Adeniyi Osuntogun, environmentalist, former Director of the Leadership for Environment & Development (LEAD) in Nigeria and Professor of Agricultural Economics, recently clocked 70 years of age. EnviroNews Nigeria joins in celebrating the icon.
Early Life
I started off as a young boy born by a teacher. My father was a teacher while my mother was a very caring woman and a trader. On retirement, he became a businessman. He was relatively successful by the standard of his time.
My father was a strict person and a disciplinarian. When you’re a son of a teacher, nothing less is expected from you in terms of mannerism. My father believed that all his children must be focused. His focus was not to acquire any wealth, but to give his children good education. In life, the greatest gift you can give a child is education. While his colleagues were busy acquiring wealth and buying properties, my father was busy investing in our education. Today, they now know the difference.
I began my childhood education at the Catholic Preparatory Nursery and Primary School in Ibadan, Oyo State, and attended secondary education at Olu-Iwa (now Adeola Odutola) College, Ijebu Ode in 1957. I left there in 1961 and moved to Muslim College, Ijebu Ode for my Higher School Leaving Certificate. I entered University of Ibadan, where I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics, from 1964 to1967. After a short span of working in the banking sector, notably the United Bank for Africa (UBA) and Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), I went to the University of Leeds, United Kingdom, to obtain my Ph.D. degree in Agricultural Economics. I was also part of the Overseas Development Institute in Nigeria, India and Britain.
When I came back, I was battling within myself whether to go into banking or academic profession. I told my wife even academics was paying less than what the banking sector offers that it pays us to go into academics as it would enable us contribute to national development. I later joined University of Ife now Obafemi Awolowo University as lecturer Grade II in 1972. I rose through the ranks to become a Professor of Agricultural Economics in 1980. By the grace of God, I became the Vice-Chancellor of the University in January 1990, the position I held till September 1991.
Osuntogun with wife, Prof. Bolanle Osuntogun
Frankly, I was lucky to have a good wife, Bolanle, who is very understanding, and cooperative. Anything you do in life, there is need for dedication, pain-staking devotion and vision. One must be focused, work and pray. You face challenges, but never give up. In those days and up till now, academia is relatively disadvantaged in the Nigerian economy in terms of welfarism, things of life; but in terms of knowledge, we have knowledge. But one must not be discouraged by that, always think of what to do with talents God has given you.
Journey into Environmental Education
In 1990, the then Director of Federal Environment Protection Agency (FEPA), Dr. Evans Aina, was looking for an economist, particularly an economist that understands biodiversity and natural resources. He called on me to assist him. So, when Nigeria was preparing for first Rio Summit in June 1992, he appointed me as one of the members of the preparatory team, which will prepare Nigeria’s position for the summit in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. We got it prepared, that’s how my journey into the environmental arena began. After that, I did a couple projects and reports for the agency and one of them is on Economics of Biodiversity. The report was highly valued by United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). From there on, I became an expert and Biodiversity Economist.
When I left office as a Vice Chancellor, I joined Leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD), the world’s largest international non-profit organisation focused on capacity building on leadership and sustainable development, as National Programme Director. I was introduced to LEAD by Chief (Mrs.) Opral Benson through Foundation for Environment Development and Education in Nigeria (FEDEN). Nigeria was one of the foundation members. My memorable time in LEAD Nigeria was when we produced our first set of fellows. Then, Nigeria didn’t enjoy any goodwill internationally, and I brought 15 fellows for the international session, where you have Brazil, India, China, and Indonesia. Nigeria’s programme was rated the best of them all. It made me proud. In those days, LEAD could hardly organise any programme or co-organise event, without taking Nigeria into consideration. During my tenure, we had an average of 15 fellows per Cohort and I graduated 14 Cohorts.
Impact of LEAD Programme
LEAD is a global institution and the mission is to inspire leadership and change for a sustainable world. We believe that people are the key to change and that the complexities of sustainable development can only be tackled by investing in leadership.
The challenges of sustainable development are huge – poverty is deepening, populations are growing, natural resources are diminishing and the international community has failed to tackle climate change effectively.
The only way to begin to address these challenges is through the adaptation of sustainable models of development at the local, regional and global levels. Sustainable development cannot be achieved without leadership. Leaders equipped with skills for sustainable decision making ensure that we are able to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
In LEAD Nigeria, we are developing a new generation of outstanding leaders from all sectors, with leadership skills and understanding of sustainable development. Those who came as scientists, when they graduate, can discuss intelligently on social science, physical science, natural science and all areas of human endavours.
How to Improve Environment Education
It is time for tertiary institutions to imbibe all aspects of the LEAD programme that preaches theory and practical works. We ensure graduating fellows look into challenges people face at the grassroots’ levels and proffer solutions. This is what is lacking in teaching of education in our tertiary institutions.
When we started in 1992, we were preaching environment; people thought we are just trying to get ourselves occupied. They did not appreciate some of the messages we were putting across, and the implication of environment. That was the same with the Ministry of Environment, which is suffering lack of cooperation and appreciation. Government must now know environment cuts across all sectors and it’s a critical thing.
Everyone must tap into the sustainable principles that allow us to use resources, not for us today, must use it in such a way that generation yet unborn will also have access to those resources.
One problem that usually comes up is lack of environmental policy. It is now being put in place. It is very critical, for government to move forward. There must be a policy, and programmes to achieve what has been stated in the policy. The greatest handicap the ministry is facing is funding. The activities of the ministry cut across, and when they are talking about priority, environment is something not easily visualised, unlike roads and industry. Until recently that everybody is facing the problem of floods, desertification, and all forms of environmental health impact, that the government is paying attention to know that the environment is not a theory, it’s a reality.
Several weeks ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US reported that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) surpassed a notable milestone. Indeed, they reached a daily average above 400 parts per million (ppm), albeit for the first time in human history.
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary
Observers say the milestone, hit on May 9, may be symbolic, but that manmade CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels continue to rise, bringing greater atmospheric warming and exacerbating the effects of climate change.
