RioDialogues online discussion on the SDGs

Antonio Carlos Teixeira:

Discussão sobre as propostas para os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (ODS) na Agenda de Desenvolvimento Pós-2015.

Discussion in Portuguese on the proposals for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Post-2015 Development Agenda.



Postado originalmente em Rio+ Centre:

The RIO+ World Centre for Sustainable Development will host an online discussion in Portuguese on the proposals for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. The purpose of the discussion is to receive input from Brazilian Civil Society on the final proposal from the Open Working Group on the SDGs and increase public participation in the Post-2015 development process. Portuguese speakers should feel free to join civil society representatives from across Brazil and provide thoughts and feedback on the draft proposal.

The text in Portuguese will be posted on 25 August for comments for one week. On 1 September follows a general discussion of the issues surrounding the definition of the SDGs, including interventions from key speakers. The RioDialogues discussion will end on 5 September.

Responses are warmly invited from civil society in Brazil, including academia, media, national and international non-governmental and private sector organizations. This is

Ver original 92 mais palavras

Publicado em Cidades Sustentáveis, Clima, Consciência ambiental, Conservação, Consumo, Desenvolvimento, Desenvolvimento sustentável, Energia, Energias renováveis, Jornalismo Ambiental, Mudança climática, Objetivos de Desenvolvimento do Milênio, Responsabilidade socioambiental, Rio+20, Sustentabilidade | Marcado com , , , , | Deixe um comentário

Bate papo com Chassot, no ENEQ 2014, Ouro Preto, MG.

Antonio Carlos Teixeira:

Sobre certezas, incertezas, construção do saber e alfabetização científica…

Postado originalmente em Pesquisas de Química:

Foi assim, de forma descontraída e em um reencontro emocionado que eu e o mestre, nosso patrono do blog, professor Attico Chassot conversamos.

Perdão pelo ruído externo, é vídeo de celular em um congresso mais que visitado. Foi uma semana intensa e cheia de novidades, que trarei uma por uma para o Pesquisas de Química.


Ver original 1 mais palavra

Publicado em Capacitação, Comunicação, Desenvolvimento, Educação | Marcado com , , , , , | Deixe um comentário

Sustainability’s strategic worth: McKinsey Global Survey results

Executives at all levels see an important business role for sustainability. But when it comes to mastering the reputation, execution, and accountability of their sustainability programs, many companies have far to go.

From McKinsey&Company – Insights & Publications

Company leaders are rallying behind sustainability, and executives overall believe the issue is increasingly important to their companies’ strategy. But as it continues to grow into a core business issue, challenges to capturing its full value lie ahead. These are among the key findings from our most recent McKinsey survey on the topic,(1) which asked respondents about the actions their companies are taking to address environmental, social, or governance issues, the practices they use to manage sustainability, and the value at stake.

One such challenge is reputation management. Year over year, large shares of executives cite reputation as a top reason their companies address sustainability; of the 13 core activities we asked about, they say reputation has the most value potential for their industries. However, many of this year’s respondents say their companies are not pursuing the reputation-building activities that would maximize that financial value.

Comparing companies with the most effective sustainability programs (our sustainability “leaders”) with others in their industries highlights another obstacle: incorporating sustainability into key organizational processes, such as performance management, one area where the leaders report better results than others. Beyond strong performance on processes, the leaders share other characteristics that are keys to a successful sustainability program—among them, aggressive goals (both internal and external), a focused strategy, and broad leadership buy-in.

Sustainability rising

According to executives, sustainability is becoming a more strategic and integral part of their businesses. In past surveys, when asked about their companies’ reasons for pursuing sustainability, respondents most often cited cost cutting or reputation management. Now 43 percent (and the largest share) say their companies seek to align sustainability with their overall business goals, mission, or values(2) —up from 30 percent who said so in 2012 (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1

More and more companies are addressing sustainability to align with their business goals.

One reason for the shift may be that company leaders themselves believe the issue is more important. CEOs are twice as likely as they were in 2012 to say sustainability is their top priority. Larger shares of all other executives also count sustainability as a top three item on their CEOs’ agendas (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2

Company leaders and all others increasingly see sustainability as a top CEO priority.


