What is GAIN?

The Global Adaptation Index™ (GAIN™), a project of the Global Adaption Institute, provides a data-driven approach to help countries and the private sector invest in adaptation to climate change and other global forces.

Climate change is a reality and the challenge is only increasing as population growth, urbanization and economic expansion continue. All countries must adapt in order to minimize the effects of climate change and other global forces. Despite expanding resource commitments from international institutions, public funding alone is not the solution. The private sector will play a key role in providing the necessary additional resources. GAIN offers information on a country’s vulnerability and its readiness to undertake adaptive actions to prioritize and evaluate these needed investments.

Farmers can soon cut on fuel expenses as the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) tests the efficiency of its developed biofuel on machines.

The plan is an offshoot of a recent lecture by Dr. Rico O. Cruz, an expert on biofuel from Oregon, USA, who promoted Cruzesterification, a process of producing biodiesel from used vegetable oils. “Producing biodiesel using Cruzesterification makes the production of biodiesel as “easy as making coffee, in which the catalyst is the coffee, alcohol as the sugar and oil as the hot water. Blend the three ingredients and you a have a coffee or a biodiesel in minutes,” Cruz said.

continue reading “PhilRice machines to test biodiesel”over at PhilRice….

In Climate Loan Sharks, the World Development Movement and the Jubilee Debt Campaign reveal that the UK is pushing $1.1 billion of climate loans, via the World Bank, on some of the poorest countries in the world.

For example Grenada’s debt is already 90 per cent of GDP, yet it is to be lent a further $22 million, over 3 per cent of the country’s GDP. Lending to such debt burdened country is at best irresponsible and at worst willfully dangerous.

The UK, and other rich industrialised countries in the global north, owe a debt to countries in the global south as compensation for the devastating effects of climate change they have the primary responsibility for creating. A key part of this compensation is providing finance to poorer countries to help reduce the negative impacts of climate change on their lives and livelihoods.

Continue reading and download the FREE ebook “Climate loan sharks: how the UK is making developing countries pay twice for climate change”…..

This week in Cape Town, the World Bank will decide whether to approve new climate adaptation loans for five countries. In Bangladesh and around the world, campaigners are resisting these loans and urging their governments not to accept new debt for climate change. More than 50 organisations from countries due to receive the loans recently signed a statement opposing the concept of climate loans, which was initially invented by the UK.

Continue reading Why Bangladesh doesn’t want climate adaptation loans…..

“Potentially catastrophic” impacts on food production from slow-onset climate changes are expected to increasingly hit the developing world in the future and action is needed now to prepare for those anticipated impacts, FAO warned today in a submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“Currently the world is focused on dealing with shorter-term climate impacts caused mainly by extreme weather events,” said Alexander Müller, FAO Assistant-Director General for Natural Resources.

“This is absolutely necessary,” he continued. “But ‘slow-onset’ impacts are expected to bring deeper changes that challenge the ecosystem services needed for agriculture, with potentially disastrous impacts on food security during the period from 2050 to 2100. Coping with long-term changes after the fact doesn’t make much sense. We must already today support agriculture in the developing world to become more resilient,” he said.

continue reading about the Potentially catastrophic climate impacts on food production over the long-term…..

Ms. Dwi Astuti, Binadesa Executive Director and AsiaDHRRA Vice-Chairperson for Southeast Asia sub-region, participated in the CSO Forum on AFCC held in Manila on March 1, 2011.

She presented AsiaDHRRA’s proposal for the establishment of ASEAN Peoples’ Field School on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, a small-scale producer focused regional knowledge management mechanism.

Ms. Dwi also visited the AsiaDHRRA office and had an inspiring exchange with the secretariat.

New findings reported by the Africa Rice Center counter the widely held view that African rice, preferred by local consumers for its taste, is inherently lower yielding than Asian rice. They also confirm its remarkable adaptability to harsh growing conditions in Africa and hence its value for developing improved varieties suited to a changing climate.

continue reading about the endangered african rice varieties here….

Today, the Buckminster Fuller Institute announced the winner of its 2010 Challenge: Allan Savory, who has spent the last 50 years refining and evangelizing for a method of reversing desertification that he calls “holistic management.” The African Center for Holistic Management International, an NGO he helped found, will take home a $100,000 grant.

