Monthly Archives: October 2016

Paris talks, Montreal delivers! Kigali’s massive climate victory

Early Saturday morning, 06.54 local time according to my laptop, the gavel fell to pass the Kigali amendment of the Montreal Protocol.

The amendment came at the end of a marathon overnight session of the meeting of the Parties of the Protocol, the final chapter in a week of intense negotiations in Kigali. More than that, the amendment emerges from discussions about controlling HFCs that stretch back seven years.

That may seem like slow process but we got there and delivered what has been described by US Secretary of State John Kerry as the single most important unitary step that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

That the Montreal Protocol delivered this vital amendment shouldn’t come as any surprise. It is the climate negotiations that attract media and public attention, culminating in the wall-to-wall coverage of last year’s Paris Climate Summit.

The media were much less visible in Kigali this week, but when it comes to the changes the World needs it is the Montreal Protocol that always delivers! Going back three decades, the Montreal Protocol has protected us all from the disastrous effects of uncontrolled ozone depletion on human health and the environment.

Forget the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol is delivering on climate!

What is less well-known is that the Montreal Protocol is also the most successful global protocol in protecting the climate. It is estimated to have delivered about five times the climate benefit than the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008-2012.

And, of course, last year’s Paris agreement defined aspirations for protecting the climate, but did not establish the specific routes by which that protection would actually be delivered. Again, step up the Montreal Protocol, and the Kigali amendment.

Ok, I have to concede I am not impartial here. In my role as co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Environmental Effects Assessment Panel I am honoured to be a small cog in the Montreal process. My role focusses on aspects of the science behind the Protocol, not the in-depth policy negotiations of this week. So I watched the Kigali negotiations from within the room, but at enough distance to see it with a degree of objectivity.

The first thing that struck me was that the systems and community that Montreal has built over 30 years was the bedrock for the Kigali amendment. The approaches that will be used to control HFCs are based closely on those that the Protocol has used so successfully to control ozone-damaging CFCs. The spirit of mutual understanding across very different nations, again developed over decades, was also clear.

Of course there were tensions and tough negotiations. And of course the amendment has different time-scales for the reduction of HFCs in developed and developing countries. Yet the key message is that all 197 Parties of the protocol have worked together to build the consensus on which the Kigali amendment is founded, just as they have worked together over the three decades.

But beyond the systems success relies on people, and it will be the people above all that I will remember from this week. Its easy to focus on the headline acts. John Kerry was inspirational on Friday morning. But it was those doing the hard-miles of getting the work done, the unsung heroes of a success like Kigali, that impressed most.

‘They kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done’

The detailed discussions of the HFC amendment were led by Xia Yingxian from China, and Patrick McInerney​ from Australia. I will remember McInerney when the final session started at 01.00 Saturday morning. He sounded so exhausted that he could barely speak, yet over three hours he took the meeting through the whole text, reading it out line-by-line and handling any discussion that came back from the floor.

I will remember the delegate from the UK who led writing the amendment in the necessary legal language. I still don’t know his name – contributions from the floor are only ever named by their country – but through the small hours, when I was struggling to read ABC, he navigated the delegates not just through the language but through the labyrinthine structures of the whole Protocol.

I will remember the sheer hollow-eyed exhaustion in the faces of senior members of national delegations and of the Ozone Secretariat, the UN team that makes it all happen. Yet they kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done.

I guess I am supposed to be objective and scientific, but I can’t do that today. The Kigali amendment is an historic step in protecting the environments we all depend on and improving all our lives, now and far into the future.

For me that includes my son, who will live with the consequences of climate change for the rest of the Century. He will see the real benefits of what was done in Kigali this week. I was proud to be there to witness what was achieved.

So biased or not, I propose a resounding three cheers for Montreal – the global environmental protocol that always delivers!

 


 

Nigel Paul is Professor at the Lancaster Environment Centre of Lancaster University, and co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on the interactive effects of ozone depletion and climate change on health and the environment.

 

Paris talks, Montreal delivers! Kigali’s massive climate victory

Early Saturday morning, 06.54 local time according to my laptop, the gavel fell to pass the Kigali amendment of the Montreal Protocol.

The amendment came at the end of a marathon overnight session of the meeting of the Parties of the Protocol, the final chapter in a week of intense negotiations in Kigali. More than that, the amendment emerges from discussions about controlling HFCs that stretch back seven years.

That may seem like slow process but we got there and delivered what has been described by US Secretary of State John Kerry as the single most important unitary step that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

That the Montreal Protocol delivered this vital amendment shouldn’t come as any surprise. It is the climate negotiations that attract media and public attention, culminating in the wall-to-wall coverage of last year’s Paris Climate Summit.

The media were much less visible in Kigali this week, but when it comes to the changes the World needs it is the Montreal Protocol that always delivers! Going back three decades, the Montreal Protocol has protected us all from the disastrous effects of uncontrolled ozone depletion on human health and the environment.

Forget the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol is delivering on climate!

What is less well-known is that the Montreal Protocol is also the most successful global protocol in protecting the climate. It is estimated to have delivered about five times the climate benefit than the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008-2012.

And, of course, last year’s Paris agreement defined aspirations for protecting the climate, but did not establish the specific routes by which that protection would actually be delivered. Again, step up the Montreal Protocol, and the Kigali amendment.

