It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, July 12, 2023
‘Historic milestone’: Ecuador nears vote to keep Amazon oil in the ground
Experts consulted by Climate Home News suggested the vote will define Ecuador’s economic model for the future.
Yasuní Park during the extraction of barrels of oil from Petroecuador. (Photo: Reuters / Latin America News Agency / Bolívar Parra)
The fate of the Yasuní rainforest, at the heart of the Ecuadorian Amazon, will be decided at the polls this August, when the South American nation votes on whether to leave large oil reserves found within Yasuní on the ground.
It is the first time that Ecuadorians will vote on an ecological issue of this magnitude. Experts consulted by Climate Home News said the referendum will define the economic model for the country’s future.
The environmental referendum is a first of its kind for Ecuador and, if approved by a simple majorityof Ecuadorians, would ban all new oil wells in the Yasuní park, as well as phasing out existing concessions.
Pedro Bermeo, spokesperson for Yasunidos, a coalition of NGOs that led the call for the vote, said the public debate around climate change is already a victory. He added the referendum is a “milestone in the history of Ecuador”.
“Beyond the result, we must see this as an opportunity to value what this referendum has already provoked: a national debate that has never existed before,” Bermeo said.
The vote is scheduled to take place on August 20. At the time of publication, there have been no public opinion polls.
Vote for the rainforest
The Yasuní National Park, Ecuador’s largest, hosts one of the largest biodiversity hotspots on Earth, and is the home of the Tagaeri and Taromenane people in voluntary isolation.
For decades, Yasuní has been threatened by extractive industries, such as mining and oil. For over six years, Ecuador’s State oil company, Petroecuador, has been operating in this territory.
This is the size of 1,200 American Football fields and exceeds the 300-hectare limit established after a previous referendum in 2018.
Ecuador, Amazon Rainforest, Rio Napo, Near Coca, in the Yasuni National Park, on November, 14 2022. (Photo: Reuters / Stevens Tomas / ABACA)
Data provided by the Ministry of Environment, shows there have been more than 1,500 oil spills in the Ecuadorian Amazon in the last decade, which means at least 12 occur every month.
Experts warn that both deforestation and oil spills threaten the unique biodiversity of the Amazon.
Activists have called for a vote on whether to keep drilling for oil in this region but, in 2013, the country declared Yasuní as an area of national interest and began extracting crude soon after.
Bermeo’s Yasunidos proposed a referendum to nullify the declaration, but the process was blocked by an electoral court.
The current government says approving the referendum can have “catastrophic” effects on the economy. Still, they’ve claimed they won’t campaign against it.
Fernando Santos, Energy Minister, has said in several interviews that the country “won’t gain anything by not producing [the Yasuní] ITT oil”. He has also argued that removing existing infrastructure will actually have negative costs for the country.
But experts claim the benefits from oil in Ecuador’s Amazon could be short-lived.
During a hearing at the Constitutional Court, Petroecuador’s technicians explained the oil from Yasuní is low-quality “extra-heavy crude”, which requires high investments to process and sell.
When drilling began in Yasuní, Petroecuador expected to reach a daily production of 200,000 oil barrels by 2022. However, official data shows it has remained at 55,000 — about a quarter of what was expected. Pedro Bermeo says that the “figures they [the government] are giving are false”.
As a result, a 2019 study by the Geological and Energetic Research Institute, a public research institution in Ecuador, estimated that by 2029, “oil could no longer be the main source of income” in the country. The study called for a change in the economic model.
Luis Suárez, Executive Director at Conservation International Ecuador, said the referendum is an opportunity to rethink the country’s future, and suggested a move to tourism and bioeconomy. “What is the country going to bet on?”, he asked.
Domingo Peas, Territory Coordinator for the Cuencas Sagradas Initiative and a longtime leader of the Achuar nationality, says the vote will be “historic for Ecuador and the world” because “it will frame strategies for the next generation”.
For the indigenous nationalities living in the Amazon, including the Tagaeri and Taromenane, the referendum is a way of respecting their human rights, he added.
