The first RISK Award was launched during the 3rd Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Geneva this year. For the first time, the Global Risk Forum, Munich Re Foundation, and United Nations Secretariat for the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) decided to join forces and offer a €100,000 award. The award will support the most promising proposal in risk reduction and disaster management. The award will be handed over at GRF Davos' biennial IDRC Davos conferences – for the first time on 26 August 2012 at the 4th IDRC Davos 2012.
The objective of the RISK Award is to increase people’s resilience to risks and disasters, especially in developing countries. A further objective is to stimulate new and innovative approaches towards improved disaster prevention.
The first 2012 award will focus on Early Warning in Urban Areas. Deadline is on 31 December 2011.
To apply to the Risk Award please download the proposal form at www.risk-award.org and send the complete form by 31 December 2011 to info@munichre-foundation.org
Also find additional information on the RISK Award on the Munich Re Foundation website www.munichre-foundation.org.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Record-high greenhouse gases to linger for decades —UN
By Tom Miles
Source: GMA News at http://www.gmanews.tv/story/239253/technology/record-high-greenhouse-gases-to-linger-for-decades-un(Viewed on 22 November 2011).
GENEVA - Concentrations of the three main greenhouse gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in the atmosphere for decades, even if the world stops emissions output today, the U.N.'s weather agency said on Monday.
Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose by 2.3 parts per million to 389 ppm in 2010 from the previous year, higher than the 1990s average (1.5 ppm) and the past decade (2.0 ppm), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.
If the world is to limit global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, scientists say emissions volumes must not have more than 450 ppm of carbon dioxide.
"The atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases due to human activities has yet again reached record levels since pre-industrial time," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
"Even if we managed to halt our greenhouse gas emissions today, and this is far from the case, they would continue to linger in the atmosphere for decades to come and so continue to affect the delicate balance of our living planet and our climate," he said.
The report adds to a number of warnings that time is running out to act on climate change and prevent worsening extreme weather as the Earth's temperature rises.
BP data earlier this year showed global carbon dioxide emissions grew at their fastest rate since 1969 last year, as countries rebounded from economic recession.
In 2010, countries agreed in Cancun, Mexico, that deep emissions cuts were needed to hold an increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a threshold beyond which scientists say risks even more extreme weather, crop failure and major floods.
Delegates from nearly 200 countries will meet in South Africa next week for a U.N. summit but only modest steps towards a broader climate deal are seen as likely.
HOTTING UP
The WMO said greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increased by 1.4 percent last year from 2009 and 29 percent since 1990, mainly driven by fossil fuel use and agriculture.
The WMO measured the overall amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, based on monitoring stations in more than 50 countries, including natural emissions and absorption processes - so-called sources and sinks - as well as emissions caused by human activity.
Three of the most dangerous gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, were more prevalent in the atmosphere in 2010 than at any time since the industrial revolution.
The second biggest greenhouse gas, methane, has been growing in the past five years after levelling off between 2000 and 2006, for reasons that are not fully understood.
The third biggest greenhouse gas is nitrous oxide, which can trap almost 300 times as much heat as carbon dioxide. Its main human source is the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers, which the report said had "profoundly affected the global nitrogen cycle".
The impact of fertiliser use is so marked that more nitrous oxide is detected in the northern hemisphere, where more fertiliser is used, than in the south.
The WMO data showed no pause in the growth of greenhouse gases and more work needs to be done to help understand which policies would have the most effect, the report's authors said.
So far, the clearest discernable impact of policies was a decrease in chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which were banned because they caused depletion of the ozone layer.
But hydrofluorocarbons, which have replaced CFCs, are also potent greenhouse gases and their abundance in the atmosphere, while still small, is rising at a rapid rate. — Reuters
Source: GMA News at http://www.gmanews.tv/story/239253/technology/record-high-greenhouse-gases-to-linger-for-decades-un(Viewed on 22 November 2011).
GENEVA - Concentrations of the three main greenhouse gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in the atmosphere for decades, even if the world stops emissions output today, the U.N.'s weather agency said on Monday.
Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose by 2.3 parts per million to 389 ppm in 2010 from the previous year, higher than the 1990s average (1.5 ppm) and the past decade (2.0 ppm), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.
If the world is to limit global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius, scientists say emissions volumes must not have more than 450 ppm of carbon dioxide.
