enviornment

As Potential Funding Troubles Mount, Adani Meets Chinese Ambassador

Although it’s unclear what was discussed, the meeting comes days after China’s two top banks said they would not fund the company’s controversial coal mine in Australia.

Luo Zhaohui, Chinese ambassador to India, with Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani (left). Credit: Chinese embassy.

New Delhi: Adani group chairman Gautam Adani on December 6 met with Chinese ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui, days after it was reported that China’s two top banks said they had no plans to finance the company’s controversial coal mine in Australia.

Although it’s unclear what was discussed, the Chinese embassy’s website stated that they “exchanged views on strengthening economic and trade cooperation” between both countries.

“Ambassador Luo Zhaohui, Chinese ambassador to India, met with Gautam, chairman of the Adani Group in India at the embassy. Adani, (sic) exchanged views on strengthening economic and trade cooperation between China and India,” the Chinese version of the website (translated) stated.

The English version of the embassy’s website, as of Thursday evening, has not uploaded a similar notice documenting the meeting.

Australia woes

As per latest estimates, Adani Enterprises needs roughly $1.5 billion in financing by March 2018 for the first staged of its Carmichael coal mine in the state of Queensland.

Earlier this week, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) and the China Construction Bank emphatically noted, in response to media reports stating otherwise, that they were not working on the coal project.

As The Wire has reported in the past, both Australian and overseas banks have been hesitant to grant loans, even as local environmentalists oppose the mine due to climate change and potential for damage to the Great Barrier Reef.

While it’s not clear if Adani was actually in talks with the banks that have issued statements – the conglomerate is primarily in negotiations with the state-owned China Machinery Engineering Corp (CMEC) for a loan – it has been reported that the CMEC deal could have roped in China Construction Bank, which has now ruled out any involvement.

While former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr told The Guardian that he had received confirmation “that no Chinese bank would be financing” the Carmichael project, well-known energy analyst Tim Buckley has noted that it was still very much possible for another Chinese bank to step in.

“At the end of the day, any one of these big Chinese banks could fund 100 percent of the project tomorrow if they wanted. They’re that big,” he told South China Morning Post.

Adani in China

The Adani group, like many Indian conglomerates, also has a history of doing business with Chinese companies. Over the last few years, it has signed a number of memorandum of understandings (MoUs) with Chinese businesses for manufacturing units that will produce everything from solar equipment to chemicals.

The Wire has sent a questionnaire to the Adani Group regarding the Chinese ambassador meeting and will update this story if and when a response is received.

Widespread Invasive Species Control Is a Risky Business

Before we decide to eradicate or control an invasive species, like carp, we need plenty of scientific evidence and independent assessments first.

In 1977, on the islands of French Polynesia, government authorities released a predatory snail. They hoped this introduction would effectively control another species of invasive snail, previously introduced to supply escargot.

Instead, by the early 1980s, scientists reported alarming declines of native snail populations. Within ten years, 48 native snail species (genus Partula) had been driven to extinction in the wild.

The extinction of the Partula is notorious partially because these snails were, before going extinct, the study subjects of the first test in nature of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.

In the decades since, attempts to control and eradicate invasive species have become common, generally with far better results.

However, our paper, published today in Nature Ecology and Evolution, highlights the importance of scientific evidence and independent assessments when deciding whether to control or eradicate invasive species.

From islands to continents

Increasingly, large-scale invasive species control initiatives are being proposed worldwide. As early as 2018, a herpes virus will be released in Australia’s largest river system, targeting invasive common carp. As part of its Threatened Species Strategy, Australia is also planning to kill two million feral cats.

Across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand has made a bold commitment to remove three groups of invasive predators entirely by 2050.

It’s not just Australians and Kiwis making ambitious invasive species control proposals: bounties are being paid to catch invasive fish in the US. The EU has blacklisted 37 species of plants and animals within four million square kilometres, many of which are well-established and will be targeted by control (not preventative) measures.

