Bali Climate Talks

History:
(for details of Kyoto Protocol see pages on UN Framework Convention on Climate Change website http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php)

Outcome of conference:
I am unsure whether the 'Bali Road-Map' was the best possible outcome- it could have been worse though.

In the dispute between the US and the G77 Majority World (Developing and Less Economically Developed Countries) , the EU backed the G77. Some of the Kyoto signatories wanted to move ahead without the US on board, this move was blocked by Canada. Eventually the US was forced to back down and accept the proposal by the G77 due to overwhelming pressure. (The reaction of environmental activists and public pressure were instremental in forcing the US to back down from blocking the G77 amendment and had to agree to participate in the preparation of the 2009 treaty.)

Overall outcome:
Agreed that a new treaty on global warming will be signed in 2009. Also agreed to improve technology transfer to the Majority World and to set up an adaptation fund which reconises that countries with a high carbon footprint need to compensate those countries which are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Wait and see!- Will binding targets be ambitous enough? How will meaningful technology transfer be achieved? Will enough be pledged to the adaptation fund to allow poor countries to be resilient to climate change? It depends on the international political environment when the final decisions are made in 2009.

For more information see: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php

In previous communications I have given the link to Avaaz.org a global campaigning organisation that responds to pressing issues through mobilising a global network of activists to put pressure on governments to respond to the issues with positive action. I expect they will be putting pressure on governments to ensure the 2009 treaty is as robust as possible.

http://www.avaaz.org

Huge Range of Training Availible

Training ranging from 'getting local people active and involved'; 'preparing effective funding applications'; 'project management'; 'tackling anti-social behaviour in green spaces' and much, much more.

There is bound to be something of interest to you see: http://shop.btcv.org.uk/etn

Yorkshire and Humber Microgeneration Conference & Awards 2008 - 6 March 2008 - Sheffield

Microgeneration Yorkshire have confirmed the date of the 2008 Y&H Microgeneration Conference and Awards which are to take place at the Holiday Inn Royal Victoria Hotel in Sheffield on Thursday 6 March 2008.

for full details on the awards (including details for how to submit an application for an award) and details of the conference please see Microgeneration Yorkshire's website or click below to be taken directly to the conference page: http://www.my-energy.org.uk/MY/THE2008REGIONALMICROGENERATIONCONFERNCEANDAWARDS-sig.nsf?OpenDatabase

Loads of money being spent on flood defense in Leeds

(text taken from a Leeds Sustainability Network circular email)

80M river defences are to be built in Leeds to stave off potentially "catastrophic" flooding.

Riverside walls and earth embankments will go up at points most in danger from the River Aire and improved drainage aims to cut the risk of flooding from surface water.

The work will start following an investigation by the Environment Agency (EA) and is expected to be finished by 2010-2011.

Flood defence blueprints are also being drawn up for other "at risk" areas lower down the Aire and on the River Calder.

The plans follow publication of a report from the EA into floods in June and July this year, and in2000.

The agency is working with Leeds City Council and emergency services on the plans which will include protection of electricity and water supplies, and sewage disposal.

Most of the funding is expected to come from the Government but businesses and local councils who stand to benefit will also be asked to contribute.

In addition Leeds City Council has updated its city centre emergency evacuation plan.
The report says 2,000 houses and 1,000 businesses are at most risk in the city.

The agency has identified areas at gravest risk: Leeds city station, The Calls, most of the city centre and parts of Kirkstall valley.

The EA estimates that for every pound spent on defences in Leeds six pounds in damage will be saved.

Construction work on the flood defences is expected to cause considerable disruption in the city.

The full article contains 355 words and appears in the newspaper. Last Updated: 07 December 2007 9:39 AM
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/80m-to-prevent-floods-disaster.3566090.jp

Flooding and Water Management in the Landscape - Sheffield 17-19 March 2008

The Yorkshire & Humber Assembly is supporting a major conference on the theme of ‘Flooding and Water Management in the Landscape’ to be held at Sheffield Hallam University from Monday 17 to Wednesday 19 March 2008. It will cover the lessons of history and landscape change for the future and the impacts of climate and other environmental changes.

The conference will include speakers from the Environment Agency, ADAS, Halcrow, the Assembly, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management and various academic institutions. In addition there will be a community and conservation management dimension looking at the impacts of flooding and the responses to extreme events.

If you would like further details or are interested in attending, please contact the Conference Team on 0114 272 4227 or email info@hallamec.plus.com

DEFRA Funding Cuts- Impact on Waterways

In a previous post I mentioned the cuts to DEFRAs budget. I payed particular attention to waterways. Please read on to get an overview of the effects of the cuts on waterways as written by one of our Aire Action Leeds reps; Ian Moore of the Inland Waterways Association- West Riding Branch.

