31 October 2010 - The Star Online
By Chisa Fujioka and David Fogarty
NAGOYA, Japan (Reuters) - Nearly 200 nations agreed on Saturday to a sweeping plan to stem the loss of species by setting new 2020 targets to ensure greater protection of nature and enshrine the benefits it gives mankind.
Japan's Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto (C) holds the gavel, as Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Executive Secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf (R) claps, after closing the plenary session of the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP10) past midnight in Nagoya, Japan October 30, 2010. (REUTERS/Yuriko Nakao)
Environment ministers from around the globe also agreed on rules for sharing the benefits from genetic resources from nature between governments and companies, a trade and intellectual property issue that could be worth billions of dollars in new funds for developing nations.
Agreement on parts of the deal has taken years of at times heated negotiations, and talks in the Japanese city of Nagoya were deadlocked until the early hours of Saturday after two weeks of talks.
Delegates agreed goals to protect oceans, forests and rivers as the world faces the worst extinction rate since the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago.
They also agreed to take steps to put a price on the value of benefits such as clean water from watersheds and coastal protection by mangroves by including such "natural capital" into national accounts.
Services provided by nature to economies were worth trillions of dollars a year, the head of the U.N. Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, said in a statement, adding businesses from banks to miners were key in halting rapid loss of ecosystems.
"These goals recognize and value the irreplaceable benefits that nature provides to people in the form of food, fuel, fiber, fodder and freshwater that everyone depends on," Andrew Deutz, director of international government relations for U.S.-based The Nature Conservancy, told Reuters.
Graphic on biodiversity hotspots, click http://link.reuters.com/quj68p
Delegates and greens said the outcome would send a positive signal to troubled U.N. climate negotiations that have been become bogged down by a split between rich and poor nations over how to share the burden in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
U.N. climate talks resume in Mexico in a month.
"TORTUOUS NEGOTIATIONS"
"We're delighted there's been a successful outcome to these long and tortuous negotiations and I think it shows that these multilateral negotiations can deliver a good result," said Peter Cochrane, head of Australia's delegation in Nagoya.
Delegates agreed to a 20-point strategic plan to protect fish stocks, fight the loss and degradation of natural habitats and to conserve larger land and marine areas.
They also set a broader 2020 "mission" to take urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity.
Nations agreed to protect 17 percent of land and inland waters and 10 percent of coastal and marine areas by 2020. Currently, 13 percent of land and 1 percent of oceans are protected for conservation.
The third part of the deal, the Nagoya Protocol on genetic resources, has taken nearly 20 years to agree and sets rules governing how nations manage and share benefits derived from forests and seas to create new drugs, crops or cosmetics.
The protocol could unlock billions of dollars for developing countries, where much of the world's natural riches remain.
"The protocol is really, really a victory," Brazil's Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira told reporters.
It will also mean changes for businesses.
"This isn't a boring protocol. It will regulate billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry," said Tove Ryding, policy adviser for biodiversity and climate change for Greenpeace.
Karl Falkenberg, head of the European Commission's environment department, said it would also fight poverty.
"We finally have something that is going to give great results for the environment, for the poor people," who will be able to earn money in exchange for access to genetic materials, he said after the talks ended.
Delegates and greens had feared the ill-feeling that pervaded climate negotiations after last December's acrimonious meeting in Copenhagen would derail the talks in Nagoya.
"There's been a mood of change. I think the failure of the Copenhagen meeting last year perhaps has meant a new realisation that we need to more flexible in negotiations," said Jane Smart, director of conservation policy for the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
(Editing by Jon Boyle)
Copyright © 2010 Reuters
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Taking care with mega projects
A QUESTION OF BUSINESS
By P. GUNASEGARAM
Saturday October 23, 2010 - The Star Online
IT’S common during times of economic slack for the Government to push for projects to get activity up to provide jobs and incomes for people.
It was economist John Maynard Keynes, who is now fashionable again, who famously said that the economy would be better off during a depression if all workers did was to dig up ditches and fill them up again.
Sometimes, governments tend to take that statement too literally forgetting that for small open economies it is not possible to print money without disastrous consequences on the currency rate, inflation and investment.
Keynes’ statement must be taken with a pinch of salt given that there is a limited amount of government resources that can be put into stimulus packages. The most has to be obtained from the limited amount the Government ploughs into these projects.
Each ringgit must count and the leakage in terms of both over-pricing as well as foreign sourcing of goods and services must be limited as much as possible so that maximum benefits accrue to local industry and enterprise and creates jobs for Malaysians.
It is not always easy to do that. Take the mass rapid transit system (MRT) for instance. At an estimated cost of RM40bil, it’s a very massive project, even if it is undertaken over 10 years with all the potential for costs to increase the further out into the future it goes.
That it will have major benefits in terms of moving people around and in Kuala Lumpur and the vicinity, reducing traffic congestion, enhancing the quality of life, etc, cannot be denied. But if it is not properly planned, designed and executed it could become a major disaster and fall far short of the expectations.
Economically, there will be plenty of leakage from this project. Trains and tracks will be ordered from overseas and could account for 30% or more of the cost. Tunnelling will be highly automated and use a lot of expensive equipment sourced from outside the country.