As sustainability rises in significance, capturing its full value grows more challenging—perhaps because the more that companies prioritize sustainability, the more it needs to be integrated into (and even change) the core business. At companies that are already taking action, respondents most often cite challenges related to execution: the absence of performance incentives and the presence of short-term earnings pressure that’s at odds with the longer-term nature of these issues. Accountability is an increasing concern: 34 percent of executives (compared with 23 percent in 2011) say too few people at their companies are accountable for sustainability. At companies that aren’t pursuing sustainability activities, respondents continue to cite a lack of leadership prioritization as the top challenge to taking action.

Reckoning with reputation

Of 13 core sustainability activities we asked about, executives most often say their companies are reducing energy use in operations (64 percent), reducing waste (63 percent), and managing their corporate reputations for sustainability (59 percent). These actions were cited most often in 2011 and 2012, and a growing share of executives now identifies reputation management as a core activity. They are also most likely to say that among these activities, reputation management has the highest value-creation potential for their industries over the next five years.

Yet there’s a lack of clarity around reputation management, compared with other, better-defined activities, such as reaching new markets with sustainable products. We asked executives what actions the companies they work for take to manage their reputations, and, on average, companies most frequently communicate their activities to consumers and maintain stakeholder relationships. Yet the results vary by industry, indicating that companies understand and value reputation in very different ways (Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3

Companies’ current approaches to reputation management vary by industry.


Many of the differences depend on how much action companies are taking on reputation, and on the overall sustainability agenda. In extractive services, executives say their companies are pursuing seven core sustainability activities, with three-quarters saying reputation management is one of them (compared with 59 percent of all respondents). The reputation-building actions these companies focus on—local community investments, external reporting, and employee volunteering—differ, then, from those of their peers in high tech, where companies take an average of five actions and just half of respondents say reputation management is one of them. These results confirm that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to reputation, possibly one reason why reputation, like sustainability more broadly, is hard for many companies to manage.

When asked which activities maximize financial value, respondents most often cite customer communications. Beyond that, there are disparities between current reputation-management activities and the ones that are most critical to value creation (Exhibit 4). These results also vary by industry and reflect the importance of understanding and communicating sustainability’s financial value, from the leadership down. In extractive services, where the board and C-suite are most engaged and respondents are the most likely to expect that sustainability will create value, respondents identify the same activity (community investment) as a current action and a source of value. In contrast, those in financial services—where respondents report the lowest level of leader engagement and perceived value—most often cite employee volunteering, the activity they rank lowest with respect to value creation.

Exhibit 4

The reputation-management activities viewed as most important are not necessarily the most pursued.


What leadership looks like

Regardless of a company’s industry, its value-creation efforts require certain organizational traits. From our experience and previous work,(3) we identified a few as the building blocks of a successful sustainability program. Indeed, when we identified our sustainability leaders—companies where executives report the strongest performance on core sustainability activities, relative to industry peers—we found that they share these characteristics.

It’s not surprising that leaders are much likelier than other companies to possess all 12 of these characteristics, though the results suggest which traits differentiate leaders from the rest (Exhibit 5). Executives at these companies are almost five times more likely than others to say they use aggressive external goals for sustainability, more than three times likelier to report a focused strategy, and nearly three times likelier to report an organization-wide understanding of sustainability’s financial benefits. In addition, leaders more often have in place the key components of performance management, such as aggressive internal goals and broad leadership coalitions to develop their programs.(4)

Exhibit 5

Sustainability ‘leaders’ set themselves apart through target setting and a clear strategy.


What’s more, much larger shares of executives at the leader organizations say their top leaders prioritize sustainability and report higher employee engagement on sustainability at every level, including CEOs, board members, and sustainability advisory committees. They report that their companies are taking more action to manage the life cycles of their products, and are four times more likely than others to say they have already implemented a life-cycle strategy. And they say their companies face fewer barriers to realizing value from sustainability, because they report better overall performance on the practices that underpin a healthy sustainability organization.