Meanwhile, new gene editing technology has made the continental-scale eradication of invasive species a real possibility, for example by implementing gene drives that reduce breeding success. If you haven’t heard of it, CRISPR is a startling new biotechnology that makes genetic modification of plants and animals much easier. It offers new potential solutions to some of the world’s worst environmental, agricultural and human health problems.

These schemes will be implemented across large and complex social-ecological systems, and some options – like releasing a virus or genetically engineered species – may be irreversible.

Managing risk

While these projects may yield great benefits, we must be aware of the potential risk of unexpected and undesirable outcomes.

A prime example is the project to remove invasive carp from a million square kilometres of Australia’s rivers. Some scientists have expressed concern about the potential for the virus to jump species, and the effects of having hundreds of tonnes of dead fish fouling waterways and sapping oxygen from the water. The CSIRO and those planning the release of the virus suggest it is safe and effective.

Despite extensive media reporting giving the impression that the plan is approved to go ahead, the National Carp Control Plan has yet to publish a risk assessment, and is planning to deliver a report in 2018.

Removing well-established invasive species can create unforeseen consequences. These species can play significant roles in food webs, provide shelter for native animals, support ecosystem services, and their sudden death can disrupt ecological processes that are important to native species.

For example, a large amount of time and effort was spent in removing the non-native tamarix (or “salt cedar”) in the southwestern US, because of the belief it was harming the water table.

Yet, subsequent research has indicated that the negative effects of tamarix have been exaggerated. In some areas, the plant is actually used by large numbers of endangered flycatchers to nest and fledge their young.

A science-based solution

In our paper, we highlight a series of considerations that should be addressed before plunging into large-scale invasive species control.

Fundamentally, there must be a demonstrable ecological and social benefit from control or eradication, above and beyond the purely ideological. At first this might seem facile, but invasive species control initiatives are often highly politicised, with science taking a back seat. Given scarce funding for conservation, it is crucial that resources are not squandered on programmes that may not deliver – or could cause environmental damage.

We must avoid assuming that attempting to control invasive species will, by default, solve our environmental problems. This means addressing the full range of human pressures which negatively affect biodiversity. We must also consider how removing an influential invasive species could benefit other invasive species, harm native species through increased predation and competition or alter ecological processes or habitat.

Comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of invasive species control programmes allow decision-makers to proactively avoid, manage or accept these risks.

For example, tonnes of decomposing carp post-virus may cause short-term water quality issues, or the death of native species. Ultimately, however, these risks could be acceptable if the virus is effective, and allows native species a window of opportunity to recover.

Large-scale invasive species control demands careful investigation of the risks and rewards. We hope our paper can provide policymakers with better guidelines for science-based decision-making.

R. Keller Kopf is a research fellow at Charles Sturt University, Dale Nimmo is an ARC DECRA Fellow at Charles Sturt University and Paul Humphries is a senior lecturer in Ecology at Charles Sturt University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Community Seed Banks: Securing Diversity for Climate Change Adaptation

Community seed banks can enhance the resilience of farmers’ by securing access to diverse, locally adapted crops and varieties.

Credit: Bioversity International – Bioversity International/C.Fadda – Seeds for Needs, Ethiopia

Rome: For thousands of years, farmers have used genetic diversity to cope with weather variability and changing climate conditions. They have stored, planted, selected and improved seeds to continue producing food in a dynamic environment.

Community seed banks are mostly informal collections of seeds maintained by local communities and managed with their traditional knowledge, whose primary function is to conserve seeds for local use. They can play a major role in climate change adaptation, according to a recent article published by Bioversity International’s researchers Ronnie Vernooy, Bhuwon Sthapit, Gloria Otieno, Pitambar Shrestha and Arnab Gupta.

Based on various countries’ experiences, the article argues that, “community seed banks can enhance the resilience of farmers’ by securing ‘access to, and availability of, diverse, locally adapted crops and varieties”.

