Climate Change Adaptation
Climate Change ?#$#? … 2007 SDI Letter to John Gormley !
2011-01-29: Some people say that a week is a long time in politics … but, here in Ireland, during the last two weeks … every single day feels like a year ! To the uninformed outside observer, this may have all the appearance of being an elaborate circus … but, we like our politics to be complex, interesting and very frothy.
Briefly … the Irish Green Party has recently removed itself, awkwardly, from the Ruling Coalition Government in this country … and the Green Party Agenda has gone up in smoke … definitely a Climate Changing Greenhouse Gas ! Mr. John Gormley T.D., Leader of the Green Party, has therefore resigned as Minister for the Environment, Heritage & Local Government … and his Green Party departmental colleague, Mr. Ciarán Cuffe T.D., Minister of State with special responsibility for Sustainable Transport, Horticulture, Planning and Heritage at the Departments of the Environment, Transport and Agriculture has also resigned.
With all of Ireland’s current economic woes … this decision by the Green Party has ensured that ‘Climate Change’ is fast dropping off the list of national priorities.
However, as a result of these political shenanigans … the word ‘Green’ has received a severe hammering and will induce a nasty taste in the mouths of many Irish Voters during the next few weeks which lead up to a General Election. To be honest, I heartily cheer this development … since ‘GREEN’-ness, i.e. a sole and blinkered consideration for the Environmental Aspects of Sustainability is a ‘pre-version’ (fans of the film: ‘Dr. Strangelove’ will understand what I mean) of Sustainable Human & Social Development. It is also a peculiar quirk of ‘greens’ that they love the environment … but hate people !
As a prelude to what I will say about the proposed enabling legislation for climate change action in Ireland … the 2010 Climate Change Response Bill … I thought that it would be interesting to reveal the contents of a submission I made to Mr. John Gormley back in late 2007. Concerning his reaction … I wondered how it was possible for anybody to write such a long letter in reply, and say nothing.
.
Mr. John Gormley T.D., 2007-12-18.
Minister for the Environment, Heritage & Local Government,
Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG),
Custom House – Dublin 1.
Re: Your Meeting with IIEA on Friday, 7th December 2007
Dear Minister,
At the Meeting with the Institute of International & European Affairs (IIEA), in North Great George’s Street, I raised two points directly with you:
i) The Great Difference between ‘Real’ Building Energy Performance and Claimed ‘Theoretical’ Performance. In a context where the mandatory use of long wave infra-red thermal imagery will not be introduced in the Revised Technical Guidance Document L of the Building Regulations, due to be issued shortly, and there will continue to be No Effective System of Building Control anywhere in the country … no relationship exists between Claimed ‘Theoretical’ Performance and ‘Real’ Performance, such is the poor quality of construction on Irish Building Sites. The Energy Numbers which continue to be produced by Sustainable Energy Ireland are – almost – pure fantasy.
ii) Sourcing of Climate Change Research & Models for Necessary Institutional Reform Must Extend Beyond Britain. The following is taken from the Irish National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 (page 45) …
‘ Ireland has also engaged in an exchange of information on impacts and adaptation activities through the British-Irish Council. This initiative has focused on exchanging data on research projects which have improved the understanding of climate change impacts at a local level.’
I suggested to you that if this were, actually, to be the approach to Research in Ireland … we will be in serious trouble. Furthermore, far too many people in important organizations (including the IIEA) are only looking across the water for Models of Necessary Institutional Reform. We must also, in Ireland, look to the rest of Europe and Japan to find the Best Research and the Most Effective Institutional Models.
Please see the enclosed World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Summary Report: ‘Energy Efficiency in Buildings – Business Realities & Opportunities’ (October 2007), which was presented at an important Paris Conference at the beginning of November, 2007.
This Report looks at what can be achieved in Europe and many other parts of the world – today – using currently available building technologies and systems … IF ‘real’ implementation is taken seriously. Barriers to progress and costs have also been examined.
In the final analysis, however, a properly resourced Indigenous Research Capability, focused on Irish Conditions and Needs, is vitally necessary to drive ‘Real’ Performance and Innovation in this country.
.
Post-Bali Leadership from Ireland (and DEHLG !)
A Kyoto II Instrument will be agreed and ratified before the end of 2012. The 1997 UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol must now be seen, therefore, as just the beginning of a long-term process which will last until the end of the century. Some Necessary Direction and a large pinch of Ethical Leadership are urgently required to properly re-position Ireland in this Process.
The following Post-Bali Target Scenario for Ireland is presented for your consideration:
- Ireland should set 1990 as the Benchmark/Base Year for All Kyoto Greenhouse Gases ;
- Statements of Measurement and Calculation Uncertainty should be fully transparent (nationally, and at EU level), and made at every stage of Ireland’s Kyoto Compliance ;
- The EU’s Objective of a 30% Reduction in Greenhouse Gases by 2020, compared to 1990, is the Relevant Short Term Target (refer to Paragraph 31 of the German Presidency Conclusions from the E.U. Council’s Brussels Summit on 8th and 9th March 2007) ;
- As our ‘Real’ Performance, under Kyoto I, continues to be so weak and disingenuous … we should not expect to receive as generous an intra-EU burden sharing arrangement as before. Instead, Ireland should adopt the 2020 National Target of a similar 30% Reduction in Greenhouse Gases, compared to 1990 ;
- Our Contingency Target for 2020 should be a 33% Reduction in Greenhouse Gases, compared to 1990. When considering ‘real’ performance in any field of human endeavour, it is usual to include a safety factor in any calculations …. in this case, 3% ;
- Ireland’s Recourse to the Use of Carbon Sinks and Kyoto Mechanisms in meeting the 2020 Contingency Target should be restricted to 1/4 of ‘Real’ Performance …
- ‘Real’ Performance (no sinks/mechanisms) – minimum 24% Reduction in Greenhouse Gases by 2020, compared to 1990 ;
- Use of Carbon Sinks and Kyoto Mechanisms – 9% Reduction in Greenhouse Gases by 2020, compared to 1990 (this figure includes the contingency 3%) ; and
- As the Construction Sector (when properly identified) should share more of the national burden than, for example, Agriculture …. its Target should be a 40% Reduction in Greenhouse Gases by 2020, compared to 1990. Remember the range of reductions which were initially proposed at Bali …. 25-40% ?
- Part 1 of SDI’s Submission for the Irish Construction Sector (IIEA Climate Change Project, Sectors Sub-Group – June 2007) stressed the great need to properly restore the Construction Sector’s Infrastructure. Otherwise, this Sector will not be able, in reality, to reach any Energy Performance Targets … low or high. Of course, what will eventually appear on paper, or as a computer print-out, is an entirely different matter !
However, having been able to access information about the recent WBCSD Research Project, and using it as a valid substantiation … it then became possible to deal with the issue of Energy Performance Targets for All Buildings (new, existing and those of historical, architectural and cultural importance) more aggressively.
Enclosed, please also find Part 2 of SDI’s Submission for the Construction Sector (IIEA Climate Change Project, Sectors Sub-Group – November 2007).
.
Ireland’s Climate Change Strategy ?
1. Ireland’s Current ‘Real’ Situation with Regard to Kyoto (I) Compliance should be clearly understood by the Irish Public. Using the recently issued European Environment Agency (EEA) Report 5/2007: ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends & Projections in Europe 2007 – Tracking Progress Towards Kyoto Targets’, we have extracted just a few snippets of interesting information (enclosed) …
- Instead of 1990, Ireland has chosen 1995 as the Base Year for HFC’s, PFC’s & SF6 ;
- Ireland’s Per Capita greenhouse gas emissions are nearly the worst in the EU-27 ;
- Ireland’s Per GDP greenhouse gas emissions are far too high ;
- Ireland’s ‘Real’ Distance-To-Target (no sinks/mechanisms) is very bad.
Ireland is still grimly grasping on to a ‘Business as Usual’ Approach. This is actually being reinforced by the relevant Institutions of the State, who insist on merely Playing with Numbers … and then publishing Cosmetic Public Relations Brochures for consumption in Ireland and, unfortunately, on the wider European and International Stages.
2. The following National Policy/Strategy Documents & Legislation should directly relate to one other, and their implementation should be tightly co-ordinated …
- National Sustainable Development Strategy ;
- National Climate Change Strategy ;
- National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy ;
- National Spatial Strategy ;
- National Development Plan ;
- National Public Procurement Law.
Not only have some of the above not yet even been drafted, but others are unacceptably inadequate, outdated and/or fundamentally flawed. And the synergies which would normally accrue from co-ordinated implementation are being lost.
3. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has identified Buildings as one of the five main users of energy where ‘megatrends’ are needed to transform global energy efficiency in the immediate short term, and so meet the daunting challenge of Climate Change Adaptation. They account for 40% of primary energy (primary energy includes the energy required to generate, transmit and distribute electricity, as well as energy directly consumed on site) in most developed countries, and consumption is rising.
Nothing less than a Complete Cultural Shift will be necessary throughout this Sector, beginning with all research and design disciplines and extending right across to any person who works on a construction site or has any part to play in managing, maintaining or servicing a building.
Yet, Irish Construction is not presented as a Coherent Sector anywhere in National or European Greenhouse Gas Databases.
Separate Strategies are urgently required to greatly improve the energy performance of:
- Existing Buildings … onto which many energy efficiency measures can be successfully grafted, but they will not be cheap ;
- Buildings of Historical, Architectural or Cultural Importance … the integrity of which must be protected ; and
- New Buildings, which must therefore carry the major burden.
4. Raising the (General) Awareness of Irish Society regarding Climate Change and Mobilizing People and Organizations for (Effective) Action are two entirely different concepts. Which concept is informing Strategy Development within the DEHLG ?
A €15 m. Marketing Campaign, spread over 4-5 Years and including the ‘Change’ WebSite (!?!?), will not mobilize anyone … to do anything.
5. Your proposals concerning Necessary Building Energy Efficiency Improvements to be included in the Revised Technical Guidance Document L are inadequate. Part L should be applicable to ALL New Buildings.
It has also been insufficiently emphasized in public discussions/consultations concerning this issue that any proposed Building Energy Efficiency Improvements must take place in a context of stringent control during construction (by a sufficient number of competent Local Authority Building Controllers and/or Independent Technical Controllers) and rigorous post-construction energy performance monitoring (using long wave infra-red thermal imagery, in conjunction with building external fabric air seepage tests). Follow-up observation of post-occupation building energy performance will also be required.
This is the one – and only – means of …
- tweaking Computer Software Tools so as to produce more realistic outputs ; and
- obtaining reliable construction-related energy performance data and statistics.
Please Note Well: Without suitable references to the use of long wave infra-red thermal imagery (essential, if working at ambient temperatures – short wave, if working at high temperatures) in Section 5, the Revised TGD L will be absolutely meaningless !!
Because of wasteful patterns of building management and/or use – even in the most energy efficient building – we would also stress that far more attention should be paid to the concept of Intelligent Energy Efficiency Management.
6. We strongly urge you, in accordance with the 2007 Bali Action Plan, to rapidly advance development of the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, and to ensure that it is properly implemented.
7. We call for the creation of an adequately resourced Sustainable Development Commission with the necessary legal mandate, independence and technical expertise to monitor – in an integrated, continual and proactive manner – Ireland’s mitigation and adaptation performance in relation to the adverse effects of climate change. We also call for a New Social Partnership for Sustainable Development & Climate Change Adaptation. Addressing Climate Change must be considered an integral element of Sustainable Development Policies.
.
At Sustainable Design International … we continue to find, in everyday practice, that the most challenging barriers to Policy Implementation are Institutional – lack of proper horizontal policy integration in Public Authorities, and antiquated approaches to management in Private Organizations. At every level, the concept of Sustainable Human & Social Development is poorly understood.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me at your convenience.
Yours sincerely,
C.J. Walsh, etc., etc.
.
.
END
2010 UNFCCC Climate Summit in Cancún – Smell The Coffee !
The hype is less this year … and I bet that not too many politicians will be appearing in front of the cameras at the end of this 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Summit … which is being held in Cancún, Mexico … from Monday, 29 November until Friday, 10 December 2010.
If you want to follow what’s happening closely … go to the Official UNFCCC WebSite … and check out the Daily Conference Programme, here, at this address … http://unfccc.int/conference_programme/items/5769.php
.
Let us not forget that the result of last year’s debacle … the 2009 Copenhagen Accord … was an unofficial, political agreement between a small number of Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and Heads of Delegation – Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and the USA – who attended the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, which concluded on Saturday, 19th December 2009. Since then, many countries have made voluntary submissions, i.e. they are not legally binding, to Appendices I and II of the Copenhagen Accord.
An initial overview of the submissions made by Developed Countries, however, revealed the following about the voluntary emissions targets being undertaken …
- they are highly conditional on the performance of other countries ;
- they are disappointing, being well below what is required to cap the planetary temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius ; and
- there is no consistent emission base year … varying from 1990 and 1992, up to 2000 and 2005.
This is very far from being a signal of serious intent from Developed Countries … and is not … in any way, shape or manner … an acceptance of historical responsibilities. It would be reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the process of achieving a global, legally binding, consensus agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be long and difficult. The Climate Change Mitigation Agenda is, to put it mildly, fraught with problems … and has an unclear future in the short term.
.
HOWEVER … Back In The ‘Real’ World … GHG Emissions Continue To Rise !
On 24 November 2010 … the United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published its Greenhouse Gas Bulletin No.6: ‘The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2009′.
The WMO Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Programme coordinates systematic observations and analysis of atmospheric composition, including Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and other trace species. Measurement data are reported by participating countries and archived and distributed by the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) at the Japan Meteorological Agency.
Even here … it is clearly stated that there are still uncertainties …
2009 Global Observations of Greenhouse Gases (GHG’s) in the Atmosphere
24 November 2010
UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Greenhouse Gas Bulletin No.6
Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (3.37 Mb)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The latest analysis of observations from the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch Programme shows that the globally averaged mixing ratios of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) reached new highs in 2009, with CO2 at 386.8 parts per million, CH4 at 1803 ppb and N2O at 322.5 ppb. These values are greater than those in pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38%, 158% and 19%, respectively.
Atmospheric growth rates of CO2 and N2O in 2009 are consistent with recent years, but are lower than in 2008.
After nearly a decade of no growth, Atmospheric CH4 has increased during the past three years. The reasons for renewed growth of Atmospheric Methane are not fully understood, but emissions from natural sources (from northern latitudes and the tropics) are considered potential causes.
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Annual Greenhouse Gas Index shows that from 1990 to 2009, radiative forcing by all long-lived greenhouse gases increased by 27.5%, with CO2 accounting for nearly 80% of this increase.
The combined radiative forcing by Halocarbons is nearly double that of N2O.
.
Help with the Technical Terms of Climate Change ?
Give it a lash ! Try out the Encyclopaedia of Earth WebSite … an electronic reference about the Earth, its natural environments, and their interaction with society. The Encyclopaedia is a free, fully searchable collection of articles written by scholars, professionals, educators, and experts who collaborate and review each other’s work. The articles are written in non-technical language and are useful to students, educators, scholars, professionals, as well as to the general public.
.
To Mitigate or Adapt ? – Prioritizing a Strategy for the Built Environment
We are already experiencing the adverse impacts of Climate Change ! And even if sufficient and appropriate Climate Mitigation Measures were succeeding … which they patently are not … the timelag between their implementation and any resulting beneficial environmental impacts is too great … half a century, at least … and full of uncertainty.
BUT … since the minimum period for a Sustainable Building in Use is 100 Years, and nothing less than a Recurrence Interval of 100 years should now be used in design calculations for events such as severe storms and flooding, or deluge rainfalls, etc … anyone involved in the design, construction, management or operation of the Built Environment must think ‘long-term’ … today !
In Dublin … buildings which are 250 or 350 years old still look remarkably good, and are well capable of fulfilling an important function within the social and economic environments of the city. ‘Politically’ and ‘technically’, therefore, it would be more appropriate for the Built Environment if we were concerned with the Long-Term Climate Change Adaptation Agenda … rather than a problematic, Short-Term Mitigation Agenda.
In terms of a building … is there really a clear difference between measures undertaken for the purpose of mitigation and those undertaken for adaptation ? For example, measures to incrementally improve energy efficiency and conserve energy, in accordance with short-term legally binding targets, will serve to mitigate CO2 Emissions … but the same measures will also serve to adapt the building to rapidly dwindling supplies of climate-damaging fossil fuels.
The long-term perspective exerts pressure for more radical, but necessary, actions in the short-term.
BUT … should we not already be undertaking these sorts of measures as part of the Mainstream Sustainability Agenda … in order to improve built environment resilience, prolong life cycles … and achieve social wellbeing for all ?
Generally … Climate Change Adaptation encompasses urgent and immediate short, near and long-term actions at local, national, regional and international levels to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the local threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.
More specifically … Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation means reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Built Environment … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.