Ok, I have to concede I am not impartial here. In my role as co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Environmental Effects Assessment Panel I am honoured to be a small cog in the Montreal process. My role focusses on aspects of the science behind the Protocol, not the in-depth policy negotiations of this week. So I watched the Kigali negotiations from within the room, but at enough distance to see it with a degree of objectivity.

The first thing that struck me was that the systems and community that Montreal has built over 30 years was the bedrock for the Kigali amendment. The approaches that will be used to control HFCs are based closely on those that the Protocol has used so successfully to control ozone-damaging CFCs. The spirit of mutual understanding across very different nations, again developed over decades, was also clear.

Of course there were tensions and tough negotiations. And of course the amendment has different time-scales for the reduction of HFCs in developed and developing countries. Yet the key message is that all 197 Parties of the protocol have worked together to build the consensus on which the Kigali amendment is founded, just as they have worked together over the three decades.

But beyond the systems success relies on people, and it will be the people above all that I will remember from this week. Its easy to focus on the headline acts. John Kerry was inspirational on Friday morning. But it was those doing the hard-miles of getting the work done, the unsung heroes of a success like Kigali, that impressed most.

‘They kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done’

The detailed discussions of the HFC amendment were led by Xia Yingxian from China, and Patrick McInerney​ from Australia. I will remember McInerney when the final session started at 01.00 Saturday morning. He sounded so exhausted that he could barely speak, yet over three hours he took the meeting through the whole text, reading it out line-by-line and handling any discussion that came back from the floor.

I will remember the delegate from the UK who led writing the amendment in the necessary legal language. I still don’t know his name – contributions from the floor are only ever named by their country – but through the small hours, when I was struggling to read ABC, he navigated the delegates not just through the language but through the labyrinthine structures of the whole Protocol.

I will remember the sheer hollow-eyed exhaustion in the faces of senior members of national delegations and of the Ozone Secretariat, the UN team that makes it all happen. Yet they kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done.

I guess I am supposed to be objective and scientific, but I can’t do that today. The Kigali amendment is an historic step in protecting the environments we all depend on and improving all our lives, now and far into the future.

For me that includes my son, who will live with the consequences of climate change for the rest of the Century. He will see the real benefits of what was done in Kigali this week. I was proud to be there to witness what was achieved.

So biased or not, I propose a resounding three cheers for Montreal – the global environmental protocol that always delivers!

 


 

Nigel Paul is Professor at the Lancaster Environment Centre of Lancaster University, and co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on the interactive effects of ozone depletion and climate change on health and the environment.

 

Paris talks, Montreal delivers! Kigali’s massive climate victory

Early Saturday morning, 06.54 local time according to my laptop, the gavel fell to pass the Kigali amendment of the Montreal Protocol.

The amendment came at the end of a marathon overnight session of the meeting of the Parties of the Protocol, the final chapter in a week of intense negotiations in Kigali. More than that, the amendment emerges from discussions about controlling HFCs that stretch back seven years.

That may seem like slow process but we got there and delivered what has been described by US Secretary of State John Kerry as the single most important unitary step that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

That the Montreal Protocol delivered this vital amendment shouldn’t come as any surprise. It is the climate negotiations that attract media and public attention, culminating in the wall-to-wall coverage of last year’s Paris Climate Summit.

The media were much less visible in Kigali this week, but when it comes to the changes the World needs it is the Montreal Protocol that always delivers! Going back three decades, the Montreal Protocol has protected us all from the disastrous effects of uncontrolled ozone depletion on human health and the environment.

Forget the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol is delivering on climate!

What is less well-known is that the Montreal Protocol is also the most successful global protocol in protecting the climate. It is estimated to have delivered about five times the climate benefit than the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008-2012.

And, of course, last year’s Paris agreement defined aspirations for protecting the climate, but did not establish the specific routes by which that protection would actually be delivered. Again, step up the Montreal Protocol, and the Kigali amendment.

Ok, I have to concede I am not impartial here. In my role as co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Environmental Effects Assessment Panel I am honoured to be a small cog in the Montreal process. My role focusses on aspects of the science behind the Protocol, not the in-depth policy negotiations of this week. So I watched the Kigali negotiations from within the room, but at enough distance to see it with a degree of objectivity.

The first thing that struck me was that the systems and community that Montreal has built over 30 years was the bedrock for the Kigali amendment. The approaches that will be used to control HFCs are based closely on those that the Protocol has used so successfully to control ozone-damaging CFCs. The spirit of mutual understanding across very different nations, again developed over decades, was also clear.

Of course there were tensions and tough negotiations. And of course the amendment has different time-scales for the reduction of HFCs in developed and developing countries. Yet the key message is that all 197 Parties of the protocol have worked together to build the consensus on which the Kigali amendment is founded, just as they have worked together over the three decades.

But beyond the systems success relies on people, and it will be the people above all that I will remember from this week. Its easy to focus on the headline acts. John Kerry was inspirational on Friday morning. But it was those doing the hard-miles of getting the work done, the unsung heroes of a success like Kigali, that impressed most.