“We, indigenous people, have said that we only want a dignified life”, and the approval of the referendum will grant that, Peas said.
Still, all experts consulted said the referendum will not stop oil production overnight. “We know these changes take time”, said Peas, “but it is imperative that they occur eventually”.
After “sleepless nights”, governments strike deal on Green Climate Fund strategy
Developed countries pushed for more focus on private money while developing governments wanted more public money from rich nations
The city of Songdo, South Korea, home to the Green Climate Fund's headquarters (Photo: Jay Yoo/Flickr)
After a series of “long and at times difficult” meetings, government negotiators on the Green Climate Fund’s (GCF) board approved a new strategy yesterday morning.
As the American co-chair of the board Victoria Gunderson banged her gavel down yesterday, the boardroom in South Korea applauded and whooped. Behind Gunderson, two advisers to the Pakistani co-chair Naumann Bhatti high-fived.
Board members described the process as characterised by “sleepless nights and hunger pains”, as the board’s twelve developing country and twelve developed country members took a year to negotiate the GCF’s plan for 2024 to 2027.
Developed country governments pushed for the fund to attract more private finance, rather than money from their taxpayers, and for the most vulnerable countries and communities to be prioritised.
Developing country governments called for wealthy governments to provide more public money, while China pushed back against distinctions between more and less vulnerable developing countries.
The Green Climate Fund was set up in 2010 to distribute money from wealthy countries to climate projects in low and middle-income countries. It has spent around $12bn so far.
Need more money
The GCF gets most of its funding from replenishment rounds when developed governments pledge to give it money for the next period.
These happen every four years and the latest one is happening now, ahead of a pledging conference in the German city of Bonn in October.
African negotiators raised concerns that the GCF is planning based on an assumption that there will not be a major increase in its funding, despite the worsening climate crisis across the world.
The strategy assumes the GCF will be able to give out about $2-3 billion a year, compared to around $2 billion in the previous three years.
This would be somewhere between what the GCF describes as a “status quo” and “middling” scenario.
A “high scenario” would involve about $3.75 billion a year, according to internal GCF documents seen by Climate Home.
Egypt’s board member Wael Abdoulmagd told the board meeting: “If we are going to successfully contend with the climate crisis, it is imperative that the GCF be in the position to keep up with the times”.
He added that the amount of help the GCF is planning to give out is “stagnant” and said that “raises a lot of concern”.
South Africa’s Tlou Emmanuel Ramaru said that the GCF needs to raise ambition and that, in this “decade of implementation”, this “has to be really demonstrated…by the increase of the programming target”.
Private sector
But Sweden’s Leif Holmberg said that “the finance that is flowing in from the donors will not be enough to combat climate change”.
Because of this, he told the board that the GCF should “play a catalytical role” in mobilising “both public and private capital”.
Developed countries wanted a greater focus on private capital, which they called “greening of the financial system” in the strategy.
It appeared as one of five key objectives in an early draft but was dropped from the final version.
Switzerland’s Stefan Denzler said this had been “one of the sacrifices made on the altar of compromise”.
Last year, wealthy governments pressured the GCF to seek more funds from rich individuals and big businesses, taking the burden away from governments.
Who pays in and out?
Developed governments have pushed too for bigger and wealthier developing country governments to join them in funding the GCF.
On a recent visit to China, US finance minister Janet Yellen said: “I believe that if China were to support existing multilateral climate institutions like the Green Climate Fund and the Climate Investment Funds alongside us and other donor governments, we could have a greater impact than we do today.”
The GCF’s governing instrument says that all developing countries are eligible for funds, although money to adapt to climate change should be prioritised for countries “that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including [least developed countries], [small island developing states] and African States”.
Although there was not a serious push to change this, developed countries pushed for prioritising funds. The UK’s Sarah Metcalf said more funds should go to “fragile and conflict-affected states who struggle to access funds despite being on the frontline of the climate crisis” and called for a “targeted approach” on adaptation.
