Created by: BusinessDegree.net
Watch this touching video from Al-Jazeera: Death of the Forests
A visual and sounds essay from Al-Jazeera on deforestation in Indonesia and the last moments of Green, an orangutan deprived of its habitat. A must-watch!
Global Recession and Debt Crisis: Breathing Time for the Environment
While governments are scrambling to put their finances in order, the public is left wondering – what’s going on? The debt crises in some parts of Europe and in the US are taking over the budgets of the governments in these countries. Spending cuts have become the order of the year. The other question that matters most is – how deep should these cuts be?
Defaulting to financial obligations is no option. Governments must find ways to cut the budget deficits into manageable level. The current level is unsustainable. Severe cuts must be made, in lieu of traditional sources of revenues – taxes and privatization of public utilities and government’s stakes. Laying off is a welcome reprieve for the governments, and so the overhauling of pension system.
There is outrage from the public of what’s going on. The public has expressed this on the streets. From Greece to Spain, the public reacted strongly against the proposed and recently implemented austerity measures. Another round of austerity measures is on the horizon to cut even deeper than what was once thought.
The spending cuts may look all negative in economic terms. However, it is also a welcome relief for the ailing environment. Imagine the reduction in the emissions because of the moderated operations of the manufacturing industries.
I think these debt crises are bringing us back to the basic. We have exploded in our own desires to grow bigger and more. And now, we are trying to ease the impact of that explosion by grinding down our excesses. Thus, it provides the necessary breathing time for our suffocated environment.
We are close to realizing that we do not need to be bigger or to have more. What is essential has been here all along – our families, community, environment. Material things come and go, but some things stay, whether in recession or not, with or without debt crises.
I believe in the resilience of humanity. We will overcome, and so too our environment, with a little help from the debt crises.
Indigenous Rights and Claims on Waters
We have done it with lands. Through international and national laws, we have recognized the ownership rights of the Indigenous Peoples over lands that they have traditionally occupied and used. Then, why not with waters?
There are pressing issues and disputed claims over waters on which the states take precedence over Indigenous Peoples. There are two international documents that deal with these issues, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Just a historical background. After 22 years of deliberation and debate, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples was finally adopted by the General assembly in 2007. The Declaration presents substantial rights and claims of the Indigenous Peoples who, at times, have been marginalized and excluded from the the schemes of society.
Article 26 of the Declaration states that "1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired; 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired; 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned."
Although it is not explicitly stated, "territories" would encompass waters that are traditionally used for subsistence. It is resoundingly clear in the Declaration that the Indigenous Peoples have rights and claims on waters as much as on lands and resources.
Even neighboring countries that share water territories have been unable to agree on how to manage and oversee the use, development, and conservation of the disputed territories. Examples of these cases are the Spratlys group of islands claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia, and Senkaku/Diaoyutai Island claimed by Japan and China.
How much more if the dispute is between indigenous peoples and a state?
This is the case of the Rotenese of southeastern Indonesia when they contend with Australia their fishing rights on and historical connection with Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islands. To highlight this issue, an International Conference on Indigenous Claims on Waters: What Do the Indigenous Convention and International Law Documents Say about this? will be held in The Hague, Netherlands on 18 March 2011. There will also be case presentations of other similar issues in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
If you or your organization is interested to sponsor this event, please contact Yetty Haning at yetty.haning@timorworldwide.org.
For registration, kindly email info@timorworldwide.org.
There are pressing issues and disputed claims over waters on which the states take precedence over Indigenous Peoples. There are two international documents that deal with these issues, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Just a historical background. After 22 years of deliberation and debate, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples was finally adopted by the General assembly in 2007. The Declaration presents substantial rights and claims of the Indigenous Peoples who, at times, have been marginalized and excluded from the the schemes of society.
Article 26 of the Declaration states that "1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired; 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired; 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned."
Although it is not explicitly stated, "territories" would encompass waters that are traditionally used for subsistence. It is resoundingly clear in the Declaration that the Indigenous Peoples have rights and claims on waters as much as on lands and resources.
Even neighboring countries that share water territories have been unable to agree on how to manage and oversee the use, development, and conservation of the disputed territories. Examples of these cases are the Spratlys group of islands claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia, and Senkaku/Diaoyutai Island claimed by Japan and China.
How much more if the dispute is between indigenous peoples and a state?
This is the case of the Rotenese of southeastern Indonesia when they contend with Australia their fishing rights on and historical connection with Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islands. To highlight this issue, an International Conference on Indigenous Claims on Waters: What Do the Indigenous Convention and International Law Documents Say about this? will be held in The Hague, Netherlands on 18 March 2011. There will also be case presentations of other similar issues in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
If you or your organization is interested to sponsor this event, please contact Yetty Haning at yetty.haning@timorworldwide.org.
For registration, kindly email info@timorworldwide.org.
Gold, At What Cost?
“We should live here on earth as though we were intending to stay for good.” – 2000: A Better World for All
In 2000, robberies of pawnshops in Naga City cropped up like a booming industry. The crooks might have been disinterested now in robbing banks with the depreciation of peso that is why they shifted to robbing pawnshops. Knowingly, they must have been apprised that the glittering gold never devaluates in the market. It is quite impressive to have spotted that lucrative activity at par with kidnapping, bank robbery, and drug pushing.
The gold per ounce has reached $1,400, an all-time high.
What is it in gold that people desire it so much?
Although I acknowledge its indispensability in the field of sciences, I still wonder how it has dominated our world. People simply become fond of it that they want to accumulate more and more until there is more. Even the crude oil is labeled as “black gold” for its significance in the present living is defined by its universal use and demand. Its exploitation as a resource becomes imperative as long as the host permits so. Hence people from other land come to marked places in search of that precious, special gem.
Historically myriad conflicts erupted due to the insatiable want of possession of gold. But the modern trend of globalization restrains any possibility of that since it makes legal the intrusion of foreign people to exploit the resources of the local people. On the account, our people become poor while living in the midst of abundance made available for them by the ordered creation. It is the strangers from our land that benefit from the blessings above and under us. They take the first bite of the cake while our people just watch waiting for the leftover. Commonly what they give appears like a gift out of their generosity not a settlement of their duty. And sadly our people accept gladly the leftover from the strangers without realizing that they are merely receiving what rightfully belongs to them. It is a plain poetic injustice to our people. And yet on their side are our own people who are supposed and tasked to push for our welfare and rights against these imposing strangers, but they turn their back against their own people since they share a little piece of the cake.
This is the typical picture of the mining industry in our country. With the 1995 Mining Act, the industry has been revived from its moribund state. Coupled with our government’s thrust of globalization vis-à-vis market liberation, the industry is bound to glory days again.
But not too fast, says the environmentalists and other groups who oppose mining in the Philippines
The fight against mining is a universal struggle profiling the yawning gap between the rich and the poor. Most of the gold resources around the world are used for jewelry by the affluent and wealthy people. Therefore it caters to the demand of the few and not to the human need. How many mountains and vast of land must we reduce to barrenness just to satisfy the created fashion whims of the few? There is always, I believe, a point of time to realize our damnation, but shall we wait for a messiah to that for us?
Our people’s rise to go against mining is a politically correct decision that we have to support. And in Bicol, let us join the struggle to stop the Rapu-Rapu mining project in Albay, Philippines.
(Click here for a book on mining issues in Rapu-Rapu, Albay. It is entitled, Under-Mining the Power of Commuities: The Politics of Mining and Local Community in the Philippines)
UNDERMINING THE POWER OF COMMUNITIES: THE POLITICS OF MINING AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES
Oftentimes, local communities feel powerless in the decision-making on issues that matter most to them. It is time to give them back the power they truly deserve and put them at the center of decision-making of these issues.
Environmentally critical projects such as mining remain a controversial and divisive issue in mineral-rich communities all over the world. Arguably, mining projects bring jobs, revenues to local governments, cash income, and various development projects, such as electrification, paved roads, schools with free or subsidized education, chapels, water system, and other livelihood programs. In many instances, these benefits are very enticing and attractive to locals.
However, scientific studies and objective data on mining operations in various communities have found out that mining also brings adverse effects and negative impacts on locals and the environment, such as displacement from homes and traditional livelihoods, dependence on cash income and incursion into their value system leading to consumerism, health problems caused by exposure to toxic materials, siltation of waterways, deforestation, loss of productive land, and pollution of marine environments.
Environmental advocacy campaigns of both pro- and anti-mining communicate these mining benefits and costs to the locals to convince them either to accept the mining project or join the struggle against the mining project. Given these two scenarios, how do locals decide when a mining project is presented in their community? How do they participate in the decision-making that impact on their economic, political and socio-cultural standing? What influences their participation in decision-making and their decision?
The locals of Rapu-Rapu Island, Albay in the Philippines were in that situation in 2001 when a mining project was seeking social acceptability from the local communities. This study revisited their decision and explained why they decided that way. It also took into account the crucial physical, political, economic, and sociocultural contexts of the decision-making of the locals.
Background
Since the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the Rio Summit of 1992 on environment and development, “sustainable development” has become the buzzword and rhetoric of development planning and intervention. The basic principle of sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future generation, thus improving people’s quality of life. The environment is now given a greater role, consideration, and attention in the development paradigm.
Countries have aligned their development plans with the sustainable development framework. The Philippines is no exception. In fact, the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21), the blueprint guide for sustainable development which resulted from the Summit, articulates this premise, "envisions a better quality of life for all Filipinos through the development of a just, moral, creative, spiritual, economically vibrant, caring, diverse yet cohesive society characterized by appropriate productivity, participatory and democratic processes, and living in harmony and within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the integrity of creation."
PA 21 had an eminent influence on the national and local policymaking and policy direction initiatives which deal with the conservation and preservation of the environment and country’s quest toward sustainable development. As concrete steps toward that quest, several landmark legislations were enacted into laws such as the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, Mining Act of 1995, and Clean Air Act of 1999.