‘They kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done’

The detailed discussions of the HFC amendment were led by Xia Yingxian from China, and Patrick McInerney​ from Australia. I will remember McInerney when the final session started at 01.00 Saturday morning. He sounded so exhausted that he could barely speak, yet over three hours he took the meeting through the whole text, reading it out line-by-line and handling any discussion that came back from the floor.

I will remember the delegate from the UK who led writing the amendment in the necessary legal language. I still don’t know his name – contributions from the floor are only ever named by their country – but through the small hours, when I was struggling to read ABC, he navigated the delegates not just through the language but through the labyrinthine structures of the whole Protocol.

I will remember the sheer hollow-eyed exhaustion in the faces of senior members of national delegations and of the Ozone Secretariat, the UN team that makes it all happen. Yet they kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done.

I guess I am supposed to be objective and scientific, but I can’t do that today. The Kigali amendment is an historic step in protecting the environments we all depend on and improving all our lives, now and far into the future.

For me that includes my son, who will live with the consequences of climate change for the rest of the Century. He will see the real benefits of what was done in Kigali this week. I was proud to be there to witness what was achieved.

So biased or not, I propose a resounding three cheers for Montreal – the global environmental protocol that always delivers!

 


 

Nigel Paul is Professor at the Lancaster Environment Centre of Lancaster University, and co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on the interactive effects of ozone depletion and climate change on health and the environment.

 

Paris talks, Montreal delivers! Kigali’s massive climate victory

Early Saturday morning, 06.54 local time according to my laptop, the gavel fell to pass the Kigali amendment of the Montreal Protocol.

The amendment came at the end of a marathon overnight session of the meeting of the Parties of the Protocol, the final chapter in a week of intense negotiations in Kigali. More than that, the amendment emerges from discussions about controlling HFCs that stretch back seven years.

That may seem like slow process but we got there and delivered what has been described by US Secretary of State John Kerry as the single most important unitary step that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

That the Montreal Protocol delivered this vital amendment shouldn’t come as any surprise. It is the climate negotiations that attract media and public attention, culminating in the wall-to-wall coverage of last year’s Paris Climate Summit.

The media were much less visible in Kigali this week, but when it comes to the changes the World needs it is the Montreal Protocol that always delivers! Going back three decades, the Montreal Protocol has protected us all from the disastrous effects of uncontrolled ozone depletion on human health and the environment.

Forget the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol is delivering on climate!

What is less well-known is that the Montreal Protocol is also the most successful global protocol in protecting the climate. It is estimated to have delivered about five times the climate benefit than the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008-2012.

And, of course, last year’s Paris agreement defined aspirations for protecting the climate, but did not establish the specific routes by which that protection would actually be delivered. Again, step up the Montreal Protocol, and the Kigali amendment.

Ok, I have to concede I am not impartial here. In my role as co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Environmental Effects Assessment Panel I am honoured to be a small cog in the Montreal process. My role focusses on aspects of the science behind the Protocol, not the in-depth policy negotiations of this week. So I watched the Kigali negotiations from within the room, but at enough distance to see it with a degree of objectivity.

The first thing that struck me was that the systems and community that Montreal has built over 30 years was the bedrock for the Kigali amendment. The approaches that will be used to control HFCs are based closely on those that the Protocol has used so successfully to control ozone-damaging CFCs. The spirit of mutual understanding across very different nations, again developed over decades, was also clear.

Of course there were tensions and tough negotiations. And of course the amendment has different time-scales for the reduction of HFCs in developed and developing countries. Yet the key message is that all 197 Parties of the protocol have worked together to build the consensus on which the Kigali amendment is founded, just as they have worked together over the three decades.

But beyond the systems success relies on people, and it will be the people above all that I will remember from this week. Its easy to focus on the headline acts. John Kerry was inspirational on Friday morning. But it was those doing the hard-miles of getting the work done, the unsung heroes of a success like Kigali, that impressed most.

‘They kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done’

The detailed discussions of the HFC amendment were led by Xia Yingxian from China, and Patrick McInerney​ from Australia. I will remember McInerney when the final session started at 01.00 Saturday morning. He sounded so exhausted that he could barely speak, yet over three hours he took the meeting through the whole text, reading it out line-by-line and handling any discussion that came back from the floor.

I will remember the delegate from the UK who led writing the amendment in the necessary legal language. I still don’t know his name – contributions from the floor are only ever named by their country – but through the small hours, when I was struggling to read ABC, he navigated the delegates not just through the language but through the labyrinthine structures of the whole Protocol.

I will remember the sheer hollow-eyed exhaustion in the faces of senior members of national delegations and of the Ozone Secretariat, the UN team that makes it all happen. Yet they kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done.

I guess I am supposed to be objective and scientific, but I can’t do that today. The Kigali amendment is an historic step in protecting the environments we all depend on and improving all our lives, now and far into the future.

For me that includes my son, who will live with the consequences of climate change for the rest of the Century. He will see the real benefits of what was done in Kigali this week. I was proud to be there to witness what was achieved.

So biased or not, I propose a resounding three cheers for Montreal – the global environmental protocol that always delivers!

 


 

Nigel Paul is Professor at the Lancaster Environment Centre of Lancaster University, and co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on the interactive effects of ozone depletion and climate change on health and the environment.

 

Paris talks, Montreal delivers! Kigali’s massive climate victory

Early Saturday morning, 06.54 local time according to my laptop, the gavel fell to pass the Kigali amendment of the Montreal Protocol.