Wake Up And Smell The Coffee … It’s Time To Get Serious !!!!
.
.
END
EU Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup – SDI An Official Partner
2010-11-23: By e-mail from Brussels, dated 2010-11-04 … we have received some good news !
Sustainable Design International (SDI) has been registered … amongst a small number, relatively speaking, of diverse European Organizations having an interest in Urban Planning & Development … as an Official Partner of the European Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup ( http://urban-intergroup.eu/ ).
The URBAN InterGroup focuses on topics related to the Sustainable Development of Urban Areas … and consists of 70 Members of the European Parliament (MEP’s), representing most E.U. Member States.
Check out the InterGroup’s New Newsletter …
Issue No.1 – October 2010
EU Parliament’s URBAN InterGroup Newsletter 1
Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (2.78 Mb)
.
.
END
EU Commissioner Connie Hedegaard in Dublin – Hot Air ?
At lunchtime on Friday, 29 October 2010 … European Union (EU) Commissioner, Ms. Connie Hedegaard, in charge of European Commission DG CLIMA (the new Directorate General for ‘Climate Action’) … addressed the Institute of International & European Affairs in Dublin.
While Connie’s Speech was not subject to the Europa House Rule … the Question & Answer Session, afterwards, was.
Note: IIEA’s Europa House Rule … Irish equivalent of the Chatham House Rule … ‘ When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Europa House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.’
.
Colour photograph of European Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, DG CLIMA (Directorate General for Climate Action), who visited Dublin recently on Friday, 29 October 2010.
Most importantly, I wanted to find out whether Europe will maintain its air of insufferable arrogance at the upcoming UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Cancun Summit, which will be held in December (2010) … and be excluded from critical stages in Global Climate Change Negotiations, as was the case in Copenhagen last December (2009) ??? I was not reassured that we have learned from those humbling experiences !
One small case in point … in Europe, we are still messing around with talk of limiting the rise in Global Average Temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius above Pre-Industrial Levels. However … it was demanded last year, in Copenhagen, that this rise be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius … or lower … particularly by the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) ! Have we listened ? No ! NGO’s in Ireland … please also take note !!!
.
However ! Some good news for a change … the European Commission will produce, sometime early next year in 2011, a strategy document on ’2050 – A Low Carbon Society in Europe’ … that is just a gist of the title, so please don’t quote me … which will also contain related EU Performance Targets for 2030. 2020 is just around the corner, folks !!
Also … Climate Change Adaptation, in Europe, will be given far more of a policy emphasis. Up to recently, there has been little interest in this subject. But the truth is dawning … Mitigation is failing, and Europe is already suffering from the adverse impacts of Climate Change. Practical ways and means are now being identified, therefore, to integrate Adaptation widely into other European Union Policies and Instruments.
In 2009, the European Commission’s White Paper: ‘Adapting to Climate Change - Towards a European Framework for Action’ [COM(2009) 147 final] was published. Next year, following consultations, the Adaptation Framework will make its appearance … and will be promoted with vigour ! So I hope !!!
.
During the Question & Answer Session which followed Connie Hedegaard’s Speech, I raised the following two issues …
1. Missing from the 2009 Adaptation White Paper … the Press Releases, Speeches, and Memos, etc. on the DG CLIMA WebSite … and her Speech at the IIEA on Friday … is any serious or meaningful reference to Sustainable Human & Social Development in all of her work on Climate Action. I strongly suspect, now, that she does not fully understand the meaning of the concept … which involves far, far more than being ‘use-efficient with the earth’s resources’ !
And … would Connie ever consider acquainting herself … properly … with the EU Treaties ? She might then discover the many substantive references to ‘sustainable development’ … and none to the ‘green’ society, ‘green’ this, or ‘green’ the other !!
2. As usual, European Union (EU) Climate Change Data & Statistics were confidently presented by Connie at the IIEA … some, not a lot ! However, there is a major question mark hanging over those statistics … are they Reliable ?? At European level … the experts in the proper management of data and statistics work in EuroStat, which is located in Luxembourg. I visited, there, at the end of June 2010.
However, Europe’s Climate Change Statistical Databases are managed by the European Environment Agency (EEA), which is located in Copenhagen. Does the EEA have the required expertise to manage these Statistical Databases ? No ! Is EuroStat being excluded from making an input into the management of these Databases ? Definitely … Yes !
In question, and in serious doubt … this is the recent EEA’s European Topic Centre on Air & Climate Change (ETC/ACC) Technical Paper 2010/4: ‘Approximated EU Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2009 – Short Report for EU-15 & EU-27′ … please examine it carefully for yourself.
ETC/ACC Technical Paper 2010/4 was the basis for the Official Statement by Connie Hedegaard, dated 2010-09-10, on the Estimates for EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2009, published by the European Environment Agency (EEA) ! She said …
” The sharp drop in overall EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions last year is not a surprise seen in the light of the economic crisis. But the EU Emissions had already been falling steadily for several years before the recession hit, putting us well on track to meet or even over-achieve our Kyoto Protocol Targets. This is thanks to the armoury of policies and measures implemented over the past decade, which have succeeded in breaking the automatic link that used to mean that economic growth translated into higher Emissions. However, as the economy picks up again we can expect the drop in Emissions to level off or even be reversed temporarily. It is therefore very important that the EU and Member States continue implementing the climate and energy package and the other measures needed to meet our 2020 Targets. And of course I hope that the new strong figures also can inspire the necessary debate on how fast the EU can reach even more ambitious targets.”
.
Just to get you started … please note how the Kyoto Industrial GHG’s (HFC’s, PFC’s and SF6) have … not ! … been handled in this Technical Paper …
September 2010 – ETC/ACC Technical Paper 2010/4
Approximated 2009 EU GHG Inventory – Short Report for EU-15 & EU-27
Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (671kb)
.
Embarrassing, isn’t it ??? VERY !!!
.
.
END
Institutional Failure Increasing European Biodiversity Losses ?
Our Ultimate Goal … as Human Beings … must be to arrive, as quickly as practicable, at a dynamic and harmonious balance between a Sustainable Human Environment and a flourishing, not just a surviving, Natural Environment … with the Overall Aim of achieving Social Wellbeing for All.
Note: Human Environment … Anywhere there is, or has been, an intrusion by a human being in the natural environment.
Note: Social Wellbeing … A general condition – in a community, society or culture – of health, creativity, responsible fulfilment, and sustainable development.
Simply stated … Biodiversity is Critical for the Good Health of the Natural Environment ! And yes … the Natural Environment is a Living System … and we must become comfortable when using such terms as ‘health’, ‘injury’ or ‘harm’ in relation to its condition. Or, should I say ‘her’ condition ??
Furthermore … a Flourishing Natural Environment is an essential foundation for Biodiversity within a Sustainable Built Environment.
Note: Built Environment … Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the natural environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, roads, bridges, tunnels, transport systems, service utilities, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, seas, etc. … including the virtual environment.
[A Short Digression: One important point needs immediate and unequivocal clarification ... it is only in the context of Biodiversity within the Built Environment can there be any consideration or discussion about the Sustainable Use/Exploitation of that Biodiversity !]
.
Shamefully … as Human Beings … we have made a terrible, terrible mess of Our Planet. And it continues … and continues …
Initiated at the time of the Deepwater Horizon Offshore Drilling Rig Explosion and Fire, on 20th April 2010 … this summer’s BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico … an unprecedented Local Environmental, Social and Economic Tragedy and a Regional Disaster … unfolded very quickly and very prominently in front of our eyes. It was a long time, however, before the full nature and extent of this catastrophic incident was revealed.
Excluding the issues of Public Relations Spin, Withholding and/or Concealment of Vital Information, Individual Incompetence, and Lies … Institutional Failure (or, to put it another way, Lack of Institutional Capacity) alone … i.e. failure to properly anticipate, or to be adequately prepared, and/or to respond effectively and in a timely manner … added to, and magnified, the scale of this disaster.
.
On Wednesday, 14 July 2010, the following brief overview describes the United States Disaster Response … my sincere apologies for reproducing the quaint, but prehistoric, Imperial Units of Measure …
Disaster Response Vessels
- Vessels of Opportunity: 2,754
- Barges: more than 540
- Skimmers: more than 580
- Other Vessels: more than 3,000
- Total Active Response Vessels: more than 6,870
and
- Aircraft: 119
Boom Data
- Boom deployed: more than 3.27 million feet
- Boom available: more than 855,000 feet
- Total Boom: more than 4.12 million feet
Oil Recovered
- Oily Water Recovered: nearly 32.9 million gallons
- Amount Estimated Burned: nearly 10.97 million gallons
- Oil Captured (CAP) over last 24hrs: more than 539,000 gallons
Oil Dispersants
- Surface dispersant used: more than 1.07 million gallons
- Sub-sea dispersant used: more than 762,000 gallons
- Total Dispersant Used: more than 1.83 million gallons
Personnel Involved
- Overall Personnel Responding: more than 44,000 personnel
[Source ... http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/07/15/operations-and-ongoing-response-july-15-2010]
.
