Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

You are here: Home / Archives for Environment

Southeast Asian nations pledge to tackle global climate change

by

asean

Nay Pyi Taw/Xinhua: Leaders from Southeast Asian nations have confirmed their determination to unveil respective national targets for mitigation efforts “well in advance of” a key global climate change meeting scheduled for December next year, according to a joint statement adopted at a regional summit here.

Those who are ready are also encouraged to put forward their ” intended nationally determined contributions” by the first quarter next year, the leaders said Wednesday at the 25th summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the Myanmar capital.

The ASEAN leaders also urged developed countries to continue to demonstrate leadership and come forward early with ambitious emission reduction targets by March 2015, and help the developing countries in climate change efforts.

“Climate change is already having significant impacts, causing major loss and damage throughout the ASEAN region, and disproportionately affecting developing countries,” they said, citing the Cyclone Nargis hitting Myanmar in 2008 and the Typhoon Haiyan lashing the Philippines last year.

The ASEAN climate declaration came on the same day as UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon praised pledges made by China and the United States to limit greenhouse gases and called on the rest of the world to follow suit. Ban was also in Nay Pyi Taw for an ASEAN-UN summit.

Earlier on Wednesday, Chinese president Xi Jinping and his US counterpart Barack Obama promised to take action to limit greenhouse gases. China set a target for its emission to peak by 2030, or earlier if possible, and for the share of non-fossil fuel energy to rise to about 20 percent by 2030.

The United States set a new target to reduce its emissions of heat-trapping gases by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared with 2005 levels. That’s a sharp increase from Obama’s first administration, when he pledged to cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020.

The new commitments are expected to inject fresh momentum into the global fight against climate change ahead of the UN climate conference in Paris next year.

At the summit, the 10 ASEAN leaders also reviewed progress made ahead of the target of realizing an ASEAN Community by the end of 2015, and adopted a declaration on the ASEAN Community’s post-2015 vision.

They are determined to “shape a bold and forward-looking future for ASEAN which will strengthen the ASEAN Community and enable the realization of a politically-cohesive, economically integrated, socially responsible, and a truly people-oriented, people-centered and rules-based ASEAN,” the statement said.

The summit also adopted a declaration on the ASEAN Secretariat, which is aimed at strengthening the institutional capacity of ASEAN and maintaining the centrality of ASEAN in an evolving regional architecture.

U.S-China agreement will not fix the climate

by

Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) shakes hands with U.S. President Barack Obama at a press conference following their talks at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, Nov. 12, 2014. (Photo: Xinhua/Liu Weibing)

Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) shakes hands with U.S. President Barack Obama at a press conference following their talks at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, Nov. 12, 2014. (Photo: Xinhua/Liu Weibing)

by Friends of the Earth

In response to the announcement of a negotiated deal between the United States and China on greenhouse gas reductions, Friends of the Earth U.S. President Erich Pica made the following statement:

While the U.S.-China Announcement on climate change creates important political momentum internationally, it falls significantly short of the aggressive reductions needed to prevent climate disruption. The announced U.S. emissions reduction target — 26-28 percent below 2005 levels, by 2025 — is grounded in neither the physical reality of climate science nor the lived reality of hundreds of millions of people in developing countries whose lives and livelihoods are in jeopardy due to drought, flooding, fire and other extreme weather events. Simply put, the non-binding target falls miserably short of what science, justice and equity demand.

Further, the announcement is silent on the U.S. commitment to adaptation, technology transfer and climate finance in regards to the rest of the world. These commitments are fundamental for a meaningful climate agreement in Paris in 2015. The first litmus test of how serious the U.S. is about success in Paris will come during the Green Climate Fund pledging session later this month.