Switzerland’s Stefan Denzler thanked South Korea for hosting the board meeting, adding: “I’m amazed again by not only the friendly people, professional people in this country but also the level of development achieved – sophisticated facilities, hospitality, the general level of development in a country which according to the UNFCCC [the UN’s climate body] is a developing country”.
The UNFCCC’s list of developed and developing countries was drawn up in 1992 and South Korea’s average wealth has tripled since then.
But China’s representative Yingzhi Liu argued back that “all developing countries are eligible to access GCF resources. This is clearly stipulated in the GCF governing agreement and developing countries should not be differentiated”.
The gloves were definitely off during a debate in the European Parliament about the contentious Nature Restoration Law.
Conservatives and progressives were pitted against each other, trading a variety of accusations and reproaches that vividly exposed the profound political chasm that has effectively split the hemicycle in two.
At the core of the dispute is the Nature Restoration Law, a draft piece of legislation that aims to rehabilitate Europe's degraded ecosystems and bring back lost species. The regulation establishes legally-binding targets in seven fields of action, including farmlands, peatlands, pollinators and sea bottoms, with the ultimate goal of reversing the biodiversity loss caused by unchecked human activity and climate change.
But the law, as designed by the European Commission, has become the target of enormous criticism by right-wing parties, particularly by the European People's Party (EPP), the parliament's largest group, which has for weeks led a relentless opposition campaign to bring down the legislation in its entirety.
The Nature Restoration Law faces a make-or-break moment on Wednesday when the hemicycle is due to take a vote on the full text, following the negative assessments made by three different committees.
Ahead of the crucial occasion, MEPs had a chance to discuss face-to-face the content of the proposed legislation. But Tuesday's debate quickly turned into a dizzying succession of political recriminations, finger-pointing, ridicule and interruptions that stretched for over two hours and a half.
Conservative groups, with the EPP at the front, attacked the Nature Restoration Law, saying its obligations to improve the health of agricultural lands would threaten the livelihoods of European farmers, disrupt supply chains, decrease food production and push prices up for consumers – claims that have been widely contested by NGOs, climate scientists, the renewable industry and the private sector.
"The proposal by the (European) Commission goes directly in the wrong direction," said Christine Schneider, an EPP member from Germany.
"Protecting biodiversity can only go hand in hand with the population, not by forcing rules on the foresters, the farmers, and making them responsible for the disappearance of biodiversity, not by removing arable farmland and endangering food production, not by pitting the environment against agriculture."
Eurosceptic lawmakers went even further, raising the prospect of expropriated private property, growing unemployment and abandoned rural areas, on top of their customary allegations of democratic blackmail and violation of national sovereignty.
"While we face an imminent food crisis, you chase utopian pipe dreams. You're sacrificing our farmers on the altar of your ecological ideology," said Aurélia Beigneux, a French MEP with the far-right Identity and Democracy (ID) group.
Left-wing parties took turns defending the Nature Restoration Law, portraying it as an essential piece to ensure the long-term viability of European soils and build buffers against the most damaging effects of the climate crisis.
Progressives harshly denounced the EPP for its antagonistic behaviour and its incessant social media campaign, which last week took a surprising turn with a bizarre-looking tweet that claimed the law would "kick Santa out of his house" by turning the "entire city of Rovaniemi into a forest."
"EPP, what happened? You walked away from the negotiation table. You tweet about Santa Claus. It's all very funny. But let's get back to reality. Let's take this vote and it's finally time you support nature restoration," said Bas Eickhout, from the Greens.
"The attempt led by the European People's Party to reject the Nature Restoration Law sends a devastating message about the viability of the Green Deal. The right has made the environmental agenda the ideal course for its electoral dispute with the far right," said Iratxe García Pérez, chair of the Socialists & Democrats (S&D).
Caught in the middle of the fire was Renew Europe, the liberal group, whose internal divisions over the proposed law have hindered a common position.