Local communities know their situation well. It is a matter of including them in the decision-making with informed and meaningful participation.
Stop The Runaway Trains And Trucks
 |
| Photo by Stop Nuclear Power Network |
Now, the mode of shipment of those unwanted nuclear waste shifted from train to truck. From the railway depot in Dannenberg, the containers would be carried by trucks to Gorleben, the final destination and permanent storage site of nuclear waste in Germany.
After Chernobyl nuclear disaster, there has been insecurity surrounding nuclear use for energy production. What makes the anti-nuclear protest more compelling is the availability of renewable sources of energy. As most European countries, Germany has both the money and technology to shift from reliance on nuclear energy to renewable sources of energy. Instead, the German government surprised green activists and drew the ire of them by extending the use of power plants to ten more years of operations.
Somewhere we have to stand up if we need to see the change we want to see. And this is what green activists in Germany and elsewhere are doing to press and demand their governments to adopt projects that utilize natural resources such as solar, wind, tides, rain, and other renewable sources of energy.
The developing world looks up to Europe as the model for development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Thus, let us stop the runaway trains and trucks as symbols of old ways that do not tackle climate change head-on.
Climate Change Talks shaping up: From Copenhagen, Bonn, Tianjin to Cancun and onwards
The frustrations and disappointments of the previous climate change talks in Copenhagen have reverberated in the opening until the last day of the succeeding Bonn and Tianjin climate talks.
What happened in Copenhagen last year?
With much anticipation, the Copenhagen’s 15th Session of the Conference of Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) finally presented its conference output, the Copenhagen Accord. Supposedly, the output would be the successor of the Kyoto Protocol which is set to expire on 2012. But the Copenhagen Accord appears to have the elements of an agreement on virtual and conceptual generalities, to the dismay of the developing countries which will be most affected and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The group of developing countries wanted a definitive and concrete goals and pledges to arrest the worsening climate change and help them cope with the impacts of it by providing technology and funding.
Two years ago, the Bali Action Plan set the 2-year roadmap and process of finalizing a binding agreement which is now the Copenhagen Accord. Back then, the expectation was high to be able to achieve such goal of reducing greenhouse gases emissions which cause global warming.
Even lowering the expectation could not calm down the dissatisfaction on the process the Accord was drafted in its current form. Delegates to the COP15 from the industrializing countries were marginalized from the basic decision-making of an accord that was deemed too important for the current and future generations.
The Bonn talks tried to set things in perspective, taking on the experiences and progress of the previous talks. It attempted to draw a framework of acceptable points by all parties. It recognized that the process and output must be owned by countries involved, not by the few which can set the roadmap of the world based on their interests, and not for the common good of all.
The Tianjin talks placed China, said to be the largest greenhouse-gas emitter, in the global stage to showcase its efforts to cut emissions. It was reported that much of the blame on the collapse of talks in Copenhagen was of China's doing due to its disagreement on having mechanism to verify emission cuts. Its hosting of the talks was seen as taking on the challenge of being a global important player by leading the world in the investments on renewable energy projects, and of cutting emissions by closing thousands of polluting old factories.
And the Cancun talks at the end of this year will make the progress more pronounced by having a draft of a general framework of acceptable points where negotiation of details can start. Yes, there are already common and accepted points of the draft, such as that emissions have to be cut, developed countries will help technologically and financially developing countries to mitigate and adapt to impacts of climate change, and the urgency of the need to have a binding agreement to succeed Kyoto Protocol. The devilish details which again can hold the talks hostage are on what year levels should be the benchmark of emission cuts, what acceptable mechanisms can verify these cuts, and the sustainability of technological and financial assistance to developing countries.
Let us not forget that we are doing this more for the future generations and poor who will carry the brunt of our decisions and actions today. Let us not fail them. They are looking up on us. This is our opportunity to show our sincerity and responsibility to care and compassion for one Earth we have and will pass on to the next generations.
Debt-for-Nature Swap: Costa Rica leading the way
"Money does not grow on trees," as a popular saying goes. However, we know that there is money in trees. I am not talking about logging. Now the value of trees is not only measured when they are cut and felled; trees are now valued by maintaining and conserving them through the debt-for-nature swap.
There are two kinds of debt-for-nature swaps. One is bilateral swap wherein one country forgives a fraction of the debt of another country in favor of forest conservation or reduction of deforestation. Another kind is mediated and facilitated by a third party like non-government organizations to help broker the transaction between two countries.
One of the leading and active debt-for-nature swap policy is the 1998 Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) of the US. It is giving values to the trees when they are kept standing through the debt-for-nature debt swap between the US government and low and middle income countries. It would be noted that most tropical forests are found in low and middle income countries such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, the Philippines, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Panama, Indonesia, Botswana, Brazil, etc.. These countries have availed of the debt-for-nature swaps with the support and help of non-government organizations such as Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International.
One country is leading the way on the debt-for-nature swaps. Costa Rica is becoming a model and favorite recipient of this innovative method of helping financially developing countries and conserving biodiversity. Recently, Costa Rica received nearly $56 million in debt write-offs from TFCA and donations from Linden Trust for Conservation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation. Costa Rica will use the money for expanding its forest and marine protection and conservation projects. Right now, the country has 25% of its national territory as protected areas. Costa Rica is on its way to meeting the Millennium Development Goals on biodiversity conservation in 2015. This achievement is another first for the army-less country of more than 4 million people and first in the developing countries to be on target of the MDG on environmental sustainability. (Click here to see how Costa Rica is leading the campaign to meet the MDGs by cutting military budgets and putting those savings on social services)
If Costa Rica could do it, then other countries with remaining forest cover yet threatened by deforestation can consider the debt-for-nature swaps. Let us urge our governments to try this.
Now, money is growing on trees. Let us keep our trees standing for us and the next generations.
There are two kinds of debt-for-nature swaps. One is bilateral swap wherein one country forgives a fraction of the debt of another country in favor of forest conservation or reduction of deforestation. Another kind is mediated and facilitated by a third party like non-government organizations to help broker the transaction between two countries.
One of the leading and active debt-for-nature swap policy is the 1998 Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) of the US. It is giving values to the trees when they are kept standing through the debt-for-nature debt swap between the US government and low and middle income countries. It would be noted that most tropical forests are found in low and middle income countries such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, the Philippines, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Panama, Indonesia, Botswana, Brazil, etc.. These countries have availed of the debt-for-nature swaps with the support and help of non-government organizations such as Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International.
One country is leading the way on the debt-for-nature swaps. Costa Rica is becoming a model and favorite recipient of this innovative method of helping financially developing countries and conserving biodiversity. Recently, Costa Rica received nearly $56 million in debt write-offs from TFCA and donations from Linden Trust for Conservation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation. Costa Rica will use the money for expanding its forest and marine protection and conservation projects. Right now, the country has 25% of its national territory as protected areas. Costa Rica is on its way to meeting the Millennium Development Goals on biodiversity conservation in 2015. This achievement is another first for the army-less country of more than 4 million people and first in the developing countries to be on target of the MDG on environmental sustainability. (Click here to see how Costa Rica is leading the campaign to meet the MDGs by cutting military budgets and putting those savings on social services)
If Costa Rica could do it, then other countries with remaining forest cover yet threatened by deforestation can consider the debt-for-nature swaps. Let us urge our governments to try this.
Now, money is growing on trees. Let us keep our trees standing for us and the next generations.
An Action Plan for Harmonization of Reporting to Biodiversity-related Conventions in the ASEAN Region
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) encourages members of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to harmonize the gathering and management of data for the biodiversity-related conventions (Paragraph 15 of decision VIII/14 of the CBD). The COP encouraged the Liaison Group of the Biodiversity-related Conventions to give further consideration to issues of harmonization of reporting among the biodiversity-related conventions, and to develop proposals thereon (Paragraph 14 of decision VIII/14 of the CBD). In response, the Liaison Group discussed about relevant issues related to harmonization in February 2008.
The COP requested for collaboration with other biodiversity-related secretariats to develop proposals for streamlining reporting and reducing reporting burdens on Parties, and encouraged the Executive Secretary of the CBD to participate in the ongoing efforts in this regard. In the decisions relating to forest, dry land and inland waters biodiversity, the COPencouraged harmonization or synergies of reporting with other related conventions and forums. The CBD and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar), with the support of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(WCMC), are collaborating on the development of a joint reporting framework. Under the Committee for Review of Implementation of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), a coordination team involving various related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) has started to look at options for harmonizing reporting related to dry land. For many years, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) has been addressing forest-related reporting under various conventions and mechanisms
through its task force on streamlining forest-related reporting.
The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has requested its Secretariat to continue its collaboration with the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions, UNEP and other bodies, in order to facilitate the harmonization of national reporting.The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has invited its Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the Biodiversity Liaison Group and UNEP, to advance the harmonization of reporting both within the UNEP-CMS ‘family’ of Agreements and between relevant
conventions.
The Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, through Resolution IX.5, requested its Secretary General to continue working with the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions and the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions and agreements concerning more effective convention implementation, with topics including, inter alia, harmonization of national reporting. In Resolution X.11, the COP of the Ramsar Convention requested its Secretariat and the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP) to continue to cooperate with the CBD Secretariat, UNEP, and UNEP-WCMC in the development of a framework for harmonized reporting on implementation on inland waters for the CBD and the Ramsar Convention.