Organizing for sustainability

To better understand the defining traits of well-performing sustainability programs, we examined the organizational practices that underlie these characteristics. Of these, executives say their companies are better at fostering an organizational culture around sustainability and setting the direction for their programs. They struggle most with components of program execution, including employee motivation, capability building, and coordination of their sustainability work, which is reflected in the responses on specific practices (Exhibit 6). These results make sense, given the current levels of alignment between sustainability and various elements of the organization. Fifty-eight percent of executives say sustainability is fully or mostly integrated into their companies’ culture, compared with 38 percent who say so for performance management.

Exhibit 6

Organizations excel at creating a culture and direction for their sustainability programs, but they struggle with elements of execution.


Looking more closely at individual practices, some interesting patterns emerge. We identified four distinct approaches to the sustainability organization: leader supported, execution focused, externally oriented, and deeply integrated (see sidebar, “Four approaches to the sustainability organization”). The first approach is characterized by actively engaged leaders across the company, employee encouragement, and clear strategy; the second by clear structure, accountability, and middle-manager engagement; the third by the use of external ideas, networks, and relationships, as well as top-leader and middle-manager engagement; and the fourth by employee incentives for sustainability work, a focus on talent, and even engagement on sustainability at all levels of tenure. Our sustainability leaders are represented in each of these four approaches, confirming that there’s no single formula for sustainability success.

Looking ahead

. Extend the product life cycle. Today, resource constraints are creating unprecedented prices and volatility in natural-resource markets. Yet the results indicate that most companies have not even begun to implement strategies that extend the life of their products and thereby reduce their resource dependence in a significant way. According to our other research,(5) there is huge value potential in better design and in the optimization of products for multiple cycles of disassembly and reuse. Forward-looking companies should begin investing in the “circularity” of their products, for the benefit of society and for their bottom line. On materials alone, companies could potentially save more than $1 trillion per year.

. Look to technology. Similarly, technological advances are creating opportunities to drive sustainability solutions.(6) Yet only 36 percent of respondents say their companies are mostly or fully integrating sustainability into their data and analytics work. Companies that want to capture increasing value in a resource-constrained world should spend more time thinking about how to integrate their technological capabilities into their overall sustainability agenda.

. Focus your strategy. As sustainability becomes more central to the business, companies should align internally on what they stand for and what actions they want to take on these issues, whether it’s economic development or changing business practices. Whatever approach companies take, they should develop a strategy with no more than five clear, well-defined priorities—one of the key factors for successful sustainability programs.

About the authors

The contributors to the development and analysis of this survey include Sheila Bonini, a senior expert in McKinsey’s Silicon Valley office, and Anne-Titia Bové, a specialist in the São Paulo office.

(July 2014)

1. The online survey was in the field from February 11 to February 21, 2014, and garnered responses from 3,344 executives representing the full range of regions, industries, company sizes, functional specialties, and tenures. To adjust for differences in response rates, the data are weighted by the contribution of each respondent’s nation to global GDP.

2. From 2010 to 2012, the answer choice was “Align with company’s business goals.”

3. Sheila Bonini and Steven Swartz, “Profits with purpose: How organizing for sustainability can benefit the bottom line,” McKinsey on Sustainability & Resource Productivity, Number 2, Summer 2014.

4. The other characteristics we asked about were top-leadership attention to and prioritization of sustainability; a sufficiently long-term view in strategic planning so sustainability is incorporated into overall strategy; use of accurate indicators and metrics to assess actual performance on sustainability; having change agents who lead sustainability efforts; a clear, organization-wide understanding of how sustainability aligns with strategy; a sustainability philosophy that permeates day-to-day processes; and playing an industry-leadership role on sustainability.

5. See Hanh Nguyen, Martin Stuchtey, and Markus Zils, “Remaking the industrial economy,” McKinsey Quarterly, February 2014.