Labour is likely to be largely foreign as well as expertise. The rest of the remaining costs are likely to be for acquisition of land and other civil works. The latter has little impact on economic growth.
Thus, while the RM40bil figure is huge, the final contribution to the economy in terms of production of goods and services will be smaller than expected even if we take into account the multiplier effect.
This theorises that spending of a sum in the economy enlarges the economy by more than the amount spent. But if there is high leakage of project costs to outside the country, that’s not going to happen.
It is imperative that much more thought is given to the project. There is no hurry to get it off the ground – or under the ground in this case! – given the huge capital expenditure involved. Considering that nowhere in the world is an MRT profitable, we must expect that the Government will in one way or another bear this burden.
Meantime, authorities should focus on other ways to get traffic down during rush hour. Car-pooling will work if there is incentive and punishment to get it going. You need to have a surcharge on cars going into congested areas for instance and for existing public transport to improve.
Ditto for the rapid train to Singapore. If you can open Subang airport to flights to Singapore in a big way and allow boarding 15 minutes before departure for passengers without check-in baggage, you can get people to Singapore in an hour or so. That will be quite comparable with a rapid train – without all that expense, last estimated at a whopping RM8bil.
Finally, all that hooha over Permodalan Nasional Bhd’s (PNB) RM5 billion plan to put up a 100-story tower between Merdeka Stadium and Stadium Negara seems a bit overplayed considering the project will span 10 years.
But what is worrisome is the question of why the tower needs 100 storeys, to be built at much greater expense per square foot. Is it really true that you need such height to attract interest? There are examples of many projects around the world much shorter than that but which are considered to be of high quality and which attract plenty of interest.
PNB should be more forthcoming with what it plans to do and how it will make it something the nation can be proud of with – and this is important – minimal cost.
● Managing editor P Gunasegaram does not like the word “iconic”. It does not say much but conveys unambiguously one important message – expensive.
By P. GUNASEGARAM
Saturday October 23, 2010 - The Star Online
IT’S common during times of economic slack for the Government to push for projects to get activity up to provide jobs and incomes for people.
It was economist John Maynard Keynes, who is now fashionable again, who famously said that the economy would be better off during a depression if all workers did was to dig up ditches and fill them up again.
Sometimes, governments tend to take that statement too literally forgetting that for small open economies it is not possible to print money without disastrous consequences on the currency rate, inflation and investment.
Keynes’ statement must be taken with a pinch of salt given that there is a limited amount of government resources that can be put into stimulus packages. The most has to be obtained from the limited amount the Government ploughs into these projects.
Each ringgit must count and the leakage in terms of both over-pricing as well as foreign sourcing of goods and services must be limited as much as possible so that maximum benefits accrue to local industry and enterprise and creates jobs for Malaysians.
It is not always easy to do that. Take the mass rapid transit system (MRT) for instance. At an estimated cost of RM40bil, it’s a very massive project, even if it is undertaken over 10 years with all the potential for costs to increase the further out into the future it goes.
That it will have major benefits in terms of moving people around and in Kuala Lumpur and the vicinity, reducing traffic congestion, enhancing the quality of life, etc, cannot be denied. But if it is not properly planned, designed and executed it could become a major disaster and fall far short of the expectations.
Economically, there will be plenty of leakage from this project. Trains and tracks will be ordered from overseas and could account for 30% or more of the cost. Tunnelling will be highly automated and use a lot of expensive equipment sourced from outside the country.
Labour is likely to be largely foreign as well as expertise. The rest of the remaining costs are likely to be for acquisition of land and other civil works. The latter has little impact on economic growth.
Thus, while the RM40bil figure is huge, the final contribution to the economy in terms of production of goods and services will be smaller than expected even if we take into account the multiplier effect.
This theorises that spending of a sum in the economy enlarges the economy by more than the amount spent. But if there is high leakage of project costs to outside the country, that’s not going to happen.
It is imperative that much more thought is given to the project. There is no hurry to get it off the ground – or under the ground in this case! – given the huge capital expenditure involved. Considering that nowhere in the world is an MRT profitable, we must expect that the Government will in one way or another bear this burden.
Meantime, authorities should focus on other ways to get traffic down during rush hour. Car-pooling will work if there is incentive and punishment to get it going. You need to have a surcharge on cars going into congested areas for instance and for existing public transport to improve.
Ditto for the rapid train to Singapore. If you can open Subang airport to flights to Singapore in a big way and allow boarding 15 minutes before departure for passengers without check-in baggage, you can get people to Singapore in an hour or so. That will be quite comparable with a rapid train – without all that expense, last estimated at a whopping RM8bil.
Finally, all that hooha over Permodalan Nasional Bhd’s (PNB) RM5 billion plan to put up a 100-story tower between Merdeka Stadium and Stadium Negara seems a bit overplayed considering the project will span 10 years.
But what is worrisome is the question of why the tower needs 100 storeys, to be built at much greater expense per square foot. Is it really true that you need such height to attract interest? There are examples of many projects around the world much shorter than that but which are considered to be of high quality and which attract plenty of interest.
PNB should be more forthcoming with what it plans to do and how it will make it something the nation can be proud of with – and this is important – minimal cost.
● Managing editor P Gunasegaram does not like the word “iconic”. It does not say much but conveys unambiguously one important message – expensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)