Month: December 2021

Posted on

One Year of Earth Refuge

14 December 2021 – by Co-founders Yumna Kamel and Stephanie Hader

Earth Refuge took off when we launched it on 14 December 2020.

Not because of the brilliance of its co-founders, but because we had initiated steps to actively fill a glaring gap in the legal sphere, and this gleaned traction. What started as two recent law graduates seated behind our computer screens grew into a collective of over 50 dedicated individuals. Representing varying backgrounds and time zones, we brainstorm protections for affected communities, and safeguard the airtight processes of our constantly-growing platform.

The heart-wrenching reality of countless individuals and families globally whose lives are uprooted and destroyed – either rapidly or sequentially by a multitude of natural disasters – still fails to appear as a priority on global agendas, or in popular discussion as proven by the COP26 summit.

The landscape of climate migration is dire. It remains arguably the largest crisis of our era: the scale of human suffering and vulnerability is already immense, and it is set to worsen.

This inspired us to ensure that they are not burdened with even more depravity and instability in the aftermath. Establishing a coherent system of enforceable rights and duties in the climate migration matrix is our aim.

The last year has been defined by the juxtaposition of global calamity with the support and connection we have experienced. It has driven us to keep going in the face of barriers like the inability to conduct field work. The sphere of individuals and organisations focused on understanding and addressing the issue of climate migration – and its myriad of nuances – remains intimate, but we are grateful for the ways in which we have been welcomed into this space.

Special thanks go to our founding advisor Dave-Inder Comar, Nisha Agarwal of IRAP, Dr. Chris O’Connell, Professor David Oppenheimer of the Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination (and the Immigrant Justice & Climate Refugees Working Group), Todd Miller, and Amali Tower of Climate Refugees.

Sometimes it does serve to look at the smaller picture – the zoomed in pixelated one – to ascertain where progress and hope lie.

One of the first meaningful conversations we had took place in the late summer of 2019, sitting on a bench in Blanche-Levy park at the centre of UPenn’s Philadelphia campus. We’d known each other for no more than a month but were already dubbed “StephandYum” (one word) by our colleagues.

Whilst simultaneously stuffing our faces with falafel from a food truck – we miss you, Magic Carpet! – we got into the good stuff: from personal philosophies and favourite authors to the meaning of life. We had absolutely nothing in common, and yet we were able to communicate with each other on an ultrasonic level. Little did we know this would be the defining strength of our future leadership. As our lunch break neared its end, Steph was struggling to find the words to describe what it’s like to experience the sum of our conversation.

Yumna offered “overwhelmingly human..?”, and it quickly became our catch phrase. When either of us exerts energy into trying to fix a problem or understand an experience, by branding it overwhelmingly human, we acknowledge how small we are in the scheme of existence, how things are written (Yumna’s belief) or determined (Steph’s belief) even if our minds can’t gauge it. It provides a little comfort and a dose of humility, too.

And it’s how we’d describe the experience of creating and maintaining Earth Refuge together, two years later.

Since its inception, what we have learnt is that running an organisation in favour of a cause that is larger than life (or ego) requires the same ingredients as a healthy friendship: self-awareness and self-trust, clear communication, and cognizance of strengths and weaknesses. Then, you need to recruit people whose strengths deliberately correspond with your identified weaknesses, and be willing to face growth, challenges, and criticism head on. Above all, you must welcome change.

We won’t sugar coat it: it has been outright hard. This experience has been punctuated with learning curves. We have backtracked, paused, had false starts, and burnt out. We often forget to set it against its true background: an ongoing global pandemic, and the fact that we have not physically been together for over a year. We have learnt to set boundaries, and we have learnt to rest. For the most part, we have been co-executively directing a not-for-profit organisation whilst juggling life, with a time difference of at least seven hours between us at any given time.

Yet, with the creativity and faith of our talented, multi-faceted, dedicated team, we have churned out some incredible initiatives (like the Riskland podcast, and our Legal Database that drops today!), rehashed others (visit our Community to learn more), and find ourselves ready to embark upon hugely impactful projects in the New Year (look out for the development of our very exciting Legal Advocacy and Education projects in 2022).

