Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Betio village, Kiribati. 10 February 2005. ©Greenpeace / Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert

The Kiribati delegation made a powerful public presentation of the extreme risks faces by their atoll nation in the near future by climate change effects.  Climatico analyst Jennifer Helgeson had the opportunity to have a discussion with Kiribati’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Immigration, Tessie Eria Lambourne, as well as legal Solicitor-General, David Lambourne.

The presentation preceding this conversation combined scientific discussions alongside cultural themes and socio-economic projections to put what Mr. Lambourne notes as a “human face” on climate change.  This human face includes issues such as quickly disappearing corals, loss of infrastructure, lack of potable drinking water, and extensive health issues.

Sea level rise is so serious for this nation that it is described as “inundation risk” by the risk management specialists brought in by the Kiribati government to assess the nation’s environmental situation.  These specialists have described two options for changes to Kiribati in the coming century:  1) Temporary inundation; or 2) Permanent inundation, with many changes already triggered and slowly evolving.  In the most modest model proposals (following IPCC projections), there is major coastal loss to the nation by 2030 and by 2050 there is a proliferation of swampy area throughout the mid-lands of the country. Finally, by 2100, there will be major permanent inundation of areas throughout the islands.

Such a situation would necessitate major evacuation of Kiribati’s citizens to other nations.  But, Ms. Lambourne makes it clear that if evacuation and relocation becomes realistic, the people of Kiribati will not go as environmental refugees: “We are a proud people.  We want to offer skilled individuals to other nations; we have no interest in our people living off of welfare.”  In this spirit, the government is committed to merit-based relocations (e.g. agreements to train Kiribati women as nurses in order to fill employment gaps in developed countries).  The programs already in development with Australia and New Zealand ensure long-term Kiribati communities in those nations.  Mr. Lambourne explains that historically other Pacific Island nations have had migration due to socio-economic factors.  So, they have seed communities of their indigenous people in places like New Zealand and Australia.  We need to develop those kinds of seed communities to absorb Kiribati people if climate change forces it to be so.”

When asked why he and his wife are so knowledgeable on climate change, Mr. Lambourne states that all the heads of state know about climate change because it is pervasive in all issues faced by Kiribati.  Kiribati has ordered village by village risk assessments and the reported outlook is grim.  The only airway to the country is likely to be totally inundated by 2030.  There is a key data gap in how coral will react over time; the excellent records kept since the 1990s does not allow for accurate projections.  The most densely populated island of the atoll is Tarawa (45,000 people) and poverty as well as health issues will only be exacerbated by climate change.   The one fresh water lens for the community’s drinking water has also begun to see minor salination.  Ms. Lambourne shakes her head and asks rhetorically: “do you know how expensive it is to maintain a desalinization plant?”

Kiribati is asking the world for help, but at the same time, Ms. Lambourne is quick to point out that they are taking hold of their own fate.  The Clean Development Mechanism hasn’t really made it into Kiribati because of the costs involved in setting-up the process.  “Who would do a single project in Kiribati when economies of scale let them do thousands cheaply in China?” asks Mr. Lambourne.  “We don’t have the technology to promise specific targets but we are working hard to get towards the use of more sustainable fuel types and seriously reducing the atoll’s carbon footprint.”

Kiribati is tackling the hard issues.  Mr. Lambourne admits that “relocation at all is not a comfortable topic, but we have to be realistic.”  He looks at me and jokes that, after all, our President is an economist; he is practical.”  Asked about how other Pacific Island nations feel about the merit-based migration program Kiribati is striving towards, the answer is that not all nations think it is the best way.  “Of course, it takes work on our part and on the part of our people.  But we are part of the AOSIS [Association of Small Island States], and we agree with the common message.  Each nation might choose to get there differently, but we agree.”

Complemented on the lovely Kiribati bird song shared during the initial presentation, Ms. Lambourne smiles and says that “the frigate bird is a prime example of national identity; that is why it is so hard to think about moving our people; the spiritual connection to the land is so intense.  The suggestion guides to adaptation all say that the easiest thing for individuals’ to do is to move away from coastal areas, but what happens when your entire nation is a coastal area?”