The amendment came at the end of a marathon overnight session of the meeting of the Parties of the Protocol, the final chapter in a week of intense negotiations in Kigali. More than that, the amendment emerges from discussions about controlling HFCs that stretch back seven years.

That may seem like slow process but we got there and delivered what has been described by US Secretary of State John Kerry as the single most important unitary step that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

That the Montreal Protocol delivered this vital amendment shouldn’t come as any surprise. It is the climate negotiations that attract media and public attention, culminating in the wall-to-wall coverage of last year’s Paris Climate Summit.

The media were much less visible in Kigali this week, but when it comes to the changes the World needs it is the Montreal Protocol that always delivers! Going back three decades, the Montreal Protocol has protected us all from the disastrous effects of uncontrolled ozone depletion on human health and the environment.

Forget the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol is delivering on climate!

What is less well-known is that the Montreal Protocol is also the most successful global protocol in protecting the climate. It is estimated to have delivered about five times the climate benefit than the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008-2012.

And, of course, last year’s Paris agreement defined aspirations for protecting the climate, but did not establish the specific routes by which that protection would actually be delivered. Again, step up the Montreal Protocol, and the Kigali amendment.

Ok, I have to concede I am not impartial here. In my role as co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Environmental Effects Assessment Panel I am honoured to be a small cog in the Montreal process. My role focusses on aspects of the science behind the Protocol, not the in-depth policy negotiations of this week. So I watched the Kigali negotiations from within the room, but at enough distance to see it with a degree of objectivity.

The first thing that struck me was that the systems and community that Montreal has built over 30 years was the bedrock for the Kigali amendment. The approaches that will be used to control HFCs are based closely on those that the Protocol has used so successfully to control ozone-damaging CFCs. The spirit of mutual understanding across very different nations, again developed over decades, was also clear.

Of course there were tensions and tough negotiations. And of course the amendment has different time-scales for the reduction of HFCs in developed and developing countries. Yet the key message is that all 197 Parties of the protocol have worked together to build the consensus on which the Kigali amendment is founded, just as they have worked together over the three decades.

But beyond the systems success relies on people, and it will be the people above all that I will remember from this week. Its easy to focus on the headline acts. John Kerry was inspirational on Friday morning. But it was those doing the hard-miles of getting the work done, the unsung heroes of a success like Kigali, that impressed most.

‘They kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done’

The detailed discussions of the HFC amendment were led by Xia Yingxian from China, and Patrick McInerney​ from Australia. I will remember McInerney when the final session started at 01.00 Saturday morning. He sounded so exhausted that he could barely speak, yet over three hours he took the meeting through the whole text, reading it out line-by-line and handling any discussion that came back from the floor.

I will remember the delegate from the UK who led writing the amendment in the necessary legal language. I still don’t know his name – contributions from the floor are only ever named by their country – but through the small hours, when I was struggling to read ABC, he navigated the delegates not just through the language but through the labyrinthine structures of the whole Protocol.

I will remember the sheer hollow-eyed exhaustion in the faces of senior members of national delegations and of the Ozone Secretariat, the UN team that makes it all happen. Yet they kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done.

I guess I am supposed to be objective and scientific, but I can’t do that today. The Kigali amendment is an historic step in protecting the environments we all depend on and improving all our lives, now and far into the future.

For me that includes my son, who will live with the consequences of climate change for the rest of the Century. He will see the real benefits of what was done in Kigali this week. I was proud to be there to witness what was achieved.

So biased or not, I propose a resounding three cheers for Montreal – the global environmental protocol that always delivers!

 


 

Nigel Paul is Professor at the Lancaster Environment Centre of Lancaster University, and co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on the interactive effects of ozone depletion and climate change on health and the environment.

 

Paris talks, Montreal delivers! Kigali’s massive climate victory

Early Saturday morning, 06.54 local time according to my laptop, the gavel fell to pass the Kigali amendment of the Montreal Protocol.

The amendment came at the end of a marathon overnight session of the meeting of the Parties of the Protocol, the final chapter in a week of intense negotiations in Kigali. More than that, the amendment emerges from discussions about controlling HFCs that stretch back seven years.

That may seem like slow process but we got there and delivered what has been described by US Secretary of State John Kerry as the single most important unitary step that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

That the Montreal Protocol delivered this vital amendment shouldn’t come as any surprise. It is the climate negotiations that attract media and public attention, culminating in the wall-to-wall coverage of last year’s Paris Climate Summit.

The media were much less visible in Kigali this week, but when it comes to the changes the World needs it is the Montreal Protocol that always delivers! Going back three decades, the Montreal Protocol has protected us all from the disastrous effects of uncontrolled ozone depletion on human health and the environment.

Forget the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol is delivering on climate!

What is less well-known is that the Montreal Protocol is also the most successful global protocol in protecting the climate. It is estimated to have delivered about five times the climate benefit than the target set by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008-2012.

And, of course, last year’s Paris agreement defined aspirations for protecting the climate, but did not establish the specific routes by which that protection would actually be delivered. Again, step up the Montreal Protocol, and the Kigali amendment.