You are only as good as your team, and ours is fantastic. We are immensely grateful to Nikoleta Vasileva, Robert Los, Lauren Grant, Aubrey Calaway, Daven Camille, Lise Rigaux, and Lillian Millette to name but a few. Thank you for getting us to where we are, and where we will be.

If you’d like to connect with this formidable bunch and our cause, please don’t hesitate to join us. There’s a role for everyone to play on this journey.

One-Year-of-Earth-RefugeDownload

Posted on

Auckland Proposes “World-First” Climate Tax for Residents

Auckland on sunset (landscape)

13 December 2021 – by Evelyn Workman

Residents of Auckland, the most populous city in New Zealand, will have to pay around 1 dollar per week under a proposed new climate tax. The money raised from the tax will go towards making the city greener and reducing emissions.

The plan was announced by Auckland mayor, Phil Goff, on December 1. Auckland officials have said that the proposal is one of the first of its kind in the world. 

Homeowners will be taxed on average $NZ1.10 a week, which is estimated to raise around $574m over 10 years. The proceeds will be added to a proposed fund which aims to design a more environmentally friendly city through a range of initiatives, including decarbonising the transport sector and making more green spaces.

One of the big aims is to decarbonise the ferry fleet, as this currently contributes 21% of the city’s emissions from transport. In addition to this, the fund will also create more routes for pedestrians and cyclists, and create a greener city by planting more trees.

In a statement, Mayor Goff said, “While nobody relishes the idea of paying more rates, we’ve heard clearly from Aucklanders that they want us to do more on climate change and to improve our public transport system. We must be able to say to future generations that we used every tool in the toolbox to tackle the climate crisis.”

“Long after COVID-19 ceases to be a major threat to us, there will be the ongoing crisis caused by climate change – we can’t afford to put off any longer the action needed to avoid a climate disaster,” the mayor added.

The rate is an important part of the “mayoral proposal” that will be voted on next year.

Posted on

As COP26 Negotiations Came to an End, the Inadequacies of the Glasgow Climate Pact Were Clear

black charcoal

8 December 2021 – by Evelyn Workman

On Saturday 13th November, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) drew to a close after 2 weeks of charged negotiations between almost 200 nations. The “Glasgow Climate Pact” was adopted late on Saturday evening, but the final hours of negotiations weren’t without some setbacks. 

The biggest of these revolved around coal, with both India and China having opposed early drafts of the deal due to concerns about the language used around the world’s most polluting fossil fuel. They pushed for an updated version to include a watered-down commitment to a “phase-down” of coal, rather than the original “phase out”. 

Scientists have repeatedly warned that global heating beyond 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures could lead to irreversible changes in our climate system. Coal emissions are central to discussions around keeping below 1.5°C, as coal is currently responsible for more than 40% of annual CO2 emissions. As such, the diluted language of “phase down” has been met with resistance by climate activists, as it weakens the commitment to getting rid of the use of coal completely. The change of language was a cause for celebration for many coal advocates, since “phase down” represents a “green light for more coal production”, in the words of pro-coal Australian senator Matthew Canavan.

The pledges on emission cuts set out in the pact have been widely criticized, as analysis has shown that they fall short of what is required to meet the 1.5°C of warming agreed at the Paris Climate Accord. A study for the Climate Action Tracker website shows that if the 2030 targets announced at COP26 are implemented in their entirety, temperatures are still projected to rise to 2.4°C by 2100. Warming above 2°C will lead to more extreme droughts, increased Arctic sea ice loss, and almost complete loss of coral reefs, compared to 1.5°C. The Tracker also calculates an “optimistic scenario” which assumes “full implementation of all announced targets” including long-term strategies. This scenario still overshoots the Paris agreement goal, with projected warming sitting at 1.8°C by 2100. 

