Pond scum anyone?

The BP Energy Review 2008 says that we have enough oil to last us 42 years (at 40% of our total energy mix). Discovery of new oil fields was highest between 1960-70 and has fallen ever since. However, OPEC countries continue to show constant instead of declining oil reserves since the 1980s as during this period country production quotas were introduced. These quotas were based on the ‘proven’ oil reserves  and therefore the more oil reserves OPEC show, the more they are allowed to sell. The fact that many OPEC members do not reveal their reserve engineering field data (instead they provide unaudited claims for their oil reserves) also does not inspire confidence.

You would think that the Big Oil companies would be worried about depleting oil reserves. Not really. Sure, they will be less to sell but it will sell at exorbitant prices. Hence, the scheming oil barons stand to make as much or more money than they do now. Meanwhile, they are happy to promote some obscure ‘revolutionary’ technology to create the illusion that they are dead keen to walk away from dirty oil. For example, Exxon Mobil is trying to convince us that algae (a.k.a pond scum) is the next miracle fuel and that their scientists are on the verge of a breakthrough. The only thing that they are on the verge of is pulling off a massive con game. The truth is Big Oil will not invest in proven renewable technologies like wind and solar. They would prefer we remain slaves to oil as long as possible to ensure they get the big profits at the bottom of the oil barrell. Meanwhile, governments will continue to subsidise oil, protect pipelines, invade hostile oil countries, destroy wilderness and hasten climate change to eventually benefit the real pond scum.

Lip Service

The sun has set on the 2009 Summit on Climate Change at the U.N HQ in New York. Despite the media getting its knickers in a twist, the summit faithfully followed the ’set menu’ pattern of previous climate summits. Kids pleading to ’save the planet’, green celebrities stating ‘time is running out’  and world leaders reading out ‘what needs to be done’ speeches. Oh yes, the emissions generated by flying everyone to the summit were offset by funding a tidy little project in poverty land. The awards for the outstanding performers of the Summit go to…

1. The most confusing statement: Barack Obama, President of the United States

“Unease is no excuse for inaction. And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress”

2. The most feel-good but highly unlikey statement: Hu Jintao, President of China

“China stands ready to join hands with all countries to build an even better future for the generations to come”

3. The most honest: Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt

“We are only 76 days from the Copenhagen meeting- but the negotations are going far too slow and they are still lacking real progress. We are close to a deadlock.”

4. The most funny without intending to be: French President, Nicolas Sarkozy

“Considering how complex this negotiation is, a new summit before Copenhagen is needed”

5. The most heart-breaking: President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives

“We at the Maldives desperately want to believe that one day our words will have an effect, and so we continue to shout them even though, deep down, we know that you are not really listening”

Dirty debt

With the climate change summit not far away in December in Copenhagen there is a perceptible buzz about possible outcomes and consequences. While few countries are keen to accept tough emission targets, nobody wants to be labelled as the spoilsport who sabotaged the ‘deal that could save the planet’. However, there are disturbing signs of ’scapegoat hunting’ and ‘excuse exploration’ even before delegates have booked their flight tickets for the summit. One such example is placing all the onus on developing countries as deal makers or breakers. Media and think tanks in developed countries (that are responsible for the great majority of past as well as current CO2 emissions) are increasingly trying to shine the spotlight on developing countries to divert attention from their own unwillingness to adopt tough emission cuts or clear mid-term targets. As a result, even developing countries that have shown an interest in embracing a low carbon development strategy are feeling like the schoolkid who is being bullied for his lunch money.

The situation with developing countries is this; They will not accept binding emission reductions until the carbon inequity issues are addressed first. Developed countries have to pay developing countries for;

1. Reducing their legitmate share of the historically available carbon space from 1800 to present day.

2. Currently consuming more than their fair share of the carbon space.

3. The consequences of extreme weather events like floods and droughts that can be scientifically attributed to human-induced climate change.

4. Climate change adaptation infrastructure like flood defenses, relocation of displaced people, crop technology, etc.

Not to mention the tranfer of technology for renewable power generation that had been promised but nor delivered since the Kyoto protocol.