Ok, I have to concede I am not impartial here. In my role as co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Environmental Effects Assessment Panel I am honoured to be a small cog in the Montreal process. My role focusses on aspects of the science behind the Protocol, not the in-depth policy negotiations of this week. So I watched the Kigali negotiations from within the room, but at enough distance to see it with a degree of objectivity.

The first thing that struck me was that the systems and community that Montreal has built over 30 years was the bedrock for the Kigali amendment. The approaches that will be used to control HFCs are based closely on those that the Protocol has used so successfully to control ozone-damaging CFCs. The spirit of mutual understanding across very different nations, again developed over decades, was also clear.

Of course there were tensions and tough negotiations. And of course the amendment has different time-scales for the reduction of HFCs in developed and developing countries. Yet the key message is that all 197 Parties of the protocol have worked together to build the consensus on which the Kigali amendment is founded, just as they have worked together over the three decades.

But beyond the systems success relies on people, and it will be the people above all that I will remember from this week. Its easy to focus on the headline acts. John Kerry was inspirational on Friday morning. But it was those doing the hard-miles of getting the work done, the unsung heroes of a success like Kigali, that impressed most.

‘They kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done’

The detailed discussions of the HFC amendment were led by Xia Yingxian from China, and Patrick McInerney​ from Australia. I will remember McInerney when the final session started at 01.00 Saturday morning. He sounded so exhausted that he could barely speak, yet over three hours he took the meeting through the whole text, reading it out line-by-line and handling any discussion that came back from the floor.

I will remember the delegate from the UK who led writing the amendment in the necessary legal language. I still don’t know his name – contributions from the floor are only ever named by their country – but through the small hours, when I was struggling to read ABC, he navigated the delegates not just through the language but through the labyrinthine structures of the whole Protocol.

I will remember the sheer hollow-eyed exhaustion in the faces of senior members of national delegations and of the Ozone Secretariat, the UN team that makes it all happen. Yet they kept delivering at the highest level until the amendment was done.

I guess I am supposed to be objective and scientific, but I can’t do that today. The Kigali amendment is an historic step in protecting the environments we all depend on and improving all our lives, now and far into the future.

For me that includes my son, who will live with the consequences of climate change for the rest of the Century. He will see the real benefits of what was done in Kigali this week. I was proud to be there to witness what was achieved.

So biased or not, I propose a resounding three cheers for Montreal – the global environmental protocol that always delivers!

 


 

Nigel Paul is Professor at the Lancaster Environment Centre of Lancaster University, and co-chair of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) panel on the interactive effects of ozone depletion and climate change on health and the environment.

 

This is my cry of alarm, please listen to me!

To whom it may concern,

I am Almir Narayamoga Surui, Chief of the Paiter Surui indigenous people. Our population lives on the ‘Sete de Setembro indigenous territory’ in the state of Rondônia, Brazil.

This is my cry of alarm, please listen to me!

Since the beginning of this year 2016, we are undergoing a total invasion of deforesters and miners of diamonds and gold. Every day, 300 trucks leave our territory filled with wood, which represents 600 hectares of deforested forests. And it continues to increase, whilst according to the Constitution of Brazil, it is illegal to deforest an indigenous reservation.

On the ground, the illegal loggers have heavy means, with Caterpillar machines. We have found mercury and cyanide in three rivers of Surui territory because of the miners!

The implications are terrible. In addition to environmental damage (and the challenge to our way of life), these invasions directly endanger our families and our children. Indeed, we are under the threat of weapons of loggers and miners! Either one collaborates, or they put a gun to our heads!

In addition, they try to bribe some of my people with money. For lack of alternatives, some of my people accept, against their first resolve to protect the forest. The situation is terrible!

We, the Surui indigenous people are the first to have set up a REDD+ project to save the Amazon forest, lungs of our planet. But these invasions undermine the Agreement of REDD and go against the spirit of the agreement of the COP21!

Despite our appeals for help against this mafia, the new government did not react. By their silence, they are silent accomplices of this destruction of the forest and our people!

We do not know what to do, Help!

As citizens, NGOs or institutions, you can help us in four ways:

1. We ask you to write to the Brazilian embassies in your own countries to express your outrage and ask the new Brazilian government to intervene quickly.

2. We also ask you to boycott all Brazilian products, as the Brazilian government does not react.

3. We ask the different political bodies to establish an international observer mission on deforestation.

4. Finally, on behalf of the Surui people and of all indigenous people who are trying to protect the Amazon rainforest, in the name of our struggle to preserve a future for all children of this planet at the price of our lives, in the name hope for the future, we ask you to distribute this letter to all your contacts in the world and on social networks, because today we are all connected in a common destiny.

Thanking you,

Almir Narayamoga Surui, Leader of the Paiter Surui Indigenous People.

 

WITNESS: Colombia’s indigenous Wayuu suffer the effects of climate change, drought and rising food prices

Dr Abudi Dasuki frowns as he flips through a paper chart, looks at the baby girl in front of him, and raises her tiny, reluctant arms.

“All these children have malnutrition,” he says, looking around the children’s ward in the Nuestra Señora de los Remedios hospital.

The room is so hot the children’s hair sticks to their heads, while parents with crying babies sway slowly side to side. “This year we have seen 200 children with severe malnutrition, and 300 with malnutrition. One child leaves and they bring another one in.”

