The New Nation - Internet Edition

Iffat Jarin

One late afternoon, senior citizen Abul Hossain of Hazaribagh sits on the bank of the Buriganga staring at the dying river. He is saddened seeing the present sate of the river.

"Things have changed. The river is now dying. In our youth we always enjoyed the frenzied nature of the Buriganga. I along with pals used to swim across the river," says a nostalgic Hossain.

He goes on: "At that time this river was one of the main attractions for the city dwellers. This is not the Buriganga what it was. It has lost its youth and become dirty. The way people are polluting it the river will die soon like we old haggard will."

Losing its beauty and glory, Buriganga is now almost a dead river. There is no high wave anymore. For miles, it contains poisonous and stinky water obstructing the livelihood of the people living and working on its banks. Using its polluted water, the slum dwellers and low-income group people are getting affected by various waterborne diseases.

For instance, Moshrek, a resident of Hazaribagh, has been working in a tannery along the river for over four years. He often suffers from headache, fever and stomach upset apart from skin diseases. Once he also suffered from jaundice.

According to sources at the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, the amount of chromium in per litre tube-well water in Hazaribagh area ranges from 0.02 to 0.44 against the acceptable amount of 0.005. Any creature may die straight away drinking this water. The ICDDR, B Annual Report, 2006 shows over 10,000 children in Dhaka city die of waterborne diseases every year.

It also reveals that the amount of dissolved oxygen in one litre of Buriganga water is 1.3 milligrams. But, for the aquatic animals or fish to survive there should be minimum 4 milligrams of oxygen in one litre. So, there is hardly any fish in the river even in the rainy season.

Delwar, a fisherman living on the bank of Buriganga, says since no fish is available foreign variety of 'magur' (cat fish) is cultivated here.

Tests conducted by Science and Industry Laboratory and Fisheries Department found harmful elements in fishes caught from the river. Dr Farhana Haque of Riverside Hospital, Sirajnagar says consumption of such fishes may cause various diseases like jaundice, diarrhoea and stomachache.

Dr Mazharul Islam Khan, a water scientist, says, "Everyday hundreds of tons of liquid waste from industries, tanneries and fertilizer factories in Lalbagh, Kamrangirchar, Pagla, Fatullah and Narayanganj are dumped in the river.

Besides, poisonous wastes from thousands of legal and illegal factories, and naval vessels also pour into the river. Everyday 7.7 million litres of liquid waste mix with the Buriganga water. The situation is now so grave that anytime there may be an epidemic in the surrounding areas."

Buriganga is being polluted in many ways. Huge wastes from the capital's hundreds of industries, garment factories and tanneries are dumped in this river. A 2005 survey by Environment department shows 82 percent of the city's sewerage waste is mixed with the Buriganga water. Some 9,000 metric tons of waste is created each day on average in Dhaka and 50 percent of it is dumped in the river.

It is the waste of hospitals that has long been polluting the river. No system has been invented yet to manage the harmful medical waste. The wastes from the wholesale markets of fruits and vegetables on the riverbanks are also dumped into it.

Dumping of these wastes is not only polluting this river but also filling and narrowing it.

Building of illegal structures on the encroached land is another serious problem faced by Buriganga. There are thousands of illegal structures on its banks. A survey conducted by Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority (BIWTA) in 1997 showed the amount of dispossessed land was 39 acres. Occasionally, illegal structures are demolished by the authorities only to be rebuilt some time later.

An inter-ministerial taskforce, formed to prevent encroachment and pollution of the river, put forward a 17-point recommendation in October 2002 and the Shipping Ministry has decided to implement those. But, no one knows, for sure, when these will be implemented.

The recommendations include undertaking short- and long-term projects by Dhaka WASA and Dhaka City Corporation to prevent dumping of sewerage and wastes, shifting of Hazaribagh tanneries from their existing places, undertaking a three-year project to stop dumping by industries, not allowing any industries within 50 metres from the banks and removal of garbage and polythene from the riverbed.

In this regard, Prof Nazrul Islam, an urban specialist and environmentalist, says, "Though there are many plans to check the river pollution, but we rarely see those to be implemented."

There is another deadly consequence of Buriganga pollution. The water of this river is used in the only water refinery of the capital. There are many problems in refining water of the river due to the loss of its navigability and excessive pollution. If the amount of pollution cannot be stopped at the moment, the refinery may be closed causing a severe water crisis in the capital.

Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon (BAPA), a non-government organization, has long been carrying out a campaign to help save the Buriganga River.

According to BAPA, the following steps are needed to be taken to solve the problems. Those include demolition of all illegal structures, removal of legal obstacles to cases of the structures having court injunctions, beautification of the banks, dredging the riverbed to keep its water flow uninterrupted, removal of wastes from the riverbed, putting an end to all kinds of dumping and introduction of a water circular way.