If, as expected, the vast majority of conservative-learning lawmakers vote on Wednesday against the legislation, a handful of votes from Renew Europe would be enough to tilt the balance and seal its fate.
"We must not allow this far-right populism, these fake news and lies that you have been propagating for a year and that you have again brazenly repeated in this house," said Pascal Canfin, one of Renew Europe's most outspoken advocates for the law.
But his Dutch colleague, Jan Huitema, expressed a diametrically opposed view.
"The proposal, on paper, sounds fantastic but in reality, it would slow things down unnecessarily," Huitema said. "Of all the legislative proposals I've looked at during my time in parliament, this is the one that will have the biggest impact on people back home. This is a proposal that we cannot accept."
At the of the debate, Virginijus Sinkevičius, the European Commissioner for the environment, took the floor and refuted several "misconceptions" and "misunderstandings" voiced by MEPs, whom he name-checked.
Sinkevičius said time was "running out" to reverse the decline of Europe's biodiversity and warned the bloc's executive, as previously announced, would not come up with a brand new text if the one currently on the table falls apart.
"You might be surprised to hear this, but to me, this debate has shown that an agreement is possible," Sinkevičius said. "A compromise is possible and within reach. The divergences are not as big as to justify rejection."
EFA/GREEN MEP CALLS TO VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE NATURE RESTORATION LAW
EFA MEP François Alfonsi, intervened in plenary today to defend the importance of the nature restoration law. This proposal aims to restore ecosystems, habitats and species across the EU’s land and sea areas to enable the long-term recovery of biodiversity, contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation objectives as well as comply with international commitments.
The law, which has been classified as the cornerstone of the EU Green Deal, has suffered a series of offensives organized by EPP leadership, that tried to influence the elaboration of the draft report in the ENVI Committee as well as pressure MEPs from their own party to vote against the law.
This law is crucial to improve nature in Europe. This is key to the fight against climate change, contributes to drought, fire and flood prevention and is essential for long-term food security as well as the livelihoods of farmers.
In that vein, the Corsican MEP pointed out some of the consequences of climate change in ecosystems across Europe.
“Posidonia meadows in the Mediterranean are an exceptional ecological heritage, with the highest CO2 capture capacity in the world. But this heritage continues to decline under the pressure of human economic activity.”
François Alfonsi EFA MEP said:
“I'd like to stress the consequences of global warming in the Mediterranean, where I live. Climatologists have said that this is where the impact will be the worst.”
“Shouldn't we put an end to this as a matter of urgency? Implementing rigorous nature restoration legislation as quickly as possible - that's what we can do with this law.”
“Without this law, the destruction will continue. It would be irresponsible to reject it tomorrow.” He concluded.
The EU nature restoration law is meant to enhance food security, not undermine it
By Facundo Etchebehere, SVP Sustainability Strategy & Partnerships, Danone, and Bart Vandewaetere, VP ESG Engagement for Europe, Nestlé
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.
Like all food companies, Danone and Nestlé are heavily reliant on nature and its well-being to procure our agricultural raw materials. When nature suffers, our supply chain is strained, Facundo Etchebehere and Bart Vandewaetere write.
Nature restoration and food security are not opposites — in fact, they are interdependent.
Globally, 26% of the total damage and losses from climate-related disasters affect the agricultural sector directly, according to a study by the World Resources Institute.
This is why, as companies whose bottom lines depend on nature, we are deeply concerned that the EU’s Nature Restoration Law was rejected by the European Parliament's ENVI committee last month.
A significant step in the right direction
The European Commission’s proposed nature Restoration Law would be a significant step in the right direction.
This law is a comprehensive strategy aiming to restore degraded ecosystems across the continent, with specific targets set for restoring habitats that are particularly suited for carbon capture and enhancing resilience to natural disasters.
For companies like Nestlé and Danone, and the farmers who supply us, this legislation could mean a shift towards more sustainable practices that contribute to ecosystem restoration and climate change mitigation, thereby ensuring the sustainability and resilience of supply chains.