For more on Kiribati’s climate change plan for adaptation and potential evacuation, see: www.climate.gov.ki

Last year France was axed from the Grand Prix calendar after the French motorsport federation withdrew support of the Magny-Cours track, citing lack of funds.  Formula 1 CEO, Bernie Ecclestone, ruled out returning to the rural venue, with his sites set on a Paris race date to grace the Formula 1 calendar.

Things were looking up for Formula 1 racing fans earlier this year though.  In March 2009 plans to construct a new  €112 million track at Flins-Les-Mureaux, north-east of Paris, were announced.  The site beat out competition from four other venues on the French shortlist; it was the cheapest of the sites.  

From the beginning this news has stirred up controversy over the potential pollution wafting into the city from construction and the races.  Now the controversy is going towards all-out political battle at the highest echelons of power.

In one corner is France’s PM, François Fillon, who has competed in the LE Mans Legend historic sports car race and takes a keen interest in the FIA.  He fully supports the proposed site of Flins-Les-Mureaux.  But French Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, and the Secretary of State for Ecoology, Chantel Jouanno, are much less than enthusiastic. 

Borloo and Jouanno say that construction and racing at the site is environmentally irresponsible.  Though much of the rhetoric revolves around air pollution and related climate change, the real issue is Parisian drinking water.  A drinking water table that supplies about 500000 Parisians, passes directly under the race track site.

This past weekend, hundreds of environmentalist demonstrated in Versailles against the track.  Their banners read: <<F1: Non, Organic [Framing]: Oui.>>  Many analysts agree that there is merit to reconsidering the site, but also stress that the issues are being taken out of context and are reflecting a larger political issue.

Alain Prost, the former quadruple World Champion and strong supporter of the new track, told Le journal du Dimanche newspaper: “things need to be clear at the government level” He acknowledges that public debate is possible, but current plans to stage the Grand Prix there in 2011 would be greatly complicated.  The review process is also complicated because of memories of failed plans to build a track near Disneyland Paris in recent memory.

Track architect, Jean-Michel Wilmotte, insists that the circuit will actually be “the world’s first totally ecological race track.”  Minister Borloo is also being criticized for vetoing the project without hearing conclusions from independent experts.

This seeming political game becomes even more complex because most Formula enthusiasts believe that Flins-Les-Mureaux is the only chance of France returning to the Formula 1 Calendar in the foreseeable future.  The question simply becomes: to what extent might France pollute in potentially dangerous ways to win back their race?

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testified on Tuesday before the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee regarding the proposed EPA FY 2010 Budget request. Tuesday’s discussion concentrated on how the budget request of $10.5 billion (USD), proposed by President Barack Obama, is designed to both contribute to the U.S economic recovery while also addressing today’s environmental challenges.

The FY 2010 budget is an increase of 37 percent over the budget for FY 2009, providing for a greater opportunity for the EPA to address environmental challenges by way of EPA programs. According to Jackson, this budget increase “reflects President Obama’s commitment to usher in a new era in environmental stewardship and puts us on a clear path to a cleaner and safer planet.”

In its press release issued yesterday, the EPA outlined the budget allocations addressing U.S. environmental protection priorities. Receiving the largest allocation in the FY 2010 funds are the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds with $3.9 billion - marking an increase of 157 percent over FY 2009. These Funds will finance water infrastructure projects across the United States including 1,000 clean water and 700 drinking water projects.

Particular to the threat of climate change, the FY 2010 budget allocates an additional $19 million over FY 2009 budget provisions toward President Obama’s efforts to slow global warming. This funding will help the United States develop a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and collaborate with industries to provide greenhouse gas emission data reporting. Specifically, the money from this budget increase supports the development of the data management system, guidance and training materials, and sources measurement technologies as well as provides for the conducting of industry-specific workshops.