Dr Hossain Shahriar, an environmentalist and journalist, says, "Forcing all the industries and factories situated around Buriganga to set up their own treatment plants is the only way to stop direct pollution. Emphasis will also have to be given on those rivers having direct connection with Buriganga. Awareness should be created among the people living in the vicinity of the river."

"It's not possible for the government alone to save Buriganga," he says. Everyone will have to come forward. The media also has a role to play to create pressure on the government and make people aware."

"The existence of Dhaka and its inhabitants is related to Buriganga. If Buriganga can be freed from pollution 1.2 crore inhabitants of the world's most expanding city will be saved. Therefore, saving Buriganga is everyone's demand," Dr Shahriar says.

-News Network

Prodipto Ghosh

The recently concluded UN climate change conference at Bali ended with, first, the European Union, and then the US, backing down from a patently iniquitous formula designed to shift the onus of tackling climate change from themselves to developing countries; that is, from those who caused it to those who are its likely victims. The developing countries, on the other hand, pressed for an alternative presented by India, based on reciprocity. That while they would contribute to the solution, they must be enabled to do so by the developed countries, who are the polluters, through provision of technology, finance and capacity-building. The developing countries prevailed, but not before tumultuous scenes - of tension, despair, incredulity, and finally relief.

Why were the negotiations at Bali so stressful and contentious? Why can't we all just agree that we need to save the planet, and do so urgently? Why did the EU and the US insist that developing countries must contribute to the solution, although they are but a small part of the problem? And why is it so difficult for developing countries to accept that they must simply "avoid the mistakes of rich countries" while they grow?

The answer lies in a few facts that the negotiators know only too well, but the public is only dimly aware of. First, that even modest reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which cause climate change is, barring a very small part, incredibly costly with the available lower carbon technologies. Windfarms, for example, are at least 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired power plants of the same capacity, and produce power at best in one-third of the time.

Second, that the necessary investments in energy-related infrastructure in developing countries such as China, India and Brazil till 2030 to enable their growth is humongous, at least 10 trillion US dollars, and this is even without use of more costly lower carbon technologies. Third, that the suppliers of the available lower carbon technologies are all in the rich countries, and that forcing developing countries to undertake GHG mitigation would act as a crowbar to prise open the rich pickings in their energy investments to companies in Europe, Japan and the US while closing the same markets to their own manufacturers.

However, the adoption of these lower carbon technologies would not seriously dent the problem. A recent Indian study with the help of a globally used energy-economy model concluded that to reduce less than just 10 per cent of emissions in India from what they would otherwise be in 2036 would require an additional investment of 2.5 trillion US dollars! This is well above two and one half times India's current GDP, and would have to be sourced by building fewer schools, hospitals, village roads, drinking water and sanitation facilities, housing for the poor - indeed the entire range of activities to enable the country to grow and remove poverty.

The formula presented at Bali by the EU and the US would thus have required poor countries to remain poor for many generations more, even as their corporates found large new markets for their technologies - it would be the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, pretty much for ever. The Indian approach prevailed at Bali, because this scenario was politically unfeasible and morally indefensible.

At this point in the debate the chorus goes out: will it not be in the interest of the developing countries themselves to reduce GHG emissions, because they would, after all, be the worst sufferers of climate change?

Let us see why this argument is fallacious. India, for example, emits just 4 per cent of the global emissions while it has 17 per cent of the population. The climate impact of one tonne of GHG emitted anywhere is the world is felt across the world identically. Thus, if India were to eliminate all its GHG emissions, essentially by going back to the stone age, it would hardly matter for the climate change impacts on India, or indeed anywhere else!

Several other arguments are made for India to accept targets to reduce its emissions. "India's per capita emissions may be low, but India is highly inefficient in its use of energy!" The facts speak otherwise.

A just released World Bank study shows that India's fossil fuel related carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of GDP (in purchasing power parity terms) is the same as Japan, often cited as the global leader in energy efficiency, and better than Germany, which also prides itself on its clean energy policies. The newer Indian plants in steel, cement, aluminium, paper, and oil refining have energy efficiencies at the global frontier. Another argument goes, "India's emissions may now be low, but they will increase rapidly as India's economy grows, and render useless any reductions by the developed countries!" Again, the facts are not helpful. In the last five years, the economy grew by 8 per cent a year, while energy use grew at just 3 per cent. Finally, "India's rich have unsustainable lifestyles - they use laptops and cell phones, and travel by air".

Unfortunately, by this reasoning, an air hostess who flies 400 times a year has the most unsustainable lifestyle of all! The point is that a distinction must be made between emissions related to economic activity from which many benefit, and personal consumption. Indians in general, rich and poor, have highly sustainable lifestyles compared to their developed country counterparts - they recycle everything by patronising the raddiwala, eat a lot less meat, and bathe in just one bucket of water, not a tubful.