"The atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases due to human activities has yet again reached record levels since pre-industrial time," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
"Even if we managed to halt our greenhouse gas emissions today, and this is far from the case, they would continue to linger in the atmosphere for decades to come and so continue to affect the delicate balance of our living planet and our climate," he said.
The report adds to a number of warnings that time is running out to act on climate change and prevent worsening extreme weather as the Earth's temperature rises.
BP data earlier this year showed global carbon dioxide emissions grew at their fastest rate since 1969 last year, as countries rebounded from economic recession.
In 2010, countries agreed in Cancun, Mexico, that deep emissions cuts were needed to hold an increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a threshold beyond which scientists say risks even more extreme weather, crop failure and major floods.
Delegates from nearly 200 countries will meet in South Africa next week for a U.N. summit but only modest steps towards a broader climate deal are seen as likely.
HOTTING UP
The WMO said greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increased by 1.4 percent last year from 2009 and 29 percent since 1990, mainly driven by fossil fuel use and agriculture.
The WMO measured the overall amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, based on monitoring stations in more than 50 countries, including natural emissions and absorption processes - so-called sources and sinks - as well as emissions caused by human activity.
Three of the most dangerous gases, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, were more prevalent in the atmosphere in 2010 than at any time since the industrial revolution.
The second biggest greenhouse gas, methane, has been growing in the past five years after levelling off between 2000 and 2006, for reasons that are not fully understood.
The third biggest greenhouse gas is nitrous oxide, which can trap almost 300 times as much heat as carbon dioxide. Its main human source is the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers, which the report said had "profoundly affected the global nitrogen cycle".
The impact of fertiliser use is so marked that more nitrous oxide is detected in the northern hemisphere, where more fertiliser is used, than in the south.
The WMO data showed no pause in the growth of greenhouse gases and more work needs to be done to help understand which policies would have the most effect, the report's authors said.
So far, the clearest discernable impact of policies was a decrease in chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which were banned because they caused depletion of the ozone layer.
But hydrofluorocarbons, which have replaced CFCs, are also potent greenhouse gases and their abundance in the atmosphere, while still small, is rising at a rapid rate. — Reuters
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
Climate change blamed for storms, flooding, drought
An inconvenient truth for Philippines: Wetter, drier
By Cathy Yamsuan, Kristine L. Alave
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 3, 2011 at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/69281/climate-change-blamed-for-storms-flooding-drought#disqus_thread
Officials have warned Filipinos to brace against the inconvenient truth of devastating storms, flooding and drought unless policies and projects are put in place to mitigate climate change.
Undersecretary Graciano Yumul of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) said that in the next 20 to 50 years, the Philippines would find “the dry seasons drier and the wet seasons wetter.”
“With the climate change scenario, we will see more of this as a frequent reality,” Yumul said in an interview. “What we used to consider as abnormal we should now consider as normal,” he noted.
Scientists describe the phenomenon as any distinct changes in weather patterns, such as temperature, rainfall, wind and snow over a long period of time.
A major factor is global warming—the increase in the oceanic and atmospheric temperatures of the planet resulting in the melting of the ice caps and the rising of the seas.
The doomsday scenarios, depicted in Al Gore’s 2006 award-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” are now playing out in the Philippines.
The climatology division of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (Pagasa) has released the results of a study in 2010 concluding that climate data from 1960 to 2003 showed significant increases in the frequency of hot days and warm nights in many areas of the country.
On the other hand, Pagasa observed that cooler days had decreased. This trend mirrors the experience of other countries in Southeast Asia, Pagasa said as it predicted more rains in the Philippines in the coming decades.
“Reduction of rainfall is seen in March, April and May in most provinces, while rainfall increases are likely in Luzon and Visayas in 2020 and 2050 during the June-July-August and September-October-November seasons,” the study said.
“Greater increase in rainfall is expected in the provinces of Luzon (0.9-63 percent) and Visayas (2-22 percent) during the peak southwest monsoon period (June-July-August).”
The number of days where temperature will breach 35 degrees Celsius will also increase in 2020 and 2050, according to Pagasa models.
Fishponds
Antonio Apostol Jr., chief geologist of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, said human activities in the regions that bore the brunt of Typhoons “Pedring” and “Quiel” that struck the country last week exacerbated the hazards and the risks.