United States National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
Staff Working Paper No.2 – 6 October 2010
Decision-Making within the Unified Command
Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (276kb)
.
.
IN EUROPE … during this International Year of Biodiversity … a Major and Widespread Regional Disaster is unfolding quietly, slowly … hidden from the view of the general European public … and in relation to which important lessons must be learned from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster. Please examine closely that U.S. National Commission’s Staff Working Paper No.2 above.
On 4th October 2010 … the European Environment Agency (EEA) published Report No.5 : ‘Assessing Biodiversity in Europe’ … which clearly stated (in the final paragraph of the final chapter … and then, only when quoting from another document !) …
‘ a large proportion of European species and habitats are either facing extinction, have an unfavourable conservation status, or their status is unknown.’
.
THE QUESTION which must be asked is … whether there is yet proper … or even sufficient … Institutional Capacity at European Union and EU Member State levels to implement Any European Biodiversity Strategy … with the clearly specified target of protecting, conserving and nurturing Biological Diversity in Europe ???
.
Does the following cautiously worded text convince you ? Not me, I’m afraid !
EEA Technical Report No.5 / 2010 – Chapter 4 – ‘Conclusions, Way Forward & Knowledge Gaps’
European Biodiversity has declined dramatically in the last two centuries, with the conversion of natural habitats to meet growing demands for food, energy and infrastructure. Although the pace of change has varied across the region and has generally slowed considerably in the last couple of decades, agricultural land use now accounts for almost half of the European terrestrial area.
In coastal and marine areas, industrial fishery operations have had similarly large impacts, affecting both fish populations and habitats throughout European coastal and marine waters. Nearly half of assessed fish stocks in Europe fall outside safe biological limits. The majority of biodiversity in Europe now exists within a mosaic of heavily managed land and seascapes, and is to a large degree linked to agricultural, forestry and fishery practices across the continent.
In recent decades, growing awareness of biodiversity decline has led to improved commitments, policies and practices for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity throughout much of Europe. Biodiversity is now higher on the political agenda in Europe than ever before. Significant targeted responses have been made by public, civil society and private institutions to restore habitats, protect threatened species and reduce the main threats to biodiversity in Europe.
As a result of the policies adopted and implemented at international and European scales, including the Birds, Habitats, and Water Framework Directives, there are indications that some aspects of biodiversity are improving in status in parts of Europe. There have been significant increases in forest cover in the last two decades across northern Europe and the status of many waterways has improved across Europe as a result of reduced industrial and agricultural pollution in many countries. Recovery plans have been documented and are being implemented for many of Europe’s threatened species, with some successes.
While ambitious targets are being set in Europe to halt biodiversity loss and some progress is being made, many threats remain and new ones are growing. This erodes the ability of ecosystems to provide services to people in Europe and beyond.
Threats to Europe’s biodiversity include habitat loss and degradation, unsustainable harvesting, establishment and spread of invasive alien species, pollution from agricultural runoff in many countries, unsustainable forest and agriculture management, increasing water abstraction and use, and increasing climatic change impacts, especially in southern and northern Europe, and in mountainous areas across the region. The loss of wetland and dryland habitats also continues.
Future Progress in addressing these threats and conserving Europe’s Remaining Biodiversity will depend on success in Four Key Areas:
1. Enhanced Implementation Of Measures Targeted At Biodiversity Conservation. There has been progress in protecting and restoring threatened species and habitats across much of Europe, and protected areas and sustainable farmland and forestry management practices have grown steadily. However, there remains considerable opportunity to scale up such practices across the region, including coastal and marine areas. Such direct efforts for biodiversity conservation are a cornerstone of conservation. They are essential to manage the most important threats and conserve the most threatened biodiversity. However, alone they are insufficient to address biodiversity loss in the medium and long term because many of the direct drivers, and all of the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, emanate from other sectors.
2. Policy Coherence On Biodiversity Is Required With Other Sectors. In order to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity, policies in other sectors that have an impact on or depend on biodiversity need to be supportive. These include those on trade, agriculture, fisheries, planning, transport, health, tourism, and the financial sector, including insurance. In many EU countries, considerable funding for managing biodiversity in landscapes is obtained from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Mainstreaming biodiversity into these areas – in both the public and private sectors – is essential for an integrated approach to biodiversity conservation. Successful mainstreaming will require all sectors to recognise the value of biodiversity. Recent efforts to ascribe accurate economic values to biodiversity and ecosystem services, for example ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB, 2010), provide a basis for mainstreaming.
3. A More Integrated Approach Across Sectors And Administrative Boundaries, At Landscape And Seascape Scales. This entails applying the ecosystem approach more widely, and requires co-operation across sectors for successful implementation. The present report shows that management of some habitat types, such as forestry and freshwater systems, is already starting to apply such approaches. Others, such as marine habitats, mountains and agricultural land, have not yet been adjusted sufficiently. Integrating protected areas, ecological networks, connectivity areas, production and urban landscapes into multifunctional land-use planning at a regional scale will be an essential element of a successful European conservation strategy. Likewise at watershed and landscape scales, the integration of biodiversity and natural resources management, including that of water, will require dialogue and agreement between the multiple stakeholders using, depending on, and managing such resources.
4. Public Awareness Of The Relevance Of Biodiversity To The Lives Of European Citizens, And The Consequences Of Biodiversity Loss At Local, European And Global Scales, Needs To Be Raised. Significant efforts are therefore required on communication, education and public awareness, to complement the policy framework and to encourage both individual action for biodiversity conservation, and a supportive public opinion for changes in policy and practice.
This report shows that, particularly regarding forest habitats, public awareness of the value of sustainable practices and recycling is increasing. This can be enhanced by publicising how more sustainable practices can benefit both society and the ecosystems themselves.
Despite being the region with the longest and broadest biodiversity knowledge base, key knowledge gaps remain across Europe. Filling such gaps would support action and policies across the four key areas.
Knowledge gaps exist in individual elements of biodiversity. Little is known, for example, about many aquatic systems (and especially floodplains and deltas), genetic diversity beyond the agricultural sector, and for many taxa at the species level. Considerable further work is required to assess the status of plants, invertebrates and fungi, and to assess trends in species status. A global base of species level assessments (or ‘Barometer of Life’) would cost some €45 million (Euros), according to recent estimates (Stuart et al., 2010).
My Note: Taxon (plural Taxa) … Any unit used in the science of Biological Classification, or Taxonomy. Taxa are arranged in a hierarchy from kingdom to sub-species, a given taxon ordinarily including several taxa of lower rank. In the classification of protists, plants and animals, certain taxonomic categories are universally recognized; in descending order, these are kingdom, phylum (in plants, division), class, order, family, genus, species, and sub-species, or race.
In addition to knowledge of specific elements of biodiversity, interdisciplinary knowledge gaps are particularly apparent, with little in the way of accumulated knowledge on the interlinkages between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Recent efforts to link biodiversity science with economics have been particularly promising but further interdisciplinary research and assessment would support strengthened decision-making and policymaking processes on European biodiversity in the 21st century.
Key Gaps in Knowledge that emerge from this report are as follows …
- Data Availability: Data beyond EU-27 Member States are often limited, especially European-level information on biodiversity (species, communities and genetic stock). Generally, data for marine species and habitats are much scarcer than for terrestrial ecosystems, and across Europe some important ecosystem types (e.g. marine and coastal) are among the least studied. Data are often lacking at relevant scales, e.g. for key environmental drivers or habitat change. This information would help set solid and relevant targets and continually improve sustainable management schemes.
- Climate Change Adaptation Strategies: Information on adaptation measures and strategies is often insufficient for many European ecosystems to counteract adverse climate change impacts and maintain ecosystem goods and services (e.g. FAO, 2009). While climate change considerations have largely driven the debate on adaptive capacity and vulnerability, there is now increased recognition of the multidimensional nature of drivers of change, responses and feedback mechanisms (e.g. CDE, 2009).
- Ecosystem Services: Enhanced information on environmental, economic and social benefits of the ecosystem services supplied by biodiversity is lacking to inform sustainable management of ecosystems and raise public awareness of biodiversity’s value and the link to livelihoods. The value of non-marketed goods and services are an important element in this.