“The last time we’re confident that CO2 was sustained at these levels is more than 10 million years ago, during the middle of the Miocene period,” says climate scientist Michael Mann. “This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet.”
CO2 measurements surpassed 400 ppm in the Arctic last summer, but the readings from Hawaii mark the first time prolonged levels above 400 ppm have been observed at more moderate latitudes.
Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Christiana Figueres, has called for a greatly stepped-up response to climate change by all parts of society.
“With 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, we have crossed an historic threshold and entered a new danger zone. The world must wake up and take note of what this means for human security, human welfare and economic development. In the face of clear and present danger, we need a policy response which truly rises to the challenge. We still have a chance to stave off the worst effects of climate change, but this will require a greatly stepped-up response across all three central pillars of action: action by the international community, by government at all levels, and by business and finance.”
Governments will be meeting in June in Bonn, Germany, for the next round of climate change talks under the umbrella of the UNFCCC. A central focus of the talks will be negotiations to build a new global climate agreement and to drive greater immediate climate action.
Former US Vice-President, Al Gore, remarks: “Take this day and the milestone it represents to reflect on the fragility of our civilisation and the planetary ecosystem on which it depends We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.”
Founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, states: “The only question now is whether the relentless rise in carbon can be matched by a relentless rise in the activism necessary to stop it.”
Nigerian climatologist, Prof. Olukayode Oladipo, stresses: “This points to the fact that global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are not working and there is need to have higher emission reduction commitments from the main pollutants – America, Russia, China and India.”
CEO of Ecometrica, Richard Tipper, underlines the need to maintain natural carbon sinks, saying: “One thing seems clear. Despite the annual round of climate negotiations the rate of carbon accumulation in the atmosphere is increasing, and seem likely to continue to increase at a rate beyond many of the scenarios envisaged back in 1995.
“Forests remain an important sink of CO2, taking up around one quarter of what is emitted by our use of fossil fuels each year (now up to 31 billion tonnes per year) – much like a benevolent uncle paying part of one’s debts. But despite progress in some countries on tackling deforestation, there are warning signs that forest health is declining. The benevolent uncle may be unable to help much longer and some forests could tip from becoming sinks to sources.”
CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. It is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth’s carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle – both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.
The civil society in Nigeria has said that, in line with the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that keeps temperature increase below 1.5°C, there is an urgent need for emission cuts by setting specific target for all Annex I parties to reduce emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 level by 2015 and 100 percent by 2050 below 1990 level.
Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Operating under the aegis of the Nigerian Climate and Sustainable Development Network (NCSDN), the activists, who rose from a two-day forum that held recently in Ibadan, Oyo State, declared that any agreement by Nigeria or other African government to accept keeping the temperature above 1.5°C amounts to “disastrous consequences for us thereby condemning Africa to incineration and conflicts.”
In a document released at the close of the deliberations titled “Ibadan Declaration,” NCSDN joined its continental body, the PanAfrican Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) to condemn the withdrawal of Canada, New Zealand, Russia and Japan from the Second Period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP2) and the continued refusal of the United States to ratify the protocol. The deliberations reviewed and analysed the outcomes of COP18/CMP8 and their implications for Nigeria.
“We call on these countries to accept their historical responsibilities, reconsider their position and recommit without further delay and conditions,” the group noted, stressing that it disagrees with locking in low ambition in the KP2 implementation period for eight years covering less than 15 percent of the global emission.
“The NCSDN calls on all Parties to use the 2014 Review as an opportunity to scale up targets for the remainder of this period. Further, we call upon Parties to respect the timeline for the adoption of the global climate change deal in 2015 and come up with an ambitious, fair, equitable and legally binding agreement.”
Developed countries, the group continued, should honour and deliver on their pledge of providing $100 billion by 2020, while also scaling up their pledges to fulfill their obligation to provide adequate, new and additional funds “as this amount is far from all estimates of climate finance needed by developing countries.”
The body urged the COP (Conference of Parties) to establish a clear and transparent mechanism for monitoring, verification and evaluation of delivery of climate funds; even as it demanded enhancing participation of civil society organisations (CSOs), faith-based organisations and other relevant stakeholders in climate finance boards.
The Ibadan Declaration reads in part: “We call for immediate establishment of an independent process to conduct transparent and consultative verification on developed countries’ claim that they have successfully delivered all fast-start finance (FSF) of over $30 billion to developing countries during 2010-2012 in accordance with the controversial Copenhagen Accord, which metamorphosed into Cancun Agreement.
“Developed countries must compensate Africa and Nigeria in particular for the full costs of avoiding harms, actual harms and damage, and lost opportunities for our development resulting from climate change. We oppose any efforts to establish adaptation as an obligation not a right, or to use adaptation as a means to divide or differentiate between developing countries. Therefore, we demand for the establishment of an international mechanism for compensation on the loss and damage caused by extreme weather events related to climate change.
“Developed countries must remove intellectual property rights, pay full incremental costs of technology transfer to protect developing countries and contribute for peaking and declining of global emission. We oppose efforts to sell rather than transfer appropriate technologies, or to strengthen rather than relax intellectual property rights. Developed and developing countries should support the adoption and development of indigenous and locally innovated technology as well as ensuring efficiency in technology transfer and deployment.
“Agriculture is one of the crucial sectors affected by climate change and which supports food and livelihoods security of millions around the world especially in developing countries, therefore, member states and Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) need to conclude the agriculture negotiations under UNFCCC with focus on adaptation and expand the remit to cover sustainable livestock production systems as part of solution to climate change as recommended in pares 111 and 112 of Rio+20 final outcome document.
“Adaptation efforts should systematically and effectively address gender-specific impacts of climate change in the areas of energy, water, food security, agriculture and fisheries, biodiversity and ecosystem services, health, industry, human settlements, disaster management, and conflict and security.