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity’s Initiatives
The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is a regional centre that facilitates cooperation and coordination among ASEAN Member States (AMS). It also provides technical assistance to AMS in the preparation of national reports in compliance to their obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To provide a venue to develop a framework to harmonize reporting to biodiversity-related conventions from national, regional to global levels, ACB conducted the ASEAN Workshop on Harmonization of Reporting to Biodiversity-related Conventions in Hanoi, Vietnam on 15-17 April 2009. The workshop brought about
discussions and exchanges of national experiences, efforts and plans on harmonization of reporting. It also produced recommendations to various biodiversity-related secretariats and national agencies tasked to prepare, consolidate and harmonize reports.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document presents the outputs of the workshop in the form of observations and recommendations that call for actions from the AMS and convention secretariats. Specifically, this document aims to:
• Summarize discussions and recommendations arising from the workshop into two levels, national and global
• Outline key messages that will stimulate interest among convention secretariats, AMS, organizations, and donors enthused in harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions
• Demonstrate an action plan that will provide support to countries in their efforts to implement activities relevant to the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION OF REPORTING
TO BIODIVERSITY-RELATED CONVENTIONS
The following observations and recommendations regarding the national level are mainly the areas of concern of countries in the ASEAN region. Since the task of reporting lies heavily on the individual country, the contents under this section are directed to the country level.
General Observations
There is a consensus among AMS that there is no single model for improved information management, collaboration, and harmonization as national circumstances vary between countries. Although AMS shared their own national efforts and experiences perceived to be valuable for other AMS to draw lessons from, they were not inclined to put forward a model for harmonization of reporting. For example, Thailand and the Philippines have one umbrella agency/bureau handling the national reporting tasks to biodiversity-related conventions. This kind of set up centralizes the preparations leading to reporting to conventions. This system,
however, does not exist for the entire region. In the majority of AMS, reporting is decentralized into two or more agencies, which at times do not have coordinated efforts for reporting to the convention secretariats.
Among the purposes of national reporting to conventions are: (1) to demonstrate compliance to and implementation of provisions of the conventions and (2) to assess the effectiveness of the compliance and implementation processes. Thus, underlying any improvements for harmonization of reporting is the understanding that reporting is an output of information management of national implementation of the conventions. The national reporting aims to enable the decision-making of Parties to take stock of what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan to do in accordance with the provisions of conventions. At the national level, convention secretariats encourage agencies involved in the reporting process to be cognizant of the importance of the need to obtain, gather, assemble, and report information.
Information Management for National Reporting
National reports contain information on the status and trends of the environment and natural resources in general and biodiversity in particular. Because of the value of this information in setting the tone for the national reports, it is important to establish a mechanism to ensure the accuracy and smooth flow of information to the national agency/bureau organizing the national reports. A well-organized information management system plays a key role in ensuring that reports contain updated and accurate information.
Depending on national circumstances, a fully operational (meta) data warehouse such as the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) or National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN) covering all biodiversity-related conventions could be established to facilitate national collaboration and sharing of information among and between national stakeholders. Another function of this (meta) data warehouse would be to develop information modules on a regular basis, independent from the national reporting process, in order to provide
information that national focal points of each convention can call upon at any time for producing the national reports. This is the national modular approach to harmonization, as reviewed by a UNEP pilot project on harmonization of reporting in Indonesia.
It should be noted that vital information necessary for national reporting can come from credible sources outside of the government agencies in charge of organizing and submitting the national reports. Thus, there is a need to involve stakeholders (e.g. non-governmental organizations, universities, private think tanks) that hold such information. In some cases, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) will be helpful to clarify issues of data ownership and use for purposes of national reporting. AMS agree that the inclusionary and extensive method of information-gathering from relevant stakeholders is essential to the output of national reporting.
In this information age, online tools can help shape national reports. These tools are useful to inform and guide users in the preparation of national reports. In a huge way, these online tools lessen the reporting burden of Parties. They also facilitate standardization of outputs and information sharing if these outputs become available online. However, these tools are yet to be popularized and maximized. Besides, the capacity to use these online tools remains to be developed in many countries as member states in the region are at different
levels of technological advancement. Some countries are well-advanced and at par with far developed Western states, whereas some countries are still at their infancy stages in terms of internet and communication technology.
Collaboration between National Focal Points and Agencies
Institutional and Administrative Framework
Each AMS has its own structure and system related to implementing and reporting. In view of this, AMS should keep under review the institutional and administrative arrangements for implementing and reporting to the biodiversity-related conventions to check the effectiveness of such arrangements. Well-structured and coordinated institutional and administrative frameworks provide solid ground for individuals and organizations involved in the reporting process.
At times, national focal points of different conventions work independently of each other in organizing their national reports. Some of these national focal points hardly know each other. For those in close contact with one another, they seldom meet to talk about what they are doing relative to national reporting. In recognition of this concern, it is important for national focal points to share information between and among themselves on a regular basis.
Information-sharing can be in the form of informal and formal meetings, and enhanced online communication (e.g. e-mails, blog, forum, or an intranet). By knowing each other personally, these national focal points can help immensely in establishing formal and informal interactions between and among themselves.
Legal Framework
Dependent on national circumstances, a national (biodiversity) policy or relevant legal framework can help in establishing a national reporting system which will define the roles and responsibilities of concerned agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. This system can be useful for evaluation and accountability of those agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. By having this legal framework, the national reporting process would have a uniform basis which stakeholders can use as they collect, organize, analyze, and report information.
Collaborative Mechanism
Another useful option to facilitate reporting is setting up of formal collaborative mechanisms such as a steering committee for all relevant conventions. Such collaborative mechanisms require agreement on a lead ministry, agency, or institution to centrally coordinate collaboration of work. Such a lead ministry/agency/institution might also be identified for specific aspects of implementation and reporting themes (e.g. wetlands, forests, agriculture, sustainable use, etc). A complementary option is to identify overlapping issues between different conventions (e.g. inland waters/wetlands for Ramsar and CBD and CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation targets and CITES) and strengthen cooperation between the relevant focal points on these specific issues.
Cooperation and collaboration between and among stakeholders play a key role in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. AMS agree that there is a need to enhance cooperation, be it bilateral, sub-regional and regional, between and among focal points. The presence of an existing regional cooperation through regional organizations such as ACB and ASEAN Secretariat and international cooperation through the convention secretariats can encourage and guide collaboration in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Giving a high-level authority on these organizations can be
explored to assist and persuade countries to collaborate.
Supplementary Strokes of Action from Donor Agencies and Institutions
Despite the technological development that each AMS is going through, the importance of human interaction in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions is irreplaceable. Thus, regular consultations/dialogues with counterparts and stakeholders (e.g. vertical-horizontal consultations) are essential in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Integrating information and awareness campaigns into regular activities of stakeholders will build up the effectiveness of national reporting and efforts for the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.
Donor agencies and institutions with special interest in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions should be informed about the efforts in the AMS. The contents of this output document will be useful to communicate to these agencies and institutions the need by the AMS to enhance its collaborative mechanisms and the engagement of technical assistance as well as the establishment and long-term maintenance of the national data warehouse (e.g. the CHM). The usefulness of existing tools for reporting and harmonization cannot and should not be understated. However, there is an underutilization of these implementation support tools such as the Tematea (http://www.tematea.org/). Opportunities for training in the use of these tools should be explored and promoted.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION: BEYOND THE AMS BORDERS
Harmonization at the global level, to a large extent, is the concern of convention bodies. Although countries set and implement supporting policies for the different conventions, the direction for reporting to conventions and its harmonization is shaped by COPs, Standing Committees, Secretariats and other convention bodies, as appropriate. Hence, it is important to recognize that concerted efforts at the national and international levels should be established.
Drawing from the rich experiences and constructive efforts of countries, convention secretariats can strive to simulate models for harmonization of national reporting between the biodiversity-related conventions. The simulation of models can be further explored, including the following approaches:
• Standardization of reporting formats including standardization of definition such as those for species taxonomy and common terminologies
• Complementarity between reporting formats (e.g. Ramsar report covers aspects of the CBD programmes of work, with CBD not requesting that information through their report)
• Modular reporting which entails a set of themes/categories in which information and data will be collected in line with those themes/categories from relevant agencies and focal points that provide the information and data as required in the reporting
• Core reporting which requires identification of common themes in biodiversity-related conventions to comprise the template of the common core document
AMS also agree that there is a need for clear and practical guidance from the convention secretariats to the Parties for the preparation of national reporting and harmonization of reporting to conventions. It should be pointed out that the harmonization of reporting processes helps minimize time and resources because of streamlining of reporting and avoidance of duplication of data gathering. Furthermore, harmonization of reporting fosters teambuilding and teamwork among focal points and agencies.
Online reporting systems for global biodiversity-related conventions appears to be very helpful but the lack of reliable technological access and capacity to use online tools in many countries currently do not allow for full utilization of online reporting. Tools such as Tematea are encouraged to include clear linkages between implementation activities and national report commitments.
GENERAL PLAN OF ACTION
This section identifies and summarizes the steps the AMS intend to take over the next one to five years to assist governments, convention secretariats, and interested institutions in establishing national priorities on the area of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. The plan of action for harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions with national and global perspectives proceeds with calls for immediate and short-term actions directed to AMS, convention secretariats, regional organizations such as
ACB, the ASEAN Secretariat, and other relevant institutions.
Short-Term Action
For immediate actions, recognizing the usefulness of this document, it is imperative for those who took part in the discussion resulting to and drafting of this document to:
National Level
• Disseminate the workshop results as widely as possible to governments/institutions/ agencies/donors/individuals involved and interested in the work of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.
• Assess usefulness of readily available online tools such as Tematea to the national needs and pilot implementation of the online tools for countries with adequate technological capacity and facilities.
• Discuss between and among national focal points and agencies the establishment of collaborative mechanisms including operational data warehouse.
• Review the effectiveness of current institutional and administrative arrangements of agencies tasked for national reporting.
Secretariat Level
• Provide clear and practical guidance to countries with backlogs of reporting obligations.
Long-Term Action
For long-term actions, considering the challenges of harmonization of reporting, the following can be undertaken:
National Level
• Review existing enabling policies that will expedite institutionalization of the harmonization process i.e. institutionalization of national policy that defines national reporting system and roles and accountabilities of agencies/organizations and other stakeholders in the reporting obligations.
• Inform and invite organizations and institutions with regional or international mandates to take an active part of the endeavor to harmonize reporting.