The plains of Bulacan and Pampanga have always been prone to floods, he said.
But the proliferation of fishponds and aquaculture projects in the major waterways and in the coasts has slowed down the flow of water from the typhoons and the dams, resulting in prolonged flooding in residential and rural areas, Apostol said.
“These have a multiplier effect. So when the water was released from the dams, the natural drainage could not handle it anymore,” he said.
If there were no fishponds and garbage clogging the canals and rivers of the region, “the outflow would have been quicker,” Apostol said.
Floods and landslides will be more widespread until officials realize that they should adapt to the changes in weather and lessen their effects on the general population, Apostol and Yumul said.
“In other parts of the country, we are seeing the same situation. In the cities of Butuan and Cotabato, there were floods, too, because the rivers were clogged with water lilies,” Apostol said.
“In Cotabato, for instance, the industries pollute the river there with nitrates which induce the growth of the lilies,” he added.
Deforestation
Yumul also noted that deforestation had caused flooding in areas which did not experience it in the past. “The deforestation in the last 20, 50 years has come back to us,” he said.
Local officials, he said, should be more prepared to respond to extreme weather events to prevent the loss of lives and properties. “We’ve been telling them this for the last 10 years,” Yumul said.
Ricardo Calderon, regional executive director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said yesterday that forest cover in the western side of Nueva Ecija and Bulacan was still adequate. He blamed flooding on heavy rainfall, the release of dam water and high tide.
“Although our forest cover may be high, the trees could not retain the volume of water,” Calderon said.
He denied illegal logging was rampant, disputing claims by Philippine Daily Inquirer informants that local officials were collaborating with the activity.
‘Ondoy’ scenario
Senator Loren Legarda, chair of the Senate climate change committee, said she called Yumul on Saturday night to ask whether protocols in releasing water from dams in Central Luzon were observed last week.
“The undersecretary said floods will be the norm, that even if a typhoon brings a lighter volume of water, we can expect this scenario happening now with Typhoons Pedring and Quiel. He said Pedring brought only 30 percent of Ondoy’s volume and yet the damage was nearly the same,” Legarda told the Inquirer.
“That means if Tropical Storm ‘Ondoy’ happens again, a typhoon with that huge amount of rain, we have to brace for even deeper floods,” she warned.
Legarda said the confluence of events she had been warning against for years had now led to disturbing images of helpless residents waiting for help on rooftops, long lines of people queuing for potable water, and whole barangays transformed into river extensions.
Soil erosion
The senator said that illegal logging, slash-and-burn farming and quarrying in mountain areas would lead to soil erosion and flooding.
Representatives of the Central Luzon dam operators have been summoned to a hearing of the Senate on Monday afternoon.
“If (Pagasa) can predict the volume of rainfall, dam operators can already release water in increments that would not be destructive,” Legarda explained.
“If this kind of meteorological information can be determined, say, one week before a typhoon arrives, does it not make common sense that the dam operators would not release the water only on the day it finally arrives,” she asked.
She noted that dam reportedly released water on September 27, after Pedring struck.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile cautioned that predicting rainfall would not be easy.
“The nature of calamity is that weather is really unpredictable. Who really knows if the rainfall prediction is correct? What if the amount of water released by the dams based on Pagasa’s advisory could not be recovered from the expected rains?” Enrile said.
He said that while the government could always attempt to determine accountability, “we’ll have to find long-term solutions and planning, instead of just prosecuting anybody.” With reports from Tonette Orejas and Carmela Reyes-Estrope, Inquirer Central Luzon
By Cathy Yamsuan, Kristine L. Alave
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 3, 2011 at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/69281/climate-change-blamed-for-storms-flooding-drought#disqus_thread
Officials have warned Filipinos to brace against the inconvenient truth of devastating storms, flooding and drought unless policies and projects are put in place to mitigate climate change.
Undersecretary Graciano Yumul of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) said that in the next 20 to 50 years, the Philippines would find “the dry seasons drier and the wet seasons wetter.”
“With the climate change scenario, we will see more of this as a frequent reality,” Yumul said in an interview. “What we used to consider as abnormal we should now consider as normal,” he noted.
Scientists describe the phenomenon as any distinct changes in weather patterns, such as temperature, rainfall, wind and snow over a long period of time.
A major factor is global warming—the increase in the oceanic and atmospheric temperatures of the planet resulting in the melting of the ice caps and the rising of the seas.