Looking ahead toward the 2016 presidential race, I hope that this pledge becomes a very low floor for presidential aspirants and not a ceiling for what is possible in the United States. Using executive authority, the President can and must go further by denying new fossil fuel leases, rejecting the Keystone pipeline and regulating other forms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Changes to environment, land acquisition laws jeopardize human rights: Amnesty International India

by

Photo: Aruna Chandrasekhar

Photo: Aruna Chandrasekhar

New Delhi/Bengaluru: Recent changes made and proposed to India’s environment and land acquisition policies strike at the right of communities to be consulted on decisions affecting them, Amnesty International India said today.

India’s Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has in recent months weakened requirements for public consultation with communities affected by mining and other infrastructure projects, and sought to dilute provisions mandating the free, prior and informed consent of Adivasi (indigenous) communities.

The Ministry of Rural Development has suggested changes to land acquisition laws that seek to dilute consent requirements and discard social impact assessments.  Public consultations over changes to key environmental laws have been largely superficial.

“Many corporate-led infrastructure projects could severely affect the rights of communities to clean air, water, health, livelihood and a healthy environment. The people most affected by these projects must have a say in whether and how they go forward,” said Aruna Chandrasekhar, Business and Human Rights Researcher at Amnesty International India. “Attempts to shut these communities out of the decision-making process are short-sighted and counter-productive.”

“Some of the amended laws also fall short of international standards on consultation and consent, and could further marginalise vulnerable communities who seldom have a voice in decisions taken around their lands and resources.”

“Instead of carrying forward the previous government’s efforts to dismantle safeguards on consultation, authorities must strengthen and enforce existing laws.”

Public consultations with affected communities

On 30 May 2014, the MoEFCC issued an executive memorandum stating that existing coal mines with a production capacity of up to 16 mtpa (million tonnes per annum) would not need to conduct public hearings with project-affected communities before expanding their capacity by up to 50 per cent. Public hearings are mandated as part of the environmental clearance process for certain projects under the Environment (Protection) Act. They are the only existing formal means of consultation under Indian law for both indigenous and non-indigenous project-affected communities.

On 28 July, the Ministry extended the exemption from conducting public hearings to mines with a capacity above 16 mtpa seeking to expand their capacity by up to 5 mtpa. On 2 September, the Ministry issued another memorandum, exempting mines with a production capacity of over 20 mtpa seeking to expand capacity by up to 6 mtpa from conducting public hearings.

On 25 June, the Ministry amended its Environment Impact Assessment notification of 2006, which details the process by which environmental clearances are granted. The amendment made certain categories of projects, including irrigation projects which required less than 2000 hectares of land, exempt from requiring environmental clearances, and therefore exempt from needing to consult affected communities.

“The right to consultation must not be seen as a roadblock to projects, but as an integral part of the development process,” said Aruna Chandrasekhar. “The Ministry must require public hearings and environmental impact assessments to be conducted for all projects that could impact people’s lives, livelihoods or environment.”

Indigenous communities’ rights

Under India’s Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act – also referred to as the Forest Rights Act – any use of forest land for non-forest purposes requires the prior consent of the concerned gram sabhas (village assemblies), and documentary evidence that all individual and community claims over forest and community lands under the Act have been settled.

In recent months, authorities have sought to dilute these requirements. On 4 July 2014, the MoEFCC wrote to all state governments stating that documentary evidence of settlement of claims would no longer be required for proposals for prospecting in forest land.

On 28 October, the Ministry wrote to state governments stating that in cases where there were no recent census records of the presence of tribal communities and plantations had been categorized as ‘forests’ after 13 December 1930, gram sabha consent and documentary evidence of settlement of claims would not be required for forest land to be used for non-forest purposes.

The letter suggested that there could technically be no ‘Other Traditional Forest Dwellers’ – another category of indigenous communities – living in these forests. Under the Forest Rights Act, these communities need to have lived in and depended on forest lands for at least three generations prior to 13 December 2005, dating back to December 1930.