According to Vernooy, genetic resources policy specialist at Bioversity International, “mostly because of climate change, there’s a stronger interest in establishing and supporting community seed banks”. However, many of them “are still quite fragile, organisationally and in terms of technical management”, he added.

Bioversity International, which is working in several countries on informal seed systems, has designed a project for community seed banks platform and is currently looking for donors interested in its implementation. The platform aims at reinforcing farmers’ seed systems by supporting existing community seed banks as well as national or regional community seed bank networks around the world, scaling out their activities and contributing to their sustainability. It should have four key functions, covering documentation and analysis to practical experiences, capacity building, research agenda coordination and digitalisation and management of data.

But why do community seed banks matter?

Tools for adaptation

Seeds are stored in diverse types of collections, ranging from international and national genebanks, or ex situ collections where seeds remain often for years or decades, to small seed banks managed locally by farmers. “In the ex-situ collections … seeds are like frozen in time … That means there’s no chance [for them] to adapt in the field to changing conditions”, Vernooy, explained to Degrees of Latitude.

In community banks, seeds usually remain for shorter terms, “sometimes for one year”, Vernooy specified, to be then distributed to farmers: “Those plants are in the field and in the real conditions, so they are adapting themselves to changing circumstances. Then farmers usually select the best seeds of any given crop in the field. Part of those seeds goes back to the community seed banks and the next year the cycle continues”. Moreover, genebanks focus more on the major food crops, while community banks tend to conserve all the diversity farmers have on field, including minor crops, neglected varieties, medicinal plants, wild relatives and even trees.

Community banks not only conserve genetic diversity, they “have the potential … to become seed producers and it’s happening … but it requires support”, Vernooy said. Compared to the formal seed sector – which includes research institutions, genebanks, governmental bodies and private companies – the informal seed bank offers several advantages to small farmers, according to Vernooy. It provides not only “broader [genetic] diversity”, but seeds that are better adapted to farming systems that “tend to be diverse, [located] in marginal, very dry or mountainous areas, etc”, he explained. “[Seeds from the formal sector] tend to require high level of inputs – fertilizers, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides … – and the price is often high”.

However, “it’s not a black and white system”, he stressed. The formal sector can help building farmers’ capacities. In fact, “in many countries we are trying to breach the gap between the formal and the informal systems with activities like participatory plant breeding, but also with the community seed banks … We try to bring the national genebanks work together with the community seed banks”, he said. In an “ideal world community seed banks could be part of what’s called a national conservation system. Right now, governments channel money into national genebanks … Our argument is why not also put a small amount of money into each of the community seed banks that exists or into the new ones that can be established?”, Vernooy said.

Bioversity International – Bioversity International/C. Fadda – Seeds for Needs, Ethiopia

An enabling legal environment

Strengthening community seed banks requires not only technical and financial support but also an enabling policy and legal environment. In many countries, apart from a few like Bhutan, Nepal, Uganda, South Africa, Brazil, “there is no or little recognition of and support for community seed banks …, [and] farmers are not allowed to sell farm-saved seed. In others, legislation to protect farmers’ genetic resources is lacking”, Vernooy’s article reports.

Laws and regulations that can conflict “on what community seed banks are trying to do, [for instance] the intellectual property rights policies …” are also often in place, Vernooy explained. Community seed banks are “like collective enterprises” managed cooperatively: “Laws that prohibit or restrain these collective uses are in contradiction to what community seeds banks do,” Vernooy explained.

From an international perspective, the Convention of Biological Diversity and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture have been “quite supporting”, according to Vernooy. A study out of the Norwegian Development Fund, suggests that community seed banks can also contribute to the implementation of farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds. Those rights are recognized by ITPGRFA, which is legally-binding for 143 countries. The treaty demands contracting parties not only to promote or support “farmers and local communities’ efforts to manage and conserve on-farm their plant genetic resources for food and agriculture” but also “in situ conservation of wild crop relatives and wild plants for food production”.