Report to KEoL Meeting for 5th February 2008
At the adjournment debate in Parliament on the future funding of canals in the UK on Tuesday 11th December, the Waterways Minister, Jonathan Shaw MP, said that he expected the budget for British Waterways would now be broadly around flat cash for a three-year period.

This sounds better than the previously reported Comprehensive Spending Review settlement to British Waterways for the next three years which was suggested to be £54 million minus 5% each year.

However the full details of the final settlement are not expected to be announced until the end of February 2008.

British Waterways has just announced (4th February 2008) that it has decided to withdraw from a major partnership project (the Cotswolds Canals Partnership) following a review of funding commitments for the next financial year and the diversion of significant funds to progress the urgent first phase of a repair programme for the Brecon & Abergavenny Canal, which breached last year.

The IWA has strongly condemned this decision as it puts at risk a £11.9 million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund.

There is still concern about the rising cost of waterways use leading to the less well off and the elderly on fixed incomes being priced off the water. BW has for example announced an average mooring price increase of 7.4%.

This will ultimately result in social exclusion from the waterways if only the affluent can afford to go boating. And this could create further division between the boaters who are individually paying the most and the other users, like walkers, who are individually paying substantially less through taxation.

Further information can be found at www.waterways.org.uk

Report to KEoL Meeting for 4th December 2007

It was reported in mid November that the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) are having funding problems due to the costs of the outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease, Blue Tongue Disease and Bird Flu. And there would be no additional money available from the Treasury. This would make further funding cuts seem likely to British Waterways (BW) and the Environment Agency (EA), which are DEFRA sponsored agencies.

This is on top of the recent funding cuts, which started in 2006, when DEFRA was unable to meet its financial obligations due to a major overspend particularly over late payments to farmers via the Rural Payments Agency. With no further funding available from the Treasury, it cut funding to the various agencies under its control, including the Environment Agency and British Waterways.

For the following year, British Waterways’ grant-in-aid from the government for 2007-8 was cut by 12½% from it’s 2005 level of £62.5 million.

There was a campaign against the cuts, and in parliament there were numerous early motions, 3 adjournment debates and a select committee report into BW, which is available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmenvfru.htm

As part of the cabinet reshuffle at the beginning of July 2007, there was an almost complete change in Ministerial posts at DEFRA with only Lord Rooker remaining. Local MP for Leeds Central, Hilary Benn became the new Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. And a new Waterways Minister (Jonathan Shaw, MP for Chatham and Aylesford in Kent) was appointed.

The new DEFRA team has said it will do "everything within its power" to assist British Waterways. And there have been some discussions about changes that would allow British Waterways to use its assets more effectively.

However the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement to British Waterways for the next three years is reported to be £54 million minus 5% each year. And the parliamentary select committee were extremely concerned at BW’s forecasts of the impact of this settlement on the maintenance of its waterways network.

British Waterways has been hard hit by this summer’s flooding and the recent breach in the Brecon and Abergavenny Canal - a total additional cost of over £10 million.

BW is currently consulting on a 33% or more boat licence increase over the next 3 years. Other costs such as moorings are rising. There is a concern that this will price some people, especially those with fixed incomes, off the waterways. And of course will have a knock on effect on waterside businesses etc.

The cost of boating has been rising above inflation for some years and is becoming something that only the better off can afford and thus an issue of social inclusion. And it has the potential to polarise users. Those that are paying the most may feel that they should have first call on how money is spent.

But boats using the waterways bring them alive and are an essential ingredient to making the waterways so appealing to so many people.

And of course cuts in maintenance can affect all waterways and towpath users.

For the UK population of 60 million, the grant-in-aid from the government to British Waterways works out at less than a pound per head per year.

For the latest Information see the IWA’s Head website at www.waterways.org.uk

There was a Westminster Hall debate on the issue of waterways funding held on 11/12/07 see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmwhall/01.htm#hddr_4


Regional Biodiversity Strategy- Consultation Deadline Approaching

I have just recieved details of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy Consultation via the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Environment Forum e-newsletter (18/1/08).

The consultation documents can be viewed via:
http://microsite.yhub.org.uk/articledetail.aspx?article=EAA2F8AE-3915-4006-BF65-D9F1EDC9CF6F&dom=yorkshirehumberenvironmentforum

The deadline for responses is 25/1/08. I apologise for not informing you of this deadline sooner. I asked to be sent a copy of the documents as soon as they were availible but for some reason I didn't get them.