6. See Stefan Heck and Matt Rogers, “Are you ready for the resource revolution?,” McKinsey Quarterly, March 2014.


Sidebar: Four approaches to the sustainability organization

In our most recent survey, we asked executives about 40 sustainability-specific organizational practices that support these programs. After analyzing the results and looking for relationships among the different practices, we identified four distinct organizational approaches to sustainability. Included in each approach are companies that qualify as sustainability leaders—that is, the companies that, relative to their industry peers, are most effective at sustainability activities. Below are the defining characteristics of each approach.

Leader supported

Employees at all levels of the organization (including the CEO) engage with sustainability issues and activities, there is a strong focus on impact and on the employee’s role in sustainability, and the vision and strategy for the program are clear. This category accounts for 14 percent of overall sustainability leaders.

Top five organizational practices:

. leaders inspiring employees with encouragement and recognition
. appealing to employees’ values around sustainability
. enabling collaboration on sustainability activities
. leaders involving and empowering employees on sustainability work
. translating the sustainability vision into clear strategy and goals

Companies pursue sustainability so they can:

. identify and address an issue on which the business can have a tangible, positive impact

Organizational processes where sustainability is more integrated:

. strategic planning, internal communications, human resources, corporate culture

Execution focused

. Sustainability programs focus heavily on corporate reputation and competitive positioning. Of all employees, middle managers engage the most with sustainability issues, while CEOs are the least engaged among the four approaches. This category accounts for 13 percent of overall sustainability leaders.

Top five organizational practices:

. including sustainability in performance assessments
. providing clear structure, roles, and responsibilities for efforts
. using key indicators and targets to manage performance
. including sustainability in skill-building methods and tools
. translating the sustainability vision into clear strategy and goals

Companies pursue sustainability so they can:

. align with company’s business goals, mission, or values

Organizational processes where sustainability is more integrated:

. business units, supply-chain management, external communications

Externally oriented

Top leaders and middle managers engage most on sustainability issues, and they are most concerned with consumer expectations, stakeholder demands, and their overall competitive positioning. These companies are the most likely to have a separate sustainability advisory council. This category accounts for 20 percent of overall sustainability leaders.

Top five organizational practices:

. capturing ideas and best practices from external parties
. using competitive insights to inform a sustainability strategy
. maintaining a network of external partners to drive sustainability
.  using customer insights to respond to customers’ needs
. developing strong relationships with local communities and governments

Companies pursue sustainability so they can:

. strengthen competitive positioning (for example, securing essential inputs to production, responding to competitive pressure)

Organizational processes where sustainability is more integrated:

. R&D, sales and marketing, external communications

Deeply integrated

Sustainability is embedded most intensively across all processes, and the organization’s senior and middle managers are the most involved in sustainability activities. They pursue growth opportunities, respond to regulatory issues, and focus on broader impact. This category accounts for 36 percent of overall sustainability leaders.

Top five organizational practices:

. career opportunities to top sustainability performers
. using the sustainability program as an opportunity for talent development
. including sustainability in performance assessments
. including sustainability in skill-building methods and tools
. monitoring performance standards for sustainability

Companies pursue sustainability so they can:

. develop new growth opportunities (for example, new markets, products)

Organizational processes where sustainability is more integrated:

. employee engagement, performance management, data and analytics

Publicado em Comunicação, Consciência ambiental, Desenvolvimento sustentável, Empresas, Gestão sustentável, Publicações, Responsabilidade corporativa, Responsabilidade Social Empresarial RSE, Seguro e sustentabilidade, Sustentabilidade | Marcado com , , , , , , , | Deixe um comentário

Pesquisa mostra que empresas estão dando mais valor à sustentabilidade

Levantamento com 3.344 executivos de diversos países destaca que 64% estão racionalizando o uso da energia em suas companhias, 63% trabalham para reduzir os resíduos e 59% se preocupam com sua reputação com relação à sustentabilidade

Por Jéssica Lipinski, Instituto CarbonoBrasil

A sustentabilidade já é um assunto abordado pelo setor empresarial há um bom tempo, e uma nova pesquisa realizada pela consultoria McKinsey & Company Global com líderes corporativos afirma que esse conceito está se tornando uma parte cada vez mais estratégica e integrada às companhias, apesar de algumas dificuldades em adotar plenamente práticas de sustentabilidade.

