Lack of climate change media coverage in Kyrgyzstan

Climate change, Copenhagen, Environment, Features, International, Location, Policy, Pollution No Responses »
May 162010

By Gulnura Toralieva

Kyrgyz journalists don’t cover climate change because of Russian propaganda, general disinterest and prohibitive expenses, said Nurzat Abdyrasulova, director of the civic environmental foundation UNISON.

“Last time, the most popular Russian TV channel showed a documentary that claimed that climate change is just speculation and a lie. After such programmes, many journalists in Kyrgyzstan become convinced that they should not pay attention to this problem and report on it,” Abdyrasulova said.

Poor environmental reporting in Kyrgyzstan is due in part by lack of interest. Image credit: neiljs on Flickr

“They also think that climate change is a product of fantasy from scientists. No journalist has deep knowledge about climate change,” she added.

Lack of interest is also suffocating climate change reporting. A seminar for local journalists organised by UNISON in the beginning of April, aiming to help them report on climate change, stimulated little interest.

“It was really hard to get journalists to take part in the three-day training, [even though] it was led by experienced journalists and scientists, was free-of-charge and even paid for provincial journalists [to come],” Abdyrasulova said. “After confirming their participation they didn’t come and we called them many times to remind them about the event, which was very disappointing.”

“Most environmental reporting is perfunctory, with no analysis of the situation at all. The journalists only use press releases… and never do investigation by themselves,” she added.

To support this opinion, Abdyrasulova mentioned that news on the Copenhagen summit didn’t appear in the media. “There was only one small news item about this event and it looked very weird in comparison with the volume of information presented by journalists in other parts of the world. I couldn’t understand such a silence from the local media.”

Another reason why other environmental issues are poorly covered by journalists is that the government’s policy towards the environment is: “Everything is ok with our environment. We have no factories. Manufacturing died after the Soviet Union’s collapse, so there is no pollution now,” in Abdyrasulova’s words.

The journalists also help the government create an illusion by ignoring environmental reporting,” she said. The other reason is that ecology as a subject is not taught properly in the schools or universities.

As an NGO leader, she also has problems communicating with journalists.

“Frankly speaking, I have never tried to build bridges with journalists. It is really hard to make them be interested in our job and publicise the environmental problems to attract attention from the public and government,” said Abdyrasulova. Last time she organised a press conference on the results of the Copenhagen summit, only two journalists came.

“It is very expensive today to attract media attention in Kyrgyzstan. If you want something to be published you should pay. Environment itself is not interesting to journalists, despite the fact that the public wants and should be informed about the quality of their lives and risks around them,” said Abdyrasulova.

For example, people don’t know about the dangers of old pesticides left by Soviet agricultural organisations. “There is evidence that use of this type of pesticide may cause cancer. But people are not aware of this risk and they not only use them themselves, but also sell them to other farmers,” she claimed.

Posted by Gulnura Toralieva at 3:46 pm Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

COP15: a European challenge

Climate change, Copenhagen, Environment, European, International, Interview, Location, Policy No Responses »
Feb 152010

By Caroline Azad

The European Parliament was represented at December’s Copenhagen Climate Conference by an official delegation. Since the Lisbon Treaty’s enforcement last December, the European Parliament’s consent is required for all International treaties. Before the conference began, Jo Leinen, Chairman of the European delegation, spoke to Caroline Azad about the difficulty of reaching meaningful solutions and Europe’s aims at Copenhagen.

Caroline Azad (CA): Many expert opinions, which are reported in the media, seem sceptical about the potential success of the Copenhagen Summit. The main reasons cited for such views are the lack of concrete solutions from major, industrialised, countries, as well as the financing question for the infrastructures of developing countries.

On 30th October last year, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said, in a press conference: “We can look the rest of the world in the eye and say we, Europeans, we have done our job. We are ready for Copenhagen…we have a clear, ambitious and unified EU message on climate finance…we are ready to engage.”

Do you perceive a contradiction between Barroso’s statement and the arguments of the experts?