“ITPGRFA has the farmers’ rights and in principle the text is very much in support of community seed banks, but then it goes back to the national governments to implement those international agreements. So, we are back to the same situation,” Vernooy said.

However, the direction seems clear: “There’s quite a strong international movement of people working on these issues and the international treaty itself is quite interested in advancing on this,” he said.

Photo credits: Bioversity International – Bioversity International/C.Fadda – Seeds for Needs, Ethiopia.

Elena L. Pasquini is editor at Chief Degrees of Latitude.

(IPS)

Activists Continue to Protest Dam Being Built on Brahmaputra

Activists had thought they had won when the BJP campaigned on an anti-big dam manifesto, but the new government continues supporting big dams on the Brahmaputra.

Activists had thought they had won when the BJP campaigned on an anti-big dam manifesto, but the new government continues supporting big dams on the Brahmaputra

The Siang river at Pasighat. Credit: Chandan Kumar Duarah

Locals in Arunachal Pradesh are resisting more dam building on Siang, as the Brahmaputra is known in the region. In a recent meeting on ‘Policy Dialogue for Governance of the Brahmaputra River’ held in Itanagar, the capital city of Arunachal Pradesh, in November, anti-dam leaders faced off against state government officials and some experts had who favoured dam building on the Siang.

Known as the Yarlung Zangbo in China, the Brahmaputra enters Arunachal Pradesh near Gelling from where it is known as the Siang. The total length of the Siang River is 294 km until it meets the Dibang and Lohit rivers at Sadia in Assam. Since Assam too is affected, civil society groups and individuals have been opposing the construction of big dams there as well. Their appeals to different authorities not to give environmental clearances for the dams being built in the four districts of Siang, East Siang, Upper Siang and West Siang have gone unheard.

“We will protect our land, and fight for it!”

The Siang People’s Forum (SPF) and Lower Siang Dam Affected Peoples’ Forum (LSDAPF), who have been spearheading the anti-mega dam movement in the Siang valley, had appealed to the previous central government, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), and also to its chairperson, Sonia Gandhi. They have now appealed to the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and in a memorandum to the Prakash Javadekar, who was then the minister of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC), the SPF declared that the four districts would not compromise on their demand of scrapping all mega dams over the Siang river.

Nonetheless the big dams are still being built. While construction on some has been halted by the courts, others continue. Vijay Taram, an anti-dam activist with the Forum for Siang Dialogue, said, “We are not against small dam and dams on tributaries of Siang”, but “big dams will spoil our lives and livelihood. If completed they will flood all fertile agricultural lands, destroying the flora and fauna of entire Siang belt and displace thousands of people of Siang valley. Tribal men will lose their traditional hunting grounds as well as the link to their culture.”

“We did not get our land from the British or Indians,” he said. “We inherited it from our forefathers. We will protect our land, and fight for it!”

Massive impact on ecology and livelihoods

The Siang districts belong to the indigenous communities of the Adi and Galo tribes. Twenty-three of their villages are on the banks of the Siang River and will be directly affected by the project. Rice is a staple food of Adi and Galo people and wet rice fields are situated just above the Siang River. The planned dam will submerge these fields, threatening the very survival of these tribes. Anti-dam movement leaders say that their right to free, prior and informed consent (as enshrined by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) is not only being ignored, but deliberately avoided.

A typical Adi house in Pasighat [image by Chandan Kumar Duarah]

A typical Adi house in Pasighat. Credit: Chandan Kumar Duarah

The main dam is being constructed across the Siang, the main stem of the Brahmaputra, and upon completion the dam reservoir will hold 10 billion cubic metres of water. The hydropower project at Siang will generate between 10,000 and 12,000 MW, making it the largest hydroelectric dam in India.