I mentioned the Regional Biodiversity Strategy (RBS) in my post about the Sustainable Development Advisory Board. Below is the write up of the workshop I participated in. Watch this space for information on the consultation.


WORKSHOP SESSION 1
How does biodiversity link with the IRF (Integrated Regional Framework) and the region’s landmark issues?
Attended by:
David Smith
Association of West Yorks Authorities
Arthur Barker
Hambleton District Council
George Munson
Leeds City Council
Steve Littlewood
Leeds Met University
Jon Holland
Leeds Voice
Rose Norris
Local Government Y&H
Richard Wilson (Facilitator)
Natural England
Andrew de Freitas
NE Lincs Council
Graham Joyce
Pennine Prospects
Brian Rooney
Wakefield MDC
Paul Mosley
WWF
Andy Horrocks (Facilitator)
Yorkshire & Humber Assembly
Chris Martin
Yorkshire & Humber Assembly
Richard Wood
Yorkshire & Humber Assembly

Landmark Issues
Sustainable transport
Climate change mitigation
Climate change adaptation
Productivity and innovation
Housing markets and affordability
Public health and obesity
Skills and education
Violent crime
Diversity and equality
Regional growth

What are the dangers to the natural environment that solutions to landmark issues might present?

- biodiversity struggles to achieve attention/resources against more immediate challenges.

-very generally, little understanding among policy makers and implementers of what biodiversity is, how it is important and what their role is.

- sustainable transport – big risk from setting aside too much land for production of biodiesel. Danger of increased industrial agriculture and extensive mono-cultures.

- sustainable transport – increased use of biofuels risks habitat destruction through more mono-cropping of fuel crops and the export of the same problem, e.g. sugarcane production in rainforest.

- growth in the region – the need for transport links – could increase traffic on roads until infrastructure catches up – increased carbon.

- renewable energy – wind power risks to biodiversity

- risks that “quick fix” responses to mitigate climate change/reduce CO2 might adversely impact environment (biofuels?? Wind and hydro power??) careful assessment needed.

- drive for biofuels (green) putting at risk existing networks or at least at odds with potential other land uses with greater biodiversity value.

- limate mitigation –ve /+ve - pressures/changes to land use linked to biofuels

- climate change adaptation – Poorly planned species selection not resistant to changing weather patterns, e.g. lack of frosts to trigger flowering in some tree species.

- climate change adaptation – changing climatic zones making protecting isolated and small ecosystems impossible

- climate change adaptation – damage to natural environment by flood defence

- productivity – biodiversity impact assessment not well enough understood and loads costs onto development projects – often unnecessarily when regulatory/regulator understanding is scant.

- increased productivity – could lead to same situation as South East in terms of env. Impact!

- will the greener solutions for housing be in the right places for jobs?

- over-development of some areas for economic/housing development may negatively impact on biodiversity.

- affordability and density of housing development. Can we develop affordable housing that gives people green space of value to wildlife, growing produce, leisure …

- housing development on Greenfield and brownfield sites.

- dangers – short-termism. Big push to find new sites for housing may squash out good biodiverse sites (including some brownfield!)

- obesity and health inequalities are largely based in urban areas – need to ensure that opening up the “great outdoors” for people to exercise, walk, etc, doesn’t lead to more cars in rural areas!

- the public’s engagement and buy-in on issues like biodiversity can reinforce inequalities (i.e. usually educated people)

- diversity and inequality – relegating the natural environment to an ‘acceptable cost’ to bear in
levelling up economic disparities.

- diversity & equality and regional growth - these two can be in conflict – need to try to avoid bland development.

- regional growth – necessary housing growth will destroy habitat and increase fragmentation of habitat.

- directing growth/managing growth needed to ensure biodiversity assets retained. Need new development linked to habitat creation?

- housing and growth – growth pressure = threat to biodiverse brownfield habitats; urban green
spaces and greenfield sites. Planning system used to secure appropriate planting and multi-level green space (green roofs and terraces)

How can the natural environment help to address the landmark issues?

- provision of green infrastructure network needs to include provision for non-vehicular transport.

- sustainable transport and public health – high quality, green space encouraging people to walk and cycle more

- climate change adaptation – considerable opportunity to provide links from ‘island’ sites in water retention/storage schemes, e.g., prevention of drying out wetland areas, etc, restoration/creation of flood plain and restoration of rainwater in upland catchments.

- climate change will both adversely and beneficially affect different species/habitats. Need a network of ‘routes’ and opportunities to allow change to take place.

- crossover between climate change adaptation and natural environment -> green infrastructure / flood risk mitigation.

- opportunities for carbon capture sequestration through changed land uses with greater biodiversity value.

+ve – Flood risk management solutions offer huge potential to create opportunities for natural env. enhancement, recreation, leisure and tourism.