• Place a petition to the relevant governmental bodies such as the ASEAN Working Group on MEA to have special interest in the biodiversity cluster of MEAs.
Secretariat Level
• Pursue the standardization of reporting formats.
• Assist in developing national capacity including technological facilities and skills to demonstrate compliance to convention requirements.
• Evaluate and review on a regular basis the impact and effectiveness of actions taken on harmonization. ACB may take the lead at the regional level with support from the secretariats, countries, and donor/funding institutions
Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/conventions/harmonization/ActionPlan.pdf
The COP requested for collaboration with other biodiversity-related secretariats to develop proposals for streamlining reporting and reducing reporting burdens on Parties, and encouraged the Executive Secretary of the CBD to participate in the ongoing efforts in this regard. In the decisions relating to forest, dry land and inland waters biodiversity, the COPencouraged harmonization or synergies of reporting with other related conventions and forums. The CBD and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar), with the support of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(WCMC), are collaborating on the development of a joint reporting framework. Under the Committee for Review of Implementation of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), a coordination team involving various related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) has started to look at options for harmonizing reporting related to dry land. For many years, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) has been addressing forest-related reporting under various conventions and mechanisms
through its task force on streamlining forest-related reporting.
The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has requested its Secretariat to continue its collaboration with the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions, UNEP and other bodies, in order to facilitate the harmonization of national reporting.The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has invited its Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the Biodiversity Liaison Group and UNEP, to advance the harmonization of reporting both within the UNEP-CMS ‘family’ of Agreements and between relevant
conventions.
The Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, through Resolution IX.5, requested its Secretary General to continue working with the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions and the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions and agreements concerning more effective convention implementation, with topics including, inter alia, harmonization of national reporting. In Resolution X.11, the COP of the Ramsar Convention requested its Secretariat and the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP) to continue to cooperate with the CBD Secretariat, UNEP, and UNEP-WCMC in the development of a framework for harmonized reporting on implementation on inland waters for the CBD and the Ramsar Convention.
ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity’s Initiatives
The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is a regional centre that facilitates cooperation and coordination among ASEAN Member States (AMS). It also provides technical assistance to AMS in the preparation of national reports in compliance to their obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To provide a venue to develop a framework to harmonize reporting to biodiversity-related conventions from national, regional to global levels, ACB conducted the ASEAN Workshop on Harmonization of Reporting to Biodiversity-related Conventions in Hanoi, Vietnam on 15-17 April 2009. The workshop brought about
discussions and exchanges of national experiences, efforts and plans on harmonization of reporting. It also produced recommendations to various biodiversity-related secretariats and national agencies tasked to prepare, consolidate and harmonize reports.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document presents the outputs of the workshop in the form of observations and recommendations that call for actions from the AMS and convention secretariats. Specifically, this document aims to:
• Summarize discussions and recommendations arising from the workshop into two levels, national and global
• Outline key messages that will stimulate interest among convention secretariats, AMS, organizations, and donors enthused in harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions
• Demonstrate an action plan that will provide support to countries in their efforts to implement activities relevant to the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION OF REPORTING
TO BIODIVERSITY-RELATED CONVENTIONS
The following observations and recommendations regarding the national level are mainly the areas of concern of countries in the ASEAN region. Since the task of reporting lies heavily on the individual country, the contents under this section are directed to the country level.
General Observations
There is a consensus among AMS that there is no single model for improved information management, collaboration, and harmonization as national circumstances vary between countries. Although AMS shared their own national efforts and experiences perceived to be valuable for other AMS to draw lessons from, they were not inclined to put forward a model for harmonization of reporting. For example, Thailand and the Philippines have one umbrella agency/bureau handling the national reporting tasks to biodiversity-related conventions. This kind of set up centralizes the preparations leading to reporting to conventions. This system,
however, does not exist for the entire region. In the majority of AMS, reporting is decentralized into two or more agencies, which at times do not have coordinated efforts for reporting to the convention secretariats.
Among the purposes of national reporting to conventions are: (1) to demonstrate compliance to and implementation of provisions of the conventions and (2) to assess the effectiveness of the compliance and implementation processes. Thus, underlying any improvements for harmonization of reporting is the understanding that reporting is an output of information management of national implementation of the conventions. The national reporting aims to enable the decision-making of Parties to take stock of what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan to do in accordance with the provisions of conventions. At the national level, convention secretariats encourage agencies involved in the reporting process to be cognizant of the importance of the need to obtain, gather, assemble, and report information.
Information Management for National Reporting
National reports contain information on the status and trends of the environment and natural resources in general and biodiversity in particular. Because of the value of this information in setting the tone for the national reports, it is important to establish a mechanism to ensure the accuracy and smooth flow of information to the national agency/bureau organizing the national reports. A well-organized information management system plays a key role in ensuring that reports contain updated and accurate information.
Depending on national circumstances, a fully operational (meta) data warehouse such as the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) or National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN) covering all biodiversity-related conventions could be established to facilitate national collaboration and sharing of information among and between national stakeholders. Another function of this (meta) data warehouse would be to develop information modules on a regular basis, independent from the national reporting process, in order to provide
information that national focal points of each convention can call upon at any time for producing the national reports. This is the national modular approach to harmonization, as reviewed by a UNEP pilot project on harmonization of reporting in Indonesia.
It should be noted that vital information necessary for national reporting can come from credible sources outside of the government agencies in charge of organizing and submitting the national reports. Thus, there is a need to involve stakeholders (e.g. non-governmental organizations, universities, private think tanks) that hold such information. In some cases, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) will be helpful to clarify issues of data ownership and use for purposes of national reporting. AMS agree that the inclusionary and extensive method of information-gathering from relevant stakeholders is essential to the output of national reporting.
In this information age, online tools can help shape national reports. These tools are useful to inform and guide users in the preparation of national reports. In a huge way, these online tools lessen the reporting burden of Parties. They also facilitate standardization of outputs and information sharing if these outputs become available online. However, these tools are yet to be popularized and maximized. Besides, the capacity to use these online tools remains to be developed in many countries as member states in the region are at different
levels of technological advancement. Some countries are well-advanced and at par with far developed Western states, whereas some countries are still at their infancy stages in terms of internet and communication technology.
Collaboration between National Focal Points and Agencies
Institutional and Administrative Framework
Each AMS has its own structure and system related to implementing and reporting. In view of this, AMS should keep under review the institutional and administrative arrangements for implementing and reporting to the biodiversity-related conventions to check the effectiveness of such arrangements. Well-structured and coordinated institutional and administrative frameworks provide solid ground for individuals and organizations involved in the reporting process.
At times, national focal points of different conventions work independently of each other in organizing their national reports. Some of these national focal points hardly know each other. For those in close contact with one another, they seldom meet to talk about what they are doing relative to national reporting. In recognition of this concern, it is important for national focal points to share information between and among themselves on a regular basis.
Information-sharing can be in the form of informal and formal meetings, and enhanced online communication (e.g. e-mails, blog, forum, or an intranet). By knowing each other personally, these national focal points can help immensely in establishing formal and informal interactions between and among themselves.
Legal Framework
Dependent on national circumstances, a national (biodiversity) policy or relevant legal framework can help in establishing a national reporting system which will define the roles and responsibilities of concerned agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. This system can be useful for evaluation and accountability of those agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. By having this legal framework, the national reporting process would have a uniform basis which stakeholders can use as they collect, organize, analyze, and report information.
Collaborative Mechanism
Another useful option to facilitate reporting is setting up of formal collaborative mechanisms such as a steering committee for all relevant conventions. Such collaborative mechanisms require agreement on a lead ministry, agency, or institution to centrally coordinate collaboration of work. Such a lead ministry/agency/institution might also be identified for specific aspects of implementation and reporting themes (e.g. wetlands, forests, agriculture, sustainable use, etc). A complementary option is to identify overlapping issues between different conventions (e.g. inland waters/wetlands for Ramsar and CBD and CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation targets and CITES) and strengthen cooperation between the relevant focal points on these specific issues.
Cooperation and collaboration between and among stakeholders play a key role in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. AMS agree that there is a need to enhance cooperation, be it bilateral, sub-regional and regional, between and among focal points. The presence of an existing regional cooperation through regional organizations such as ACB and ASEAN Secretariat and international cooperation through the convention secretariats can encourage and guide collaboration in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Giving a high-level authority on these organizations can be
explored to assist and persuade countries to collaborate.
Supplementary Strokes of Action from Donor Agencies and Institutions
Despite the technological development that each AMS is going through, the importance of human interaction in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions is irreplaceable. Thus, regular consultations/dialogues with counterparts and stakeholders (e.g. vertical-horizontal consultations) are essential in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Integrating information and awareness campaigns into regular activities of stakeholders will build up the effectiveness of national reporting and efforts for the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.
Donor agencies and institutions with special interest in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions should be informed about the efforts in the AMS. The contents of this output document will be useful to communicate to these agencies and institutions the need by the AMS to enhance its collaborative mechanisms and the engagement of technical assistance as well as the establishment and long-term maintenance of the national data warehouse (e.g. the CHM). The usefulness of existing tools for reporting and harmonization cannot and should not be understated. However, there is an underutilization of these implementation support tools such as the Tematea (http://www.tematea.org/). Opportunities for training in the use of these tools should be explored and promoted.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION: BEYOND THE AMS BORDERS
Harmonization at the global level, to a large extent, is the concern of convention bodies. Although countries set and implement supporting policies for the different conventions, the direction for reporting to conventions and its harmonization is shaped by COPs, Standing Committees, Secretariats and other convention bodies, as appropriate. Hence, it is important to recognize that concerted efforts at the national and international levels should be established.