The Buckminster Fuller Challenge is meant to award big, sweeping solutions to seemingly intractable problems. As the Institute’s executive director, Elizabeth Thompson, tells FastCompany.com, “The approach was pioneered by Fuller. We’re looking for strategies that solve multiple problems at once, not just surgical implementations that don’t address the root problem.”

Continue reading Method That Turns Wastelands Green Wins 2010 Buckminster Fuller Challenge….

By Tony La Viña
Dean, Ateneo School of Government
Philippines Lead Negotiator, Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

I can never forget what happened in Copenhagen, Denmark, in the early hours of December 19, 2009. I will remember that day as an experience of both despair and hope Together with thousands of government officials, academics, environmental advocates, social activists, and ordinary citizens, I had come to Copenhagen with optimism that the world could come together and finally agree on how to address climate change, the most serious environmental problem we face. But like many others, I was disappointed with what we came up with in Copenhagen. Not only were we not able to bring home to our countries a legally  binding and effective agreement on climate change but the last hours of the Copenhagen talks was a disaster characterized  by  a destructive blame game. A Copenhagen Accord was noted, not adopted, by the Conference, and it remains uncertain if this weak agreement will even be implemented.

It did not have to be that way. Before that fateful night, for 12 days, those of us who were sent by our governments to work and agree on a common solution had worked hard trying to address our many disagreements. In fact, in the last five days of the conference leading up to the fateful last night, I had not slept for five straight days. Although I do have a strong work ethic, this was the first time in my life I had to do this. As a Facilitator of one of the negotiating groups (dealing with forests and climate change), I had worked round the clock to get an agreement within my group and that was within reach for us. As a lead negotiator for the Philippines, I was also coordinating our 20+ negotiators who had come to Copenhagen aware that climate change was a critical issue for our country. Because of this hard work, real progress was being made in some areas (forests, adaptation, technology transfer) while major difficulties continued to be insurmountable in other issues (especially mitigation targets by developed countries, mitigation actions by developing countries, and finance related concerns).

In effect, as we entered the last three days of the Copenhagen conference, we were in a stalemate. This happened in spite of the fact that we have been negotiating for two years and quite intensively in the last nine months where we met in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona for a total of six weeks. But time was running out as Presidents, Prime  Ministers and other heads of states started arriving in Copenhagen.

But what is so important about climate change that many world leaders, including the most powerful, have decided to come to Copenhagen? To answer this question, I paraphrase from a lecture I co-delivered in 2008 with Fr. Jett Villarin SJ, President of Xavier University, and Ms. Toni Yulo-Loyzaga, Executive Director of the ManilaObservatory:

“Climate change represents the most serious, most pervasive environmental threat that the world faces. It is the confluence of humanity’s improvident past, its difficult present, and its uncertain future brewing into one of the world’s biggest challenges. The issues are not merely scientific; climate change spans political, social, and economic dimensions, crosses national boundaries, and will reach beyond the present generation. It will aggravate the complex problems of development that we struggle with today like poverty, food security, and water availability, that threaten to ignite large-scale political and social upheavals. Climate change is inexorably linked to economic activities crucial to most modern societies – energy production and consumption, transportation, agriculture and forestry, real estate, marine resource utilization, industry and manufacturing, insurance, and so on. As such, it cannot be separated from the fundamental concerns of human society: national economic planning, public administration, and the quality of life for individuals, families, and communities. Finally, the irrelevance of national boundaries in dealing with the challenges presented by climate change provides the ultimate demonstration of global interdependence. Indeed, climate change negotiations involve the very foundations of global security and the development of nations. Ultimately, the issue of climate change goes beyond science and technology and is about ethics. It poses a question to all of us about what kind of world we want to live in.”

But what does climate change mean for a country like the Philippines? As I have described in a Facebook post that I co-wrote with colleagues from the Ateneo School of Government months ago, the story of Ondoy and Pepeng, two storms that hit the country in 2009, illustrates what could be in store for us.