“Strategies to improve and guarantee mainstreaming of gender and reproductive health issues into the climate change discourse and adaptation/mitigation strategies should be developed.
“There is an urgent need for gender equity and enhanced participation of women, youth, indigenous people and marginalised groups in UNFCCC negotiations and representation of Parties in bodies should be balanced between North and South, taken into account the respective differences.
“Nigerian Government should develop a systematic approach with input from all stakeholders and go to every COP with concrete and common National position.”
The organisation expressed concern that the last two decades have been characterised by unfulfilled promises and commitments by developed countries to Africa including Nigeria in particular hence breeding an atmosphere of ever diminishing trust and confidence in international negotiations processes. It lamented that Nigeria and indeed Africa’s right to development and development efforts have been compromised by the negative impacts of climate change, a situation it argued she least contributed.
Humanity’s fossil addiction will be the climate hangman unless we quickly wean ourselves off them and take a new energy trajectory. We make this assertion because evidence continues to mount and all witnesses – conservative and radical- point unwavering fingers at the oil and gas wells, coal holes and the tar sand pits of this world.
Nnimmo Bassey
Global warming occurs due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Heat comes from the sun in short waves, but when bounced off the earth they go up in long waves. Whereas the short waves pass through the atmosphere without resistance, the greenhouse gases trap some of the long waves trying to exit the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that without the greenhouse effect the earth would be as cold as minus 18 degrees Celsius. That does sound like we should celebrate the greenhouse gases in the air. Right? Well, the trouble kicks in when the concentration of the greenhouse gases gets higher than they ought to be.
The principal greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2). Its level has increased by a third since the industrial revolution while that of methane has doubled. Over the past 150 years, a period during which fossil fuels have become the main source for energy needed for electricity generation and or movement of goods and people, temperature have risen by 0.8oC and is set to gallop with increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
As the reports of three conservative agencies have shown, unless the world embarks on a swift energy transition the course is set for calamitous global warming. Rather than seek ways to move from dependence on fossil fuels, rich nations are literally fighting to secure fossil fuels reserves to ensure they can keep guzzling same and not change their high consumption lifestyles. So-called emerging nations, like those in the BRICS bloc are equally ramping up their consumption levels as they assert the right to pollute so as to grow or as they grow. Thus growth may now be seen as a measure of pollution. Researchers estimate that at the current rate of consumption of petroleum resources, China alone can exhaust the known stock in just one decade. Indeed, it is estimated that by 2030 the USA and China will together generate 45 per cent of global carbon emissions.
Fossil fuels have supplied energy more efficiently than most other sources. The fuels have been cheaper than others because the environmental costs are externalised to poor communities and peoples whose governments are satisfied with rents from the sector and could not care less about the impunity in the fields and mines. As fossil fuels resources dwindle, we witness more desperate exploration. We see extraction in protected areas including the Arctic region. We see more aggressive moves into deeper waters and open and blatant warfare conducted in the guise of securing democracies. We can expect a spread of extreme extraction such as is already seen in fracking and tar sands exploitation.
Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing – a process of blasting a solution of water, sand and a cocktail of chemicals into a shale bed between two to three kilometres into the belly of the earth. The mixture fractures the rock and releases the gas through bruises created by the sand. Because of its sheer depth some of the wells must puncture through aquifers causing pollution either from the chemicals used or as fallout of the violent fracturing process itself.
The pollutions and the global warming threats notwithstanding, the race to squeeze the last drops of fossils from the earth is on. An official US Department of Energy Report is quoted to have said “The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary. Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.”
Leaving the fossils in the ground is the unmistaken path that we ignore to our peril. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) issued a report late 2012 that asked some pointed questions. The questions were premised on the fact that the aggregate voluntary emissions reductions by rich, industrialised and polluting nations would not ensure the level of reduction needed to avoid catastrophic global warming. It showed that a gap existed between the “level of ambition that is needed and what is expected as a result of the pledges.”
Previous assessments showed that for global temperatures to stay within a 2 degrees Celsius increase annual emissions ought to average 44 gigatonnes (Gt) or less by 2020. UNEP scientists, however, believe that current levels are 14% above what should be the level in 2020 and that if urgent actions are not taken an emissions gap of 8 Gt of CO2 equivalent could happen.
Other analysts like Pablo Salon believe that “With the Doha, Durban and Cancun outcomes they will hit the level of 57 GT of CO2e by 2020. So the “gap” is 13 GT of CO2e.” Solon warns, “If this “gap” is not closed by 2020 the global average temperature of the planet will increase by more than 4 to 8o C. The last time the Earth had a global warming like this was millions of years ago.”
Just before the 18th Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC at Doha in 2012, similar research findings emerged from three unexpected quarters: the World Bank, the International Energy Agency and the business outfit PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The PwC report sees the safe limit of 2o C temperature increase suggested by the IPCC as unrealistic because even if current “decarbonisation” levels are doubled the world would still be heading for a temperature increase of 6oC by the end of the century.
Both the World Bank and the IEA reports suggest that for a 50-50 chance of staying below two degrees, the world requires to leave 66% of the known reserves of coal, oil and gas underground. And for an 80% chance, we have to leave 80% of those reserves untouched. Despite of all these warnings, political leaders dither and pollutions roar ahead as if there will be no tomorrow. Perhaps they know that there may not be any.
Carbon Tracker, a consultancy outfit, reached a similar conclusion earlier. According to the group, for warming to be kept at 2o C, from 2010-2040 only 565 billion tonnes of CO2 can be permitted to be emitted into the atmosphere. If this is done, there would be a 20 per cent chance of success. However, the known fossil fuels reserves have about 2795 billion tonnes of CO2 of which two thirds is coal, 22 per cent is crude oil and 13 per cent is gas. From these figures they estimate that 80 per cent of the known reserves must be left below the ground if we must hope for a slim chance of keeping temperature increase at 2o C.