- Optimal Land-Use Strategies: It is important to finding the optimal mix of protected and productive areas, whether used for intensive agriculture or biomass for energy. More detailed data and analysis are needed to assess the extent and consequences of losing natural habitats through land conversion for increased biomass, e.g. biofuel feedstock production (FAO, 2008). Ecosystem approaches are also particularly well suited for addressing competing land-use issues in a systematic and holistic framework, even in the absence of economic valuations, and they have considerable potential as an integrated management tool (Hicks et al., 2008).
- Sustainable Management Indicators: More knowledge on sustainable management indicators is required along the lines of the pan-European indicators of sustainable forest management.
- Green Infrastructure: More information is required on the potential benefits of a green infrastructure approach to facilitate land development and land conservation together in a way that is consistent with existing natural features to deliver multiple benefits to people and biodiversity.
Recognising the urgent need to address these issues and reverse the trends of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, the Environment Council adopted the 2020 Headline Target on 15 March 2010 and the European Council endorsed the Long-Term Biodiversity Vision on 26 March 2010. These ambitious initiatives will underpin the new EU Biodiversity Strategy to be finalised by the end of 2010. In its conclusions, the European Council specified that the strategy to address biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation should set a clear baseline outlining the criteria against which achievements are to be assessed.
EEA developed the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline (EEA, 2010) to respond to this need. It offers a comprehensive snapshot of the current state of biodiversity. It thereby supports the EU in developing the post 2010 sub-targets as part of the biodiversity strategy and provides factual data for measuring and monitoring progress in the EU from 2011 to 2020. This new information tool demonstrates that a large proportion of European species and habitats are either facing extinction, have an unfavourable conservation status or their status is unknown. It highlights the urgent need for conservation actions and intensified efforts.
.
In Ireland … am I convinced that the New National Biodiversity Plan 2010-2015 (draft for public consultation, dated 1st September 2010) will turn out to be anything more than just another slick looking public relations document issued by our one and only Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) ? I’ll give you one guess what my answer is !!!
.
.
END
E.U. ’2 Degree Celsius’ Climate Change Target Is Not Enough !
2010-06-01: Europe got its ass whipped at the United Nations Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, last December 2009. Why aren’t all the Institutions of the European Union learning … really fast … from this hard lesson ???
This is also a question for the Stop Climate Chaos Campaign here in Ireland !?!
.
Back on 10th January 2007 … the European Commission issued COM(2007) 2 final … a Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions … having the title: Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 Degrees Celsius – The Way Ahead for 2020 and Beyond. [ This document is freely available for download ... at EUR-Lex (a link to the WebSite is provided at the right hand side of this Page). ]
On Page 3 of the Communication, you will read the following …
‘ The EU’s objective is to limit global average temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. This will limit the impacts of climate change and the likelihood of massive and irreversible disruptions of the global ecosystem. The Council has noted that this will require atmospheric concentrations of GHG (greenhouse gases) to remain well below 550 parts per million by volume (ppmv) CO2 equivalent (eq.). By stabilising long-term concentrations at around 450 ppmv CO2 eq., there is a 50% chance of doing so. This will require global GHG emissions to peak before 2025 and then fall by up to 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. The Council has agreed that developed countries will have to continue to take the lead to reduce their emissions between 15 to 30% by 2020. The European Parliament has proposed an EU CO2 reduction target of 30% for 2020 and 60-80% for 2050.’
What a really sloppy, imprecise expression … and explanation … to give to a critical Climate Change Performance Indicator !! And … please note the overly optimistic ’50% chance’.
On the evidence of Europe’s ‘real’ climate change mitigation performance to date … there is no chance, whatever, of hitting that target.
.
In Copenhagen, the Group of 77 & China and the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), in particular, demanded that the planetary temperature rise be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius !
Outside Europe … irreversible climate change is already happening … and people must adapt in order to survive !!!
For example … climate change is seriously affecting the people of the Sundarbans. Located at the mouth of the Ganges River in Bangladesh and West Bengal in India, this area is part of the largest delta in the world. Sundarban means ‘beautiful forest’ in Bengali, as the region is covered in mangrove forests …
.
Under the Aegis of the European Environment Agency ... these 3 Photographs were taken by Mikkel Stenbaek Hansen. In each case, click to enlarge !
.
Colour photograph showing Ruhul Khan, who has lost three houses in recent years. His former homes were located to the left of the picture, an area now covered by water.
.
Colour photograph showing that the rising sea level brings salt water inland, damaging the soil’s fertility. Some residents have adapted by using their farmland for fish breeding. Others are experimenting with crop species that are resilient to salt water.
.
.
END
How ‘Sustainable’ are Built Environment Adaptation Projects ?
2010-04-01: The Inter-Basin Water Transfer Project from Lough Ree, on the River Shannon, to Dublin City, in Ireland, has been described as a Pilot Adaptation Project on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) WebSite Database relating to the Nairobi Work Programme (2005-2010).
I did not imagine this … please check out the listing, for yourselves, on this WebPage … www.unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/knowledge_resources_and_publications/items/4555.php?sort=focus_sort&dirc=DESC&seite=1&anf=0&type=®ion=&focus=&means=
Detailed information concerning the Project can be accessed and downloaded at this Irish Address: www.watersupplyproject-dublinregion.ie It will cost approximately €600 million (probably much more !) … devour many material resources and have an adverse environmental impact … the objective being to divert water from the Shannon, a large river in the mid-west of the country … to Dublin, the capital city, which is located over 100 kilometres away on the east coast … in order to deal with the expected shortage of water which will be caused, among other relevant factors, by future climate change.
.
Colour image showing the many options for a future Dublin Region Water Supply Project ... linking the River Shannon, and its lakes ... to the Capital City, which is over 100 kilometres away on the east coast. Click to enlarge.
.
BUT … just how Sustainable is this Climate Change Adaptation Project … if the following other relevant factors are considered ?????
1. Since the 1960′s … a dysfunctional and corrupt Spatial Planning System in the Dublin City Region has actively encouraged an uncontrolled, urban and suburban horizontal sprawl to take place. Today, this pattern of development remains unchecked.
2. At this time, there are still no Residential Water Charges in Dublin. The concept of water conservation is, therefore, almost unknown among householders. National and local politicians are terrified by any prospect of having to vote in favour of imposing these necessary charges.
3. There are enormous un-intended losses, i.e. Leaks, from the public mains potable/drinking water distribution system … approximately 40% even in the good times, and recently, well in excess of 60% following the National Snow Emergency in Ireland.
4. Potable/drinking water supplied to houses in the Dublin City Region is not yet Metered. There is no urgency, therefore, in locating and repairing water leaks which occur between the private property boundary of a house and the house itself.
5. There is no existing legal requirement in Ireland’s National Building Regulations to Harvest Rainwater in any buildings, or on any hard surfaces in the vicinity of those buildings. A current proposal to amend Technical Guidance Document H: ‘Drainage & Waste Water Disposal’ will merely present relevant guidance text to building designers concerning this option.
Furthermore, there is no effective System of Technical Control operated by the Local Authorities in the City Region … to enforce a legal requirement concerning rainwater harvesting … even if such a legal requirement were to be introduced !
6. In 2005-2006, at the height of the Celtic Tiger Economic Boom … the existing Foul and Storm Water Drainage Infrastructure in the City Region was already stretched to keep pace with the ‘wild’ demands for new development land. Detailed information concerning the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study can be accessed and downloaded at this Irish Address: www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/WasteWater/Drainage/GreaterDublinStrategicDrainageStudy/Pages/RegionalDrainagePolicies-OverallPolicyDocument.aspx
Overloading of the existing drainage systems was evident from a marked deterioration in water quality, increased risks of flooding and pollution, and concerns that the drainage system and sewage treatment plants had insufficient capacity to cater for future development.
7. Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) …
‘ a continual evaluation and optimization assessment – informing initial decision-making, or design, and shaping activity/product/service realization, useful life and termination, or final disposal – of the interrelated positive and negative social, economic, environmental, institutional, political and legal impacts on balanced and equitable implementation of Sustainable Human & Social Development ‘
… is not yet a standard procedure, at any level, within national, regional and local Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s). If it were, the most glaring flaw in this project would rapidly be identified. There is no comprehension at all, in the minds of Dublin City’s decision-makers, that water is a very valuable, but limited, resource !
.
Although today is 1st April 2010 … far too many people in senior policy and decision-making roles are giving solemn, unquestioning consideration to this Project.
