produce biodiesel whilst we sit down and not question it! It is someone’s job to see to it that we get food to eat. Where is the Ministry for Agriculture? Why are we always afraid to stand up for the right thing when foreign investors are involved? Food and biodiesels, which one is a major priority now? Ghana imports so much food which puts a major stress on our budgets yet instead of investing in production of food, we are looking on unconcerned whilst land for food crops are being taken for biodiesels.

Who are the immediate beneficiaries of biodiesel production in Ghana? As an environmentalist, I am very much aware of the benefits of the use of biodiesels compared to fossil fuels (crude oil). The growth in the production of biofuels has been driven, in part, by the desire to find less environmentally-damaging alternatives to oil. Biodiesels, compared to fossil fuels, emit less carbon into the atmosphere and as such mitigates climate change which is very important. Corn-based gasohol (a combination of unleaded gasoline and ethanol made from corn) reduces fossil energy use by 50 to 60 percent and pollution by 35 to 46 percent. Climate change has no barriers and even though Ghana does not emit so much carbon into the atmosphere, high emissions in America and Europe affect us here. From that angle, everyone benefits from any phenomenon that reduces emission of carbon. Great! But in this case of biodiesel production in Ghana we need to ask ourselves the question of priority! If we cannot produce enough food to feed ourselves, biodiesel then becomes a luxury. Food is basic! Moreover, the large tracts of land which have been taken over by these multi-national companies are producing biodiesel for export. The biodiesel is not to be used in Ghana. Then where is the sense if we give out our croplands for the production of biodiesels for export whilst we go hungry.

Production of crops for biodiesel is not starting in Ghana so there are examples to learn from. Recent increases in food prices have been attributed to the switch to biofuels. For example in the US, more farms are switching from the production of wheat and soya to corn, which is then turned into ethanol. More countries are looking for more enviroenmentally friendly alternatives to oil and are moving to biofuels. The European Union, for instance, has targeted 5.75 percent ethanol, derived from wheat, beet, potatoes, or corn, to be added to fossil fuels by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020. About a quarter of Brazil's transportation fuel in 2002 was ethanol. More than 11 percent of all automotive fuels sold in the United States are ethanol-blended, and that percentage is projected to increase in the future. Obviously, these statistics also indicate a growing demand for biofuels – and commercial interests are rushing to Ghana. And because Ghana accepts everything foreign in the name of investments, the country is being hailed in the international circles as becoming the Jatropha centre in Africa south of the Sahara. Another first? Saddening.

Our leadership must wake up to the signs. Ghana needs a good policy with legislation and strict enforcement to govern this biodiesel craze before we say “had we known”. Go to the mining and forestry sectors and there are lessons to learn. We’ve mined gold and cut timber from Ghana for ages but what can we show for it. Mining firms are destroying our rivers, polluting our lands and repatriating the profits to their countries. Is that what we want to continue? Timber firms have depleted our forests and left us with no hope: is that what we want to continue? We need to sit up and do what is expected. In 2005, the government of Ghana set up a Biofuel Committee (BFC) with the objective to develop a National Biofuel Policy (NBP). After a “study”, the BFC recommended among others that National Biofuel Policy should accelerate the development of the biofuel industry in Ghana with special emphasis on the production of biodiesel from Jatropha. What was considered about the food the people will eat when the lands are being used fro Jatropha? In Ghana we don’t eat Jatropha. I’ve heard some people say that the country, as part of a policy on biofuels, should set aside lands for the cultivation of Jatropha and others? What I ask is have we set aside enough land for the cultivation of food crops to feed our hurngry people? By the way which lands are to be set aside? Are we to sacrifice our right to food for biofuels?

Food prices are rising as more land is used to produce biofuels. Peoples farms are being taken over for the cultivation of biofuels? Waste is taking over our cities whilst we look on unconcerned: why don’t we rather go out there to invite investors to put their money in technologies that will enable the use waste to produce energy? Is the Ministry of Energy still there? People are losing their livelihoods and going hungry. What are we to do? Is any of our “caring leaders” listening? Are they going to keep quiet and supervise this crime against humanity? If they have not seen, have they not heard?

Tweet

Agriculture and Carbon Emmisions

The climate change debate seems to be loosing sight of some very important factors. It is well accepted that industrialsed countries are the worst offenders when it comes to greenhouse gas emmisions, but to address this issue of emmisions holistically, we need to also pay attention to the many developing countries where slash and burn agriculture is very widespread.

The current practice of land preparation for agriculture in many developing countries where large tracts of vegetation are completely cleared, debris or biomass burnt and land made bare (without any vegetation) before planting has serious implications for the environment in terms of release of carbon into the atmosphere. Usually there is so much focus on the amount of Carbon dioxide released by big industries whilst the world gradually looses sight of the volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being released through slash and burn practices all over the world. For instance, few people realize that Indonesia is the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet, after the United States and China; and 85 percent of Indonesia’s emissions are related to land use: the clearing of land for agriculture and infrastructure, and the burning of forests and peatlands.

Carbon dioxide (77%), nitrous oxide (8%), and methane (14%) are the three main greenhouse gases that trap infrared radiation and contribute to climate change and all these gases can be released through improper land management and agricultural practices. If we are serious about really mitigating climate change then our debate should not only focus on big industries. The earth is what we have and we must do all we can to secure it for the future.

Tweet