Many poorer countries were left feeling disappointed by the pact, as they felt their concerns around “loss and damage” were not adequately addressed. “Loss and damage” refers to rich countries, who are predominantly responsible for climate change, paying poor countries to compensate them for climate change caused damage which disproportionately affects poorer nations.

Throughout the conference, vulnerable nations emphasised how the climate crisis has already impacted them. A particularly powerful message came from Tuvalu’s foreign minister, Simon Kofe, who made his address to delegates standing knee-deep in seawater, highlighting the impact sea-level rise is having on the low-lying Pacific Island nation.

A group of 55 nations particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, formed the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF). At the start of COP, CVF had issued a call for a “Climate Emergency Pact”, which called for at least $500bn in climate finance during 2020-2024, for mitigation and adaptation. 

Despite these calls, the countries involved had to instead settle for the less definitive language used in the pact, which “urges” rich countries to increase funding for poor countries to around US$40 billion annually – just an eighth of the requested funding – by 2025, to help them adapt to effects of climate change. Moreover, developed countries have consistently failed to meet previous financial promises. At the 2009 Copenhagen climate change summit, wealthy countries agreed to pay US$100 billion each year by 2020 to developing countries to help them adapt to climate change, but only 80% of that has been delivered. 

During the closing of the conference, COP26 President Alok Sharma apologised for the pact, saying that he was “deeply sorry” for how the process unfolded and the lacklustre commitments from the international community regarding coal. COP26 concluded with the promise that all countries will return to the negotiating table in a year’s time in Egypt to re-examine national plans.

Evelyn Workman graduated with a Master’s degree in climate physics from Utrecht University in 2020. This degree program allowed her to marry her passions for both physics and climate change. In October 2021 she started a PhD program at the British Antarctic Survey due to her eagerness to pursue further scientific research within the field of climate change. During her PhD studies she will be investigating methane in and above polar oceans.

This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.

Posted on

Loss and Damage Finance is Not About Charity

8 December 2021 – by Ole Ter Wey

On the penultimate day of COP26, a representative from the Climate Action Network presented Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon with an award called ‘Ray of the Day’. This symbolized recognition for a long overdue action: during the conference, Scotland became the first country in the world to contribute to a Loss & Damage fund, to help countries in the Global South respond to damage caused by climate change. Initially limited to one million pounds, shortly before the award was presented, First Minister Sturgeon even doubled the amount. A great act that deserved the rousing applause in the room as well as the award. Right?

What Constitutes a ‘Loss’ or ‘Damage’?

The term ‘Loss & Damage’ refers to destruction which has already occurred that can be attributed to climate change, despite mitigation and adaptation efforts. ‘Losses’ are permanent and cannot be recovered; loss of human life, extinction of biological species or destruction of cultural assets or culturally important places are among them. ‘Damages’ however, are reversible, at least in theory; examples might include damaged infrastructure or monetary losses from a collapse in the economy.

The History of Loss and Damage

Loss & Damage first came up in international policy in 1991, when the Alliance of Small Island States promoted climate insurance in the drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which can be understood as the most important international agreement aiming to reduce anthropogenic harm to our climate system. Though the term ‘insurance’ did in fact make it into the UNFCCC document as an option requiring consideration , it took more than two decades for a Loss & Damage mechanism to actually be created.

Following protracted, acrimonious negotiations, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was finally drafted in 2013. Its main task is to promote “implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change…in a comprehensive, integrated and coherent manner.”[i] In reality however, the means of WIM are limited to research and dialogue, not implementation at all. And whilst research and the initiation of conversations surrounding climate-induced loss and damage are two urgently needed components in the response to climate change, WIM makes no direct provisions for liability or compensation for loss and damage. Therefore, it must be stated that WIM is by far not as meaningful as the originally proposed climate insurance mechanism.

The case is similar for the so-called Santiago Network, which was established as part of the WIM in 2020. It is focused on ‘the implementation of relevant approaches [for averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage] at the local, national and regional level, in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change”[ii]. Though for too long the lack of implementation of any compensation or liability mechanisms has hindered global progress in this sphere, in a positive move, COP26 discussions have now provided steps towards the operationalization of the Santiago Network.