La Guajira, a dusty but spartanly beautiful region in Colombia’s desert north is in the grips of a crisis. Climate change, desertification and water shortages have combined to create a perfect storm for the local rural community: a drought so severe some places did not feel a drop of rain for three years.

This is one of the country’s most indigenous regions, and the largest community, the Wayuu, traditionally live off their livestock and smallholdings in rural rancherias or communities. But year after year the rains have faltered, and as the livestock started to die, the crisis intensified.

The World Food Programme currently supports approximately 35,000 Wayuu people, while over the last few years the lack of water has killed more than 20,000 cattle. Already in 2016, dozens of children have died of malnutrition, and in the summer, the Colombian Supreme Court ordered the government to come up with a better way of dealing with the crisis.

“Wayuu children are dying from a lack of food, clean drinking water, and because of the precariousness of the health system,” the Court said in August. “In 2015, 37 children under five died from causes related to malnutrition, this year the figure is already 41.”

Ronald Socarras, who works for one of the local indigenous communities, says that in the last three years his community had survived “with no rain, not a drop” and points out that when the community starves, so does its children.

“Before there were cycles, you knew when the rains came. When was the drought, when to plant the corn. People could cultivate: two times a year the rains came. Now we don’t have any water. We can’t grow anything. And we are seeing children dying of hunger.”

The children’s part of the hospital here in the regional capital Riohacha sees new patients arriving daily. The building is run down, the paint faded. By the nurses station is a statue of Jesus and a bunch of faded dried flowers. It is does not look like much, but Dr Dasuki says this is a place where miracles happen, where children ‘on the brink’ are brought back.

“This is the room where we have saved the most lives. The room of miracles, we call it. You need to have a lot of patience with these babies [suffering malnutrition] their defenses are very low. They can be doing well and suddenly things can go wrong.”

He moves to another patient, gently murmuring as he pushes down on her stomach and she starts to cry. A 14-month old with the wild, red-tinted hair that is a marker for malnourishment, she came in with pneumonia but has also been treated for her low weight. The next patient, another baby girl with tiny yellow socks, weighs at eight months what a normal six-week old should.

“All my life children in La Guajira have died from malnutrition,” says Dr Dasuki. “As a human being, as a father, it hurts. Not just as a medical professional.”

In the corner of the ‘room of miracles’, Reinaldo Anaya sits by the bedside of his son Javier José, who wears pale blue pajamas and lies quietly exhausted in his cot. He is three years and 10 months old but is so small he could be two. In his hand the boy clutches a rubber glove blown into a balloon but he is so weak when he squeezes it his fingers make little indent.

“The last three years have been so cruel here,” says his father. “There’s a shortage of work, food is expensive; you can’t buy enough for the family. We have malnutrition, we have drought. We never had anything but now we have nothing at all.”

He told me the family could only afford to give their three children grains once a week. Everything they have to buy – rice, oil, sugar – had become more expensive at the same time as his work as a labourer had become more precarious. “Before people had their smallholdings, their plots. Now it all seems like a desert from here to the Magdalena,” he said.

Stevenson Marulanda, the regional health secretary, has said that the government is sending more resources, but that children recover only to go back to the “same precarious situation they were in before.”

“Children keep dying, in spite of the food and medical assistance that is arriving, and that is worrying. But the problem is big, and we need to get to the root of the problem, which is the drought, the poverty and the lack of public services,” he told the El Tiempo newspaper in September.

Carlos Valdivieso, from the ICBF, a state body which looks after the welfare of children, says that as many as 60 per cent of the children in the area are underweight, but they are most concerned about those suffering from chronic malnutrition. After these children reach 18 months of age, they can intervene to save their lives, but their prospects of making a full recovery are much more bleak.

He says the drought has made the situation worse but that the humanitarian crisis in the region “has been happening for many years”.

“It is a structural problem, between here [Riohacha] and there [some of the rancherias] you will not find a single road or hospital, there are a few schools but really there is no state presence,” he said. “Yes phenomenon like El Niño have made things worse, but the complex thing about La Guajira is that this is an area that for a long time has been abandoned by the State.”

Less than a mile away from the city’s main drag, Juliana Mercedes Epiayo, a mother of six, rocks back and forth on one of the hammocks outside a centre for underweight babies, her 14-month old son David José resting on her stomach. She rubs his back, her fingers trailing over his rib cage. “He had bones down here he was so thin. He was missing vitamins, and the other things that I could not give him as well.”

“We don’t buy food we grow it, but all the animals are dying. My grandma had sheep, goats, chickens, but what are we going to give them?” she asks. “You can’t buy the food for them and you don’t have enough for what you need to put in the ground for growing.”

 

WITNESS WITNESS is our new Blog series, which invites contributors to explore the ecological and social impact of issues currently on their radar

Laura Dixon was a 2016 Adelante Latin America Reporting Fellow with the International Women’s Media Foundation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agroecology cools the planet – so why are Governments backing agribusiness?

Agriculture is under pressure to perform on this World Food Day, Sunday 16th October – for climate as well as nourishment.

As Governments pay lip service to combatting climate change in the Paris Agreement, few of them are taking the real action necessary to reduce emissions.

Just this month Hurricane Matthew, almost certainly made worse by climate change, battered Haiti and El Nino related drought is wreaking farming across South and East Africa.