- natural environment has central role in climate change adaptation. RBS needs to consider key elements of regional social adaptation and develop its role in responding.

- climate change adaptation – urban green infrastructure and green roofs promoted and enhanced to reduce flash flooding and urban heat island effect.

- climate change mitigation – high quality natural and semi-natural environments promoted to encourage more local holidays and less aviation. Need for well developed local tourism infrastructure.

- climate change mitigation – greater use of locally sourced natural building materials (e.g. wood, stone, etc). Skills and acceptability issues.

- climate change mitigation and adaptation – large-scale upland peat-bog protection and re-establishment. Mechanism to value downstream flood alleviation and carbon sequestration.

- ownership issues vital to resolve.

Climate change mitigation – carbon sequestration offers opportunities to restore/protect habitat, e.g. woodland/pasture.

Loss of biodiversity (or threat of) related to climate change has strong communication power.

Climate change mitigation – potential for new mixed woodlands to provide both locally sourced food (fruit and nuts) and biomass from thinnings.

Provides a focus for education and learning (resource)

Positive impacts on neighbourhoods from rich biodiversity/natural landscapes (feelings of wellbeing?)

RBS need to look at natural environment aspects of innovation in response to climate change, i.e., creation/engineering of natural environment to maximise cc adaptation potential.

Innovation – green solutions to building materials, energy use with reduced reliance on petro-chemical derived energy input and derived products.

Good stewardship and land management absorbs CO2 and can help manage water/drainage.

Role of habitats in slowing/reducing flooding.

Sustainable transport – develop more GI/transport corridors (greenways) to encourage walking and cycling as practical (and affordable) alternatives for short journeys.

Health/obesity – increase opportunities and incentives to utilise the natural environment as a ‘green gym’ to achieve individual health gains.

Public health and obesity – access to open space / local fields (landscape pressures)
+ve Innovation – Natural environment has huge potential for new ‘crops’ in the biochemical area replacing petro-chemical sources.

Open the outdoors up for people to help reduce obesity and health inequalities.

Outdoor activity, raising awareness of habitats.

Need to use urban greenspace creatively. Allotments can help engage people with the environment and can help meet health outcomes and can be positive re biodiversity.

Can obviously provide the backdrop for exercise/leisure

Public health and obesity – access to open space – local/fresh foods.

Rich natural environment promotes healthier lifestyles

Productivity/innovation – innovative use of natural resources within the region, e.g. renewables/biomass.

Does natural environment have a role in rehabilitation of violent criminals? Is this a way of sourcing ‘novel’ resources for biodiversity delivery?

Environmental enhancement can help and re-engage people at risk of entering into criminal activity. Can also help re-interest young people in education and gaining skills.

Housing markets, etc – ensure that developers (public and private) build GI into new (and existing, where possible) developments using S106 or other planning tariff type mechanisms.

Rich biodiversity and green infrastructure – resource attractive for inward investment and jobs.

Housing market affordability – attractiveness of natural environment

GI has a key role to play in community cohesion. This may well link into diversity and equality solutions.

Inclusion of green roofs/walls can enhance distinctiveness and bring environmental benefits (including biodiversity)

Climate change adaptation and mitigation – understand the potential role of the South Pennine (and other) Moors to prevent further CO2 emission (erosion, fire, etc) and sequestrate additional CO2 (eg aviation, road growth).

Regional growth – identify opportunities for benefiting the natural environment through new development and increasing focus on environmental sector as a growth sector.
+ve – Regional growth/productivity – the regional tourism economy has huge potential for growth based on its existing and enhanced natural assets. –ve – outside region visitors expending resources to visit.

A ‘whole system’ approach will help ensure this works and is sustainable in itself – solutions are often driven by a number of factors.

Regional growth – natural environment help to address negative implications, e.g., air quality, access to space, quality of life.

Natural environment can contribute to regional economic growth. RBS needs to i.d. a small number of demonstration events/cases/examples.

Fish and Biodiversity on the Aire- Comment on plans for Skelton Grange Weir

At our December meeting we were encouraged to learn of the prospects for the Aire to provide a breeding habitat for thousands of salmon and an improved habitat for a wide range of other species.

A key barrier to fish movement are weirs. The weir at Skelton Grange can be removed to improve biodiversity. This was proposed as part of a planning condition attached to an application from Npower for development at their adjacent site.

Npower put in an application to remove the condition enforcing the removal of the weir if planned development went adhead at the adjacent site. Npowers application to remove the condition enforcing the removal of the weir has been refused. That means that npower will have to remove the weir as part of their development.

See the comments section for my response on the apllication.