And the Nature Restoration Law gives us a critical opportunity for the entire food production sector to move in this direction, farmers and corporations alike.
Milk production, for instance, is already feeling the severe impact of climate change: dairy cows have difficulties with extreme heat, and higher temperatures often lead to lower yields.
Fresh milk fills a bucket as farmer milks a cow at a farm near Milan, May 2016Luca Bruno/Copyright 2016 The AP. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistribu
Farmers and food and drinks producers are at the frontline of the climate and biodiversity crisis.
Milk production, for instance, is already feeling the severe impact of climate change: dairy cows have difficulties with extreme heat, and higher temperatures often lead to lower yields.
Climate events and heat also impact the grass and crops on which cows depend: in 2022, in Italy, water shortages and drought led to a drop of as much as 45% in corn and animal feed yields.
Dairy farmers in France faced similar challenges maintaining milk production as temperatures soared and pastures were scorched.
Europe is not impervious to food price hike shocks
Like all food companies, we are heavily reliant on nature and its well-being for the procurement of our agricultural raw materials. When nature suffers, our supply chain is strained.
In June last year, wheat and maize prices had shot up by 42% and 47%, respectively, compared to January 2021, partly due to weather shocks related to climate change and a heatwave in India, which caused a drop in wheat yields, leading to an export ban by the world’s second-largest producer.
Indian farmers arrive to harvest wheat early morning on the outskirts of Jammu, April 2023AP Photo/Channi Anand
While prices have returned to normal levels since, the sharp increases were a clear sign of how unstable our world is now.
Europe is not protected from similar shocks: a study by the University of Edinburgh showed that Southern Europe could see a drop of more than 50% in production yields in higher warming climate scenarios.
The droughts faced by Spain are showing us what that might look like.
If you're worried about the farmers, then you know regenerative agriculture is the answer
These are collective challenges we are facing, and regenerative agriculture offers a practical solution.
By incorporating practices like intercropping, crop rotations, hedgerows, and reduced pesticide use, we can restore soil health, increase biodiversity, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
These practices benefit not only nature and our businesses but also farmers — as shown by an analysis of the economics of German farms where regenerative agriculture resulted in higher profits in the medium and long term.
The question we should be focusing on is not if we fix objectives to restore nature and mitigate climate change, but rather how we can join forces across public and private sectors to achieve them.
dairy cows graze on grass in the Emmental region of Switzerland, August 2011AP Photo/Mark D. Carlson
This brings us back to the urgent need for the European Parliament to approve the Nature Restoration Law and the need to emphasise that this law is not just for the environment or the businesses that depend on it, but crucially, for the farmers whose livelihoods are at stake.
The question we should be focusing on is not if we fix objectives to restore nature and mitigate climate change, but rather how we can join forces across public and private sectors to achieve them.
We can't keep closing our eyes to the truth
And this means focusing on transition finance, which will need to be further developed in the next stage of the discussions.
An analysis from the European Investment Bank estimated that, in 2020, the financing gap for agriculture was between €19.8 and €46.6 billion, while the gap for the agri-food industry was at more than €12.8bn.
The facts are clear: nature restoration does not undermine food security; rather, it enhances it.
Farmers irrigate a pumpkin patch using a water lifting pump near the Po river in Guastalla, June 2022AP Photo/Luca Bruno
We need to work hand-in-hand to develop transition finance solutions that give farmers the support they need to lead on regenerative agriculture.
The facts are clear: nature restoration does not undermine food security; rather, it enhances it.
Rather than allowing the discussion to be polarised, we must join forces to build a future that benefits all — farmers, businesses, consumers, and our planet.
We can start now with the Nature Restoration Law, or keep pretending that the risks of a depleted planet are not already apparent.
Facundo Etchebehere is Danone’s Senior Vice President of Sustainability Strategy & Partnerships, and Bart Vandewaetere is Vice President of Environmental, Social and Governance Engagement for Europe at Nestlé.