In this bleak scenario, one of the brightest rays of hope is that a dramatic change in our farming system can significantly reduce emissions and put an end to hunger. Agroecology – an agenda to focus on ecological farming in the hands of small food producers – is receiving mainstream support.

Long practiced by small scale producer movements, agroecology is in the spotlight for its ability to sequester carbon and refocus our food system on feeding people rather than pursue an obscene race for profits. So why are we not in the midst of a major Government funded agroecological revolution?

The World Food Day call of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation gives one small clue – to “invest in farmers and rural development to combat the effects of climate change”.

Sure, investment can be a game changer in agriculture but what kind of investment? By whom? To what end?

Elected governments ruled by corporations

As our new report (to be published on Sunday) shows, investing in agroecology requires a drastically different model than the agribusiness-led version many Governments are currently pursuing. In the rush to expand investment in agriculture, Governments are falling over themselves to sign trade and investment agreements and court transnational agri-corporations.

This is is being done by opening new markets through trade and investment liberalisation, using bilateral investment treaties (BITs), free trade agreements (FTAs), conditional loans, and aid agreements.

These mechanisms are geared towards generating profits for agribusiness – not livelihoods for small farmers, nor high quality food for consumers, nor sustaining the fertility of farmland, nor yielding genuine climate benefits by rebuilding organic matter in soils

Moreover these trade deals undermine and supersede the sovereignty of states and actually hinder their ability to develop or protect their agricultural economies, or defend social and environmental interests. The backbone of current trade and investment agreements is comprehensive promotion and protection for agribusiness profits – even if this comes at the cost of national benefit and peoples’ welfare.

A key instrument is Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) – secret arbitration courts that enable corporations to sue States for billions of dollars for implementing economic, social or environmental policies that may impede profitable activities.

Mega corporations have already sued States for over $6 billion for implementing a range of domestic regulations. Mexico, for example, tried to tax high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener linked with obesity, that was being dumped on them by the US agribusiness Cargill.

The tax helped safeguard the Mexican cane sugar industry, consisting of hundreds of thousands of jobs from dumping of subsidized US HFCS. But Cargill challenged them under ISDS and won US$90.7 million.

Opening the way for land and seed grabs

Investment promotion policies are also often demanded, even from donor aid programmes. In 2012 the G8 launched their New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (G8NA), aimed at mobilising private investment in African agriculture. It requires sweeping changes to African states’ legislation to facilitate the entry of agribusiness.

Mozambique, for example, is committed to “systematically ceasing to distribute free and unimproved [non-commercial] seeds to farmers except in emergencies”. In plain language this means with a stroke of a pen the G8NA would make farming with traditional seeds and farmer to farmer seed exchanges – a key aspect of agroecology – illegal.

Meanwhile the Prosavannah investment exchange between Brazil, Japan and Mozambique requires the acquisition of 14 million hectares of land in Mozambique from small scale producers. Brazilian agribusinesses will use this to produce monocultures of soy and palm oil. The same model of farming that is responsible for Brazil’s top spot in global pesticide use and deforestation.

The industrial food system is responsible for up to 57% of climate emissions largely due to intensive agriculture and emissions from transporting food around the globe. At a time when countries should be relocalising their food systems and embracing agroecology these agreements are pushing for the opposite.

A mega trade deal including 12 countries around the Pacific, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) includes extensive liberalisation of public procurement in countries, making it impossible to discriminate in favour of national or regional suppliers. Government procurement policies such as those intended to foster sustainable local food systems and local production would be illegal.

Recent research shows that land investment deals are also covered by these agreements so when local communities go to State courts to challenge land grabbing they could come up against investment agreements.

There is an alternative!

The agribusiness investment model is currently seen by many as a norm that is apparently unquestionable. However, small-scale food producer movements, supported by an increasing body of research, are demonstrating that an alternative exists.

Small scale food producers remain the most important and dynamic part of the food system: 70-80% of the food consumed in the developing world is produced by smallholder producers and workers. They play an especially vital role in feeding the most marginalised peoples, with significantly fewer resources.

Smallholders themselves are also the most important investors in agriculture, dwarfing any investment from agribusiness. Farmers in low- and middle-income countries invest more than $170 billion a year in their farms – about $150 per farmer. This is three times as much as all other sources of investment combined.

Global small scale producer movements are leading the charge on agroecology while agribusinesses are doing their best to pretend industrial farming and agroecology are the same.

Millions of small producers are already practicing agroecology – whether they know the word or not. Yet to ignite the global shift in farming practices we so desperately need, Governments must stop managing and facilitating corporate investments. Instead, they need to make a courageous comeback, implementing and financing the policies needed to encourage smallholder food production.

Such state interventions could include providing security of tenure for small-scale food producers, creating agricultural banks and wage boards, managing supplies and minimum prices, using public procurement to promote agroecology, and providing social protection, infrastructure, and research and technical support for small-scale producers.

As Governments meet in Rome next week to debate polices for food security and nutrition, their first priority should be supporting the call of small-scale producers to invest in their markets and production.

 


 

Kirtana Chandrasekaran is food sovereignty program coordinator at Friends of the Earth International.

More information: The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) meets this 17th-21st October. CFS is the foremost inclusive international and intergovernmental platform for all stakeholders to work together to ensure food security and nutrition for all. The Committee reports to the UN General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and to FAO Conference.