The doomsday scenarios, depicted in Al Gore’s 2006 award-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” are now playing out in the Philippines.
The climatology division of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (Pagasa) has released the results of a study in 2010 concluding that climate data from 1960 to 2003 showed significant increases in the frequency of hot days and warm nights in many areas of the country.
On the other hand, Pagasa observed that cooler days had decreased. This trend mirrors the experience of other countries in Southeast Asia, Pagasa said as it predicted more rains in the Philippines in the coming decades.
“Reduction of rainfall is seen in March, April and May in most provinces, while rainfall increases are likely in Luzon and Visayas in 2020 and 2050 during the June-July-August and September-October-November seasons,” the study said.
“Greater increase in rainfall is expected in the provinces of Luzon (0.9-63 percent) and Visayas (2-22 percent) during the peak southwest monsoon period (June-July-August).”
The number of days where temperature will breach 35 degrees Celsius will also increase in 2020 and 2050, according to Pagasa models.
Fishponds
Antonio Apostol Jr., chief geologist of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, said human activities in the regions that bore the brunt of Typhoons “Pedring” and “Quiel” that struck the country last week exacerbated the hazards and the risks.
The plains of Bulacan and Pampanga have always been prone to floods, he said.
But the proliferation of fishponds and aquaculture projects in the major waterways and in the coasts has slowed down the flow of water from the typhoons and the dams, resulting in prolonged flooding in residential and rural areas, Apostol said.
“These have a multiplier effect. So when the water was released from the dams, the natural drainage could not handle it anymore,” he said.
If there were no fishponds and garbage clogging the canals and rivers of the region, “the outflow would have been quicker,” Apostol said.
Floods and landslides will be more widespread until officials realize that they should adapt to the changes in weather and lessen their effects on the general population, Apostol and Yumul said.
“In other parts of the country, we are seeing the same situation. In the cities of Butuan and Cotabato, there were floods, too, because the rivers were clogged with water lilies,” Apostol said.
“In Cotabato, for instance, the industries pollute the river there with nitrates which induce the growth of the lilies,” he added.
Deforestation
Yumul also noted that deforestation had caused flooding in areas which did not experience it in the past. “The deforestation in the last 20, 50 years has come back to us,” he said.
Local officials, he said, should be more prepared to respond to extreme weather events to prevent the loss of lives and properties. “We’ve been telling them this for the last 10 years,” Yumul said.
Ricardo Calderon, regional executive director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said yesterday that forest cover in the western side of Nueva Ecija and Bulacan was still adequate. He blamed flooding on heavy rainfall, the release of dam water and high tide.
“Although our forest cover may be high, the trees could not retain the volume of water,” Calderon said.
He denied illegal logging was rampant, disputing claims by Philippine Daily Inquirer informants that local officials were collaborating with the activity.
‘Ondoy’ scenario
Senator Loren Legarda, chair of the Senate climate change committee, said she called Yumul on Saturday night to ask whether protocols in releasing water from dams in Central Luzon were observed last week.
“The undersecretary said floods will be the norm, that even if a typhoon brings a lighter volume of water, we can expect this scenario happening now with Typhoons Pedring and Quiel. He said Pedring brought only 30 percent of Ondoy’s volume and yet the damage was nearly the same,” Legarda told the Inquirer.
“That means if Tropical Storm ‘Ondoy’ happens again, a typhoon with that huge amount of rain, we have to brace for even deeper floods,” she warned.
Legarda said the confluence of events she had been warning against for years had now led to disturbing images of helpless residents waiting for help on rooftops, long lines of people queuing for potable water, and whole barangays transformed into river extensions.
Soil erosion
The senator said that illegal logging, slash-and-burn farming and quarrying in mountain areas would lead to soil erosion and flooding.
Representatives of the Central Luzon dam operators have been summoned to a hearing of the Senate on Monday afternoon.
“If (Pagasa) can predict the volume of rainfall, dam operators can already release water in increments that would not be destructive,” Legarda explained.
“If this kind of meteorological information can be determined, say, one week before a typhoon arrives, does it not make common sense that the dam operators would not release the water only on the day it finally arrives,” she asked.
She noted that dam reportedly released water on September 27, after Pedring struck.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile cautioned that predicting rainfall would not be easy.