COP26

At COP26 itself, the words of sympathy were consistently strong, with everyone claiming that they really do want to help. However, it seems that nobody wants to pay for it. Not only is this completely unacceptable, but it’s also tragically ironic. The Global North, with their reticence to contribute financially, is responsible for an unbelievable 92% of climate change[iii], and has made gigantic economic profits through some of the most environmentally damaging activities. To the Global South, on the other hand, devastating damage has been done, with almost no recompense, financial or otherwise. People, cultures, and animal species are dying, local economies are collapsing, and people are forced to flee their homes. Loss & Damage is not about charity, but rather about reparation payments. The money that the affected countries and their populations require should be seen as a duty; something that is owed to them as opposed to a goodwill gesture.

At a side event at the conference, an NGO representative shared his difficult mission back home in Norway. The Norwegian government appears to be of the belief that by agreeing to contribute to what are known as adaptation payments of 100 billion USD per year, they will  no longer be required to talk about Loss & Damage, being under the impression that the two payments basically constitute the same thing. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth, though the distinction is actually quite simple.

Adaptation aims to increase resilience in affected areas in a way that makes it possible to live with the consequences of climate change. Examples might include new crop varieties that can cope with changes in precipitation, or the construction of sea walls to protect against rising sea levels. Loss and damage payments, on the other hand, are due when such adaptation measures have failed. For example, if agriculture becomes completely impossible because of droughts, or people are forced to leave their homes and possessions behind because of flooding. Hence, the adaptation fund (which in itself is far from being provided fully) cannot be used as an excuse for not providing money for the Loss & Damage fund.

Author’s Note

It is noted that Scotland’s contribution to the climate fund is a step forward, albeit only a baby step. But at least a start has been made. However, I find it more than questionable that Scotland is being applauded, and its contribution being positioned as a great act of philanthropy. In reality it is only a partial fulfilment of the state’s international duty, and in the grand scheme of things, I believe it constitutes relatively very minor progress towards what is right, just and long overdue. In contrast, there isn’t enough applause for the young people who are fighting tirelessly for climate justice and who were the ones able to persuade Scotland’s First Minister Sturgeon to at least take this first step. I do trust that they will continue their fight and this step will soon be followed by many others.

Ole ter Wey is currently studying International Law and Human Rights at the UN-mandated University for Peace in San José, Costa Rica. He previously lived with a local community in Kiribati for over a year. There, he experienced first hand the consequences of climate change endangering the existence of an entire state. It was then that he began thinking about how to address forced migration and dedicated his Liberal Arts Bachelor to the topics of migration and integration.

This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.

References

[i] United Nations (2013): FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013, paragraph 5. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf#page=6

[ii] UNFCCC (2019): Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts and its 2019 review, paragraph 43. https://unfccc.int/documents/209506

[iii] Hickel, Jason (2020): Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary, page e399. In: The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2020, Pages e399-e404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0

Posted on

The UN Climate Change Conference Neglected a Vital Consequence of Climate Change: Migration

aerial photography of footprints on shore during daytime

8 December 2021 – by Johanna Wassong

COP26, the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, took place in Glasgow from the 31st October – 12th November 2021, and was branded as an attempt to “unite the world to tackle climate change”.

Though undoubtedly an important goal, the Conference’s agenda neglected a vital consequence and aspect of climate change: climate migration, potentially harming the sustainability of the negotiations and giving the impression that one of the most frightening consequences of climate change is being ‘swept under the rug’.

The main target of the UN climate change conference was to solidify the targets presented in the 2015 Paris Agreement, namely, to limit warming of the Earth’s temperature to 1.5 °C  from pre-industrial times. The published aims of the negotiations are to:

  • Reduce emissions
  • Strengthen adaptation and resilience to climate impacts
  • Scale up finance and support.