To be successful, however, National Adaptation Strategies, Programmes and Projects must be informed, in a meaningful way, by the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development … and, prior to implementation, must be filtered through the lens of a comprehensive Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) !
.
.
POSTSCRIPT
2011-09-29: Relevant extract from the 2010 Annual Report of the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General - Volume 2 …
WATER SERVICES EFFECTIVENESS
22.11 Funding for the provision of infrastructure for the supply of drinking water is provided by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government under two programmes. Major water supply schemes are included in the rolling three-year Water Services Investment Programme (WSIP). These schemes focus on the larger concentrations of population in urban areas. Annual Rural Water Programmes (RWP) provide the bulk of funding for the construction of group water schemes and small public schemes in rural areas.
22.12 Over the period 2000-2010, €5.2 Billion of Exchequer resources have been invested in the upgrading and provision of new water services infrastructure, of which €4.2 Billion was spent on WSIP and €0.99 Billion was spent on RWP. Overall expenditure includes investment of over €1 Billion on public water supply and networks and €168 Million on water conservation. [The WSIP expenditure also includes €889 million relating mainly to the group water sector under the rural water programme.] There are two key indicators of the effectiveness of expenditure on water supply and conservation:
- the quality of drinking water;
- the extent to which treated water reaches the consumer.
.
Effectiveness of Water Supply System
22.17 Loss of output is a feature of all water distribution systems. Unaccounted for Water (UFW) is a measure that is used to track this loss. It is the difference between ‘net production’ which is the volume of water delivered into a network and ‘consumption’ measured in terms of the volume of water that can be accounted for by legitimate consumption.
22.18 Figure 109 shows UFW as a percentage of the net volume of water supplied for 2008 and 2009. It sets out the national average performance and the range across local authorities. Annex A contains the data on UFW for these two years for all county and city councils.
.
Black and white image showing Figure 109: 'Unaccounted for Water (UFW) as a Percentage of Water Supplied, 2008-2009' ... from the 2010 Annual Report of the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General - Volume 2. Click to enlarge.
.
Black and white image showing Annex A: 'Unaccounted for Water (UFW) as a Percentage of Total Volume of Water Supplied, 2008 and 2009' ... from the 2010 Annual Report of the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General - Volume 2. Click to enlarge.
.
22.19 Overall, the average percentage of UFW was approximately 41.48% in 2009, which showed a marginal increase over 2008 (41.20%). Some 17 of the 34 authorities have seen an improvement in 2009, the most noticeable being a reduction in the percentage of water lost in Monaghan which was down by 27%, Cavan by 18% and Kilkenny by 15%. The other 17 local authorities reported a disimprovement in the amount of UFW for 2009, with Limerick County Council reporting losses of 35%, up from 17% in 2008. Fingal County Council, Limerick City Council, and Dublin City Council reported substantial increased leakage in 2009 over 2008 at 27%, 22% and 20% respectively.
Cost of Unaccounted for Water (UFW)
22.20 The cost of UFW is considerable for local authorities. However, since the LGMSB does not collate information on water production and associated costs the data is not available in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. As a result, it is not possible in this report to provide an up-to-date estimate of the cost of UFW being experienced.
22.21 A value for money examination carried out in the mid-1990’s on water production and distribution showed that the cost per cubic metre of water produced varied between €0.14 to €0.39. The study found that overall water leakage level in the authorities surveyed at that time ranged from 27% to 40% of total water produced.
22.22 The results of the study were based on estimates since none of the authorities that were the subject of the value for money examination had the means to measure accurately the level of overall leakage.
22.23 Based on its results, the examination reported that, for five local authorities reviewed at that time, the estimated annual production cost of the water lost due to leakages was in the order of €3.5 million. Applying the Consumer Price Index to this value brings the cost to approximately €5.3 million in present-day terms.
22.24 As leakage is just one factor contributing to UFW, it appears from the losses now being recorded by local authorities that there has been little, if any, improvement in the situation despite the considerable State investment in water services in the interim.
Views of the Accounting Officer
22.25 The Accounting Officer informed me that under the National Water Conservation Sub-Programme, which commenced in 1996, the National Water Study undertook a comprehensive national water audit of all urban centres with populations exceeding 5,000 to determine the extent of UFW and leakage problems nationally. The National Water Study examined the reasons for UFW and set out recommendations to reduce the levels of UFW.
22.26 Arising from the findings of the National Water Study and pilot water conservation schemes undertaken in the main urban centres of Dublin, Cork, Galway, Waterford and Limerick, water conservation strategies and operational programmes were adopted which have been rolled out nationally since 2003.
22.27 The Dublin Region Water Conservation Programme, which was carried out between 1998 and 2002 as one of the pilot schemes under the National Water Conservation Sub-Programme, reduced regional leakage from 47% to 28%. UFW in the Dublin region now averages 30% which is amongst the lowest in the country.
22.28 Since the commencement of the water conservation sub-programme, substantial investment has been made in the fundamental infrastructure for water management, including the metering of supply input. Also, the methodology has been standardised. Arising from this, the reported figures now have an accuracy that the figures from earlier times could not have had.
22.29 By way of example, the Greater Dublin Water Supply Strategic Study (1996) estimated losses of 44% of total input, of which 39% was allocated to distribution losses and 5% allocated to customer losses. When the metering infrastructure was checked and upgraded during the water conservation project (around 2000), it was found that the original meter readings for flow into supply were incorrect, and that losses were actually higher than originally thought (giving the corrected estimate for that time of 42% distribution losses and 47% in total). Notwithstanding that the Dublin Region bulk metering infrastructure was considered reliable at the time, it was found to have inaccuracies that were subsequently corrected.
22.30 In terms of comparisons, the Accounting Officer pointed out that the Dublin supply is hugely significant, serving approximately one third of the population of the country. Consequently, the Dublin supply region reduction of distribution loss from 42% to 30% currently must reflect positively on the national average (and it is the corrected Dublin Region figure from 1995/96 that is most reliably reflective of the situation at that time).
22.31 A further observation by the Accounting Officer was that without investment the leakage situation will deteriorate as assets age. It follows that a certain level of investment is required even just to maintain the status quo.
22.32 The Accounting Officer stated that, outside of Dublin, most of the investment had been in water management systems, which while they had made a contribution to tackling leakage, were really the platform for the more intensive investment being rolled out for mains rehabilitation in the WSIP 2010-2012. She said that this investment in water management systems had contributed to greater efficiency in the supply system, which had been demonstrated during the two severe winters and flooding in Cork, when authorities had been better able to manage the rationing of supply and restoration of supply than they would have been a decade ago.
22.33 Finally, the Accounting Officer said that the need to focus on water conservation had been demonstrated through the development of service indicators, training in water conservation, development of guidance and work with the County and City Managers Association to streamline the approaches and accelerate work in this area.
CONCLUSION – Effectiveness of Water Supply System
UFW arises from factors such as leakage, poor service connections and metering errors. Average UFW levels in Ireland appear to be at levels twice the OECD average of 20%. While some caution needs to be applied in interpreting the results of a limited examination of water leakage carried out over 15 years ago, present-day losses may be, in many local authorities, as high as those found in the mid-1990’s, notwithstanding an investment of over €1 Billion in water supply and conservation in the last ten years.
In the light of the potential cost of UFW it is necessary that the factors that give rise to UFW be reviewed and strategies and operational programmes to address the underlying issues contributing to the problem be re-evaluated.
.
.
END
Mitigate or Adapt – Climate Strategy for the Built Environment ?
2010-03-31: Before the official announcement, in New York, of the independent InterAcademy Council (IAC) Review of the WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) … on 10th March 2010 … clear indications had been given, at meetings in the Institute of International and European Affairs (Dublin), that serious question marks hovered over the IPCC, its 2007 4th Assessment Report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri’s position within the IPCC … the actions of many of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) who were at Copenhagen during the 2009 UNFCCC Climate Change Summit … and the Science of Climate Change itself (refer, for example, to revelations following the hacking of e-mails and other data from a server in the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in England, and the irregularities/errors in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report).
The 2009 Copenhagen Accord was a political agreement between a small number of Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and Heads of Delegation – Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and the USA – who attended the Climate Summit, which concluded on Saturday, 19th December. At the time of writing, many countries have made voluntary submissions, i.e. they are not legally binding, to Appendices I and II of the Accord.
A general overview of the submissions made by Developed Countries, however, reveals the following about the Voluntary Emissions Targets being undertaken …
- they are highly conditional on the performance of other countries ;
- they are very disappointing, being far below what is required to cap the planetary temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius ; and
- there is no consistent emission base year … varying from 1990 and 1992, up to 2000 and 2005.