“The nature of calamity is that weather is really unpredictable. Who really knows if the rainfall prediction is correct? What if the amount of water released by the dams based on Pagasa’s advisory could not be recovered from the expected rains?” Enrile said.
He said that while the government could always attempt to determine accountability, “we’ll have to find long-term solutions and planning, instead of just prosecuting anybody.” With reports from Tonette Orejas and Carmela Reyes-Estrope, Inquirer Central Luzon
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Definition of ‘Environmental Governance’ Revisited
Posted by Walker on Aug 1, 2011 in Environmental Governance | 0 comments
You know those moments when you are at a social event and get introduced to a stranger for the first time? It is almost inevitable thaht the conversation will turn to career and personal interests.
What do you do?
I’m a consultant and an avid enthusiast in environmental governance issues.
Wow. That sounds really (ahem) interesting! Excuse me while I bury my head in the sand.
Yes, that is the point at which my new acquaintance tends to lose interest in this new conversation. Now, I’m pretty sure it’s not me personally that causes this haze of boredom in the poor fellow’s eyes. I don’t have a monotone voice like the professor in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (played spectacularly by Ben Stein) which would cause my audience to fall asleep.
No, I’m afraid the culprit is often the words “environmental” and “governance” put together. Environmental governance. Did your eyelids just close a notch? If they did, you are not alone. It seems that environmental governance is a poorly understood topic which rarely gets discussed at parties, social gatherings, or just about anywhere for that matter. But don’t let that fool you. Environmental governance is one of the most important and crucial topics of our time. But what exactly is it?
Well, like most words in our modern lexicon, there are varying definitions of environmental governance. Is it fair to just dissect the words at their most basic, and call environmental governance the ‘process of governing the environment and those issues associated with the environment’? Well, let’s take a look at how some other use the term ‘environmental governance’:
Wallace Partners, an advisory firm, says on their website that “environmental governance is where sustainability performance and traditional corporate governance intersect”. Great! Perfect topic then, for the Convergence Journal. But this definition is actually much narrower than other definitions because it has limited the scope to corporate governance alone. Surely more other stakeholders beyond corporations have an interest and stake in how the environment is governed!
Wikipedia sums up environmental governance as “a concept in political ecology or environmental policy related to defining the elements needed to achieve sustainability.” That seems more acceptable for the academic or research associate, but in turn drops off the corporate governance aspect. And, of course, civil society… where are the people?!
On a post titled Definition of Environmental Governance, Prof. Ebinezer R. Florano of the EcoGov blog states that “There are many definitions but I found them all wanting”, and goes on to formulate a fantastic definition:
“ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE can be defined or characterized as: Multi-level interactions (i.e., local, national, international/global) among, but not limited to, three main actors, i.e., state, market, and civil society, which interact with one another, whether in formal and informal ways; in formulating and implementing policies in response to environment-related demands and inputs from the society; bound by rules, procedures, processes, and widely-accepted behavior; possessing characteristics of “good governance”; for the purpose of attaining environmentally-sustainable development.” – Prof. E.R. Florano, University of the Philippines
Of the three, I feel that Prof. Florano’s definition is by far the most accurate and complete with respect to how the term “environmental governance” is used by academics, policy makers, and the environmental community interested in governance issues. It’s ironic that Prof. Florano opened his post by confessing that he found all other definitions “wanting”; I sense that many others (you, maybe?) agree with Prof. Florano, which is part of the reason why my acquaintance at the cocktail party zoned out when the idea of environmental governance is raised — because the very sound of it (and indeed, the usage of it) — is nuanced, complex and wanting.
Still, as spot on as Prof. Florano’s definition may be, it is still complex and lengthy for the average person with no background in environmental policy. Many topics are nested in the definition: “sustainable development” (and everyone agrees on what ‘sustainable’ means, right? Wrong), “society”; “widely-accepted behavior”; and of course, “good governance”. All of these terms are rife with their own debatable definitions. Can’t we follow the straight talk of the second century Greek satirist, Lucian, and just call “a fig a fig and a boat a boat” and leave it at that? Perhaps. It would serve the environmental governance community well to proceed with a common understanding so we can excite more friends, family and community members to engage in environmental governance rather than grow weary of it. But part of the trouble in mainstreaming environmental governance, in my opinion, is that it remains a complex topic to define in layman’s terms.