Martin Khor of the South Centre estimates that the total bill will amount to $ 23 trillion. This may seem like a fantasy number but let us not forget that bailout package for failed banks financed by the U.S Governments alone is expected to add up to $ 23.7 trillion by this year. Even if we take into account that climate change was acknowledged formally only in 1992 and write off the historical carbon debt (1800-1992), we are still left with a bill of $ 3.9 trillion according to Fraser Durham of Carbon Sense. He also states that this amount is roughly equal to the monetary debt of all developing countries. And this just begins to takes care of the carbon equity issue. It does not however magically make the CO2 emissions from developed countries disappear (only realistic emission reduction targets, regular verification and strict penalties can do that). What it does is make the climate change negotiations a more level playing field.

Who watches the watchdogs?

Over the past 50 years or so NGOs have carved a unique niche for themselves in contemporary society. A professional bunch of individuals with impressive degrees were better able to articulate the widespread anger, frustration and outrage over the destruction of the environment than grumpy old men or rebellious teenagers. These NGO chaps could sweet talk the media as well as any industry or government P.R machinery. In addition, their ridiculously low salaries meant that they managed to look like Mother Teresa in front of bespoke suit-wearing hired guns.

As champions of civil society causes, NGOs won a lot of credibility and trust that would give them their legitimacy for existence. This legitmacy along with their expertise and grassroots support, positioned NGOs to challenge the role of Governments as sole guardians/caretakers of society. Simultaneously, Governments realised that NGOs could deliver public services to their citizens in a more efficient manner than they could ever hope to themselves. Plus if things went wrong, Governments could still emerge smelling of roses for having attempted the noble step of  decentralised decision-making. A truck load of public services began to be outsourced to NGOs who were suddenly handling multi-million dollar contracts from bilateral and multi-lateral agencies. NGOs in effect, became smaller versions of Government departments entrusted  to develop management plans, work with communities, build capacity of frontline staff and ensure Governments meet national and internation environment obligations. Former public debaters, righteous activists and passionate scientists had to transform themselves into project managers, network coordinators and conservation communications professionals.

In their haste to gain legitimacy in the eyes of funding agencies and Governments, their legitimacy in the eyes of civil society began to take a beating. Questions were raised about credibility, accountability and transparency as Governments, Industry and multi-lateral funding agencies replaced membership and foundations as major funding sources. Eyebrows were raised as many conservation NGOs reported annual turnovers resembling medium sized corporations. Questions were also raised about the bigger NGOs using their newly acquired financial clout to bully small local NGOs and local communities into being force-fed donor-friendly, global conservation strategies. The failiure of these big NGOs to stand up to companies that were destroying the environment and to support the struggle of indigenous peoples also exacerbated the air of mistrust.

The answer to regaining lost legitimacy is not simple. Possibly the worst thing would be to enforce the sort of accountability structures on NGOs that companies or govenments are bound by. NGOs occupy a different niche and hence must answer to a different accountability regime. Each NGO must review its ‘reason for existence’ and develop an accountability system based on where their legitimacy springs from. A combination of external, peer and self review is vital to reform the way NGOs operate and understand the impact they have in the areas they work in. Bodies like the IUCN that influence the direction of  the conservation movement must also facilitate reform of the conservation NGO sector as both are inseparable. Certification, peer review, operating standards, best practices, monitoring & evaluation are means to this end. NGOs are by design not answerable to voters or shareholders. Their legitimacy springs from the support of the civil society and they will only command the respect of Governments and funders on this basis.

The Top 10 Wildlife Wish List

Animals use tools. We know that now. Chimps make special sticks to gather termites, Caledonian Crows use leaf strips to catch insects and most recently Spider Monkeys have been known to improvise medicinal back scratchers for those ‘oh-so-hard-to-reach’ spots. Aaah…But what would they do if they could aspire to ‘higher’ things? (No offence to back scratching monkeys)

1. A Swiss Army Knife to get rid of those annoying radio-tags that pesky researchers keep thrusting on them.

2. A tranquiliser dart gun to outshoot the above mentioned pesky researchers and stop them from taking vials of blood and feeling them up under anesthesia.

3. A bank account to collect the payment for ecosystem services and bio-prospecting.

4. A seat on the climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December to talk about ecosystem based adaptation and forest carbon credits.

5. A possible ban on illegal detainment without charge in zoos, circuses and labs.

6. A Wildlife Trade Organisation (WTO) that will regulate the trade in humans and their parts.

7. A Coal Plant/Mine/Big Dam Non Proliferation Treaty.

8. Hybrid cars powered by humans pedalling furiously.

9. Human lard fat as a replacement for Palm oil.

10. An International Animal Court  to prosecute perpetrators of species’cide’ and biodiversity cleansing.

How to kill an environment movement 101

The environment movement has largely been based around the idea that non-violent demonstration can halt environment destruction. It reaped great results in the beginning as perpetrators of environment crimes, including governments, were shamed and brought to justice. Then the State machinery and industry began to adapt to this civil activism through to co-option, confusion and if all else failed, good old-fashioned coercion.