This is very far from being a signal of serious intent from Developed Countries … and is not … in any way, shape or manner … an acceptance of historical responsibilities. It would be reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the process of achieving a global, legally binding, consensus agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be long and difficult. The Climate Change Mitigation Agenda is, to put it mildly, fraught with problems … and has an unclear future in the short term.
On the other hand, anyone involved in the design, construction, management or operation of the Built Environment must think ‘long-term’ … the minimum life cycle for a sustainable building should be at least 100 years. Today in Dublin, buildings which are 250 or 350 years old still look remarkably good, and are well capable of fulfilling an important function within the social and economic environments of the city. ‘Politically’ and ‘technically’, therefore, it would be more appropriate for the built environment if we were concerned with the Long-Term Climate Change Adaptation Agenda … rather than a problematic, short-term Mitigation Agenda. But, in terms of a building … is there really a clear difference between measures undertaken for the purpose of mitigation and those undertaken for adaptation ? For example, measures to incrementally improve energy efficiency and conserve energy, in accordance with short-term legally binding targets, will serve to mitigate CO2 emissions … but the same measures will also serve to adapt the building to rapidly dwindling supplies of climate-damaging fossil fuels. The long-term perspective will exert pressure for more radical actions in the short-term.
But, should we not already be undertaking these sorts of measures as part of the Mainstream Sustainability Agenda … in order to increase building durability and prolong life cycle ?
Generally … Climate Change Adaptation encompasses urgent and immediate short, near and long-term actions at local, national, regional and international levels to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the local threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.
More specifically … Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation means reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Built Environment … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.
Climate Change Adaptation is one of the most important drivers for Sustainable Design !
.
.
END
‘Climate’ Politics – From 2007 Consensus to 2009 Fracture ?
The 2007 UNFCCC Climate Summit held in Bali, Indonesia, from 3rd-15th December … resulted in a strong global consensus in favour of immediate and concerted action on climate change … and a sharply worded document, the 2007 Bali Action Plan … key parts of which state …
‘ The Conference of the Parties,
Resolving to urgently enhance implementation of the Convention in order to achieve its ultimate objective in full accordance with its principles and commitments ;
Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are global priorities ; …
Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the urgency to address climate change as indicated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ;
1. Decides to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session, by addressing …
(a) A shared vision for long-term co-operative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions … in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities ;
(b) Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change …
(c) Enhanced action on adaptation …
(d) Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation …
(e) Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology co-operation … ‘
.
Just a few weeks later, on 12th February 2008, in New York … Ambassador John Ashe, Permanent Representative of Antigua & Barbuda to the United Nations, delivered an Important Statement on behalf of the Group of 77 & China (comprising 130 countries) … at the Thematic Debate of the U.N. General Assembly: ‘Addressing Climate Change – The United Nations and the World at Work’. Fully reflecting and supporting the Bali Action Plan, this Statement clearly set out the Climate Change Priorities for the Developing and Least Developed Countries, including the Small Island Developing States (SIDS). It included the following important extract …
‘ Climate Change as a Sustainable Development Challenge
5. Mr. President, the Group of 77 and China is of the view that discussions on climate change should be placed within the proper context of sustainable development. It is imperative that our discussion reinforces the promotion of sustainable development …
6. We must not lose sight of the fact that climate change is a sustainable development challenge. As such we should adhere steadfastly to the Rio principles, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. We must take fully into account that poverty eradication, economic and social development are the paramount priorities of developing countries …
7. Mr. President, urgent action is needed now to fully implement the commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, especially commitments on financing for adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building, if we are to make progress towards the achievement of the sustainable development goals of developing countries …
8. Urgent action is particularly needed on commitments, as climate change threatens the livelihoods of the very poor and vulnerable developing countries, in particular Africa, the Least Developed Countries, the Land-Locked Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States, and disaster prone developing countries. The G77 and China is of the view that while addressing the challenge of climate, the most affected countries and most vulnerable countries should be given adequate attention and support.
9. Developed countries Parties must take the lead in addressing the implementation gap, since the extent to which developing countries Parties can effectively respond to the challenge depends on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments relating to financing and technology transfer.’
.
The Developed Countries, i.e. those listed in Annex I of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, did not listen to the words of John Ashe. This helps to explain the Fracture of the 2007 Bali Consensus at Copenhagen, in December 2009 … the sharp division between the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have-not’s’ of our small planet.
Within Developed Countries … there may be a certain comfort, at an intellectual level, in linking Sustainable Development and Climate Change. However, in vulnerable Developing Countries this link is critical … where poverty eradication, and economic and social development are paramount priorities. All are ‘responsible needs’ which are clearly specified and supported by International Law. Yet, the Developed Countries persist in disregarding their legal obligations under Articles 2.3 and 3.14 of the 1997 UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol … and, more importantly, evading their historical responsibility for causing the problem of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the first place.
Closer to home, in the European Union Member States, far too much emphasis is being placed on fully exploiting the various ‘flexibility mechanisms’ within the UNFCCC Process … rather than on direct and proper compliance with their individual Kyoto Mitigation Commitments. There is little or no interest in Adaptation. Meanwhile, the reality shown by the latest analysis of observations from the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Programme is that the globally averaged mixing ratios of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) reached new highs in 2008 with CO2 at 385.2 parts per million, CH4 at 1797 parts per billion (ppb) and N2O at 321.8 ppb … higher than those in pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38%, 157% and 19%, respectively !
.
.
END
Sustainable Climate Adaptation – 2008 G-77 Statement to the UN
How did the Developed Countries get everything so wrong in Copenhagen during December 2009 ? Why was the European Union irrelevant to what was taking place ? Were there no obvious signals … no straws in the wind … well in advance of the Climate Summit ?
Yes, there definitely were ! Almost two years beforehand !! Take a deep breath … and suck this up …
Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 & China by Ambassador John Ashe, Permanent Representative of Antigua and Barbuda to the United Nations, at the Thematic Debate of the General Assembly on ‘Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and The World at Work’ (New York, 12th February 2008)
Introduction
1. Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China thank you for convening this debate in the General Assembly on the theme ‘Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and The World at Work’. It provides the Assembly with an additional opportunity to exchange views among Member States and with other partners on one of the important issues on the development agenda of the UN.
2. At the outset, the Group of 77 & China reiterates that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is, and should remain, the primary comprehensive framework for addressing climate change. Therefore, this thematic debate should be recognized as an opportunity for Member States to dialogue on ways of increasing support for the Framework and on meeting the urgent need for immediate action to fully implement commitments under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol; supporting the Bali Action Plan and other mechanisms of the Convention.
3. Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China is of the view that there should not be a parallel process of debates that would detract from the negotiation process under the Convention. The Group of 77 & China believes that multilateral action to address climate change should remain firmly rooted in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
4. Furthermore, this thematic debate, as well as the Secretary General’s report on the Overview of UN activities in relation to Climate Change should not attempt to influence any other processes such as the system wide coherence debate or the discussions on international environmental governance.
*** Climate Change as a Sustainable Development Challenge ***
5. Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China is of the view that discussions on climate change should be placed within the proper context of sustainable development. It is imperative that our discussion reinforces the promotion of sustainable development, highlighting the three pillars – economic development, social development and environmental protection – and the need to promote all three in an integrated, co-ordinated and balanced manner.
6. We must not lose sight of the fact that climate change is a sustainable development challenge. As such we should adhere steadfastly to the Rio Principles, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. We must take fully into account that poverty eradication, economic and social development are the paramount priorities of developing countries. Hence, we must ensure that the discussion on climate change is placed in its proper context so that it does not undermine the overall discourse on sustainable development.
7. Mr. President, urgent action is needed now to fully implement the commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, especially commitments on financing for adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building, if we are to make progress towards the achievement of the sustainable development goals of developing countries, in particular the Internationally Agreed Development Goals (IADG’s), including the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s).
8. Urgent action is particularly needed on commitments, as climate change threatens the livelihoods of the very poor and vulnerable developing countries, in particular Africa, the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s), Land-Locked Developing Countries (LLDC’s), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and disaster prone developing countries. The G-77 & China is of the view that while addressing the challenge of climate, the most affected countries and most vulnerable countries should be given adequate attention and support.
9. Developed countries Parties must take the lead in addressing the implementation gap, since the extent to which developing countries Parties can effectively respond to the challenge depends on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments relating to financing and technology transfer.