Drawing from the rich experiences and constructive efforts of countries, convention secretariats can strive to simulate models for harmonization of national reporting between the biodiversity-related conventions. The simulation of models can be further explored, including the following approaches:
• Standardization of reporting formats including standardization of definition such as those for species taxonomy and common terminologies
• Complementarity between reporting formats (e.g. Ramsar report covers aspects of the CBD programmes of work, with CBD not requesting that information through their report)
• Modular reporting which entails a set of themes/categories in which information and data will be collected in line with those themes/categories from relevant agencies and focal points that provide the information and data as required in the reporting
• Core reporting which requires identification of common themes in biodiversity-related conventions to comprise the template of the common core document
AMS also agree that there is a need for clear and practical guidance from the convention secretariats to the Parties for the preparation of national reporting and harmonization of reporting to conventions. It should be pointed out that the harmonization of reporting processes helps minimize time and resources because of streamlining of reporting and avoidance of duplication of data gathering. Furthermore, harmonization of reporting fosters teambuilding and teamwork among focal points and agencies.
Online reporting systems for global biodiversity-related conventions appears to be very helpful but the lack of reliable technological access and capacity to use online tools in many countries currently do not allow for full utilization of online reporting. Tools such as Tematea are encouraged to include clear linkages between implementation activities and national report commitments.
GENERAL PLAN OF ACTION
This section identifies and summarizes the steps the AMS intend to take over the next one to five years to assist governments, convention secretariats, and interested institutions in establishing national priorities on the area of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. The plan of action for harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions with national and global perspectives proceeds with calls for immediate and short-term actions directed to AMS, convention secretariats, regional organizations such as
ACB, the ASEAN Secretariat, and other relevant institutions.
Short-Term Action
For immediate actions, recognizing the usefulness of this document, it is imperative for those who took part in the discussion resulting to and drafting of this document to:
National Level
• Disseminate the workshop results as widely as possible to governments/institutions/ agencies/donors/individuals involved and interested in the work of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.
• Assess usefulness of readily available online tools such as Tematea to the national needs and pilot implementation of the online tools for countries with adequate technological capacity and facilities.
• Discuss between and among national focal points and agencies the establishment of collaborative mechanisms including operational data warehouse.
• Review the effectiveness of current institutional and administrative arrangements of agencies tasked for national reporting.
Secretariat Level
• Provide clear and practical guidance to countries with backlogs of reporting obligations.
Long-Term Action
For long-term actions, considering the challenges of harmonization of reporting, the following can be undertaken:
National Level
• Review existing enabling policies that will expedite institutionalization of the harmonization process i.e. institutionalization of national policy that defines national reporting system and roles and accountabilities of agencies/organizations and other stakeholders in the reporting obligations.
• Inform and invite organizations and institutions with regional or international mandates to take an active part of the endeavor to harmonize reporting.
• Place a petition to the relevant governmental bodies such as the ASEAN Working Group on MEA to have special interest in the biodiversity cluster of MEAs.
Secretariat Level
• Pursue the standardization of reporting formats.
• Assist in developing national capacity including technological facilities and skills to demonstrate compliance to convention requirements.
• Evaluate and review on a regular basis the impact and effectiveness of actions taken on harmonization. ACB may take the lead at the regional level with support from the secretariats, countries, and donor/funding institutions
Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/conventions/harmonization/ActionPlan.pdf
COP10 in Nagoya, Japan: Towards an International Regime on Environmental Governance
Are we taking good care of biodiversity or exploiting it too much? The continuum from one extreme to another is where do we put ourselves. Are we contributing to the taking care or exploiting? We know that our activities have certain impacts on biodiversity. And our activities are informed and shaped by our values. Thus, should we take care of biodiversity or exploit it? The continuum is neither that nor this. The phenomenon of climate change is a clear indication of human activities exploiting too much the biodiversity, and not taking care of it.
The governments must rein on these human activities to reduce the negative impacts on biodiversity and promote conservation efforts for future generations. They can motivate and direct corporations, communities, groups, and individuals to help contribute in the solution of biodiversity conservation efforts, and not in the problem of biodiversity loss.
In 1993 with more than 168 signatures of States, the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) was ratified and put into force. Now, there are 193 parties to the Convention which has three main objectives: the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
The governing body of the Convention is the Conference of Parties (COP) that will have its tenth meeting in Nagoya, Japan on 18-29 Octobe 2010. It is particularly significant because 2010 is declared as International Year of Biodiversity. It is the year that everyone is encouraged to have greater awareness and understanding of our place and role in the larger scheme of nature of which we are all part.
Another very important activity in the meeting is the adoption of the international regime on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic resources. It is high time to establish an international regime on ABS. Each party to the Convention has the power to determine the access of genetic resources within their territories. It is also bound to share the benefits derived from the access to and utilization of these resources. In other words, developing countries with rich biodiversity which is a source of raw materials will have a say on the access to their resources and will benefit from the utilization of their resources by developed/industrialized countries. Through the international regime on ABS, this arrangement will become institutionalized in the relations among parties to the Convention.
As the theme of COP10 reads "Life in harmony, into the future," heads of States, policy-makers, and decision-makers are going to agree and disagree on certain things in the meeting that will matter to us. However, our common future on one earth is at stake. Let us urge them to take the bold steps in confronting their differences and finding common grounds to push for biodiversity conservation efforts and responsible and sustainable use of resources.
Let us make them put actions on the provisions of the Convention and their decisions. Let us not allow another missed opportunity.
Not another entry on BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
This would drag us into the spill. What does it have to do something with us? No matter how far we live from the gulf, no matter how unaffected we may seem, this would argue that the spill has something to do with us.
After gushing hundreds of millions of gallons of oil in the gulf, the spill exposed the unpreparedness of giant oil companies to tackle such a tremendous disaster. Worse, it even made the most powerful and technologically advanced country in the world vulnerable and hysterically inadequate to deal with such disaster.
Do we really need those hundreds of millions of gallons of oil? Apparently, not.
Then, why exploration of oil deposits and building of oil rigs continue? If we missed to use those wasted and leaked oil, would our lives be different today?
One of the major sources of our energy is oil. Undoubtedly, we need it, for now. Thus, as long as we need it, explorations and development of oil rigs will continue. The potential of having another disaster of this scale will be ever-present.
If we want to avoid similar catastrophe, then we have to cut that need.
Demand from our governments to supply our energy needs from renewable sources. Ask our governments to reduce dependence from fossil fuels (e.g. coal and oil) which contribute so much to pollution and global warming.
Now, what does it have to do with us?
As an individual, cut oil and energy consumption. Resist that temptation to have more. Be more. Turn off everything if unused. Walk that extra mile or bike. Live a simple and happy life.
As a citizen, oppose new fossil fuel projects in your area/country. Get involved in environmental activities. Go out and appreciate the natural beauty of environment.
Do it alone. Do it with someone. Do it with a group.
These activities may not stop giant oil companies and governments to explore and develop oil rigs, but they will feel our sentiments in their revenues and ballots. We will reduce our need for fossil fuels, thus reducing their new projects. We will vote for candidates with an energy plan and priority for renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass.
Yes we will. Seeing the massive effects of the oil spill in biodiversity, peoples' lives, and local economy, we have to believe that we can. No more of this man-made catastrophe, in our lifetime.
World Environment Day (WED): Many Species, One Planet, One Future
While we are just one of the millions of species on earth, we have taken for granted other species that live with us. Other species do not even have names yet. So their existence is yet to be discovered, but they are out there helping our earth to be livable and wonderful.
We have claimed the earth as ours, sadly yet we do not lay claim and responsibility of its impending doom due to human activities.
While we are growing in population, other species are decreasing and, worse, disappearing on earth. We are blessed to have witnessed and seen the rich biodiversity of earth. However, each day, there are species that become extinct and never to be seen alive on earth again. And there are more becoming endangered of being wiped out on earth if we do not act on conservation and protection of these species and their environment.
Our insatiable greed for bigger things and luxuries has led to the destruction of forests and marines, thus denying species of their natural habitats. In the name of development and industrialization, we pursue our own good lives at the expense of the lives of other species.
It is time to change. Fight greed. Resist luxuries. Protect our remaining forests and conserve our marines.
Just one day, think about the richness of our earth. Be awed by its wonders and beauty. Just one day, become aware that we are not alone and there are others without names that live with us. Just one day as a starter, do not kill, harm and hurt anything surrounding you.
We live in a shared future and earth. Let us make it good for us and the next generations.
We have claimed the earth as ours, sadly yet we do not lay claim and responsibility of its impending doom due to human activities.
While we are growing in population, other species are decreasing and, worse, disappearing on earth. We are blessed to have witnessed and seen the rich biodiversity of earth. However, each day, there are species that become extinct and never to be seen alive on earth again. And there are more becoming endangered of being wiped out on earth if we do not act on conservation and protection of these species and their environment.
Our insatiable greed for bigger things and luxuries has led to the destruction of forests and marines, thus denying species of their natural habitats. In the name of development and industrialization, we pursue our own good lives at the expense of the lives of other species.
It is time to change. Fight greed. Resist luxuries. Protect our remaining forests and conserve our marines.
Just one day, think about the richness of our earth. Be awed by its wonders and beauty. Just one day, become aware that we are not alone and there are others without names that live with us. Just one day as a starter, do not kill, harm and hurt anything surrounding you.
We live in a shared future and earth. Let us make it good for us and the next generations.
Cashing in the REDD-Plus in 2010 Oslo Conference on Deforestation
The headlines on newspapers say it all: Germany and Norway to give $1.5 billion to fight deforestation. Do I miss something here?
Well, it has been found out that deforestation contributes much on the carbon dioxide emissions as much as the cars, planes, and other fuel-loaded modes of transporations combined. That's a lot of emissions from one source which can be mitigated by concerted efforts of governments, both rich and poor which have differing stakes in the issue.
I hate the idea that money can solve environmental and social issues. Sure it could help a whole lot more to address them, but please do not build and reduce the proposed solutions on financial terms.
The Copenhagen Accord made a general and broad reference to the significance of addressing the deforestation in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. It is time to have a dedicated and focused conference on the issue.