Jo Leinen (JL): If you look at the global developments in climate policies, we Europeans are well ahead of other industrialised countries. We have a legally binding climate protection package with a cross-border carbon market. That is unique. On the other hand, climate scientists tell us that we have to go even further with our reduction commitments and solutions for climate protection. That means that we have to do more than the others.

CA: Does the European Union have a unified plan and concrete solutions?

JL: Yes, the European Union has a unified position on nearly all questions of climate policy. We have our reduction commitments; we have concepts how to protect forests and how to set up adaptation frameworks. The Council of Ministers has tabled a negotiation mandate and the European Parliament has decided on a resolution. Both documents are very similar in their aim.

The only place where you can find a major difference between the Council and the Parliament is in the question of financing. We say that the EU should promise €30 billion (£26 billion) per year by 2020, in order to finance mitigation and adaptation. The member states did not agree on a concrete number. But we are heading in the same direction.

CA: How would you explain the lack of concrete strategies between the member states?

JL: I do not see a major difference in the positions of member states. The question of financing is difficult, but that has always been the case with regard to budgetary questions. The financial issues are the questions where we have to come up with a burden-sharing concept. We will establish some sort of solidarity mechanism that remains oriented on per capita emissions.

CA: Do you think first-world countries should be responsible for financing adaptation in developing countries?

JL: Of course, the industrialised world has a responsibility for climate change and therefore also for adaptation. If we follow the ‘polluter pays’ principle to the end, then we have to clean up the mess we created from dumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for so many years. But adaptation is not only about financing. We have to assist the most affected countries in establishing adaptation strategies and by presenting solutions for how to adapt to a changing environment.

Adding to that, capacity building is an important issue. Only if people know how to help themselves, they can use our financial aid in a sensible manner. Adaptation is more than just financing. But without financing, of course, adaptation cannot work.

CA: How would you define what is required of developing countries? Are there huge differences in relation to their behaviour during the Kyoto era?

JL: We can observe two global trends which lead to the difficult situation we are facing in Copenhagen. The first trend, or observation, tells us that developing countries will be affected more dramatically than the rest of the world. Climate change is in some way unfair. It means that those who are not responsible will be those who suffer most. The second trend is the rising economic power of emerging economies.

If you look at China, India, Brazil and some other countries, they are following us in developing high-carbon-economies. We have to tell them: if you keep going like that, all our efforts in climate protection will not be enough to stop global warming. They have to change their behaviour as well. Finding a global deal in Copenhagen should therefore be in the interest of all parties involved.

CA: How do you perceive the public reaction to the Copenhagen Summit, in terms of its engagement, confidence and appeal?

JL: It is really astonishing how many people are engaged in the process towards Copenhagen. This a great moment for listening to our civil societies and acting according to what people think our future should look like. We should take that development seriously and use it to put pressure on governments to sign an agreement that is for the benefit of all.

CA: What are you expecting from the Copenhagen Summit?

JL: We still hope for a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen. Although I know that some countries have difficulties in committing themselves internationally to these targets, it should not be an excuse for non-action.

In the worst case, there will be a politically binding agreement in Copenhagen that will be filled with more substance in the first couple of months of 2010 and than ratified by the parties later.

CA: What role will the European Parliament’s delegation play in the Copenhagen Summit?

JL: Since the Lisbon Treaty is providing us with more rights in international negotiations, we will push for a greater involvement in the negotiating process. We will be informed by the Commission and the Swedish Presidency at all stages of the negotiations, and in the end, the European Parliament has to ratify the agreement. During the negotiations, we will make clear that the EU will go for its 30 per cent targets when all other parties agree on a new treaty, and we will make clear that the EU still has the leadership in climate protection and is willing to stay a frontrunner.

The promotion of clean growth and the initiative for another industrial revolution towards smart green technologies will be important for my delegation during informal talks with other delegations from around the world.