Hence, I will offer a much slimmer and “easier-to-digest” definition of environmental governance which you can use at the water cooler to pique your colleagues’ interest without overwhelming them:
“Environmental governance is the way in which you or I choose to engage with communities, schools, businesses and politicians to manage the process and structure by which our natural resources and environment are used but also sustained for future generations — for our children and their children thereafter.” – Walker Young
Let’s break this definition down to its fundamental pieces.
This definition is given in ‘first person’ — notice the use of “you or I”. This is intentional, so that the controls and reigns of civil society remains with the people. Indeed, if people like “you or I” work in the businesses which power the private sector, then we too have a role to play in market-driven governance. If people like “you or I” democratically elect politicians to represent our interests, then we too have a role to play in the political process. Hence, “you or I” lets the audience know that “we” are also the drivers of environmental governance, for better or worse.
Governance is a choice. We choose to be involved and engaged or we choose to ignore. Again, the choice is ours in how the process is managed, but we need to choose. If we choose disinterest over engagement, isolation over multilateralism, then we make the bed which we sleep in. This definition requires citizens to make a stand and be a part of change, otherwise the governance process falls apart. There are certainly examples of the latter scenario in many places today.
The reference to “communities, schools, businesses and politicians” makes sure that all stakeholders are included. The choice of “schools” over the more formal “academia” was intentional; it feels more grounded and relevant to all communities since schools are nearly universal in reach at the local level while universities are not.
Other definitions of environmental governance usually focus on the “process”; however, the process is only one aspect of establishing proper governance at any scale. Equally important is the “structure”, which I have purposefully included in my definition above. In terms of global governance, UNEP (and the UN in general) are process experts. There are processes for dealing with all sorts of environmental issues, from climate change to soil erosion to invasive species like Australia’s problematic cane toad. But one important area where UNEP needs improvements are in its structure — the architecture by which the process is implemented and carried out. Proper environmental governance needs systems thinking to develop a generative model by which processes occur efficiently and fluidly, and where decisions lead to results without multiple detours and sidetracks in between. Every good plan starts with a proper design and strategy.
It’s not enough to refer to “sustainable development” in the definition of environmental governance. Although sustainable development has become common parlance for those following current events and news, it is easy for outsiders to write it off as technocratic babble. Most people are not familiar with the Brundtland Commission or “Our Common Future”: The Brundtland Report, which lays out the commonly accepted definition of sustainable development. This is why I instead include the phrase “by which our natural resources and environment are used but also sustained” and then proceed to reference “for future generations” in homage to the Brundtland definition. Again, I simplify “future generations” by ending with “for our children and their children thereafter” so that readers take to heart that “future generations” is not some alien race millions of years into the future; it is our generation and that which follows us. This hits home with much more impact than “future generations”. Parents already can envision a future for their children, and most parents will want to be able to envision that future as a bright one.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
While I am not ultimately sure if my offered definition of environmental governance is any more useful than its predecessors, I do hope that my rationale above is useful for the reader to think about and consider. If you do enjoy the definition, please do start using it and spreading the word. I feel strongly that environmental governance needs more engagement from us, the people, in order for the outcomes we so desperately desire to take root. I think the definition offered helps place the ball in our court — now it’s up to us to take it forward.
Source: Walker Young at http://walker-young.com/2011/08/definition-revisited/ (viewed on 7 September 2011).
You know those moments when you are at a social event and get introduced to a stranger for the first time? It is almost inevitable thaht the conversation will turn to career and personal interests.
What do you do?
I’m a consultant and an avid enthusiast in environmental governance issues.
Wow. That sounds really (ahem) interesting! Excuse me while I bury my head in the sand.
Yes, that is the point at which my new acquaintance tends to lose interest in this new conversation. Now, I’m pretty sure it’s not me personally that causes this haze of boredom in the poor fellow’s eyes. I don’t have a monotone voice like the professor in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (played spectacularly by Ben Stein) which would cause my audience to fall asleep.
No, I’m afraid the culprit is often the words “environmental” and “governance” put together. Environmental governance. Did your eyelids just close a notch? If they did, you are not alone. It seems that environmental governance is a poorly understood topic which rarely gets discussed at parties, social gatherings, or just about anywhere for that matter. But don’t let that fool you. Environmental governance is one of the most important and crucial topics of our time. But what exactly is it?