The allocation of ‘merely’ an additional $19 million toward slowing the progression of global warming seems small in comparison to the $3.9 billion allocated to water infrastructure projects. This may partially reflect public attitudes regarding environmental priorities within the United States. According to a recent Gallup Poll released in March 2009, issues regarding water pollution or contamination ranked highest amongst eight major environmental issues listed while climate change ranked last (see my previous post regarding this issue here).

Alternatively, the funding and implementation of such necessary repairs to U.S. water infrastructure may be better suited under the umbrella of the EPA in order to achieve the attention that it requires. Energy and climate change legislation are currently under development which could lead to the establishment of a new cap and trade or carbon tax program in the United States. A separate funding request for emissions reduction programs may lead to similar or greater financial provisions than the $3.9 billion that the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds will receive under the FY 2010 EPA budget.

Which environmental concern deserves greater support is speculative and not up for debate at this time. Regardless of whether public attitudes or political strategy are motivating the budget allocations, the environment comes out on top. As stated by Obama and reiterated by Jackson in her testimony, “now is the time to make long overdue investments in clean energy and new infrastructure to create a platform for entrepreneurs and workers to build an economy that will lead us into a better future.” I’ll cheers to that.

India’s Ganges River (also known as Ganga) has always had a revered spot among Indians for its cultural and religious importance. It supports nearly 400 million lives as it flows from the Himalayas and undoubtedly one of the world’s most prominent rivers.

Recently, a disconcerting report has highlighted that the river is highly vulnerable to climate change. Citing altering rainfall patterns and increasing likelihood of evapotranspiration rates due to climate change, the study notes that the Ganges are likely to reduce in flow and quantity. The basin is situated in highly populated urban and rural regions that dependent on the water source for daily livelihood activities ranging from baths to irrigation for farming. The study is quick to also point that some of the reduction in flow can be attributed to current dam projects and problems of increased irrigation, pollution, and sedimentation. Given such prospects, there are valid concerns over India’s ambitious National River Linking Project that is set to link India’s rivers across the nation in attempt to relieve water scarcity by physically transferring water from water-abundant regions within the country.  Would it be wise to invest in this project given the possibility of rivers running dry? For Indian states experiencing water scarcity pressures, such as those in the South, the proposal is welcomed given the yearly dry up of rivers. Still ongoing debates over the project’s value, potential continue.

In addition, pollution of Indian rivers is rampant. Despite being given a ‘National River’ status and initiating a basin-wide authority, natives in the region are still concerned  that the river’s flow has been altered due to numerous hydro electric projects and over pollution. Criticism has been piled on the state government for not doing enough to monitor and regulate the river. Development goals have often superseded and/or clouded the state’s abilities to regulate waterways in a unified and unbiased manner.

Without a doubt, the Ganges Basin Authority established this past February has a tough task ahead. Pollution control needs to be a top priority and measurable goals to be reached in set timeframes established. As some have noted, this governing structure is relatively new for the Indian Government which has often delegated water management duties to state level governments rather than basin-wide approaches, yet if there is positive outcomes in this current initiative, the Ganges may serve to be a model case for other rivers throughout India.

The government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington has warned that:

“The UK is heading for a “perfect storm” of food shortages, scarce water and insufficient energy resources…this will threaten to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from the worst-affected regions.”

The issue of food and energy security rose high on the political agenda last year during a spike in oil and commodity prices. According to the FAO, a further 40 million people were forced into hunger in December 2008, primarily due to higher food prices, which brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, compared to 923 million in 2007.  The ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty.

Future predictions suggest that demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the population tops 8.3 billion. As prices for staple crops continue to rise (rice, maize and wheat) these price increases will be sustained by rising population growth in developing economies. 

“We head into a perfect storm in 2030, because all of these things are operating on the same time frame, and if we don’t address this, we can expect major destabilisation, an increase in rioting and potentially significant problems with international migration, as people move out to avoid food and water shortages” (Quote: Prof John Beddington)

Professor John Beddington was appointed as Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) on 1 January 2008, was previously awarded the Heidelberg Award for Environmental Excellence (June 1997).  His views are supported by the United Nations Environment Programme which predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. 

Climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate; thus according to the UN ”The agriculture industry needs to double its food production, using less water than today.”

Future predictions to fund Biofuel production over the next 15 years, an extra 30bn gallons in the US alone and the EU has a target for biofuels to make up 5.75% of transport fuels by 2010; Beddington comments at the Sustainable Development UK Conference in Westminster 2009:

“It is very hard to imagine how we can see a world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous increase in the demand for food which is quite properly going to happen as we alleviate poverty.” (Quote: Prof John Beddington)

Perhaps improving agricultural productivity is one way to tackle the problem, but at present, 30-40% of all crops are lost due to pest and disease before they are harvested (Beddington), so we need more disease-resistant and pest-resistant plants and better practices, better harvesting procedures.

It has also been suggested that genetically-modified food i.e. plants that are resistant to drought- a mixture of genetic modification and conventional plant breeding offer a solution, but this too is dependent on better water storage and cleaner energy supplies.  Others state that the uses of GM crops are simply unsafe.

The impact on the UK will be higher food prices and increased fuel poverty, but here in the UK Beddington is currently Chair of a new Cabinet Office task force set up to tackle food security. 

 What are your views on what the UK can do to better prepare for this ‘future scarcity storm’?

Glacial melt in the Himalayas (source: treehugger.com)

This week saw a double whammy of bad news for water resources, as research in South Asia and South America gave dire warnings for the future if better water resource management (WRM) was not practised. This is an adaptation issue, particular where melting glaciers are involved, as generally such trends are irreversible.

A UNEP study found that three of South Asia’s largest river basins (Ganges, Indus and Helmand) are highly vulnerable. This could leave millions at risk of increasing water scarcity, as all three basins cover multiple countries. Factors behind the increased scarcity include climate change (Himalayan glaciers receding), overexploitation (aquifers being pumped quicker than they are recharged), and inadequate distribution.

 
The latter two could be addressed to some extent by better WRM at the national and local levels, but the fact that Himalayan glaciers are melting is a rather more difficult one to solve. A recent Climatico article highlighted the politicization of water currently going on in India in particular, which will not make any WRM negotiations easy.

Another study found it is a similar story in South America, with the tropical Andes facing serious water shortages by the end of this century. Again, the insoluble culprit is receding glaciers, which normally supply the area with meltwater on a seasonal basis. It seems that areas of Peru will be the worst affected in the dry season.

Such predictions have become more common in recent years, as the full impacts of climate change on water resources become apparent. It will be difficult to avoid glacial melting, so countries that will be affected need to come up with comprehensive WRM plans at the earliest opportunity. More adaptation financing may become available for water resources at some point, but for the moment such money is more often available for agriculture and similar sectors.

The Baglihar Dam on the Chenab (photo credit:Reuters)

It’s an election year and India’s opposition party has begun setting its agenda on green issues. The National Democratic Alliance’s LK Advani yesterday pledged to make access to drinking water a fundamental right and water conservation a fundamental duty for all Indians. Moreover, key elements of Mr Advani’s campaign will be fighting terrorism and climate change, because “the “destruction of environment” was another form of terrorism.” Nevertheless, going beyond rhetoric and election soundbites, India needs to properly integrate its water resources and set up better regulatory mechanisms that monitor water use efficiency.

Water: the story so far

The question of water security in India is not new, nor is restricted to within India’s borders. But India’s exploding energy needs are pushing the need for water security to the fore. Water management is vital to maintaining India’s growth rate as well as one of India’s biggest obstacles. The government notes that “in order to fuel a sustained 8% annual growth […] basic capacities in the energy sector and related physical infrastructure such as rail, ports, road and water grow by factors of 3 to 7 times by 2031-2032.”

India’s water situation looks bleak. India’s industrial zones are located in water stressed zones. Poor water storage capacities and heavy subsidies given to the agricultural sector have resulted in excessive water wastage and over exploitation of ground water. Furthermore, India is still very dependent on the weather, melting glaciers and patchy monsoons spelling doom for the economy. Rampant urban growth has caused the sudden depletion of wetland areas in many parts: for example, of the 261 lakes in and around Bangalore city in 1961, only 34 remain.