The summit’s introductory document, website, and published targets hardly mentioned climate-induced migration. The only time where one could see negotiations approach the topic was on a single day under the theme of “adaptation, loss and damage”, whilst other agenda items ranged from the World Leader’s Summit to discussions relating to finance, energy, nature, science, and innovation,

Whilst this commentary does not intend to down-play the importance of such a conference as a positive first step, it must be acknowledged that to sideline climate-induced displacement is to ignore some of climate change’s most devastating impacts upon individuals, cultures and communities. Though COP26 mentions that “the international community must unite and support people who are most vulnerable to the impacts of the changing climate”, there do not appear to be any elements of this conference dedicated to those who are, and will be, forced to flee their homes as a result of increasingly hostile climates.

The approach of the United Kingdom

The UK’s leadership page itself is mainly focused on the economic aspect of climate change and its following ‘Green Revolution’, with every target or accomplishment listed on its presentation being associated with either economics or finance. Whilst it is true that long-term, durable solutions to the climate crisis do require financial backing, emphasising the economics at the expense of a focus on the lived experiences of the individual severely undermines the possibility of developing tenable solutions which are inclusive of people across the globe, living in countries with differing economic ‘buying power’.

Moreover, Boris Johnson’s statement that “securing a brighter future for our children and future generations requires countries to take urgent action at home and abroad to turn the tide on climate change” is firmly juxtaposed with the UK’s policy towards refugees, specifically the Home Office’s recently proposed ‘New Plan for Immigration’. At a time when the UK seeks to penalise, criminalise, and limit protections for those fleeing their homes as a result of persecution and violence, it seems sadly fitting that provisions for those made to leave their homes for environmental reasons are also neglected. Hostile attitudes towards climate migrants, and of displaced persons in general, occur for a multitude of reasons that are often shared across nations, including a denial of the existence of environmental refugees and also a generally negative attitude towards immigration.

For the UK at least, it seems difficult for the former to change whilst the latter still holds true; all the time that hostile policies are continually implemented towards those fleeing persecution, furthering the rights of those displaced through the effects of climate change will be an uphill battle. This is despite the fact that Western Nations are often disproportionately involved in the perpetuation of the factors which drive both forms of displacement.

The consequences of failure to address climate migration

Given that there are so many topics relating to climate change to cover, and such a long road ahead before rights are upheld for those forced to leave their homes, why is it necessary to include climate change migration issues in today’s discourse? The answer is simple: there is no time to wait. Climate migration will be one of the most important contemporary issues of the next 50 years as climate change causes environmental degradation in more and more areas of the world.

For example, today 1% of the world is a barely liveable hot zone, meaning that humans could not live in these areas due to their extreme weather conditions – specifically heat.   By 2070 that zone could go up to 19% – almost a fifth of the planet. This means that more and more people across this type of territory will be displaced due to the destruction of their habitat, whilst others will be forced to flee due to flooding, natural disasters, extremes of weather, and rising sea levels. People have already begun to flee, not only from natural disasters and short-term environmental damage, but also from slow onset environmental decay.

In Southeast Asia the agriculture sector is suffering as rainfall patterns and droughts become more intense, causing the displacement of around 8 million people who have moved toward the Middle East, Europe and North America. The World Bank’s Groundswell Report suggests that by 2050, if no action is taken, there will be more than 143 million climate change migrants in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America alone.

Concluding thoughts

Despite having good intentions and aims in terms of prevention and economics, the COP26 summit failed to mention this and its potentially dire consequences for the international effort to tackle human displacement. This could in turn lead to a lack of funds, resources, and political will to provide help to people who have witnessed the destruction of their homes. Climate change migration deserves more academic, policy and political attention, and COP26 is a perfect example of this. Those at risk of becoming displaced deserve protection from long-lasting environmental damage, and those already displaced deserve international support and access to their full human and legal rights. Alongside affected communities, it is up to activists, environmentalists, and the general population to bring attention to the cause of climate migration, and to establish a protection and assistance framework. 