Well, like most words in our modern lexicon, there are varying definitions of environmental governance. Is it fair to just dissect the words at their most basic, and call environmental governance the ‘process of governing the environment and those issues associated with the environment’? Well, let’s take a look at how some other use the term ‘environmental governance’:
Wallace Partners, an advisory firm, says on their website that “environmental governance is where sustainability performance and traditional corporate governance intersect”. Great! Perfect topic then, for the Convergence Journal. But this definition is actually much narrower than other definitions because it has limited the scope to corporate governance alone. Surely more other stakeholders beyond corporations have an interest and stake in how the environment is governed!
Wikipedia sums up environmental governance as “a concept in political ecology or environmental policy related to defining the elements needed to achieve sustainability.” That seems more acceptable for the academic or research associate, but in turn drops off the corporate governance aspect. And, of course, civil society… where are the people?!
On a post titled Definition of Environmental Governance, Prof. Ebinezer R. Florano of the EcoGov blog states that “There are many definitions but I found them all wanting”, and goes on to formulate a fantastic definition:
“ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE can be defined or characterized as: Multi-level interactions (i.e., local, national, international/global) among, but not limited to, three main actors, i.e., state, market, and civil society, which interact with one another, whether in formal and informal ways; in formulating and implementing policies in response to environment-related demands and inputs from the society; bound by rules, procedures, processes, and widely-accepted behavior; possessing characteristics of “good governance”; for the purpose of attaining environmentally-sustainable development.” – Prof. E.R. Florano, University of the Philippines
Of the three, I feel that Prof. Florano’s definition is by far the most accurate and complete with respect to how the term “environmental governance” is used by academics, policy makers, and the environmental community interested in governance issues. It’s ironic that Prof. Florano opened his post by confessing that he found all other definitions “wanting”; I sense that many others (you, maybe?) agree with Prof. Florano, which is part of the reason why my acquaintance at the cocktail party zoned out when the idea of environmental governance is raised — because the very sound of it (and indeed, the usage of it) — is nuanced, complex and wanting.
Still, as spot on as Prof. Florano’s definition may be, it is still complex and lengthy for the average person with no background in environmental policy. Many topics are nested in the definition: “sustainable development” (and everyone agrees on what ‘sustainable’ means, right? Wrong), “society”; “widely-accepted behavior”; and of course, “good governance”. All of these terms are rife with their own debatable definitions. Can’t we follow the straight talk of the second century Greek satirist, Lucian, and just call “a fig a fig and a boat a boat” and leave it at that? Perhaps. It would serve the environmental governance community well to proceed with a common understanding so we can excite more friends, family and community members to engage in environmental governance rather than grow weary of it. But part of the trouble in mainstreaming environmental governance, in my opinion, is that it remains a complex topic to define in layman’s terms.
Hence, I will offer a much slimmer and “easier-to-digest” definition of environmental governance which you can use at the water cooler to pique your colleagues’ interest without overwhelming them:
“Environmental governance is the way in which you or I choose to engage with communities, schools, businesses and politicians to manage the process and structure by which our natural resources and environment are used but also sustained for future generations — for our children and their children thereafter.” – Walker Young
Let’s break this definition down to its fundamental pieces.
This definition is given in ‘first person’ — notice the use of “you or I”. This is intentional, so that the controls and reigns of civil society remains with the people. Indeed, if people like “you or I” work in the businesses which power the private sector, then we too have a role to play in market-driven governance. If people like “you or I” democratically elect politicians to represent our interests, then we too have a role to play in the political process. Hence, “you or I” lets the audience know that “we” are also the drivers of environmental governance, for better or worse.
Governance is a choice. We choose to be involved and engaged or we choose to ignore. Again, the choice is ours in how the process is managed, but we need to choose. If we choose disinterest over engagement, isolation over multilateralism, then we make the bed which we sleep in. This definition requires citizens to make a stand and be a part of change, otherwise the governance process falls apart. There are certainly examples of the latter scenario in many places today.
The reference to “communities, schools, businesses and politicians” makes sure that all stakeholders are included. The choice of “schools” over the more formal “academia” was intentional; it feels more grounded and relevant to all communities since schools are nearly universal in reach at the local level while universities are not.