However the Act makes no distinction between plantations and other forests, and its definition of ‘forest land’ does not refer to a date of classification. The Ministry’s narrow interpretation of ‘forest land’ would therefore affect the rights of Other Traditional Forest Dwellers living in these forests to consultation and free, prior and informed consent.

Media reports also suggest that the government is planning to do away with the consent requirement for projects located outside ‘scheduled areas’ – certain Adivasi regions identified under the Constitution as deserving special protection.

“India must uphold its obligations under international and Indian law to protect the rights of indigenous communities over their lands and territories, and ensure that their free, prior and informed consent is sought on matters affecting them,” said Aruna Chandrasekhar.

Land acquisition

In July 2014, the Ministry of Rural Development wrote to the Prime Minister’s Office proposing a number of amendments to the flawed but progressive Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, which came into force on 1 January.

The changes proposed included diluting or doing away with provisions requiring the consent of 70 per cent of families where land was sought to be acquired for public-private partnership (PPP) projects and 80 per cent for private projects. The Ministry also recommended that social impact assessments mandated by the Act be restricted to only large projects or PPP projects as they ‘might delay the land acquisition process’.

Other changes proposed include reexamining the Act’s definition of ‘affected families’ eligible for resettlement and rehabilitation to exclude those who don’t own land but whose livelihood is affected by land acquisition.

The Act excludes several important industries – including coal mining by the state – from its ambit, and states that the central government shall make it applicable to these industries within one year of its commencement. However, the government has not taken any known measures in this regard.

“Authorities must not rush to amend a law which has barely been implemented on the ground. Instead, they must ensure that its provisions are strengthened and extended to all people affected by any project, and explicitly prohibit forced evictions in all circumstances,” said Aruna Chandrasekhar.

Consultations on legal reform

On 29 August 2014, the MoEFCC set up a committee to review key environmental laws, including India’s Air Act and Water Act, and “recommend specific amendments…to bring them in line with current requirements to meet objectives” within three months. However the committee’s mandate, while broad, remains vague, and its consultations have provided limited opportunities for public participation. The committee has conducted consultations in only urban centres so far, which have been largely inaccessible to many project-affected communities across the country.

A consultation held in Bangalore in September, which was attended by Amnesty International India, ended before schedule, and members of the public were not given sufficient time to provide feedback. The MoEFCC has invited suggestions and comments from members of the public. However these suggestions can only be made online, and at one point were restricted to under 1000 characters.

“A review of important environmental laws that will have long-lasting implications on millions of people must not be done in haste or in a perfunctory manner,” said Aruna Chandrasekhar. “It must involve consultations with a wide-range of stakeholders, especially from affected communities, in a manner that is transparent, meaningful and inclusive.”

Was Sabarmati project truly about river restoration or a way for real estate developers to earn big bucks?

by

Sabarmati

by Chicu Lokgariwar, India Water Portal

The Sabarmati is being widely touted as a revived river but is the Sabarmati project truly a ‘restoration’ project or is it just a way to enable real estate developers to earn big money?

‘Sabarmati ke Sant, tune kar diya kamaal’. Oh Saint of Sabarmati, you have done wonders’ goes the popular song. Today, it is the Sabarmati herself who is supposed to be the subject of a miracle. After all, she is the star of the much acclaimed riverfront development, along the lines of which even the Yamuna and the Ganga might be revived.

But is it really restoration or is it an illusion? ‘Let’s start at the very beginning’, as the old song goes, and look at what we would consider a ‘restored’ river.

According to Judy Meyer (1997), “a healthy stream is an ecosystem that is sustainable and resilient, maintaining its ecological structure and function over time while continuing to meet societal needs and expectations”. Jargon stripped, it simply describes a river such as that a child might draw- a flowing body of water that:

  • collects water from the land around it
  • is peopled by fish and birds and animals
  • supports a few fisherfolk and
  • ultimately meets either another river or the sea.

