Putin and the rice farmer
Editorial
Stabroek News
July 14, 2004
Farmers on Guyana's fertile coastland whether they be in sugar, rice or other crops are likely to have heard of Vladimir Putin the President of Russia. This is likely because of the high density of radio listenership which dates back to the earliest days of that medium. In addition, there is the increasing coverage of television and the widening distribution of the print media.
On the other hand it is most unlikely that President Putin would have heard of the predicaments of Guyana's coastal farmers. Yet it was Mr Putin who at the end of May took a decision which in time may enable coastal farmers here and worldwide, despite the threats posed by climate change to continue with the cultivation of traditional crops. Putin has decided that Russia will support and adhere to the Kyoto Protocol treaty which has as its main objective the reduction of global warming.
The weight of scientific opinion is that global warming is bringing about fundamental changes in the climate of planet earth. The 1990s was the hottest decade in a thousand years. The expansions of oceans through warming, the melting of glaciers and ice caps are all leading to sea level rise which among other things menaces through flooding and erosion coastal agriculture and communities and the very existence of certain island states as for example Vanuatu in the South Pacific. Nor is the threat of flooding confined to poor developing communities. President Clinton in his Dimbleby lecture mentioned that some of the most expensive real estate in the world namely in Manhattan is under threat; and an article in the UK Guardian Weekly (May 6) quotes a British report that it may already be too late to prevent hundreds of thousands of British people from being flooded out of their homes.
A group of Commonwealth experts which included the distinguished Guyanese engineer R.F. (Bobby) Camacho who studied climate change, in their report to the Commonwealth Secretariat identified Guyana with its low lying coast as being particularly vulnerable to ocean or sea level rise. The experts noted that "in the low lying coastal plains of Guyana what is at stake is almost the entire agricultural output of the coastal area -sugar, rice and other crops - and those processing activities dependent on it."
But it is necessary to back up a bit, if only because the claim that global warming exists or that it is a result of human activities is still under challenge in some quarters, mainly in the USA, though it is diminishing. The Bush Administration responding to corporate pressures has unilaterally rejected the Kyoto Protocol and has withdrawn from it.
However it is not now seriously disputed that so called greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) originating mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas etc) now with increasing density blankets the earth. This prevents solar heat from radiating, escaping back into space, leading to excessive global warming with the results already mentioned.
However, in the aeons of the earth's existence the role of greenhouse gases is ambiguous because it was naturally produced greenhouse gases which in the first place made the planet habitable. Without them, the earth would have remained frozen and lifeless. The question is how much, how thick, or porous should be the blanket. The human induced release of greenhouse gases is making the blanket too thick and impenetrable, hence too high levels of global warming.
That was the background of the meeting in 1991 of 180 countries in Kyoto, Japan to find a coordinated international response to global warming. They agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels within fifteen years. However, before the Treaty could come into effect, it was agreed that the treaty must be ratified by countries responsible for 55% of the world's greenhouse gases. As the US which has withdrawn was responsible for 24%, it could virtually exercise a veto against the treaty, especially as a number of other major "producers" of greenhouse gases, notably Russia and Australia also refused to ratify.
In the case of the USA, the Republican government's position is heavily influenced by the views, despite scientific findings, of the industrial corporations. The corporations contend that regulations to clean up industrial processes will lead to unacceptable reductions in profits. Their position is projected in public terms as an attempt through Kyoto to reduce US economic growth and development. Indeed a secret report by the US Republican and corporate strategist Frank Luntz recently leaked to the press warned that "the environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general and President Bush in particular are most vulnerable. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled their views about global warming will change accordingly." Therefore the report advised Republicans of the need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue (Guardian Weekly, May 6).
The Russian position was curiously similar to that of the US at least until recently. At a climate change conference a year ago, Mr Putin declared that he was convinced that Kyoto would harm his goal of doubting Russia's Gross Domestic Product (G.D.P.) in 10 years. The leading Russian expert Andrei Illarianov contended as late as April this year that the Kyoto Protocol would be an "Auschwitz" for Russian economic development. In similar vein, the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences advised the Kremlin that the Treaty would have spurious benefits for Russian environment and economy.
So how come Mr Putin's sudden somersault - namely his decision to ratify the treaty. As responsible for 17% of greenhouse gases, Russia's participation will be sufficient to bring the Kyoto treaty into operation as the 55% will have been reached.
His decision is a remarkable example of the interlinkage of issues and the balancing of power among major states which so often leaves small states (although not this time) out in the cold. Mr Putin is now anxious for Russia to be admitted to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The European Union which attaches high importance to the ratification of Kyoto has been raising strong objections to Russia's entry into the WTO. So a deal has been done. The EU has lowered its objectives to Russia's entry in WTO provided Russia ratifies Kyoto. As the pro-Putin bloc controls a two-thirds majority in the Russian Parliament there will be no difficulty in securing ratification.
Yet the ratification of Kyoto must be seen for what it is, the beginning of a slow process to save planet earth from hazardous levels of global warming with its menace to human communities.
And what about Guyana's coastal farmers? The processes set in train by global warming will continue for a long time in the future until they are reversed. Coastal communities everywhere will thus continue to be menaced into the foreseeable future - although the changes will perhaps at first be slow in coming, at first even imperceptible. So coastal management and sea level rise are unlikely to take a prominent place, if any, on the development agenda. R.F. Camacho in his report to the Commonwealth Secretariat stated that an engineering and economic survey was carried out for Guyana on the assumption of a slow sea level rise 0.25 metres by 2020 rising steadily to 1.5 metres by 2090. The survey concluded "that without a long term - 30 to 40 year-programme for raising and strengthening coastal protection and improved drainage, there could be a serious loss of agricultural land, agro-industry, housing and infrastructure." A phased programme was therefore recommended.
Now such findings although of strategic importance are most unlikely to be part of current policy concerns or politics. However, it would appropriately be a matter for the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development which President Jagdeo had initially announced but which has never been established.
After all, despite any hinterland development which might be attracted, Guyana will remain one huge coastal community far into this century.