An international regime to manage, handle and monitor the Reducing Emissions from Deforestations and Degradation (REDD)-Plus program must be established to start the challenging and important task of slowing down deforestation. This regime also takes care of the financing efforts to assist countries that have high deforestation rate such as Indonesia, Brazil, and other countries with considerable forest cover within their territories.
Beyond the financial matters, what is important is the political will of the governments to go after the destructive activities, either legal or illegal, that clear forest, cut trees, and flatten mountains and hills. These activities are driven by strong financial backing by huge transnational mining, logging and insfrastructure companies that know the way to have their projects approved even in the midst of controversies and resistance from the local communities and environmental activists. There is a need to involve these stakeholders in the decision-making processes of environmentally-critical projects.
In this way, we can hope for a participatory governance of a common natural resources.
Well, it has been found out that deforestation contributes much on the carbon dioxide emissions as much as the cars, planes, and other fuel-loaded modes of transporations combined. That's a lot of emissions from one source which can be mitigated by concerted efforts of governments, both rich and poor which have differing stakes in the issue.
I hate the idea that money can solve environmental and social issues. Sure it could help a whole lot more to address them, but please do not build and reduce the proposed solutions on financial terms.
The Copenhagen Accord made a general and broad reference to the significance of addressing the deforestation in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. It is time to have a dedicated and focused conference on the issue.
An international regime to manage, handle and monitor the Reducing Emissions from Deforestations and Degradation (REDD)-Plus program must be established to start the challenging and important task of slowing down deforestation. This regime also takes care of the financing efforts to assist countries that have high deforestation rate such as Indonesia, Brazil, and other countries with considerable forest cover within their territories.
Beyond the financial matters, what is important is the political will of the governments to go after the destructive activities, either legal or illegal, that clear forest, cut trees, and flatten mountains and hills. These activities are driven by strong financial backing by huge transnational mining, logging and insfrastructure companies that know the way to have their projects approved even in the midst of controversies and resistance from the local communities and environmental activists. There is a need to involve these stakeholders in the decision-making processes of environmentally-critical projects.
In this way, we can hope for a participatory governance of a common natural resources.
Ecosystem and National Capacity in Myanmar's Recovery Efforts
A year after the ASEAN-led coordinating Tripartite Core Group (TCG) was established to spearhead the humanitarian and recovery efforts in Myanmar, victims and survivors of Cyclone Nargis are still in crisis situation.
With more than US$300 million already given by foreign governments and international organizations in the past months after the cyclone, US$691 million is a new price tag for post-disaster restoration and recovery of the affected areas in Myanmar for the next three years. Will more financial aid be sustainable in the crisis situation such as in Myanmar after Cyclone Nargis?
Historically and globally, financial aid is tied with development programs. Amidst the criticisms and dismal results against its development targets and objectives, financial aid continues to grow exponentially in the developing world every year. And yet, the world's poor have never been more at risk of becoming hungrier, more marginalized and more prone to more environmental disasters than ever before. Sadly without financial aid though, they will ultimately be more vulnerable to all sorts of human and environmental problems.
The appeal for more financial aid, for Myanmar, includes humanitarian aid. It is not only about development cooperation, rather the financial aid aims to save and restore lives and alleviate extreme suffering brought about by the impacts of the powerful cyclone.
In Myanmar, the magnitude of destruction of the cyclone to the peoples' economic and social lives is unprecedented in the country's history. The ruling military junta has not confronted such kind of crisis situation.
Notably, the humanitarian response of the international and regional communities led by the ASEAN Secretariat and TCG has been admirable in spite of various challenges compromising the achievement of their humanitarian goals. Their post-disaster strategies have been focused on the people's basic needs such as shelter, food, livelihood, health and education. It looks like they have tremendous difficulties in meeting those basic needs. And now, they are asking for more financial aid to accelerate the recovery of people's livelihoods and address the basic needs of the victims and survivors of the cyclone.
For sure, the financial aid will help in the implementation of overall framework of post-disaster strategies. However, there may be a need to expand the focus of strategies to include the ecosystem approach which values biodiversity’s contribution to recovery efforts. There are two realities that call for attention which may persuade the expansion of focus in Myanmar for sustainability of recovery efforts – devastated natural resources base and unprepared and untested national capacity to confront such crisis situation.
Last year, I was in Bogale Township, one of the most affected areas in the delta region three months after the cyclone, to support the ASEAN Humanitarian Task Force in Myanmar. In remote villages, I saw the damage marked in people's lives and environment. There was a widespread degraded natural resources base which used to support income-generating activities.
There were also obvious uncertainties on the looks of the people and local officials on what to do. But they knew exactly what they needed and their urgencies.
The ecosystems of Irrawaddy delta region of Myanmar are primarily suited for farming and fishing. If the post-disaster strategies cover livelihood security for the people, then the restoration of ecosystems that have sustained the people's basic needs even before the cyclone hit must be
integrated in the recovery efforts. Failing to do so could mean endless calls for more financial aid.
The ecosystem approach entails integrated management of biodiversity such as land, water, and living resources that necessitates restoration to be able to be productive again and become assets of and beneficial to the people. In this way, local people could rely on what they have, rather than on what other people have.
The second expanded focus is about developing the national capacity of the country to address such crisis situation. There should be less foreign aid workers coming to Myanmar, more locals getting hired to do humanitarian work, and enhanced bureaucracy to address persisting problems after a year of the disaster. The locals and bureaucracy must have gained necessary skills and capacity to be able to attend to the recovery needs of their own people. The ownership of the post-disaster restoration and recovery of Myanmar belongs to its own people.
Furthermore, as part of one ASEAN community, Myanmar can count on its fellow members of a caring community to extend the necessary support for its recovery efforts.
In a short term, more financial aid can only do so much in Myanmar. What is critically needed is an expansion of focus to include ecosystem restoration and development of national capacity to handle crisis situations to facilitate and accelerate the recovery efforts in Myanmar in a sustained manner.
With more than US$300 million already given by foreign governments and international organizations in the past months after the cyclone, US$691 million is a new price tag for post-disaster restoration and recovery of the affected areas in Myanmar for the next three years. Will more financial aid be sustainable in the crisis situation such as in Myanmar after Cyclone Nargis?
Historically and globally, financial aid is tied with development programs. Amidst the criticisms and dismal results against its development targets and objectives, financial aid continues to grow exponentially in the developing world every year. And yet, the world's poor have never been more at risk of becoming hungrier, more marginalized and more prone to more environmental disasters than ever before. Sadly without financial aid though, they will ultimately be more vulnerable to all sorts of human and environmental problems.
The appeal for more financial aid, for Myanmar, includes humanitarian aid. It is not only about development cooperation, rather the financial aid aims to save and restore lives and alleviate extreme suffering brought about by the impacts of the powerful cyclone.
In Myanmar, the magnitude of destruction of the cyclone to the peoples' economic and social lives is unprecedented in the country's history. The ruling military junta has not confronted such kind of crisis situation.
Notably, the humanitarian response of the international and regional communities led by the ASEAN Secretariat and TCG has been admirable in spite of various challenges compromising the achievement of their humanitarian goals. Their post-disaster strategies have been focused on the people's basic needs such as shelter, food, livelihood, health and education. It looks like they have tremendous difficulties in meeting those basic needs. And now, they are asking for more financial aid to accelerate the recovery of people's livelihoods and address the basic needs of the victims and survivors of the cyclone.
For sure, the financial aid will help in the implementation of overall framework of post-disaster strategies. However, there may be a need to expand the focus of strategies to include the ecosystem approach which values biodiversity’s contribution to recovery efforts. There are two realities that call for attention which may persuade the expansion of focus in Myanmar for sustainability of recovery efforts – devastated natural resources base and unprepared and untested national capacity to confront such crisis situation.
Last year, I was in Bogale Township, one of the most affected areas in the delta region three months after the cyclone, to support the ASEAN Humanitarian Task Force in Myanmar. In remote villages, I saw the damage marked in people's lives and environment. There was a widespread degraded natural resources base which used to support income-generating activities.
There were also obvious uncertainties on the looks of the people and local officials on what to do. But they knew exactly what they needed and their urgencies.
The ecosystems of Irrawaddy delta region of Myanmar are primarily suited for farming and fishing. If the post-disaster strategies cover livelihood security for the people, then the restoration of ecosystems that have sustained the people's basic needs even before the cyclone hit must be
integrated in the recovery efforts. Failing to do so could mean endless calls for more financial aid.
The ecosystem approach entails integrated management of biodiversity such as land, water, and living resources that necessitates restoration to be able to be productive again and become assets of and beneficial to the people. In this way, local people could rely on what they have, rather than on what other people have.
The second expanded focus is about developing the national capacity of the country to address such crisis situation. There should be less foreign aid workers coming to Myanmar, more locals getting hired to do humanitarian work, and enhanced bureaucracy to address persisting problems after a year of the disaster. The locals and bureaucracy must have gained necessary skills and capacity to be able to attend to the recovery needs of their own people. The ownership of the post-disaster restoration and recovery of Myanmar belongs to its own people.
Furthermore, as part of one ASEAN community, Myanmar can count on its fellow members of a caring community to extend the necessary support for its recovery efforts.
In a short term, more financial aid can only do so much in Myanmar. What is critically needed is an expansion of focus to include ecosystem restoration and development of national capacity to handle crisis situations to facilitate and accelerate the recovery efforts in Myanmar in a sustained manner.
Ecosystem Adaptation to Climate Change: The ASEAN Experience
In the early part of the year 2009, severe weather news in various parts of the world shocked the unsuspecting inhabitants of the areas. In Australia, during the two epic five-setter tennis matches by Rafael Nadal of Spain towards his first Australian Open title, the country had a heat wave of above 40 degrees Celsius in the southwest of the country including the cities of Adelaide and Melbourne. About 28 deaths were reported to have been caused by the searing heat (Reuters, 2008). In Europe, a strong storm with 190 kilometers per hour (kph) wind speed battered northern Spain and southwest of France killing 15 people on January 24, 2008 (Fichot, 2008). In Southeast Asia, the city of Cagayan de Oro in southern Philippines experienced a wave of flash floods that started on January 3 and killed at least nine people (Inquirer Bureaus, 2009). Described as unusual, unprecedented, worst and gravest in such areas, the three incidents are symptomatic of climate change that grips our world today. The intensity and frequency of extreme weather occurrences are said to be the dire consequences of climate change. And there will be more, more severe, if climate change is not tackled.