Some rivers are perennial and flow throughout the year; some are seasonal and run dry in summer. Both are natural states and the beings dependent on them have adapted to each. A restored river then, is one that has been transformed from a previously unsatisfactory state to that of a river that maintains its longitudinal integrity (from the source to the confluence/outlet) and fulfils its ecological functions (supporting wildlife, land forming, etc).

Let us now contrast this picture with the Sabarmati today. For all but 11 kilometers of its 370 kilometer length, the river bed is dry with occasional pools of stagnant water, which, while worsened due to an upstream dam, is not as shocking as it sounds, for the Sabarmati is a seasonal river. For the length that the river flows through Ahmedabad, it is filled with water that has been brought in from the Narmada. When the river exits Ahmedabad, the water exits the river and goes on to irrigate the lands of the rich farmers of Gujarat as part of the controversial Sardar Sarovar Project. Upstream and downstream of the city, and along the banks of the river, are concrete embankments that convert this fragmented river into a large swimming pool. So much for the longitudinal integrity of the river!

Wildlife cannot survive in a concrete box. Fish, birds and aquatic animals require algae and smaller animals (benthic invertebrates) to feed upon. These organisms as well as the larger beings that feed upon them need natural surfaces like sand, silt, clay and pebbles in which to feed, shelter and breed. All this is denied them in the case of the concretised Sabarmati. So there goes the ecological function. 0/2 so far. Are you with me?

Finally comes the turn of the human beings and it is here that the tragedy runs deep. For not very long ago, the Sabarmati did meet societal needs and expectations. The river supported a richly diverse community and provided sustenance for 40,000 families in Ahmedabad alone. It also was the setting for a historical bazaar – The Gujari Bazaar, which has met on the riverfront every Sunday since the 15th century.

All these communities were wiped out in the name of beautification. People living along the riverbanks were summarily evicted and shifted to a place on the outskirts of Ahmedabad without even rudimentary infrastructure. Nothing written in this article can express the futile efforts, the desperation, the trauma, and the despair of the displaced people as well as Navdeep Mathur’s brave and comprehensive paper ‘On the Sabarmati Riverfront‘. Far from meeting societal needs then, the Sabarmati ‘restoration’ has been an excuse for targeted eviction.

But why was this done?

To unearth the reasons for an action that defies logic, it is necessary to follow the money and in this case, the trail is clear. While the rhetoric for the project claims to have converted ‘private goods’ into ‘public assets’, even a cursory examination indicates that the reverse is true. Rs.1200 crores of public money was spent on the creation of 200 hectares of real estate where the riverbed once lay.

The project calls this ‘reclamation’; the river and its people call it ‘encroachment’. The riverbed was once used by 11,000 of Ahmedabad’s poorest families and about 2 lakh people accessed it for their livelihoods. When evicted, these people were not given any municipal support whatsoever. Most of this money was spent on channeling the river, ‘reclaiming’ the river bed, and constructing retaining walls, embankments, and other infrastructure. In other words, most of this money was handed over to private construction agencies. Details of this expenditure are not available. Today, the created land is being parcelled out and sold to private developers. Creation of public assets indeed!

So far, the ‘environmental improvement and social upliftment project‘, has manifested itself as:

  • Increased political mileage for a few individuals, mainly political parties whose electoral promises included replicating the ‘Sabarmati Model’ in Varanasi and Delhi on the Ganga and Yamuna, and the firms that secured the design and implementation contract for the entire project.
  • Increased profits for a host of construction companies and real estate developers chiefly Jaypee Infrastructure Private limited who were the first to begin construction on the riverbank.
  • The ‘encroachments that were contaminating the river’ that were caused by the many informal communities (mainly Dalit and Muslim) that lived by the riverbanks, washed clothes, ran markets, and played cricket has now been replaced by sanitary concrete walkways that the elite of Ahmedabad can feel comfortable in.

True, while doing this, an ancient seasonal river has been converted into a perennial concrete ditch, and 14,000 families were summarily evicted and left to fend for themselves. But that is the price of progress, isn’t it?