The climate change problem will eventually be solved when the costs of renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass) become competitive with those of fossil fuel technologies. This will call for a huge global R&D effort, which will require manpower, money and time. India has the necessary scientific capacity to contribute effectively to such a project.

Unfortunately, far more effort is being expended by developed countries on securing markets for their currently available marginally lower carbon emitting but horrendously expensive technologies; and not enough on the next generation, truly sustainable technologies.

(Dr. Prodipto Ghosh, former Secretary, Environment and a member of the Indian PM's Council on Climate Change published this article on the recent Climate Change meeting at Bali and the issues involved.)

Sunita Narain

The Bali conference on climate change is over. But the fight against climate change has only just begun. The message from Bali is the fight will be downright brutal and selfish. Let us cut through the histrionics of the Bali conference to understand that as far as an agreement is concerned, the world has not moved an inch from where it stood on climate some 17 years ago, when negotiations began. The only difference is that emissions have increased; climate change is at dangerous levels. Only if we drastically cut emissions, will we succeed in avoiding a full-blown catastrophe.

Let's understand what was agreed (or not) in Bali. The conference ended with an action plan-an agreement to begin talks, since the world recognized the need for deep emission cuts and an end to negotiations in two years. For developed countries, the agreement will include "measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions (my emphasis), including quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives (again my emphasis)…ensuring comparability of efforts among them, taking into account theirtcircumstance".

Understand now what this un legalese means. Firstly, no targets have been set for developed nations to cut emissions; no timeframe has been set by when emission would have to peak and then fall sharply. Secondly, it accepts that the countries will take on actions, not commitments. Countries will have voluntary targets, which can be quantified or be in the form of reduction objectives. This negates (if not destroys) the previous global consensus (leaving out renegades like the us) that the developed (rich and high carbon debt world) must take on emission-reduction commitments, the targets must be agreed through multilateral processes and these must be legally binding and enforceable.

Now compare this consensus to the first draft of the Bali action plan and tell me if you think we won or lost in Bali. Under the agreement, "The Annex 1 countries (the already industrialized countries) as a group would reduce emissions in the range of 25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and that global emissions of greenhouse gases would need to peak in the next 10-15 years and be reduced to very low levels, well below half of the levels in 2000 by 2050." A no-brainer conclusion, I would think.

But why then make a big deal of Bali? Two reasons: one, because developing countries managed to fight off a sneaky and underhand attempt to include them in the group that would take on commitments. This is part of the age-old battle. We know that the us (and Japan, Canada and New Zealand) leading with many hiding at the back have insisted for 17 years that they will not do anything till emerging big polluters like China, India, Brazil and South Africa are asked to cut emissions.

We also know that to get the us on board, the Europeans time and again try to persuade reluctant parties. This game has been played ad naseum and was played in Bali. The first draft of the agreement said it would include "means to recognize, in a measurable and verifiable manner, national mitigation actions by developing country parties that limit the growth of, or reduce, emissions". In other words, actions by these countries to either reduce or avoid emissions would be recognized and these would need to be measurable and verifiable. But this text was amended at the last minute. Words were craftily twisted. Now the plan said developing country parties would take "measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation actions". In other words, take on commitments. Worse, the rephrasing was done behind the backs of G-77 and China and the meeting to pass it was called on the sly. Nasty, despicable actions.

This is when the Indians (and others) got up to demand change. The final agreement calls for "appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries" in a "measurable, reportable and verifiable manner". This was a mock-battle, because the draft would never have been acceptable to developing countries. But damage has been done. As the European Union and the secretariat of the climate convention were seen to back this re-worded action plan, trust has been eroded. Now developing countries will be even more reluctant to engage. Hardliners will say, "we told you so".

But there is a more serious reason to take Bali seriously. This is the real battle, the one we all lost. For long the us has been insistent on its way to combat climate change, which is based on voluntary action. This was never accepted because the world was certain that to combat climate change it needs a multilateral agreement, with hard targets and measures for compliance. That is why the world agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, which set small and hesitant targets for rich nations. The US didn't sign it. Now, even as we understand the urgency and the desperation of climate change, the world powers have reneged on all of us.

We in India have to particularly note this decision. The fact is that we would also prefer the US way. It is convenient because we think that when we have to join the global climate agreement, it will give us the ultimate cop-out. It is possibly for this reason, I am hearing from India's senior negotiators, a tacit acceptance of this no-deal. To justify this approach, they say that the mandatory approach is not working. Emissions of many target-bound countries are increasing. They say as the world can't hold the rich nations accountable, it may be best to agree on the mother of all compromises-to let the us decide in the interest of us all on its way to not cut emissions.

This is the real thorn on the road to Copenhagen-where the agreement has to be signed in 2009. How do we pressure the US? Let's discuss this again and again to find real answers.

(The writer is the Editor, Down To Earth magazine, New Delhi, India.)