On 9 May 2013 a record was made when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reached 400parts per million (ppm) as measured at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa observatory. It has been noted that the last time this level of CO2 was attained was 3-5 million years ago. At that time scientists believe that temperatures were 3-4 degrees warmer than it is today and that sea levels were 5-40 metres higher than we have today. In addition there was no ice in the Arctic region and there probably were no humans on the planet at that time. The concentration of carbon in the atmosphere before man’s romance with fossil fuels stood at 280ppm. In less than two centuries we have dug ourselves into deep fossil holes and marched to the climate precipice.
Look at that sea level in the long gone age. Five to 40 metres! Should the earth experience a 1 metre sea-level rise in the future what would become of the Eko Atlantic currently being built into the sea? Generally, because of the low lying nature of Nigeria’s coastal region a sea level rise of a mere 1 metre would mean the inundation of land quite a distance into the hinterland. There is an estimate that this could go as far inland as 90 kilometres.
Temperature rises pose universal problems to the whole world, but more so for Africa. This is so because Africa has 50% higher temperatures than the global average. If temperature increases by say 4oC, Africa would be 6oC warmer. The consequences would be dire. We can expect mass crop failures, concomitant starvation and mass migration for those who can.
At the Copenhagen summit in 2009, the lead negotiator for G77, Lumumba Di-Aping, denounced the 2 degrees Celsius warming target as “certain death for Africa” and as a type of “climate fascism” forced on Africa. Di-Aping then said Africa was asked to sign an agreement that would permit warming in exchange for $10 billion, and that Africa was also being asked to celebrate that deal.
Michael Mann, speaking on Democracy Now!, warned, “We have to go several million years back in time to find a point in Earth’s history where CO2 was as high as it is now. … If we continue to burn fossil fuels at accelerating rates, if we continue with business as usual, we will cross the 450 parts per million limit in a matter of maybe a couple of decades. With that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we commit to what could truly be described as dangerous and irreversible changes in our climate.”
Warning that we were trudging on the roadmap to idiocy, George Monbiot looked at the atmospheric pollution record and suggested a possible way out of the fix: “The only way forward now is back: to retrace our steps and seek to return atmospheric concentrations to around 350ppm, as the 350.org campaign demands. That requires, above all, that we leave the majority of the fossil fuels which have already been identified in the ground. There is not a government or an energy company which has yet agreed to do so.”
In the face of the clear warnings, oil companies and others benefiting from the world’s fossil fuels addiction continue to press on unperturbed. Again we turn to Monbiot’s blog: “Recently, Shell announced that it will go ahead with its plans to drill deeper than any offshore oil operation has gone before: almost 3km below the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time, Oxford University opened a new laboratory in its department of earth sciences. The lab is funded by Shell. Oxford says that the partnership ‘is designed to support more effective development of natural resources to meet fast-growing global demand for energy.’ Which translates as finding and extracting even more fossil fuel.”
Have the Conference of Parties helped the world to tackle climate change? The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the space where nations negotiate and should agree to act together in the common interest and for the survival of the planet. The conferences of parties (COP) to the convention have over the years turned into sessions where the powerful browbeat the weak and efforts are made to avoid responsibility and to act in narrow national or regional interest. The rapid slide down this slope took root at COP15 in Copenhagen, got deepened at COP16 in Cancun where the concept of consensus got redefined as agreement by the majority. COP17 in Durban took the medal as a conference whose critical achievement was the blatant postponement of action while the earth burns. Nations like the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia openly throw spanners in the works. Some go as far as foreclosing any participation in any legal and accountability formats proceeding from the Kyoto Protocol.
Doha was a sigh as leaders kicked the noisy decision-making can further down the road. There was little excitement about COP18 at Doha even before it took place and no celebratory vuvuzelas were heard after the event either. In the negotiations following Doha the talks in Bonn and Geneva continue to show the strains between developed, emerging economies and differently developed nations – especially with regard to emissions reductions commitments and mitigation actions.
At the negotiations held early May 2013 at Geneva the developed countries pushed for a legally binding “spectrum of commitments” from both developed and developing countries. However, their stance was based on targets nationally determined according to national capabilities and circumstances. They suggested that these would be reviewed periodically with the aim of keeping global temperature rise in line with the 2 degree Celsius goal.
Nations dance to different beats as they negotiate. Reporting from the meetings, the Third World Network informed that the developed countries also wanted “a different form of differentiation according to the emission profiles of countries rather than that which exists in the Convention (which is a differentiation between developed and developing countries). Developed countries also wanted common accounting rules for mitigation and transparency for both developed and developing countries. The United States did not want developing countries to condition their contribution to emission reductions on the availability of finance and technology transfer.”
The position of many of the developing countries was that the differentiation applied must remain the same as in the Convention keeping the lines of developed and developing countries or Annex 1/Non-annex 1 and not diminishing the importance of the historical responsibility of developed countries. They also insisted that the developed countries should take the lead in emissions reductions and for finance, technology transfer and capacity building to be provided to developing countries.
This spat can indeed be seen as the cause of the lethargy underlying the politics in the negotiations and keeping leaders from considering the need for real actions to tackle global warming. The developed nations see any real emissions reductions as potentially slowing their development curve, challenging their industries and ultimately placing heavy financial burdens on their systems and peoples. The developing nations on the other hand insist that developed countries must bear their historical responsibility for taking up as much as 80 per cent of the atmospheric space for carbon. The debates about emissions reductions can in a sense be seen as a struggle about who would colonise the remaining atmospheric space.
Climate justice advocates generally insist that those who created the climate problem must be the ones to mitigate it. However there is a rising call also from these quarters that some level of binding commitment by developing nations may be in order. Even here, the argument is that the commitments must be based on common but differentiated responsibilities.
Clearly, a bottom-up or voluntary emissions reduction would not work, as nations are unwilling to radically cut their emissions. Developed nations generally choose the market track and rely on offsets to do the mathematics of emissions reduction. Developing nations, including highly polluting and emerging nations like China and others in the BRICS formation prefer to take cover under the umbrella of the developing nations and claim the right to develop as equal to the right to pollute. The point against a bottom up, voluntary path is that there is no mechanism for closing the emissions reduction gap should the pledges not add up to the ambition needed by 2015 to enhance mitigation actions by 2020, etc.