Posted by Caro Azad at 10:46 pm Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Attitudes to Climate Change in Central Asia

Climate change, Copenhagen, Environment, International, Interview, Policy, Pollution, Sustainability, Water No Responses »
Feb 012010
By Gulnura Toralieva

Central Asia’s governments and civil society did not encourage climate-change discussions ahead of the Copenhagen summit in December, argues Cleo Paskal, associate fellow at the .

Gulnura Toralieva (GT): Why isn’t climate change on the agenda of developing countries and the Central Asian region in particular?

Cleo Paskal (CP): Climate change was presented by the developed world to the developing world. They’ve projected their own problems on to developing countries without really understanding what issues have importance for people in places like Central Asia. If you talk with somebody in Central Asia about climate change it doesn’t really make much sense. But if you talk with them about agriculture or water security then they understand clearly what the problems could be.

GT: Who should care about climate change and its environmental impact? Is it a problem of developed countries or the developing world?

CP: Central Asia has a long experience of environmental change. The Aral Sea is a good example, where man-made messing up of the environment has had severe environmental consequences. Climate change is a component of environmental change. You cannot address climate change alone without addressing other environmental problems. They all interconnect. This is the first thing. Then there is a question about how you handle climate change. It can be handled in two stages. You can mitigate it, to stop it from accelerating, or you can adapt to it. In most cases, people talk about mitigation and adaptation.

In the case of Central Asia, it is clear that not a lot of mitigation can be done. That economy has already been stretched thin. They have large existing industrial challenges left over from Soviet period. More critical issues for Central Asia are things like radioactive tailings and electrical and water systems. Those need to be dealt with. And if you deal with those they will help with adaptation to climate change.

Adaptation was predominantly developed in the developing world. The developing countries have had to adapt to environmental assaults for a long time. The science of adaptation is advanced in the developing world. The developed world has a lot to learn from developing countries when it comes to adaptation and the developing world really needs to start mitigation.

GT: What are the major social, political and economic implications of climate change on developing countries’ security?

CP: The developing countries are not one country. Each country has its own challenges and each region of each country has its own challenges. And that is the problem with environmental change, that it is not one problem it is a million problems. If you are in a coastal area, the problem could be flooding, it could be salt water getting into your fresh water system. If you in a dry area or desert area, it could be even dryer or you could get dust storms. If you are in mountain regions, it could be erosion or glacier melting.

So there may be many different sorts of problems and it will take many different sorts of solutions. And I would encourage people in the developing world who have found local solutions – and there are some good local solutions – to build bridges to other developing-world countries to see what you could learn from each other. Often the solutions found in the developing world are inexpensive, low-tech, and efficient. And those are the sorts of things which will be needed globally but can be developed, implemented and expanded through the developing world quite easily right now.

GT: Kyrgyzstan, the country I’m from, has serious environmental problems such as huge toxic waste dumps caused by radioactive production. As most of the uranium tailing sites are located in densely populated and natural disaster-prone areas of Central Asia’s largest river basins, they represent a major potential risk to the region’s water supply and the health of millions of people.

The problem is exacerbated by landslides caused by frequent rainfall near uranium dumps. If it is a consequence of climate change, what can you suggest we do to mitigate the negative impacts or to prevent the catastrophe?

CP: What you are talking about is a serious issue and gets even worse because Kyrgyzstan is also in an active seismic zone and there is evidence that as glacier melting takes weight off certain areas and puts it on others that can create more seismic movements. Heavy precipitation can also get into fissures and cracks and create a build up of pressure and create more seismicity.

In many different ways, climate change can exacerbate existing problems. The first step is to understand the problem, to do a really good, ground-level survey of what existing waste dumps there are, for example, and what the likely climate change projected for the region will be. In the case of Kyrgyzstan, you have a good survey from the Soviet administration, have good scientists domestically and there are good Russian scientists who were in the country but who have left. I would encourage building bridges with all the scientists who have left to try to make sure you have all the accurate data available. Files may have disappeared; they may have gone to Moscow.