Ondoy makes a landfall on September 26, 2009 and drops an unprecedented volume of rain. After one week, Typhoon Pepeng hits Luzon. Lakes and rivers overflow and water from dams are released, exacerbating floods occurring in residential areas and agricultural lands. Floodwaters engulf vast tracks of land, with some areas submerged in 10 feet of floodwater. Thousands of residents are stranded on rooftops, with no food, water, and electricity; others flee to evacuation centers. Landslides and mudslides occur in the northern region, burying people, houses and property, and blocking roads. Lives are lost – children, parent, kin, friend, and colleague. Many houses are destroyed. Roads and bridges are damaged or blocked. Agricultural crops are devastated. Livelihoods are wrecked. Rescue and relief operations are mobilized and get stalled in some areas due to impassable roads. Crowded evacuation centers created an overwhelming demand for clean water and toilets. Children, elderly people, and adults contract diarrhea, particularly in areas with no water and proper sanitation. Cases of leptospirosis increased, overwhelming available testing kits in hospitals.

As calamity funds are spent, the government begins to feel the strain on financial resources.
The National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) has assessed the total damage from the combined strength of Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng. As of October 13, 2009, total damage has reached P15.5 billion, shadowing the country’s calamity fund of P2 billion per year. Infrastructure damage totaled P4.77 billion, while agriculture is P10.75 billion. Death toll has reached nearly a thousand. The unforeseen devastation of Ondoy and Pepeng begs stronger than ever for a solid response to address climate change, a global phenomenon needing of local actions.

That climate change is the most serious environmental threat the world faces has been recognized as early as 1992 when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted. The Convention laid down the following objective: the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. It further said that “such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to insure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

The Convention is a good agreement but it is inadequate as it provides only general principles to guide future action as well as establishing the processes under which further agreements will be made. That is why, in December 2007, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change was adopted by governments. The Kyoto Protocol’s main feature is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Union for reducing GHG emissions by an average of 5% against 1990 levels which these countries should achieve within the commitment period of 2008-2012.

The Kyoto Protocol was a good start but also clearly inadequate. Science tells us that a reduction by developed countries of 45% of their 1990 emissions by 2020-2025 and a reduction of 85% of 1990 emissions by all countries are required to address the problem. Moreover, there must b e a new agreement that include support for adaptation in poor countries. It was hoped that this new agreement would be adopted in Copenhagen.

But we failed. In this way, Copenhagen was an experience of despair. But, if we learn the lessons from this experience, Copenhagen could turn out to be a positive experience. In fact, this is what I realized as I walked home to my hotel that final day in Copenhagen. It was cold, it was snowing, I was depressed because of how the conference ended, but strangely enough it was a liberating experience. I became clear to me what needed to be done both in my country, the Philippines, and what we needed to do internationally.

For the Philippines, the priority on climate change have to be adaptation. Whether we like it or not, climate change is already happening; it will probably worsen before it gets worse. It will have the earliest and most serious impacts on the poor. Because of this, we should invest resources into helping our framers adapt, reduce risks brought by disasters, build a public health system that helps the poor, conserve our forests, etc. We should still do mitigation but mainly those that are consistent with our adaptation goals.

On that last day in Copenhagen, it was tempting to give up on the United Nations. But as I walked home that day, I realized that was not an option. It would be foolish, it would be wrong to do that as climate change is in fact a global issue. But things would have to be changed: we have to drastically modify the way we negotiate, so there is less brinkmanship and stalemates, and more innovative thinking and brainstorming. I knew that this was possible because of my own experience chairing the forest negotiations (also known as the REDD negotiations, for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) where we succeeded in making a lot of progress and was on track to solved the outstanding issues. And so I look forward t the next meeting in Cancun, Mexico in 2010.

That final day, in Copenhagen, was an experience of hope. I know now I will be working on climate change for many more years and that I will not give up. The Lord of the Snow and the Storms, who called me to work on this issue, the one who gave me the strength to work nonstop for five days and who guided me and others to continue to be persons of good will even as we were severely tested, also assures me: because He is present, because He builds the house, we builders are not laboring in vain.

“This year, I will not have enough rice to eat for the whole year,” says Kong Chanthorn, a rice farmer in Srayov Kharng Tbong village in Cambodia’s Kompong Thom province. “I am afraid I cannot earn the money to buy rice to support my families because this year its price is too high.”

Chanthorn is not alone. The global price of rice, a staple for half the world’s population, is rising inexorably again, up more than 25 percent in recent months, stoked by Philippine and Indian import demand although not to the stratospheric levels of late 2007 and early 2008. At that time the price rose from about US$300 per metric ton to as much as US$1,100. Prices later fell back to about US$400 as government panic subsided across the region and bans on export were lifted, and as planting pushed up stocks.

Read the whole article about the incoming rice crisis at Asia Sentinel…