Johanna Wassong is in her final year, studying International Relations at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, specializing in human rights and refugee rights in sub–Saharan Africa. She is currently writing her dissertation on the refugee politics after the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Johanna initially started working with refugees in her hometown Cologne, Germany during the European Migrant Crisis in 2015-2016 and was specifically confronted with the issues of environmental migration after the floodings in Ahrtal in Summer 2021.  

This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.

Posted on

Whither Jakarta? An Outlook on the World’s Fastest Sinking City

cityscape with lights turned-on during nighttime

8 December 2021 – by Harry David

With more than 10 million inhabitants, Jakarta has become one of the largest metropolitan cities in the world. While the city has witnessed rapid economic development, many social and environmental issues are yet to be resolved – most critically, the fact that Jakarta is sinking at the rate of 10 centimeters per year. This ticking time bomb is expected to displace the majority of Jakarta’s population by 2050.

Understanding Jakarta’s existential threat is not an easy task. The issue spans from inadequate urban planning to lack of governmental preventive actions, in addition to massive groundwater loss. The latter is particularly problematic for a local population that relies on groundwater, since without it, Jakarta will be unable to provide access to clean water for its inhabitants.

The extraction of groundwater in Jakarta on a massive scale over the past six decades is one of the major reasons for its sinking. Water exists between sediment layers in the ground underneath Jakarta, and when this is removed in excessive, unregulated amounts, the sediment layers can collapse and compress together, reducing the elevation of affected areas on a dramatic scale. The heavily impacted coastal area of North Jakarta has already sunk 2.5 meters over the past decade and many fishing neighbourhoods have been destroyed. 

Due to its seasonal heavy rain climate and limited open space for water absorption, Jakarta has faced many annual floods; the most detrimental flooding in 2020 alone left millions affected, thousands displaced and at least 26 dead. Research shows that global warming is also a factor behind instances of severe flooding across Greater Jakarta, with increasing rainfall and extreme monsoon storms making the current situation worse. A report by Indonesia’s Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency indicates that Jakarta’s rainfall has reached 335 millimetres per day – enough to classify as extreme rain. Furthermore, some areas in Jakarta that are already below sea level are on the verge of sinking entirely due to unstoppable global sea level rise.

While many anticipate that Jakarta only has until 2050 before the issue is irreversible, there are concerns that the tipping point could occur even sooner. As the hub of Indonesia’s economic activities, Jakarta offers many job opportunities for Indonesians, hence the city still experiences an influx of people. With the population of Jakarta increasing annually, new high-rise apartments and housing complexes in Greater Jakarta are rapidly being built, further limiting open spaces and groundwater usage, and accelerating Jakarta’s sinking rate.

The government is expected to come up with feasible solutions on this issue for Jakarta, and both the local and national governments are being pressured by local residents and, to a lesser extent, NGO bodies, to address the issue. However, many perceive the government has not done enough to do so. Of all proposed solutions, one of the most controversial plans that the Indonesian government intends to carry out is to move the State’s capital. The government argued that as a city, Jakarta is burdened with overpopulation and environmental crisis, and currently intends to implement this transition by moving the State’s capital to the island of Borneo. Political leaders expect that moving the capital will decentralize power out of Java Island, helping to develop the economy of other islands. This move is also expected to revitalise the capital’s living conditions as it eases Jakarta’s over-population problems.

Whilst this initially sounds promising, many activists and research institutes think differently. Moving the capital to Borneo Island might be damaging for Indonesia’s rainforest in building the city. In addition, an issue of indigenous rights of tribal communities in Borneo Island also emerges in the discussion. Thousands of indigenous people may be displaced from their tribal lands as large areas of the forest are cleared to build the new capital. Moving the capital to another island will also not necessarily resolve Jakarta’s problem of land sinkage, because many people might still be reluctant to move, meaning that Jakarta will remain the home of economic and industrial activities, all of which will continue to face the same threats.

Apart from this, the government is also building a sea wall across Jakarta’s coastline to prevent sea level rise’s impacts on Jakarta. It may minimize the effects of sea abrasion on Jakarta, but given that the main cause of Jakarta’s sinking is the lack of government-supplied drinking water, this will leave a key issue unsolved. Less than 60% of Jakarta inhabitants are covered by piped water infrastructure, and even this is centralized in wealthy areas.This means that for as long as the population remains reliant on groundwater and the government remains unable to find an alternative way to supply its citizens with clean water, then Jakarta’s sinking rate will be nowhere near declining.