Politicizing water

With such urgent water needs, it is no wonder that water has become politicised at every level - from the city to the state right up to the national and even international level.

Take, for example, the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Despite great untapped hydro-electric potential, J&K suffers from severe power shortages. Projects on Jammu and Kashmir’s primary rivers are restricted by the Indus Waters Treaty which split the rights to the Indus and its tributaries between India and Pakistan equitably.

Two days ago, a tender was awarded for the construction of the 330 MW Kishan Ganga Hydroelectric power project in which will be built on an Indian tributary (the Kishan Ganga) of the Jhelum River. Recalling Pakistan’s strong reservations on the Baglihar Dam project on the Indian side of the Chenab River in 2005 (the dispute went to the World Bank for neutral adjudication) and the Tulbul project which was abandoned in the 1980s due to Pakistan’s objections, India is pushing to complete its project before it falls prey to this political minefield. But this is where the dispute gets interesting. Pakistan has announced a similar project on the Pakistani side of the Jhelum because according to the treaty, the country that completes the project first will win the rights to the river. And so, despite costing 68% more than foreseen, India has pulled out all the stops to get the project finished first.

Nationally, the incumbent coalition is reluctant to implement a project meant to interlink India’s major rivers that was initiated by the opposition. Indian states are notorious for fighting over water rights (remember the Cauvery river water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu that dragged on for over a decade?) forcing the central government to arbitrate settlements on a number of occasions. Most of the major metropolitan areas, are also increasingly facing acute water shortages. Mismanagement of resources, unbalanced growth and inequitable distribution, soaring demands and corruption are just a few reasons behind these recurring issues. Water is surely a political issue, but it keeps falling prey to unnecessary politicisation which results in the common man losing out.

Going beyond rhetoric

India needs to properly integrate its water resources and set up better regulatory mechanisms that monitor water use efficiency. To fully develop its hydropower capacities, it will have to resolve a number of issues: water rights, displacement of people due to water projects, environmental consequences of hydropower projects. Additionally, India will have to greatly increase its water storage capacities, keeping in mind the fact that although storage schemes may make economic sense, they are often politically volatile.

In terms of renewable energy alternatives such as ethanol or biodiesel, India will have to devise alternate methods of production that are not water intensive. Finally, although India has decided to set up a National Water Mission as part of its climate change initiative, water is essentially still a state issue and so states need to step up. Environmental audits need to be taken seriously. Only in states like Himachal Pradesh, where the environment is crucial to their very survival is a climate change policy being drawn out.

This is a big year for India: the national elections are coming up, various green energy summits are being hosted and the private sector is gearing up as well. We’ll just have to see if India’s water woes are addressed, or will they once again become a rarely kept election promise.

To hear about water crisis in Ethiopia does not surprise, but not many people would expect that Mexico, an industrializing country, is facing serious water challenges. Punctually to the 20th anniversary of Conagua (Mexico’s National Water Commission), Mexico City has to close its water taps: from January until the end of the dry season (April), water supplies will be suspended for three days per month, to alleviate water shortages of Mexico City’s fresh water sources, which due to scarce precipitation, have reached the lowest levels for the past 16 years.

This is certainly not a once-off problem but the first signs of the culmination of two phenomena: immense overexploitation of available water resources not just in Mexico City but across the country and decreasing precipitation due to climatic changes.

With respect to the latter, the Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAT) and the Centre for Atmospheric Sciences of the Universidad Autónoma de México estimate that by 2020 precipitation rates in the Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City could fall by 5% while temperatures may rise by up to 1.2 degrees Celsius, increasing evaporation.

And Mexico City is surely not the only place facing these risks: in fact, the entire centre as well as the North of Mexico exhibits a similar problematic: severe overexploitation of water resources, and impending adverse impacts on water resources due to climate change.