The inability to meet climate finance and adaptation needs in the face of rising military budgets give us deep instructions. When you are standing at the precipice, you do not make progress by stepping forward. The effective action is stepping backwards. At such a time, it would make sense to be content with Keke NAPEP (commercial tricycle) going in the right direction than insisting on the luxuries of a stretch limousine heading in the wrong direction, metaphorically speaking. Pressing ahead as we see in the climate talks as well as in some localised actions simply show that humans have refused to accept the evidence around us.
With the crisis on hand, the need to provide adequate finance for climate mitigation and adaptation has not been more serious than ever before. Yet the UNFCCC processes have merely thrown up a Green Climate Fund with a literally empty kitty. The $10 billion per year over a three-year period carrot dangled in Copenhagen and the promise to ramp that up to $100 billion a year from 2020 has not materialised. To refresh our memory, we quote the “accord” below:
The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, Small Island Developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilising jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.
Most wars have been fought to secure resources and to expand spheres of influence. This has become even clearer today as resource wars are fought under a variety of false pretenses. As the resources get depleted the intensity of the conflicts will increase. And so will the military budgets.
Military expenditure by the Industrialised nations went up by 50% since 2001 and rose to over $1.7 trillion in 2011. A mere fraction of that amount would save lives and help combat the ravages of global warming. Somebody figured that if a dollar represented one second it would require 32,000 years to reach 1 trillion. We are talking of huge sums here. If just 25% of the war budgets were to be set aside for climate mitigation/adaptation measure there would be $434.5 billion in the kitty and the world would be the better for it. Just consider that one stealth bomber costs a whopping $1 billion.
Another source of funds would be for the rich nations to pay for the ecological debt owed the nations and regions that have borne centuries of prodigious exploitation and environmental damage. While debates go on in scholarly circles about how such a debt could be computed and to whom it would be paid, rich nations have simply refused to consider the notion. They insist on staying on the path of limitless and continuous growth. But it is noteworthy that “an economy based on growth and resource depletion cannot function globally, since it logically implies that power is accumulated in one part of the world and applied in another. It is in essence particularist, not universal: everyone cannot exploit everyone else at the same time.”
Climate change has become big business and false solutions are celebrated just as the naked emperor was hailed as being well dressed. Whereas it has been clear for a long time now that global warming is mostly man-made and is due to the huge amount of greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere by polluting activities involving the use of fossil fuels, preferred actions taken by nations and industries have been patently false actions. These actions are mostly predicated on the specious notion of carbon offsetting. The notion itself is built on the creed that financial markets hold the key to solving humankind’s problems.
Carbon offsets allow polluters to keep polluting provided they pay for it in cash (carbon tax) or imagine that some trees somewhere else in the world are absorbing an equivalent carbon as they are emitting in their activities. Thus while damaging the climate, polluters perform acts of indulgence through offsets.
For example, the so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) covers some of such offset schemes where projects that help reduce carbon emissions earn some carbon credits. Some really obnoxious projects get listed under the CDM. Gas to power projects utilizing gas that was otherwise flared make sense, except you consider the fact that gas flaring has been illegal in Nigeria since the gas reinjection law came into effect in 1984. There has also been a High Court judgment in the case of Jonah Gbemre versus Shell Development Petroleum Company over the gas flare at Iwerekhan, Delta State. The High Court sitting in Benin City ruled that gas flaring is an illegal activity, is unconstitutional and is an affront on the people’s human rights. That judgment was delivered in November 2005 but the flares continue to roar. The point here is that even if the gas to power plants succeeded in stopping gas flaring, they would simply have helped to stop an illegal activity and should not merit consideration as CDM projects. Qualifying projects are expected to be ones that bring in additionality, or that do some mitigating actions that would not have otherwise been done. Writing on this elsewhere we made the point that “Any compensation for such an activity flies in the face of reason. Gas flares are the most cynical manifestations of corporate insolence in the face of climate change and environmental health. The flares release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous and sulphur oxides. Apart from these, the flares release other harmful substances that greatly affect human health.”
Just when we thought we had overcome slavery we are getting dragged away into not just carbon colonialism but carbon slavery. Carbon was placed on the market shelf through the acceptance of the CDM at the COP held in Kyoto in 1997. That opened the floodgates for carbon speculators, introduced inaction and benefited carbon cowboys while disasters hit the world’s vulnerable communities and sometimes the rich!
Market mechanisms threw Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) into the tray at the Bali climate meeting of 2009. REDD and its variants allow polluters to keep on at their business of polluting while “showing” that trees in a forest or plantation that they have secured somewhere else absorb the carbon they emit. Thus REDD projects permit pollution and cannot be said to reduce emissions. It is clear that the name itself is a sad joke. In addition, REDD does not stop deforestation, but at best defers or displaces it. A REDD scheme is a business scheme, pure and simple.
A declaration from the Climate Space at the World Social Forum held in Tunis in March 2013 insisted “We cannot put the future of nature and humanity in the hands of financial speculative mechanisms like carbon trading and REDD. REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), like Clean Development Mechanisms, is not a solution to climate change and is a new form of colonialism. In defence of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and the environment, we reject REDD+ and the grabbing of the forests, farmlands, soils, mangroves, marine algae and oceans of the world, which act as sponges for greenhouse gas pollution. REDD and its potential expansion constitutes a worldwide counter-agrarian reform which perverts and twists the task of growing food into a process of “farming carbon” called “Climate Smart Agriculture.
The Climate Space also opposed “proposals that want to expand the commodification, financialization and privatization of the functions of nature through the so-called “green economy” which places a price on nature and creates new derivative markets that will only increase inequality and expedite the destruction of nature.”