How is Southeast Asia adapting to climate change? Are there regional responses to climate change?
This paper seeks to explore the extent and experiences on ecosystem adaptation to climate change in Southeast Asia.
What we know about climate change
Our understanding of climate change has now improved since it became a buzzword. We owe our enlightened knowledge to the numerous scientists and experts who are instrumental to shift the buzzword from theoretical to real global threat and challenge. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which co-won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was recognized for its scientific work on climate change.
The 2007 IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) presents a comprehensive view on climate change which is referred to as, “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity” (IPCC, 2007).
The AR4 provides a “schematic framework of anthropogenic climate change drivers, impacts and responses” and their linkages centering on the relationship between earth and human systems (See Figure 1 below). Not only anthropogenic sources bring about climate change, natural disturbances such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, in part, also result to a change in climate.
There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer and warmer. The AR4 indicates that since 1850, eleven of the twelve warmest years registered in the record of the global surface temperature were from 1995-2006. The increase in the average surface temperature from 1906 to 2005 is 0.74°C. This increase in temperature is caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Human activities from the sectors of energy, transport and industry are said to be the main emitters of GHG.
Notable impacts of climate change
Whether we like it or not, the way we live our lives is being altered by climate change. Our choices are being shaped by it. The impacts of climate change are already in our midst. From the familiar things and gadgets we use to places we know, they are being influenced and determined by factors that reinforce, mitigate, and adapt climate change. For example, the home appliances and other products
Figure 1. A schematic framework
Source: Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf)
have been made compliant to become “environmentally-friendly” and phase out the “ozone-depleting gases” such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
Due to climate change, the global sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year since 1961 to 2003. Low-lying and coastal areas are at risk of constant flooding and erosion, and wetlands may be altered (Ouano, 2007).
On peatlands
Covering over 4 million km2 spread in 180 countries all over the world, “peatlands are important natural ecosystem with high value for biodiversity conservation, climate regulation and human welfare” (Parish et. al., 2007). Climate change impacts on peatlands through desertification and degradation. If not managed properly, peatlands contribute to climate change in a major way. Degradation of peatlands exhales carbon dioxide from peatland drainage and fires of “at least 3,000 million tonnes per annum or equivalent to more than 10% of the global fossil fuel emissions” (ibid, 2007).
On biodiversity
The Biodiversity Synthesis by the 2005 Millennium Assessment Reports (MAR) highlights the significance of biodiversity on various aspects of human life, from security, social relations to freedom of choices and actions. Biodiversity offers ecosystem services through its provisioning services (food, medicines), regulating services (filtering water and air, moderating weather), and cultural services (recreational spaces, tourism, heritage). The MAR notes that one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem services change is climate change. For the last 50 years, biological extinction is unprecedented and depletion of one-fourth of earth’s top soil, one-fifth of its agricultural land, and a third of its forests have occurred (Djoghlaf, 2008).
Interestingly, the MAR also mentions that one of human activities that exert pressure on biodiversity is agriculture.
On agriculture and food
Agricultural productivity, food availability and crop yields will be adversely affected by climate change. On Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the impacts of climate change are divided into two categories; the biophysical impacts which include, among others, changes in the quality and quantity of land, soil and water resources, rise in sea temperature, and the physiological effects in the quality and quantity of crops, livestock, pasture, and forests; and the socio-economic impacts which are decline in production and yields, fluctuations in the global market prices, and among other things.
Brought about by climate change, “increased intensity and frequency of storms, drought and flooding, altered hydrological cycles and precipitation variance have implications for future food availability” (FAO, 2007).
Ecosystem resilience
There is an inherent capacity of ecosystems to resist and adapt to climate change known as ecological resilience (Prato and Fagre, 2006). Our ecosystem has this inherent capacity which makes our habitat livable in spite of the harmful changes it undergoes and confronts. “Ecological resilience concentrates on the ability of a set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to persist” and allows “the change required to move the ecosystem from being organized around one set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to another” (Holling et. al., 2006).
Climate change places lots of pressures on the ecosystem’s capacity. “When this capacity is exceeded, the ecosystem can change in ways that may not be socially and ecologically acceptable” (Prato and Fagre, 2006). That is why there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of ecosystem and strengthen its ecological resilience through mitigation and adaptation approaches to climate change. Without any consequential action on climate change, the impacts are going to be severe in the coming years. Mitigation approaches are intended to reduce the ecosystems’ vulnerability and GHG in the biosphere while adaptation approaches are meant to enhance ecosystems’ ecological resilience to climate change.
Ecosystem adaptation
Ecosystem adaptation aims to deal with the impacts that are already present in the ecosystem, recover from the impacts and build the resilience of the people and ecosystem.
In the position paper by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to the Fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it states that “adaptation to climate change should now be a central element of climate change policy at local, national, regional and international level.” Furthermore, it “calls States to mainstream ecosystem-based adaptation as an integral element of overall climate change adaptation in poverty reduction strategies and development planning.” (For the purpose of this paper, ecosystem adaptation and ecosystem-based adaptation would be treated as the same)
The IUCN defines ecosystem-based adaptation as “a range of local and landscape scale strategies for managing ecosystems to increase resilience and maintain essential ecosystem services and reduce the vulnerability of the people, their livelihoods and nature in the face of climate change” (IUCN, 2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation calls for a collective action among stakeholders including the governments, communities, environmental groups, development organizations “to plan and empower local action that will increase environmental and community resilience to the changing climate” (ibid, 2008).
ASEAN experiences on adaptation
There are ten countries that comprise ASEAN as a regional bloc, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is now a chartered regional organization which aims to integrate member-countries into one rule-based and dynamic community. The region is home to biodiversity hotspots which host about 20% of the known species in the world. As in any other regions, ASEAN is facing the grave risks and threats of climate change.
As a regional intergovernmental organization, ASEAN has instituted regional agreements, initiatives and strategies to combat environmental concerns such as transboundary haze through ASEAN Agreement of Transboundary Haze Pollution, peatland management through ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy, and conservation of protected areas through the ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks.
Outside the ASEAN organization, there are “regional” efforts of ecosystem adaptation. The Rice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a form of farmers’ field school that provides knowledge and understanding of ecological principles, monitoring crop cycles, destructive and friendly pests, and biodiversity. Started in Indonesia, the IPM is now benefitting the Vietnamese and Filipino farmers through increased crop production and reduction of pesticides inputs (Ooi, 2000). Another effort with “regional” scope is the Ecoregion conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. Sharing similar or interrelated ecological characteristics and processes, the three countries of ASEAN, under Ecoregion conservation, are “to develop long term conservation programs that ensure the persistence of healthy ecosystems and species by mainstreaming conservation with natural resource management” (Hodgdon, 2000). Another ecoregion project that includes Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines is the Ecoregion Conservation Plan in the Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion which is part of the Coral Triangle, the richest source of marine biodiversity in the world.
Conclusion
Climate change is going to cause more extreme weather events worldwide. The continued warming of the earth’s surface temperature is changing or threatening to change the landscapes and seascapes, triggering biodiversity loss and decline in crop yields, agricultural productivity and food supply, and peoples’ lifestyles. While mitigation approaches to climate change are reducing the vulnerability of ecosystem by cutting emissions of GHG, adaption approaches are necessary to adjust to the anticipated impacts of climate change. Ecosystem adaptation is a useful strategy to help communities and ecosystem become more resilient to the climate change impacts. Adaptation strategies must be cost-effective, participatory and sustainable to be able to effectively address the present and anticipated impacts.
ASEAN has recognized the need to combat the impacts collectively as a region. As a regional response to the threats and challenges of climate change, it has initiated and instituted plan of actions on various environmental concerns that are shared by and common to some if not all ASEAN member-countries. Other efforts with “regional” coverage are contributing to the task of making communities and ecosystem adaptive to climate change.
Although these efforts and initiatives may not be specifically directed to tackle climate change, they are, nevertheless, directly addressing its impacts on communities and ecosystem. If that is so, they are ecosystem adaptation with which we can suitably confront the impacts of climate change, not just in ASEAN, but in our world. What we do in ASEAN will have an impact on our task to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
References:
Djoghlaf, A. (2008, April-June). Climate and Biodiversity: The twin planetary environmental challenges of
the 21st Century. ASEAN Biodiversity, 7, 10-17.
Fichot, N. (2009, January 25). Spain pick up pieces after deadly storm. Reuters AlertNet. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LP686061.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (2007). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities. Rome, Italy. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/j9271e/j9271e.pdf
Hodgdon, B. (2000). Ecoregion Conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam: Approach, Experiences
and Preliminary Outputs. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER
Holling, C., Peterson, G. and C. Allen (1998). Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems, 1,
6-18. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/PDF-myfiles/BioDEcoFn.pdf
Inquirer Bureaus (2009, January 15). 9 dead in flash floods, storm surges. Philippines Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20090115-183446/9-dead-in-flash-floods-storm-surges
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Adaptation to Climate Change. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/unfccc_cop14_adaptation_pp_19_nov_08_final.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation: An approach
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_submission_on_ecosystem_based_adaptation_final_6_dec_2008.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
Ooi, P. (2000). Rice IPM as application of the ecosystem system approach in Indonesia and elsewhere in
Asia. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER
Ouano, A. (2007, April-June). Climate Change and Initiatives. ASEAN Biodiversity, 6, 25-31.