Scaling-Up Financing, Technology Transfer and Capacity Building Support
10. While the UN can support the efforts of developing countries in formulating policies for attracting climate change related investment flows, adaptation and nationally appropriate mitigation actions will have to be enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building that are commensurate with the magnitude of the tasks ahead of us, that is, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner, as agreed in the Bali Action Plan. The provision of financial resources is a binding commitment of developed country Parties. Clear guidance should be given to facilitate access to financial resources and investments without conditionalities. It is essential that such financial resources not be considered as Official Development Assistance (ODA), but additional, and in compliance with existing binding commitments under the Convention. Further, financing for adaptation to climate change and the impact of response measures should not be a reallocation or realignment of existing development financing.
11. Developing countries should be provided with greater access to cost-effective, efficient and affordable advanced clean technologies. The Group of 77 & China has repeatedly led calls for developing countries to have greater access to climate-friendly technologies. Efforts in this regard need to be scaled up. Furthermore, the UN can play an important role through the promotion of an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Regime that facilitates the transfer of such technologies.
12. The Group of 77 & China reiterates its call for increased support for capacity building in developing countries to enhance national efforts to promote an integrated approach to climate change response measures and sustainable development planning.
Greater Support by the UN System for Developing Countries to Address the Climate Change Challenge
13. The UN’s efforts in supporting national adaptation activities must be strengthened, so that developing countries can achieve their sustainable development goals while responding to the challenges of climate change. The role of the UN in supporting the overall development efforts is vital. However, the G-77 & China finds that technology transfer and financing, have not been addressed adequately in the background documents made available in preparation for today’s debate.
14. On the issue of partnerships, Mr. President, the G-77 & China is of the view that multi-stakeholder partnerships have an important role to play in addressing climate change. The UN system should assist in fostering and promoting partnerships in support of national efforts. However, partnerships should not replace ODA or international co-operation.
15. Additionally, South-South co-operation is useful in the area of adaptation efforts, and greater support for South-South co-operation can also help developing countries better respond to the challenges of climate change. However, South-South co-operation should not be considered within the context of multi-stakeholder partnerships. Further, South-South co-operation on climate change should complement North-South co-operation.
Report on the Overview of UN Activities in Relation to Climate Change
16. Mr. President, in General Assembly Resolution 62/8 Member States requested a comprehensive report providing an overview of the activities of the UN system in relation to climate change. Based on this mandate the G-77 & China anticipated a factual report that takes stock of current UN system activities in this regard. As such, there is no mandate with regard to ‘an indication of the way forward’, and ‘co-ordination of the UN system action on climate change’. This remains the purview of the Member States to decide on. Work on co-ordination mechanisms, and structures or frameworks, including clusters of activity or lead agencies, must be subject of inter-governmental consideration and decision prior to implementation.
17. In general, the UN system entities should assist in the effective implementation of the provisions, commitments and action plans of the UNFCCC. Co-ordination of UN system activities to enhance its role in meeting the challenge of climate change requires inter-governmental consideration, agreement and oversight by Member States.
18. The G-77 & China recognizes the primacy of the UN in directing and supporting global efforts to meet the global challenge of climate change, and in supporting its Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The General Assembly, given its universality, should unequivocally urge Parties to undertake urgent action now to meet their commitments under the Convention, provide clear policy direction in this regard and to support to the Bali Plan of Action.
19. Mr. President, the G-77 & China believes that the road to Copenhagen, where the concluding talks on the current process on the Bali Roadmap will be held in 2009, will be a difficult one, particularly for developing countries and the poorest and most vulnerable. Leadership will therefore be critical if our response is to reflect the scale of the challenge. We need an effective and comprehensive global response, within the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, to cover adaptation, technology transfer and financing, as well as mitigation. Without rapid and tangible efforts by developed countries in this regard, climate change will lead to increased poverty and will negate our efforts at achieving sustainable development.
Thank you, Mr. President.
.
NOTE: The Group of 77 (G-77) was established on 15th June 1964 by seventy-seven developing countries – signatories of the ‘Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Countries’, issued at the end of the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva. Beginning with the first Ministerial Meeting of the Group of 77 in Algiers (Algeria), from 10-25 October 1967, which adopted the ‘Charter of Algiers‘, a permanent institutional structure gradually developed which led to the creation of Chapters of the Group of 77, with Liaison Offices in Geneva (UNCTAD), Nairobi (UNEP), Paris (UNESCO), Rome (FAO/IFAD), Vienna (UNIDO), and the Group of 24 (G-24) in Washington, D.C. (IMF and World Bank). Although the Members of the G-77 have increased to 130 Countries, the original name was retained because of its historic significance.
Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) are all Members of G-77.
Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and the Caribbean island states of Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Dominica (ALBA – Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América / Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) are also all Members of G-77.
The Group of 77 (G-77) WebSite is located at … www.g77.org
.
.
END
Search
Recent Comments
- therese on Accessible Toilet Room in a Japanese Public Place – Kanazawa
- noel on Fixing ‘Priory Hall’ in Dublin – Practical Solutions Needed Now !
- dt on Beautiful Sunset – Turgutreis, Bodrum Peninsula, Turkey
- Cathy on A More Balanced Presentation of Recent UN Gaza Flotilla Report
- Jolyn on New EU Construction Product Regulation 305/2011 – Halleluiah !
Categories
- architecture
- art
- built environment
- cinema
- climate change
- design
- economic environment
- eu law
- european union
- fire
- human & social rights
- human environment
- human health & safety
- institutional environment
- international law
- judicial
- media
- national law
- natural environment
- photography
- political environment
- regulations & standards
- social environment
- sustainability
- technical control
- travel
- virtual environment
Links
- 'Spirit of Ireland' Project – National Energy Independence. At last … some 'real' Innovation in this country !
- 2bscene Web Design & Development – Dublin, Ireland.
- AL JAZEERA – News & Views from the ARAB WORLD (1431 H)
- ALBA – Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América / Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America
- Amnesty International – Irish Section
- CJ Walsh: Architectural, Design & Technical Control Practice (Ireland, Italy & Turkey)
- Contact Us – Sustainable Design International Ltd. (Ireland, Italy & Turkey)
- Cuba Support Group – Ireland
- Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) – Ireland
- E-PRTR – European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register … a Europe-wide register providing easily accessible key environmental data from industrial facilities in EU Member States and in Iceland, Liechtenstein & Norway.
- EL NACIONAL – News & Views from VENEZUELA
- EU Fundamental Rights Agency – The Agency focuses on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (EU) and its 27 Member States.
- EUR-Lex – Full, direct and free access to all European Union (EU) Legislation
- European Consumer Centres' Network (ECC-Net) – European Union (EU) wide network of Consumer Protection Centres, co-sponsored by the European Commission and the Member States. The network comprises 29 Centres … one in each of the 27 EU Member States
- EUROPEANA – Access to Europe’s Cultural & Scientific Heritage though a Cross-Domain Digital Portal
- FireOx International: Fire Engineering Consultancy, Research & Design Practice (Ireland, Italy & Turkey)
- GRANMA INTERNACIONAL – News & Views from CUBA
- HÜRRİYET – News & Views from TURKEY
- Ireland – Information about our Public Institutions, including Pretty Pictures of our green countryside !
- Irish Seed Savers Association … Working to Conserve Irish Biodiversity. They research, locate, preserve & use traditional varieties, cultivars of fruit, vegetables, potatoes & grains.
- James Taylor – Singer & Songwriter
- JOURNAL DE BRASÍLIA – News & Views from BRAZIL
- Kanchi (Ireland) – Changing Society's View of Disability for the Better
- NAVBHARAT TIMES – News & Views (in Hindi) from INDIA
- PRAVDA – News & Views from RUSSIA
- Robert F Kennedy Centre for Justice & Human Rights (USA)
- Rocky Mountain Institute (USA) – Super Energy Efficiency by Design
- RTE Lyric FM – Classical (in its widest meaning !) Music on Irish Radio
- Senator Shane Ross – Ireland's Principal Economics Troubleshooter. What happened to George ?
- Survivors of Institutional Abuse Ireland [SOIAI] – WE (collectively) did not cherish all the children of OUR nation equally !
- Sustainable Design International: Experts in the Theory & Implementation of Sustainable Human & Social Development (Ireland, Italy & Turkey)
- Tom Doyle's Blog :: TALK
- UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) + Kyoto Protocol + COP-15
- United Nations Human Rights Council – Established 15 March 2006
- WikiLeaks – A non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public.
- WISE – Water Information System for Europe … a single location (portal) where geographically-mapped information on water-related issues can be found for the whole of Europe.
- XINHUA News Agency – News & Views from CHINA
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008