A report commissioned by the Central Water Commission noted that, “Siang Lower hydroelectric project (2,700 MW), Siang Upper Stage II (3,750 MW) and Siang Upper Stage I (6,000 MW) are planned to cover almost the entire length of the Siang in India. More than 200km of the river will be converted into one continuous reservoir as all three projects are planned back-to-back without any free flowing intermediate river stretch.”

Once the dams are built, the Siang basin will never be the same again. Studies by the Central Water Commission point out that the 44 planned dams within India will change the natural flow of the water in 29 rivers and streams. As of now, these rivers and streams stretch out over 514 km. Once the dams are built, all of it would be altered — 353 km will turn into reservoirs, and close to 161 km will be converted into tunnels.

This would inevitably change the basin’s 15,000 square km of forest. The Siang basin is home to 11 different kinds of forests, 1,349 plant species and 1,197 animal and fish species. The official assessment of the dams’ cumulative impact predicts that much of this wildlife will migrate, some perhaps forever. Fish species too would find life more difficult once the natural flow of water changes.

Development, not dams

In three districts of Siang, not a single villager was informed about the plan and recommendation for dams. Local people still do not know how many dams are being planned in their region. They do not want dams, but they do want development of the area and a good market where they can sell their agricultural produce.

People weigh the impact of the dams and conclude that the progress it will bring may outweigh any adverse changes. People fear flash floods that they have seen earlier. In June 2000, the Siang flooded, killing at least 30 people. More than 100 went missing.

David Gao, an anti-dam activist and assistant professor at the department of political science in Rajiv Gandhi University, says the construction of this mega dam might lead to consequences which will harm the indigenous people. Unfortunately for the people, they do not know who to turn to for help. The position of the political parties has changed over time.

The changing promises of political parties

People of Siang were disheartened by the U-turn on the issue by the NDA after it came to power at the centre in 2014. Before the elections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had won the support of dam activists from the area after he stated at a rally in Pasighta that he would prefer smaller hydro power projects and honour the sentiments of the region’s people. But after the elections, his government cleared the construction of the 3,000 MW Dibang Hydro Electric Project in Dibang Valley in Arunachal Pradesh.

A BJP member of the local assembly, Ashok Singhal, who earlier led an anti-dam organisation, now supports dam-building on the Brahmaputra after winning elections in the Dhekiajuli constituency in Assam. “Dams are useful for Assam”, he said.

Fighting at the public hearings

Public hearings over the dams have now become signs of contention. On April 16 2016, police fired live rounds in the air and used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse activists who had sought to block access to the public hearing scheduled for 17, 18 and 20 April. Two protestors were reportedly injured and several of them assaulted, beaten and humiliated. The hearing itself was cancelled the next day when people came out in the streets in hordes and anti-dam activists reportedly burnt the vehicles and site used for the public hearing in retaliation to intimidation from armed individuals deployed by Jaypee Arunachal Power Limited, which is building the dam.

Local opposition to the dam construction had already forced the state government and Jaypee Arunachal Power Limited to postpone public hearings three times in the past.

Two anti-dam activists flanked by a dam supporter, from left to right: Vijay Taram, Tomi Ete, and David Gao [image by Chandan Kumar Duarah]

Two anti-dam activists flanked by a dam supporter, from left to right: Vijay Taram, Tomi Ete, and David Gao. Credit: Chandan Kumar Duarah

This does not mean that dams are without local supporters. Local government leaders and experts say that dams not only produce electricity but also help in regulation of flood. Tomi Ete, a retired chief secretary, who also served as the commissioner of the public works department and public health department suggested that Arunachal Pradesh has limited resources for development and the protestors need to see what is possible for the next generation. Others have suggested that since China has built dams on the river in Tibet, India should do the same in a form of “dam-building race”.

These arguments played out during the November meeting in Itanagar, with those proposing to move forward with the dam being opposed by those who thought their cost – to livelihood and the ecology – was too high. As both groups remain steadfast, it is unsure of what will happen in the future, but it is unlikely that this conflict will go away.

Chandan Kumar Duarah is a Guwahati based journalist.