Jakarta may well be on its way to becoming uninhabitable in the near future unless solutions are found without any further delay. While the responsibility rests mainly on the government, it is also imperative for Jakarta’s inhabitants to not further exacerbate the problems. As a collective, Jakarta’s residents can slow the rate of damage by adopting a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, for example by using public transportation more frequently, effectively managing their waste, and consuming water more efficiently. By increasing their environmental awareness, Jakarta’s residents can help to alleaviate the negative impacts of climate change on Jakarta’s sinking, meaning that an integrated educational and political approach will be key. Whether Jakarta’s collapse as a city will happen depends on the ability of all  societal actors to cooperate together in preventing this occurrence.

Harry David is a LLM student on the Erasmus Mundus International Law of Global Peace, Security, and Development programme at the University of Glasgow. He holds a BA in International Relations from Universitas Gadjah Mada in Indonesia , and also completed a Human Security short course from Kyoto University in Japan.

Harry has worked as a junior policy researcher at a diplomatic mission in Jakarta and as an executive at the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). He is passionate about sustainability, climate change, and human rights issues.

Posted on

Combatting the Climate Crisis in Malawi

green grass field during daytime

3 December 2021 – by Rachel Aronoff

Climate change is dismantling some of the most fragile human-environment dynamics in existence. Across the globe, changes in seasonality are threatening the survival of regions that have relied on subsistence farming for centuries.

Malawi, a small country located in the heart of Africa, remains one of the most environmentally volatile nations on earth. For thousands of years, vast regions of rural Malawi have depended upon predictable climate patterns to ensure agricultural yields. Over the past two decades, however, increasing irregularities in seasonal weather patterns have made it difficult for small-scale farmers and communities reliant on subsistence farming methods to maintain their livelihood. In the absence of government intervention, human driven heating will continue to crumble these agrarian communities.

The ongoing climate crisis in Malawi must be examined at a micro level in order to address the issues that afflict the most vulnerable districts in the nation. It will be critical to develop a reconstructive framework that prioritizes the needs of local communities, and increases the adaptive capacity of those subsisting on the land in rural regions.

Compounding changes in seasonality have created immense challenges for a majority of the country’s population, who maintain a deeply interdependent relationship with the environment. More than 80% of Malawian farmers rely on stable and predictable rainfall cycles to support food production. [i] Due to extreme poverty, the use of artificial water channeling remains particularly low, with less than 5% of farmers adopting non-traditional irrigation techniques. [ii] The reliance on cyclical rainfall patterns intensifies the population’s susceptibility to the adverse effects of climatic extremes, such as flooding and drought. In order to mitigate the impacts of climate variability on annual agricultural yields and local food supply, it will be crucial to enable rural communities to utilize more efficient irrigation, flood diversion, and water storage methods.

How can access to water be improved?

The most functional water channeling method to administer in rural Malawi is the drip irrigation system. This technique involves direct and regulated application of water to the root zone of each crop through a nexus of subsurface pipes and tubes. This tactic minimizes runoff, evaporation, and conserves 30-65% more water compared to rainfed cultivation, making it most suitable for high temperature environments.[iii] It has also been shown to generate higher yields and better quality produce than traditional systems, providing sufficient irrigation throughout the dry season, whilst preserving soil fertility. [iv]

Alternative irrigation methods also decrease the need for labor-intensive water carrying practices. This helps to improve the safety and productivity of women living in rural areas by reducing the burden of water transportation. A recent study reports that 13.54 million women (and 3.36 million children) in Sub-Saharan regions are responsible for water collection trips that take 30 minutes or longer.[v] Women may spend an average of 4.5 hours per week collecting water, causing many to compromise their own safety along with the well-being of their children.[vi]

The distance between many villages’ functional water points continues to expand as a result of environmental disaster. In 2019 alone, tropical cyclone Idai caused massive damage to the land and infrastructure, leaving nearly 700,000 people without secure routes to fresh water. [vii]

Aside from compromising food security, limited access to clean water also exacerbates health and hygiene issues, especially among rural communities. Recent statistics reveal that 9.9 million people in Malawi do not have access to basic sanitation facilities, resulting in approximately 3,000 under-five child deaths per year.[viii] The construction of proper water facilities will be especially critical for women and young girls, who face increased risk of infection during menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth.