 

WITNESS: Bob Dylan – The Times They Are a-Changin’

“I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea

Sometimes I turn, there’s someone there, other times it’s only me

I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man

Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand”

From Every Grain of Sand by Bob Dylan © 1981 by Special Rider Music

On October 13th it was announced that Bob Dylan has been awarded the 2016 Nobel Laureate for Literature “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”. He is the first singer songwriter to be awarded the prize for literature since its inception in 1901.

Dylan has lurked on the fringes of Nobel Laureate consideration for some time, although wasn’t actually thought to be a contender for this year where the smart money was on Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Japanese writer Haruki Murakami and fellow American Philip Roth.

Arguments about whether Dylan, as a songwriter and a lyricist, can even be considered a poet have raged in the past and will undoubtedly continue, especially now. It is an accolade that will sit comfortably with those like the UK’s recent poet laureate, Dylan fan and environmentalist, Andrew Motion, however, and also with Dylan himself, who once said, “I consider myself a poet first and a musician second.”

Dylan’s musical legacy came initially from a folk tradition that was also based in protest. Two singer songwriters that provided early influence were Woody Guthrie, famous for writing This Land Is Your Land, and the Dustbowl Ballads about the dust storms, droughts and the Depression of the 1930s, and folk singer, political activist and active environmentalist Pete Seeger.

It was in the 1960s that Seeger started his crusade for cleaner water on the Hudson River. Going on to raise money for a 106-foot sloop called the Clearwater, this was designed to focus attention on antipollution campaigning and education and was launched in 1969, eight years before Greenpeace launched its Rainbow Warrior. Seven years ago, after decades of activism by the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Seeger’s non-profit environmental organisation, General Electric began dredging the PCB contaminated sediment from the waters of the Hudson.

The 1960s was a time of the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, women’s liberation, and a growing environmental movement heralded in part by the publication in 1962 of marine biologist Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring and an emerging social consciousness about the environmental impact of economic progress 

Dylan’s songs of the 1960s tended towards civil rights and anti-war protest rather more than environmental concerns, but were readily adopted as cogent protest anthems. A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall in 1963, allegedly written in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, is one example that sees the linking of social protest to cultural pursuit: Blowin’ in the Wind is another that can be cited, along with Chimes of Freedom and the ever-relevant The Times They Are a-Changin’.

The use of music, to link one generation to another, to provide spokespeople for social change and environmental protest, is an ongoing tradition. Marvin Gaye’s Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology) is a 1971 classic that has as much meaning today as then, while Jimmy Cliff’s 1989 Save Our Planet Earth, Jamiroquai’s 1993 When You Gonna Learn and Ben Harper’s 1995 Excuse Me Mr, are just three more recent examples of music raising awareness of environmental issues.

The use of art to provoke social change isn’t limited to music either. Picasso’s 1937 masterpiece Guernica, produced in response to the bombing of a Basque village during the Spanish Civil War, set the bar high and nearly 70 years later continues to remind us about the human and environmental horror of war that is played out daily in places like Syria.

Ai Weiwei is probably the contemporary artist who has most closely continued this tradition. Overnight in February 2016, he wrapped Berlin’s Konzerthaus with 14,000 orange life jackets and, while you may dispute its artistic value, it was effective in grabbing public attention to raise the plight of 1 million refugees arriving in Europe via the sea. Banksy is probably the best-known guerrilla street artist, but graffiti is intrinsically an artistic protest using public space to communicate public concerns.

In April 1965, the Guardian newspaper wrote this about a young musician called Bob Dylan: “Predictably he relies often on traditional ballad meters, as the grass roots of oral poetry. Dylan is young, and admits it. He is naive and implies it at stations along his particular line. He is committed; yet what is a poet for these luminous days, when illumination may come from the clash of cobalt and iodine, if not to be committed?” The same was said of Pound, Auden and MacNeice; the same is true today of poets like Christopher Logue, Adrian Mitchell and George MacBeth. The difference is that Dylan is not a readers’ poet: some but by no means all of his verse is able to stand by itself but more commonly it needs musical backing and the strangely dry, bitter quality of his voice to supply the dimension that other poets derive from literal organisation.

Back then, few would probably have imagined that the poet would come of age and win the Nobel Prize for Literature. He is in esteemed company; many of them have also been voices for social protest and change, all of whom have borne witness to their life and times.

Previous Nobel Laureates for Literature this millennium.

2016 Bob Dylan, United States

2015 Svetlana Alexievich, Belarus

2014 Patrick Modiano, France

2013 Alice Munro, Canada

2012 Mo Yan, China

2011 Tomas Tranströmer, Sweden

2010 Mario Vargas Llosa, Peru

2009 Herta Müller, Germany

2008 Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio, France

2007 Doris Lessing, Britain

2006 Orhan Pamuk, Turkey

2005 Harold Pinter, Britain

2004 Elfriede Jelinek, Austria

2003 JM Coetzee, South Africa

2002 Imre Kertesz, Hungary

2001 VS Naipaul, Trinidad-born British

2000 Gao Xingjian, Chinese-born French

 

WITNESS is our new Blog series which invites new contributors to explore the ecological and social impact of issues currently on their radar