Other definitions of environmental governance usually focus on the “process”; however, the process is only one aspect of establishing proper governance at any scale. Equally important is the “structure”, which I have purposefully included in my definition above. In terms of global governance, UNEP (and the UN in general) are process experts. There are processes for dealing with all sorts of environmental issues, from climate change to soil erosion to invasive species like Australia’s problematic cane toad. But one important area where UNEP needs improvements are in its structure — the architecture by which the process is implemented and carried out. Proper environmental governance needs systems thinking to develop a generative model by which processes occur efficiently and fluidly, and where decisions lead to results without multiple detours and sidetracks in between. Every good plan starts with a proper design and strategy.
It’s not enough to refer to “sustainable development” in the definition of environmental governance. Although sustainable development has become common parlance for those following current events and news, it is easy for outsiders to write it off as technocratic babble. Most people are not familiar with the Brundtland Commission or “Our Common Future”: The Brundtland Report, which lays out the commonly accepted definition of sustainable development. This is why I instead include the phrase “by which our natural resources and environment are used but also sustained” and then proceed to reference “for future generations” in homage to the Brundtland definition. Again, I simplify “future generations” by ending with “for our children and their children thereafter” so that readers take to heart that “future generations” is not some alien race millions of years into the future; it is our generation and that which follows us. This hits home with much more impact than “future generations”. Parents already can envision a future for their children, and most parents will want to be able to envision that future as a bright one.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
While I am not ultimately sure if my offered definition of environmental governance is any more useful than its predecessors, I do hope that my rationale above is useful for the reader to think about and consider. If you do enjoy the definition, please do start using it and spreading the word. I feel strongly that environmental governance needs more engagement from us, the people, in order for the outcomes we so desperately desire to take root. I think the definition offered helps place the ball in our court — now it’s up to us to take it forward.
Source: Walker Young at http://walker-young.com/2011/08/definition-revisited/ (viewed on 7 September 2011).
Friday, July 22, 2011
UP-NCPAG’s Center for Local and Regional Governance conducts “Seminar-Workshop for Crafting Climate Change Adaptation Measures and Strategies”
The Center for Local and Regional Governance (CLRG) conducted its first “Seminar-Workshop for Crafting Climate Change Adaptation Measures and Strategies” on 18-22 July 2011 at the Audio-Visual Room of the National College of Public Administration and Governance Building, University of the Philippines in Diliman Quezon City.
Twenty participants attended the workshop. They are mostly provincial/city/municipal legislators, vice-mayors, and technical staff from San Mariano, Isabela; Sorsogon City, Sorsogon; Pili and Libmanan, Camarines Sur; Surigao del Norte; Pulilan and San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan; San Francisco, Southern Leyte; Quezon, Palawan; and First District, Manila.
The objective of the seminar-workshop was to enable the participants to formulate climate change adaptation (CCA) measures and strategies and eventually integrate them into their local development plans. Dr. Ebinezer R. Florano assisted the CLRG in designing the objectives, contents, and schedule of the seminar-workshop; and provided reading materials. He also lectured on climate change governance frameworks (international and national), CCA measures and strategies formulation and prioritization, and mainstreaming CCA into local development plans++.
Government officials, technical experts, environmentalists, and academicians from the following institutions provided lectures and guided the participants in crafting their CCA plans: Climate Change Commission, PAG-ASA, National Defense College of the Philippines, Conservation International, Transcend, UP School of Urban and Regional Planning, and UP-NCPAG. Former Southern Leyte Governor Rosette Lerias and former Opol Mayor Dixon Yasay shared their experiences in climate change adaptation after tragedies struck their LGUs. Gov. Lerias showed a video of the Guinsaugon landslide which occurred in 2006. The video documentary moved some participants to tears, but they were also inspired by the rehabilitation efforts the governor made.
The CLRG will conduct another seminar-workshop in September 2011. For registration details, contact Ms. Cely Jamig, training coordinator, at 928-3914, 925-7422, or 981-8500 local 4175.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
FORUM ON CLEAR AIR 10+2
Dear Partners for Clean Air:
We have the honor to invite you to attend our upcoming Forum on Clean Air 10 + 2 and PCA General Assembly on June 14 -15, 2011 at the Social Hall of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Visayas Avenue, Quezon City. Hoping that you may be able to attend this important event.
Kindly send your response on or before June 6, 2011 by calling the PCA Secretariat at telephone numbers 395-7149 and 0916 397-8288.
Thank you very much!
PCA Secretariat
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