Parish, F. Sirin, A., Charman, D. Joosten, H., Minayeva, T. and Silvius, M. (eds.) 2007. Assesment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Executive Summary. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.peat-portal.net/index.cfm?&menuid=123&parentid=113.
Prato, T. and D. Fagre (2006). Coping with Climate Change. American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/ActionBioscience_PratoFagre_06.pdf
How is Southeast Asia adapting to climate change? Are there regional responses to climate change?
This paper seeks to explore the extent and experiences on ecosystem adaptation to climate change in Southeast Asia.
What we know about climate change
Our understanding of climate change has now improved since it became a buzzword. We owe our enlightened knowledge to the numerous scientists and experts who are instrumental to shift the buzzword from theoretical to real global threat and challenge. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which co-won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was recognized for its scientific work on climate change.
The 2007 IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) presents a comprehensive view on climate change which is referred to as, “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity” (IPCC, 2007).
The AR4 provides a “schematic framework of anthropogenic climate change drivers, impacts and responses” and their linkages centering on the relationship between earth and human systems (See Figure 1 below). Not only anthropogenic sources bring about climate change, natural disturbances such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, in part, also result to a change in climate.
There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer and warmer. The AR4 indicates that since 1850, eleven of the twelve warmest years registered in the record of the global surface temperature were from 1995-2006. The increase in the average surface temperature from 1906 to 2005 is 0.74°C. This increase in temperature is caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Human activities from the sectors of energy, transport and industry are said to be the main emitters of GHG.
Notable impacts of climate change
Whether we like it or not, the way we live our lives is being altered by climate change. Our choices are being shaped by it. The impacts of climate change are already in our midst. From the familiar things and gadgets we use to places we know, they are being influenced and determined by factors that reinforce, mitigate, and adapt climate change. For example, the home appliances and other products
Figure 1. A schematic framework
Source: Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf)
have been made compliant to become “environmentally-friendly” and phase out the “ozone-depleting gases” such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
Due to climate change, the global sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year since 1961 to 2003. Low-lying and coastal areas are at risk of constant flooding and erosion, and wetlands may be altered (Ouano, 2007).
On peatlands
Covering over 4 million km2 spread in 180 countries all over the world, “peatlands are important natural ecosystem with high value for biodiversity conservation, climate regulation and human welfare” (Parish et. al., 2007). Climate change impacts on peatlands through desertification and degradation. If not managed properly, peatlands contribute to climate change in a major way. Degradation of peatlands exhales carbon dioxide from peatland drainage and fires of “at least 3,000 million tonnes per annum or equivalent to more than 10% of the global fossil fuel emissions” (ibid, 2007).
On biodiversity
The Biodiversity Synthesis by the 2005 Millennium Assessment Reports (MAR) highlights the significance of biodiversity on various aspects of human life, from security, social relations to freedom of choices and actions. Biodiversity offers ecosystem services through its provisioning services (food, medicines), regulating services (filtering water and air, moderating weather), and cultural services (recreational spaces, tourism, heritage). The MAR notes that one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem services change is climate change. For the last 50 years, biological extinction is unprecedented and depletion of one-fourth of earth’s top soil, one-fifth of its agricultural land, and a third of its forests have occurred (Djoghlaf, 2008).
Interestingly, the MAR also mentions that one of human activities that exert pressure on biodiversity is agriculture.
On agriculture and food
Agricultural productivity, food availability and crop yields will be adversely affected by climate change. On Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the impacts of climate change are divided into two categories; the biophysical impacts which include, among others, changes in the quality and quantity of land, soil and water resources, rise in sea temperature, and the physiological effects in the quality and quantity of crops, livestock, pasture, and forests; and the socio-economic impacts which are decline in production and yields, fluctuations in the global market prices, and among other things.
Brought about by climate change, “increased intensity and frequency of storms, drought and flooding, altered hydrological cycles and precipitation variance have implications for future food availability” (FAO, 2007).
Ecosystem resilience
There is an inherent capacity of ecosystems to resist and adapt to climate change known as ecological resilience (Prato and Fagre, 2006). Our ecosystem has this inherent capacity which makes our habitat livable in spite of the harmful changes it undergoes and confronts. “Ecological resilience concentrates on the ability of a set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to persist” and allows “the change required to move the ecosystem from being organized around one set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to another” (Holling et. al., 2006).
Climate change places lots of pressures on the ecosystem’s capacity. “When this capacity is exceeded, the ecosystem can change in ways that may not be socially and ecologically acceptable” (Prato and Fagre, 2006). That is why there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of ecosystem and strengthen its ecological resilience through mitigation and adaptation approaches to climate change. Without any consequential action on climate change, the impacts are going to be severe in the coming years. Mitigation approaches are intended to reduce the ecosystems’ vulnerability and GHG in the biosphere while adaptation approaches are meant to enhance ecosystems’ ecological resilience to climate change.
Ecosystem adaptation
Ecosystem adaptation aims to deal with the impacts that are already present in the ecosystem, recover from the impacts and build the resilience of the people and ecosystem.
In the position paper by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to the Fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it states that “adaptation to climate change should now be a central element of climate change policy at local, national, regional and international level.” Furthermore, it “calls States to mainstream ecosystem-based adaptation as an integral element of overall climate change adaptation in poverty reduction strategies and development planning.” (For the purpose of this paper, ecosystem adaptation and ecosystem-based adaptation would be treated as the same)
The IUCN defines ecosystem-based adaptation as “a range of local and landscape scale strategies for managing ecosystems to increase resilience and maintain essential ecosystem services and reduce the vulnerability of the people, their livelihoods and nature in the face of climate change” (IUCN, 2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation calls for a collective action among stakeholders including the governments, communities, environmental groups, development organizations “to plan and empower local action that will increase environmental and community resilience to the changing climate” (ibid, 2008).
ASEAN experiences on adaptation
There are ten countries that comprise ASEAN as a regional bloc, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is now a chartered regional organization which aims to integrate member-countries into one rule-based and dynamic community. The region is home to biodiversity hotspots which host about 20% of the known species in the world. As in any other regions, ASEAN is facing the grave risks and threats of climate change.
As a regional intergovernmental organization, ASEAN has instituted regional agreements, initiatives and strategies to combat environmental concerns such as transboundary haze through ASEAN Agreement of Transboundary Haze Pollution, peatland management through ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy, and conservation of protected areas through the ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks.
Outside the ASEAN organization, there are “regional” efforts of ecosystem adaptation. The Rice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a form of farmers’ field school that provides knowledge and understanding of ecological principles, monitoring crop cycles, destructive and friendly pests, and biodiversity. Started in Indonesia, the IPM is now benefitting the Vietnamese and Filipino farmers through increased crop production and reduction of pesticides inputs (Ooi, 2000). Another effort with “regional” scope is the Ecoregion conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. Sharing similar or interrelated ecological characteristics and processes, the three countries of ASEAN, under Ecoregion conservation, are “to develop long term conservation programs that ensure the persistence of healthy ecosystems and species by mainstreaming conservation with natural resource management” (Hodgdon, 2000). Another ecoregion project that includes Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines is the Ecoregion Conservation Plan in the Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion which is part of the Coral Triangle, the richest source of marine biodiversity in the world.
Conclusion
Climate change is going to cause more extreme weather events worldwide. The continued warming of the earth’s surface temperature is changing or threatening to change the landscapes and seascapes, triggering biodiversity loss and decline in crop yields, agricultural productivity and food supply, and peoples’ lifestyles. While mitigation approaches to climate change are reducing the vulnerability of ecosystem by cutting emissions of GHG, adaption approaches are necessary to adjust to the anticipated impacts of climate change. Ecosystem adaptation is a useful strategy to help communities and ecosystem become more resilient to the climate change impacts. Adaptation strategies must be cost-effective, participatory and sustainable to be able to effectively address the present and anticipated impacts.
ASEAN has recognized the need to combat the impacts collectively as a region. As a regional response to the threats and challenges of climate change, it has initiated and instituted plan of actions on various environmental concerns that are shared by and common to some if not all ASEAN member-countries. Other efforts with “regional” coverage are contributing to the task of making communities and ecosystem adaptive to climate change.
Although these efforts and initiatives may not be specifically directed to tackle climate change, they are, nevertheless, directly addressing its impacts on communities and ecosystem. If that is so, they are ecosystem adaptation with which we can suitably confront the impacts of climate change, not just in ASEAN, but in our world. What we do in ASEAN will have an impact on our task to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
References:
Djoghlaf, A. (2008, April-June). Climate and Biodiversity: The twin planetary environmental challenges of
the 21st Century. ASEAN Biodiversity, 7, 10-17.
Fichot, N. (2009, January 25). Spain pick up pieces after deadly storm. Reuters AlertNet. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LP686061.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (2007). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities. Rome, Italy. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/j9271e/j9271e.pdf
Hodgdon, B. (2000). Ecoregion Conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam: Approach, Experiences
and Preliminary Outputs. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER
Holling, C., Peterson, G. and C. Allen (1998). Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems, 1,
6-18. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/PDF-myfiles/BioDEcoFn.pdf
Inquirer Bureaus (2009, January 15). 9 dead in flash floods, storm surges. Philippines Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20090115-183446/9-dead-in-flash-floods-storm-surges
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Adaptation to Climate Change. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/unfccc_cop14_adaptation_pp_19_nov_08_final.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation: An approach
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_submission_on_ecosystem_based_adaptation_final_6_dec_2008.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
Ooi, P. (2000). Rice IPM as application of the ecosystem system approach in Indonesia and elsewhere in
Asia. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER
Ouano, A. (2007, April-June). Climate Change and Initiatives. ASEAN Biodiversity, 6, 25-31.
Parish, F. Sirin, A., Charman, D. Joosten, H., Minayeva, T. and Silvius, M. (eds.) 2007. Assesment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Executive Summary. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.peat-portal.net/index.cfm?&menuid=123&parentid=113.
Prato, T. and D. Fagre (2006). Coping with Climate Change. American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/ActionBioscience_PratoFagre_06.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