Many questions remain unanswered. Several individuals made questionable decisions that ultimately led to increased profits for a few. Were these decisions really as unrelated as they are made out to be? What were the processes by which these decisions were made and applied? To whom did the bulk of the Rs 1,200 crore of public money go? This is all information that should be in the public sphere but isn’t- the Sabarmati Riverfront Development Project is forbiddingly opaque.

It is ironic then, that the few groups trying to make sure the evicted of Sabarmati are not robbed of their fundamental rights are denounced as ‘making wrong use of the democratic system’ as is claimed by the government of Gujarat.

Europe’s bird population has fallen by over 420 million in three decades

by

Some rarer birds have grown in number over last 30 years due to conservation efforts while some well known species have fallen

A skylark, one of the 144 species looked at in the study. The skylark population has fallen by 46% since 1980. Photograph: Michael Finn/PA

A skylark, one of the 144 species looked at in the study. The skylark population has fallen by 46% since 1980. Photograph: Michael Finn/PA

by Azeen Ghorayshi, The Guardian

Bird populations across Europe have decreased by over 420 million in the past 30 years, according to a study that brings together the results of scientific surveys in 25 countries While some rarer species have seen an increase in numbers due to concerted conservation efforts, more common species across Europe are facing a steep decline.

Some of the birds that have suffered the most alarming declines are the most well known species including the house sparrow which has fallen in number by 147m or 62%, the starling (53%) and skylark (46%).

The study looked at 144 species across Europe between 1980 and 2009. Dividing the species up into four groups, from extremely rare to most common, analysts found that a small number of common species declined by over 350 million –over 80% of the total population decline of birds in that time period overall. Rarer birds, in contrast, increased by over 21,000 in the same time period.

The results indicate that efforts at conserving rarer species seem to be having an impact but may be too narrow an approach, possibly at the expense of more common species.

“The focus up to this point has very much been on conserving rare species,” says the lead author, Richard Inger, from the University of Exeter. “That’s what it should be, in many ways, but the issue there is that if you’re not careful, you can spend all of your conservation dollars on just protecting the rare things. You can take your eye off the ball, if you will.”

Birds which increased over the course of the study include the blackcap (up 114%), common chiffchaff (up 76%) and wren (56%).

A male blackcap. Photograph: Andrew Darrington/Alamy

The issue is complicated by the fact that conserving rare bird species is relatively easy in comparison to more widespread efforts required to conserve common ones.

“If the species is very localised, there may be very strong conservation measures,” says Graham Madge, a spokesman for the Royal Society for the Preservation of Birds, which collaborated on the study. “Whereas for a species like the skylark, which will occur in most countries across Europe, it’s much harder to bring in a rescue measure because it requires the rollout of broad, landscape-scale conservation measures.”

The most commonly cited reason for this vast decline in bird species is agricultural intensification which has squeezed out areas that birds need for feeding and nesting.

But Inger emphasises that this can’t be seen as the only problem. “People have tended to concentrate on farmland, but some of these species that don’t use farmland habitats at all are also declining. It’s a sign of wider scale environmental issues, such as increases in urbanisation, and the only way we’re going to protect these widespread species is a more holistic approach to how we manage the environment in general.”

Nevertheless, Madge and Inger agree that wildlife-friendly farming schemes like the UK’s will be necessary to focus conservation efforts beyond token rarer species. But the repercussions extend beyond just bird biodiversity, as birds play vital roles in ecosystem processes such as decomposition, pest control, pollination, and seed dispersal. Since common species exist in higher numbers, they play a bigger role in maintaining the ecosystem as well.

“This was a bit of a wake-up call really,” says Inger. “We knew we were going to see a big decline in bird populations, but to see how big that number really was and how focused the declines were on this small number of common species was really very surprising.”

KNOW US

GET INVOLVED

PROMOTE

Archives