Co-option

By far the easiest and most cost effective solution for nipping those annoying greens in the bud. Co-option is achieved by adopting a pretence of concern for the environment. All one has to do is use the phrase ’sustainable development’ ad infinitum, promise prompt enquiries into lapses, fund some silly environment governance or corporate social responsibility project, give away a few Green champion/guardian awards and nominate the troublemaker-in-chief to a ‘high-level’ committee. And of course a scripted speech on World Environment Day or Earth Day, followed by a  cocktail buffet helps too.

Confusion

A very laborious tactic but has great long-term benefits once the scheme is in place. Environment movements are smothered under elaborate legal mechanisms designed to ensure that the House always wins. The processes are designed to appear like a system of checks and balances with elaborate procedures, timeframes, public consultations and grievance redressal mechanisms. In short, bore the greens into submission or incomprehension with consultant/bureaucrat speak. The best example of this is the system of Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) created to give an illusion that environmental and social issues are taken into consideration before building a factory or power plant. The whole exercise is not dissimilar to the comforting but pointless safety drill on airplanes performed by smiling air hostesses. And everyone is a sucker for smiling air hostesses/stewards. In addition to EIAs, legal frameworks are designed such that legal appeals are carted from one court to the other and finally dismissed in some apex kangaroo court, especially if the government is at the receiving end.

Coercion

If the pesky Al Gore/Medha Patkar wannabe is not crying sustainable development from the rooftops or going bankrupt with legal bills, more drastic action is called for. To avoid public sympathy first tar with ‘anti-national/development/people’ label, add a dash of hired goons or frustrated police force and season with ‘rigorous imprisonment’ on a trumped up charge.

The Tiger Disappearing Trick

It’s happened again. Tigers wiped out of another National Park in India. Panna National Park now joins Sariska National Park in having ‘lost’ all its tigers. But Panna is different from Sariska in the sense that the warning bells were sounded from 2002 onwards and completely disregarded for 7 years by the State Forest Department in charge of the Park. If there is one word that encapsulates the loss of Panna’s striped felines, it is ‘Denial’ with a capital ‘D’. In India, ‘when the going gets tough, those in charge get denying’. Woe betide the wildlife warden who dares state that the tigers in his park are vanishing under his watch. Admission of failure is non-existent in Government circles and whistleblowers face severe consequences. The Forest Department has complete control over India’s Protected Areas and restricted access ensures lack of accountability. Hell, even the Forest Department does not know what is happening within their Parks.

The officer cadres of the Department usually have no background or interest in wildlife and only join for the ‘prestige’ and ’salary for life’ offered by Indian Forest Service. Most of them view their training at the Wildlife Institute of India as a punishment and are not too pleased at being posted away from their native place, far from cities. They end up spending most of their time pushing paper instead of being in the field. The lower rungs of the Forest Department; rangers, foresters, forest guards and forest watchers bear the real burden of running the Park. They are poorly paid, ill equipped and lack motivation. The Forest Department seldom has the support of local communities as many of the Parks were designated without public consultation and claims were not settled.

The poaching game has changed and become more professional and organised. An intricate network of poachers, transporters and middlemen has made the big fish even more difficult to catch. Only lately have poachers and middlemen been prosecuted by the law after seizures of wildlife products. The Forest Department has no intelligence gathering mechanism in place on the ground and the recently created Wildlife Crime Control Bureau and National Tiger Conservation Authority only react to events in an investigative role. Poachers are still using snares and gin traps to catch tigers and have not yet acquired automatic weapons like in Africa. However, an armed rebel militia called Maoists or Naxalites could be a major potential threat if they take up poaching to finance their struggle.

Habitat loss has meant that tigers in India are being confined to small forest islands and inbreeding depression will soon be a major problem. But organised poaching and an unaccountable Forest Department could hasten the process manifold.

Kids say the darndest things

The G8 summit in Italy showcased a real sense of urgency to tackle climate change. There was a call for “strict and reasonable guidelines on GHG emissions” and a “revised framework to ensure that promises were kept”. Clean energy commitments with international cooperation and joint research  for improving efficiency of exisiting renewable energy options was promoted. Energy efficiency with subsidies and labelling for green tech were advocated. Unfortunately, this high level of commitment, cooperation and foresight was not voiced by political representatives of the G8 countries but by their 16 year old youth representatives who convened the J8 (Junior 8 ) summit in Rome.