What are the key problems: in Mexico City, it is of course rapid growth of the urban area, significant water losses due to an obsolete water distribution system but especially pollution of water bodies due to untreated release of sewage water. According to Government statistics (INEGI) Mexico’s urban areas generate 243 cubic meters of wastewater per second of which 25% drain off somewhere into the land-/cityscape, and only a third of which is treated. This does not account for leakage of pollutants due to waste and refuse such as Mexico City’s “Bordo Poniente”, the world’s second largest landfill site that receives 12.5 thousand tons of waste on a daily basis. In addition, deforestation and land use change threaten hydrological cycles and the replenishment of aquifers.

What are the solutions?

Mexico City is expecting the start of the construction of what will be the world’s largest water treatment plant, with a capacity of processing 23 cubic meters of water per second. Water treatment, the extension of sewage systems and access to potable water are also the priorities of Conagua. All these measures are of dire importance, yet as long as they are not coupled with activities that tackle not only symptoms but the actual root causes of the problem -pollution and overexploitation, due to bad planning at national and local level- Mexico will be ill-prepared to face water related impacts to climate change.

Parched earth in Ethiopia (credit: usaid.gov)

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) recently published some research which found that, in poor countries such as Ethiopia, poverty is a seriously barrier to adaptation.

Apparently, more than a third of rural Ethiopian households have not made any adjustments to their farming practices in the face of global warming. This is despite the fact that water is becoming ever more scarce, and enhanced irrigation systems are crucial if subsistence farmers are to survive. African farmers are overwhelmingly dependent on rain-fed agriculture, and in rural areas there is very poor infrastructure.

The Prime Minister of Ethiopia said at a climate change conference this week: “However unjust it might be we have to adapt or die. We can only succeed to adapt to climate change if we fight poverty effectively and generate the resources needed for the purpose.”

Clearly, adaptation and development must go hand in hand, as he recognises. Nevertheless, the governments of poor countries must be tactical, and give more emphasis to agriculture (and in particular, the sustainability of water supplies to feed their crops) if their populations are to adequately adapt to the forecast temperature increases.

In the study, Ethiopian farmers identified shortages of land as the single biggest constraint to adapting to climate change. This was followed by lack of information and credit as well as lack of labour, inputs, water and poor soils.

The government can help directly in many of these areas, and rich country donors need to do more to support this process, with both financing and know-how. Indeed, as the prime minister went on “The injustice of the whole issue of global warming and climate change lies in the fact that those who have contributed nothing to its genesis will suffer the most from its consequences because they have the least capacity to adapt to these changes.”

Irrigation in Africa (source: fao.org)

Last week, ministers from 53 African countries gathered at a FAO summit in Libya, entitled “Water for Energy and Agriculture in Africa: the Challenges of Climate Change”. It was timely. Irrigated land forms 38% of all land in Asia, but only 7% in Africa, and Africa’s food needs will triple by 2050 if population growth continues at current levels.

Many parts of Africa are already seeing diminishing water resources (as a result of both over-abstraction and climate change), and IPCC predictions suggest this will worsen in many areas, particularly the Sahel.

As is the case with many summits, a main outcome was the call for another summit, this time a bigger one, with all world heads of State and government. FAO suggested this could help find the $30 billion a year that is needed for investment in Africa’s water and rural infrastructure.

More investment is indeed urgent. Agriculture and water have fallen down the development agenda in recent years, as health and education have risen to the fore. This has been reflected in aid levels.

However, the issue of water, particularly as climate change starts to bite harder, must always be tackled holistically. There are numerous users competing for scarce resources: farmers, industry, and most importantly, people drinking the stuff. Only 58% of Sub-Saharan Africans have access to a safe drinking water supply.

Whilst it is crucial to increase water access for agricultural purposes, the poor must not be cut off for the benefit of agribusiness. Mechanisms must be developed for water resource management at a local level which take into account the voice of all users. Without this, the rich and powerful will prevail.

As Africa adapts to climate change, the mantra “some for all, not all for some” must be followed with regard to water, if resources are to be shared equitably and sustainably.