You really need to know what has happened in your country in order to figure out how to move forward in a sustainable and safe way. In science, people tend to work in their own areas. So the people who work in radioactive tailings may or may not have spoken to people working in climate change or in hydrology or whatever.

GT: In one of your publications you said that climate change may affect the stability and security of some regions. It may even have negative impact on the security of the most stable regions. What can you say about the Central Asian region?

CP: It is a funny thing that people talk about Central Asia as if it is one homogenous country with one homogenous environment. As you know, there are many different people and there are many environmental situations. Some countries have a lot of water, some countries have no water. Some countries are close to Afghanistan, some are close to China. It is not one country.

So the challenges will be different. There are commonalities obviously, but when you look at environmental change, the impact is so regional that you must understand what has happened locally.

The other thing about Central Asia is its neighbours. The countries that are neighbouring China will start to get – and already have in fact seen – an increased influence from China. China has severe environmental problems. It hasn’t got enough water or food for its own population. So it will look to Siberia or appropriate countries in Central Asia to secure food and possibly water supplies. When China goes into a country, it is likely to want to ensure a degree of political control. That can affect your security situation.

Environmental change may also affect the security situation at a basic level if there is not enough food and water for the local population. There are potential areas where security can be compromised. We used to think about Central Asia firstly as a part of the Soviet Union but it is really an important component of global balance that is focused in a volatile area with Afghanistan, Russia and China and, to a certain degree, India also.

GT: What can Central Asian countries and Kyrgyzstan in particular address at the global climate change conference in Copenhagen in December?

CP: Kyrgyzstan hasn’t got an accurate understanding of its own problems and figuring out what it needs to address those problems and to ensure that those needs are met is important. It is in the interest of the developed world for the developing world to be as stable as possible. And if the developing world can clearly state “This is what we need” then that will be helpful to create global stability.

GT: The Central Asian states have many disagreements on energy and water sharing issues. The Soviet energy system united all five regional states, but doesn’t suit the interests of all these countries. Upstream and downstream countries always have room for being dissatisfied with each other’s policy.

Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan said recently that they are going to leave the Soviet-made system. Most of the countries work on developing their own energy systems and finding ways to be independent. But it is expensive and in some ways not possible. What is your view of this problem? What kind of implications does this situation have on regional stability?

CP: It is a serious problem. There are many serious problems. When the Soviet Union fell apart, it left Central Asia with three legacies, with three different problems which made unification or regional stability a little difficult.

One is that the infrastructure was designed for a whole – not just for a regional whole but a pan-Soviet whole. So the physical infrastructure was designed to be able to enforce co-operation even if it really doesn’t make sense.

The legal infrastructure has a similar problem. And the most obvious example is the borders, which divide tribes and language groups. The inherited legal infrastructure can cause problems when it comes to water- and power-sharing agreements.

Third is that Central Asian countries start to get real cultural polarisation and social fragmentation and then it becomes difficult to get over and it makes all the things more difficult. There is no feeling that you are all together. That’s why countries might think “Why should I deal with this country, if I have nothing in common with it except ancient history? Why can’t I deal with China or Russia instead?” Social cohesion comes first. If social cohesion starts to break apart, all the relations become difficult.

The existing system has some serious problems. It is old; it hasn’t been properly maintained and it was designed for a different environment. When you build such constructions you make environmental assessments: how much water is in the rivers, how much rainfall and so on and you look to the last 50 or 100 years to make these calculations. Those calculations no longer mean anything. The next 50 to 100 years will probably be very different from previous decades. That hydro installation you built which made perfect sense in 1980 may already make no sense today because of increased sedimentation, changing precipitation or glacier runoff.

The existing infrastructure you have may be severely affected by the environment. That old-build infrastructure may in no way be suitable to the new environment. The question is, in designing the new infrastructure, are they taking into account environmental change. Or are they designing it in the same way as they always design it. I suspect they don’t take environmental change into account. I’m not sure that this infrastructure will be able to deliver. It is important to take into account environmental change for both new and old infrastructure.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Posted by Gulnura Toralieva at 11:16 pm