The real G8 leaders had nothing really new to add. All we got was a conservative Declaration that reaffirms pre existing positions. This suggests that they are; 1) leaving a lot of room for manouvering in Copenhagen or 2) think that they can get away with making any sort of commitment, however insubstantial. Some examples;

1. They agreed to a 2°C limit on temperature rise from pre-industrial levels. Too little, too late.

2. They agreed to push for an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. Not enough really. No midterm (2020) commitments though, making developing countries all the more reluctant to sign on to emissions reductions commitments around that time.

3. Recognised that halting deforestation and degradation is a vital component of emissions mitigation. Nothing new here.

4. Agreed to create a Global Partnership for clean carbon technology and doubling investment by 2015 in green tech.

5. Considered climate financing through matched funding and/or creation of a Green Fund.

Its only words

You’ve heard these a million times. At seminars, in advertisements, from corporate types to environment gurus and basically everyone trying to cover their nether regions with a green fig leaf. What do they mean? Who knows. Cause they have been used and abused for so long that nobody really knows what they mean anymore. But if you ain’t using em, you ain’t in the know.  They do have a plethora of uses these non-phrases. They make any project look good on paper, justify any NGO-corporate collaboration, tick boxes of donor institutions, make conferences appear less like reunions, create new job titles, help consultants pay the mortgage and in general make morons appear less like morons.

Synergy approaches

Interdisciplinary focus

Sustainable development paradigms

Inclusive decision-making

Participatory processes

Promote transparency

Climate resilience

Intangible ecosystem services

Road to Copenhagen

Common but differentiated responsibility

Best practice

Managing ecosystems

Natural resource management

Strategic interventions

Sustainable future

Ecosystem integrity

Key indicators

Governance mechanisms

Enhance sequestration

Socially equitable

Equitable sharing of benefits

Cutting edge conservation

Development imperatives

Emerging issues

Global South

Energy poverty

Livelihood security

Decentralized decision-making processes

Stakeholder dialogue

Mainstreaming the environment

Monitoring and reporting cycles

Intrinsic value of nature

Drivers of change

Adaptive management

Humanity is inextricably linked

Underpinning human well-being

Building a broader constituency

Maintain landscape connectivity

I.O.U

Clean Development Mechanisms projects (offsets), Adaptation Fund, World Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (avoided deforestation), etc. are some of the ways developed countries are going to pay developing countries for screwing up the climate over the past 200 years. The money is also supposed to help developing countries avoid the high carbon route to economic development, a bit like how they bypassed landline connections for mobile phones in the past decade. But the economic crunch has meant that developed countries are too busy bailing out banks and bloated companies to be contributing much to the climate kitty. An interesting development that appears to pay the piper without breaking the bank is debt relief. The United States recently wrote off $30 million in debt owed by Indonesia in return for protecting its forests. The Indonesian Government is commited to placing the money in a fund for 8 years from which it will issue grants for forest protection and regeneration.

It does sound like a good scheme as it seems to provide the finances and donor verification but with the overall responsibility and accountability for forest protection resting with the Indonesian Government. But what is in it for the donor country? A $30 million publicity stunt is expensive even by U.S standards. It turns out that when donor countries write off a portion of the recipient country’s debt, it is counted as official development assistance (ODA) from the donor country.  In the 1960s economically advanced countries agreed (but not commited) that they must strive to provide developing countries with ODA to the tune of 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI). Though overall the ODA has been increasing, very few countries manage to set aside the 0.7% GNI target. Thus, debt relief is a convenient way of meeting ODA commitments without emptying the treasury.

Another issue which makes this convenient for donor countries is that funds provided for climate change adapation and mitigation to developing countries is also counted as ODA. Many climate change activists are against this and want climate change funding to be additional to development aid. It is seen as a means to repay the cost of unsustainable development that fuelled progress in developed countries for the past 200 years and to convince developed countiries to eschew the same model. So far, the Netherlands is the only country that has pledged to separate climate adaptation funding from ODA. ODA money is also associated with geopolitics and this may prevent the disbursement of funds to the countires most affected by climate change. If developed countries do not come clean about climate change financing, they will be percieved with the distrust and suspicion usually reserved for scum such as unscupulous loan sharks and cunning village moneylenders.