Groups like the No REDD in Africa Network (NRAN) see REDD as a dangerous false solution to global warming primarily because it locks in pollution, just as the UN-REDD framework feared would be the case when the scheme was introduced. REDD locks out communities from their forests, impacts on their culture and strangulates their sources of livelihood. REDD schemes see forests and plantations as little more than carbon sinks.
Some REDD-like projects operate outside the purview of the UN-REDD coverage. One of such schemes is what has come to be called California REDD. Moves to include REDD projects in the State of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32 has drawn a lot of criticism from around the world because many believe that this would give impetus to similar schemes to mushroom around the world, granting polluters more space to keep on with their harmful activities thereby placing the world in deeper problems. It was in this wise that Oilwatch International denounced Shell oil company’s purchase of 500,000 carbon offsets credits from a forestry project on over 200,000 acres in Michigan, USA because it would grant Shell the permission to pollute at its refinery in Martinez, California.
In its own rejection of California REDD, NRAN recalls a situation in Mozambique, where a La Via Campesina study found that thousands of farmers in the N’hambita REDD project were paid meagre amounts for seven years for tending trees. “Because the contract is for ninety-nine years, if the farmer dies his or her children and their children must tend the trees without any further pay or compensation. This has been interpreted as a clear case of carbon slavery.”
Another false solution has been the presentation of agrofuels as a replacement of fossil fuels. It is a false solution because it keeps the fossil fuels paradigm and is equally polluting. Moreover it has triggered massive land grabs and even at its peak cannot replace fossil fuels because the amount of land needed to cultivate crops and the feedstock needed for production of agrofuels is simply not available on planet earth.
Geo-engineering and agricultural genetic engineering are other false solutions that lull humans to think that they can keep current polluting lifestyles and find techno-fixes for their addiction.
What must be done? Reflections on the challenge of climate change can leave us utterly exasperated considering the corporate capture of governments and the refusal of states to take actions that would benefit the people and the planet and not just the corporations. Although time is ticking fast, the peoples of the world must continually press for climate justice, understanding that no nation, rich or poor, is immune to the challenge of global warming. This has been amply illustrated by the tragic weather events that have fairly democratically impacted nations around the world. These are undeniable:
Sea levels are rising
Arctic ice is melting – may lead to changes in ocean circulation
Sea-surface temperatures are rising
Acidification of sea water due to increase of dissolved carbon dioxide
Heavier rainfalls, hurricanes and floods are common
Droughts and desertification getting more intense
Crop failures
All these and more impact negatively on human lives and that of other species on planet earth. Urgent actions are needed across all nations. Among these we list:
A just global climate treaty that recognises historical responsibility, climate debt as well as legally binding emissions reduction
Elimination of market mechanisms (including CDM, REDD, REDD+) and all other false solutions from the climate regime
Rapid transition from dependence on fossil fuels – including in transportation, power generation and agriculture
4. Recycling of wastes
Make national laws that build mechanisms for climate mitigation and adaptation actions including coastal protection, combatting desertification
Stop gas flaring in the Niger Delta and at Badagary immediately
Stop fracking and other extreme extraction including drilling in the Artic region
Creation of communities climate defence committees that would set rules for physical developments as well as monitor impacts of climate change
Reducing consumption in line with planetary limits
Universal respect of Mother Earth rights as captured at the Cochabamba peoples summit on Climate Change.[1]
Leave the fossils in the soil. Besides global warming, the environmental cost of fossils cannot justify a continued reliance on the resource. Reflect on Shell’s pollution of Ogoni land as captured by UNEP. Think also about the open scars created by tar sand extraction in Alberta, Canada. Think about Texaco’s destruction of the Ecuadorian Amazonia. Who benefits from all that? Certainly not the planet!
Set up Climate Tribunals to try Climate Criminals – the unrepentant polluters whether heads of corporations or states. Ecocide is no less a crime than genocide.
Conclusion: Our narrative must be the story of our lives told by us and dipped in our experiences “…If there is any hope for the world at all, it does not live in climate change conference rooms or in cities with tall buildings. It lives low to the ground, with its arms around the people who go to battle every day to protect their forests, their mountains and their rivers because they know that the forests, the mountains and the rivers protect them.
The first step toward re-imagining a world gone terribly wrong would be to stop the annihilation of those who have a different imagination – an imagination that is outside capitalism as well as communism. An imagination which has an altogether different understanding of what constitutes happiness and fulfilment.”[2]
It is our life, we know how the rain has beaten us and for our long. Our narrative must not be stuck in the crisis narrative imagine about us by others. We must awake, arise, mobilise and work for the transformation of our society and planet – by all legitimate means available and necessary.
Nnimmo Bassey is Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation
Lead Ambassador of the Clean Energy Ambassadors Network (CLEAN), Mrs. Ajoke Murtala Muhammed, has described clean cooking solutions are those technologies, fuels, equipment and practices that address the health and environmental impacts associated with traditional cooking with firewood.
According to her, these could take the form of improved and efficient wood and charcoal burning stoves, cooking gas, and more effective use of agro waste. She notes that the shift to clean cookstoves reduces cooking costs and health impacts for families, adding that it comes in various sizes and anticipates cultural affinity for certain ways of cooking, hence its adaptability to wood, kerosene and gas.
She made the submission recently in Abuja during the inauguration of CLEAN, adding that Nigerians are aware of the dangers associated with cooking the traditional kitchens.
“Over 90 million Nigerians, and almost all public institutions, cook with wood on the traditional ‘three-stone fire’. In the rural and peri-urban communities in Nigeria, poor women cook with wood energy and other sources easily available in their environment but which are detrimental to their health. These include wood, debris and wastes from nearby forests, and household refuse. These sources are attractive because they are relatively affordable and accessible.
“However, they burn at a high carbon emission level with the attendant greenhouse gas effect and hazard to health and the environment. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), smoke from cooking with wood causes over 95,000 deaths, mostly women and children in Nigeria every year. It is the third highest killer of women and children after malaria and HIV/AIDS. The technology of the clean cook stoves can help address this problem.”