The implementation of flood diversion channels and alluvial aquifers may also be helpful in improving water availability whilst averting extended drought. A new study finds that sand-river aquifers hold practical and economic potential for small-scale irrigation in the drylands of Africa.[ix] These systems can aid in preventing displacement during the wet season as well, by diverting flood waters that often force families to abandon their homes and agriculture.

What else is needed to support subsistence-based communities in the face of climate change?

Whilst water security is crucial, additional public health measures must be taken to help establish resilience amongst climate-sensitive communities.

An Oxfam report estimates that 20,000 children in Malawi are born each year with HIV, and about half a million children are orphans due to HIV and AIDS.[x] Climate variability heightens poverty rates, resulting in increased incidence of forced prostitution and trafficking. During periods of environmental distress, women and young girls are often forced or coerced to provide sexual services in exchange for food and water. Many women may resort to selling sex throughout spans of successive drought in order to save their own children from the grips of starvation. [xi] These measures magnify the spread of infectious disease, and women are frequently left overburdened in caring for those who are ill.[xii]In repairing the health of rural communities, any form of climate adaptation should also involve the development of caretaking facilities for those who are ill and orphaned, as well as political and educational programs to help reduce the prevalence of basic rights violations.

It is clear that the challenges faced by climate-sensitive regions are becoming ever-more multifactorial, and may even prove insurmountable, if proactive support from the international community is not forthcoming. In order to develop a strong adaptation plan, we must foster greater financial support for rural regions affected by climate change. This will be key in facilitating increased access to effective subsistence systems, and building greater resilience among vulnerable communities.

Rachel Aronoff recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in English, and a specialization in Literature and the Environment. She is also certified in health and wellness coaching, personal training, and in the process of becoming a yoga instructor.

References

[i] Agriculture and Food Insecurity: Malawi. (2017). US Agency for International Development. Retrieved April 27, 2021. https://www.usaid.gov/malawi/agriculture-and-food-security

[ii] Climate Change Impacts in Malawi. (2020). Assessing the impacts of climate change on the agriculture sectors in Malawi, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved April 27, 2021.

[iii] Drip Irrigation: A Water Conserving Solution. (2004). Irrigation and Green Industry. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://igin.com/article-218-drip_irrigationa_water_conserving_solution.html

[iv] Drip Irrigation: A Water Conserving Solution. (2004).

[v] Hallett, Vicky. Millions of Women Take A Long Walk With A 40-Pound Water Can. (2016). NPR. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/07/484793736/millions-of-women-take-a-long-walk-with-a-40-pound-water-can

[vi] Caruso, Bethany. Women still carry most of the world’s water. (2017). The Conversation. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://theconversation.com/women-still-carry-most-of-the-worlds-water-81054

[vii] Surviving Floods and Cyclone Idai in Malawi. (2019). OxFam. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/surviving-floods-and-cyclone-idai-malawi/

[viii] Jones, Lily. 10 Facts About Sanitation in Malawi. (2020). The Borgen Project. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-sanitation-in-malawi/

[ix] Using nature-based water storage for smallholder irrigated agriculture in African drylands: Lessons from frugal innovation pilots in Mozambique and Zimbabwe. (2020). ScienceDirect. Retrieved Sept. 24, 2021. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901119311013

[x] Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009). The Winds of Change: Climate change, poverty and the environment in Malawi, Oxfam International. Retrieved April 27, 2021. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/winds-change

[xi] Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009).

[xii] Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009).