According to her, CLEAN is committed to: working nationally and locally to keep the issue of clean cooking energy visible on the policy radar in support of the Ministry of Environment’s effort in this regard; generating awareness around the need to grow women’s enterprise as a model for developing a socially responsible clean energy market; and setting targets about number of stoves to be accessed by women across Nigeria.
“To keep the fire burning, with the support of Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility (NIAF) as a programme and the Ministry of Environment who must work with us to lead the way; we all need to join hands to ensure that we support this initiative as we are able and to bring clean cook energy to the Nigerian woman,” she added.
CLEAN Ambassadors also include: Dame Pauline Tallen (former Deputy Governor of Plateau State and former Minister of State, Science and Technology), Saudatu Sani (former Chair, House of Representatives Committee on Women Affairs and House of Representative Committee on MDGs), Christina Alaaga (chair, House of Representatives Committee on Women Affairs and Social Development), Eziuche Ubani (journalist and pioneer chair, House of Representatives Committee on Climate Change) and Lawali Liman (accountant and executive chairman, Kaura Namoda Local Government, Zamfara State).
Others are: Abimbola Oloyede (broadcaster and national coordinator of the Women’s Optimum Development Foundation), Samson Itodo (legal practitioner, human rights activist and social entrepreneur), Hajiya Jummai Babangida (First Lady of Niger State and founder, Life Rehab Foundation), Hajiya Fatima Shehu Shema (First Lady of Katsina State and founder, Service to Humanity Foundation), and Bahijjahtu Abubakar (Head, Renewable Energy Programme, Federal Ministry of Environment and secretary of CLEAN).
If officials of the Department of Forestry in the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment in Imo State, Nigeria, were to have their way, the ancient tree that fell and killed up to 40 persons last week would be cut into pieces.
Ministry officials have indicated the intention of engaging the services of lumber jacks to destroy the 300-year-old tree that was uprooted when a strong wind – that was accompanied by thunder and lightning – blew last Thursday in Umudagwu Mberi in Mbatoili Local Government Area of the state. It fell on and crushed scores of people buying and selling under it.
But town elders are kicking against the authority’s plan, arguing that necessary cultural formalities and obligations must be strictly complied with in the interest of the community.
Grieving indigenes insist that some rituals must be performed to appease the deity, which they believe owns the tree, so as to avert further calamity. This, they said, entails some sort of cultural cleansing of the land.
In fact, because of the superstition trailing the dreaded tree, the villagers are said to be at crossroads as to what to do with it. Prior to the incident, indigenes had observed that the tree was in a state of decay but were afraid to cut it down because it was believed to be evil. In 1992, two people who were hired to cut down the tree died mysteriously. Since then, people became fearful of the tree.
An octogenarian, Onyewuchi Njoku, claims that the tree (referred to as Uku) is as old as the community. He adds that it possessed medicinal qualities with which the people took care of some of their health needs. The tree also provided a comfortable habitat for reptiles, especially pythons, some of which were crushed when it fell.
Bodies recovered from the rubble of the fallen tree include elderly women, men and children, some of whom were at the evening market to either transact business or assist their relations to pack their goods, mainly food stuff, as it was about to rain. The tragedy occurred about 7.50pm on Thursday.
Rescue effort was hampered following the incident because the local folks lacked heavy equipment with which to lift the tree and rescue those trapped and who were at that time still alive.
The Bullitt Center is a commercial office building at the northern edge of the Central District neighborhood, near Capitol Hill, Seattle, Washington, USA. It was officially opened on Earth Day, April 22, 2013. It was designed to be – and indeed it is – the greenest commercial building in the world.
The building has similarly been classified a “Living Building” by the International Living Future Institute, world’s most strenuous benchmark for sustainability.
It was built by the Bullitt Foundation, a non-profit group based in Seattle that focuses on environmental issues. The foundation occupies half of one floor in the six-storey building, with commercial tenants occupying the rest of the structure, which cost $30 million and provided about 4,800m2 of lettable space.
Crowds flocked to the grand opening of the unique building, which aims to improve long-term environmental performance and efficiency through cutting-edge sustainable technology.
Construction work began in July 2011 at the Bullitt Center, which is designed to have a 250-year lifespan. The building is built to be energy and carbon neutral, with a water and sewage processing system that allows it to be independent of municipal water and sewage systems.
Energy neutrality is achieved with a large solar panel array on the roof of the building along with energy conservation measures that cuts the building’s energy consumption to approximately 1/3 of a typical office building of similar size. Although the building is connected to the electricity grid and will at times draw more power than it produces (especially during the winter), at other times it will produce enough surplus to “repay” such withdrawals, yielding annual energy neutrality.
Considered to be at the current cutting edge of green construction, the structure required a number of technical, legal, and social innovations to achieve a high level of ecological performance. The long term, 250-year design of the building created financing problems, as banks were unfamiliar with this and thus hesitant to back such a project, because commercial buildings are typically financed based on an assumed 40-year lifespan.
Similarly, the planned 210,000 litre rainwater collection and UV light purification system ran into problems with local regulation, which requires that water for consumption be chlorinated. The builders negotiated with the regulatory agency for independent testing of the building’s water system as a substitute, but it is connected to the municipal water supply as a back-up. The builders have negotiated with building material suppliers to ensure their products did not contain any of over 360 toxic chemicals; the supplier of the building sealant, for instance, agreed to remove phalates from their product so that the building could use it.
The structure also includes social design elements to reduce consumer energy use: the building may provide immediate feedback on energy use and publicise the energy consumption of each user.
Additional features include 26 geothermal wells that extend 120m into the ground, where the temperature is a constant 13 °C. These wells will help heat the building in the winter. All of the building’s lumber is certified to standards set by the Forest Stewardship Council. and it is the first commercial building in the U.S. to earn FSC Project Certification. Also, the building has no parking spaces — only bike racks.
Several versions of supposed green buildings are being touted in Nigeria, but it appears they are yet to be realised.
For instance, a project being pioneered by United States-based Messrs Comprehensive Design Services (CDS – USA) entails structures with bioclimatic design featuring natural ventilation, wide eaves, shading from landscaping, energy from solar, wind and biogas, rainwater harvesting and the use of locally available renewable material for construction, among other elements. A key factor in the design is its affordability for low-income families.
The pilot phase has been kick-started in Igbo-Etche, Port Harcourt, River State and will end in December 2013.
Indeed, sustainable development has given rise to green buildings. Most green building practices fall into seven basic categories: energy saving, land saving, storm water runoff-reducing, material conservation and pollution reduction.
Immaculata Nwokoro (a town planner) and Henry Onukwube (builder) state that a green building uses an average of 30 percent less energy than conventional building. Material waste generated during construction is reduced or recycled. Energy efficiency is improved, perhaps by relying on the use of natural light and ventilation or solar power. Less water is used, or rainwater harvesting system is installed to ensure wiser use. Measures taken to make buildings and construction more sustainable rely increasingly on life cycle approaches.
They lament a lack of institutional structures promoting green buildings; awareness on the part of clients, tenants, professionals in the built environment sector and other stakeholders; professional capacity to incorporate green building issues and opportunities and; financial resources to undertake green building construction and upgrades.
The Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF) has commended the Federal Government of Nigeria for releasing N10 billion for the commencement of the implementation of the Great Green Wall (GGW) project.
Minister of Environment, Hajiya Hadiza Mailafia, disclosed recently at the National Conference on Environment in Makurdi, Benue State, that the Federal Government had made a commitment of N10 billion towards the implementation of the United Nations-backed programme.
The Great Green Wall brings together 11 countries to plant trees across Africa to literally hold back the advancing Sahara Desert with a swathe of greenery, lessen the effects of desertification and improve the lives and livelihoods of communities.
In Nigeria, the project aims to address desertification, enhance natural resource management and promote ecosystem integrity in the dryland in the Northern parts of the Country. The Nigerian project stretches from Zamfara and Kebbi states in the North West corner along the northern border of Nigeria to the extreme eastern border in Borno State. Eight states are involved in the project.
While commending the government for the effort made and its commitment towards the initiative, the NCF calls for the following strategic steps to be employed before and during the implementation to achieve maximum results:
A National Institutional Framework for Project Implementation should be very definitive and focused. The NCF suggests that the framework takes into consideration the expected benefits and elements that the project should capture.
This multi-purpose project needs strategic approach to implementation. The NCF demands effective follow-up and action based on the principles and actions highlighted in the Strategic Plan.
The project should be seen as an opportunity to boost natural resource productivity and reduce stress and tension in natural resource use among major stakeholders. However, a conflict mitigation and management strategy should be put in place by participating states so as to guide against actions that can punctuate or slow down the process of implementation in the participating states. The project should be seen as a solution rather than a problem for communities, states and people of the benefiting areas.
Science and adaptive field research should be inculcated into the implementation plan of the project. This should be fashioned out in collaboration with key universities and research institutions in the project implementation areas.
The project demands a multi-faceted approach to capture essential benefits and involve all major and other necessary stakeholders. Community involvement in project planning and participation is crucial. Major resource user groups should be seen as actors and not only receivers of process in the project planning and implementation.
The GGW, an initiative spearheaded by African heads of states, will stretch about 7,000km from Senegal in the west to Djibouti in the east and will be about 15km wide as it traverses the continent, passing through Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea.
The programme aims to support the efforts of local communities in the sustainable management and use of forests – a key theme of the 10th session of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF10), currently taking place in Istanbul – as well as other natural resources in drylands.
Among other things, the planting of trees is expected to provide a barrier against desert winds and will help to hold moisture in the air and soil, allowing agriculture to flourish. It is also expected that the GGW will reduce erosion, enhance biodiversity and improve countries’ resilience to climate change.
“NCF, being the foremost and oldest environmental protection NGO in the country, has witnessed similar government/donor projects in the past which, unfortunately, through neglect and improper implementation, often excluding community participation/ownership, became dismal failures, allowing the sands of the desert to ravage thousands of square kilometers of former pasture lands, turning them into uninhabitable desert and hundreds of thousands of pastoralists into environmental refugees, thus greatly exacerbating the grave insecurity scenarios in this region that we are faced with today. We would like to believe that such neglect and indolence in implementation would not be allowed to befall this extremely laudable GGW project and that together with our other neighboring states; we would be able to find a permanent solution to the ravaging environmental disaster of desertification,” stated Alade Adeleke, Acting Executive Director of the NCF.
The African Development Bank (AfDB) has renewed its support for climate change resilience in Madagascar, Benin and Angola, which are accessing $17.8 million of adaptation finance in the form of grants from the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) during the second quarter of 2013.
It follows the approval last March to fund three water and sanitation projects.
Under the scheme, Madagascar will receive $6.2 million to promote climate change adaptation by ensuring (a) that agricultural water infrastructure planned with African Development Fund support is modified so as to be resilient in the face of climate change, (b) that the vulnerability of the agriculture catchment to cyclones and flooding is reduced, and (c) that local agricultural livelihoods are adapted to climate change through water management and health interventions.
Benin will receive $7.2 million to allow flood control and climate resilience of agriculture infrastructures in Oueme Valley. Under this project, flooding risk mapping and climate resilient agriculture infrastructures like dykes will be promoted along with flood resistant grain storage systems.
Angola will receive $4.4 million to increase the scope of the four pilot demonstration centres to climate change technology for sustainable development.
The Council of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) hosted under the Global Environment Facility (GEF), approved the financing for the three agriculture and natural resource management projects, which are aimed at increasing the adaptation capacities of the three nations.
This approval represents a major step forward in the engagement of the AfDB to support African countries’ resilience to climate change.
The LDCF was established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to finance the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).