Intitulada Sustainability’s Strategic Worth (Valor Estratégico da Sustentabilidade), a pesquisa foi realizada com base nas respostas de 3.344 representantes do setor corporativo de diversas regiões, indústrias, empresas e especialidades, e revelou que a principal razão pela qual os executivos buscam a sustentabilidade, com 43% dos votos, é alinhar esse conceito com suas metas, missões e valores empresariais. Em 2012, última edição da pesquisa, esse índice era de 30%.

Segundo a consultoria, nas últimas versões do estudo, a maioria dos respondentes, quando questionados sobre as razões das companhias para buscar a sustentabilidade, citava o corte de custos e a gestão da reputação das firmas.

Já na última edição, a gestão de reputação ficou em segundo lugar como a razão mais popular, citada por 36% dos executivos (em 2012 foram 35%), e o corte de custos ficou com 26%, uma grande redução em comparação com os 36% de 2012.

“Uma razão para a mudança pode ser os próprios líderes das companhias acreditarem que a questão é mais importante. Os CEOs estão duas vezes mais propensos que eram em 2012 a dizer que a sustentabilidade é sua principal prioridade. Uma parte maior de outros executivos também colocam a sustentabilidade como um dos três principais itens da agenda de seus CEOs”, elucidaram Sheila Bonini and Anne-Titia Bové, que desenvolveram a análise da pesquisa.

O número de CEOs que citaram a sustentabilidade como principal prioridade quase triplicou para 13% em 2014 com relação aos 5% de 2012. Contudo, o número de executivos líderes que citaram a sustentabilidade como uma das três principais prioridades caiu de 37% para 36% no mesmo período. O número de outros executivos que veem a sustentabilidade como uma das três principais prioridades aumentou de 24% para 32%.

A gestão de reputação ficou em segundo lugar como a razão mais popular, citada por 36% dos executivos (em 2012 foram 35%)

A gestão de reputação ficou em segundo lugar como a razão mais popular, citada por 36% dos executivos (em 2012 foram 35%)


Bonini e Bové afirmaram também que, com a sustentabilidade aumentando em significância, entender todo o seu valor se tornou mais desafiador – em parte pelo fato de que, quanto mais as companhias priorizam a sustentabilidade, mais o conceito precisa ser integrado aos negócios, o que pode levar a mudanças no sistema produtivo.

Por exemplo, das 13 principais atividades de sustentabilidade elencadas pela McKinsey, 64% dos executivos disseram estar reduzindo o uso da energia em suas operações, 63% afirmaram diminuir os resíduos e 59% declararam gerir sua reputação corporativa em sustentabilidade.

“Essas ações foram citadas mais frequentemente em 2011 e 2012, e uma parcela maior de executivos agora identifica a gestão da reputação como uma atividade essencial”, observaram as analistas.

Mas outros itens, contudo, apresentaram uma implementação mais problemática. O relatório cita como exemplo a extensão do ciclo de vida dos produtos, que ainda deixa a desejar na maioria das empresas.

“Hoje, limitações de recursos estão criando preços e volatilidade sem precedentes nos mercados de recursos naturais. Ainda assim, os resultados indicam que a maioria das companhias sequer começaram a implementar estratégias que estendam a vida de seus produtos e consequentemente reduzam a dependência de recursos de uma forma significativa”, coloca o texto.

“De acordo com outra pesquisa nossa, há um enorme potencial de valor na melhor concepção e otimização de produtos para diversos ciclos de desmontagem e reutilização. Companhias visionárias deveriam começar a investir nesta integração desses produtos, para o benefício da sociedade e para seus resultados. Apenas com materiais, as companhias poderiam economizar possivelmente mais de US$ 1 trilhão por ano”, continua o documento.

Diferentes abordagens para práticas de sucesso

Para identificar práticas de sucesso na implementação da sustentabilidade como estratégia corporativa, Bonini e Bové apontaram quatro abordagens distintas para a organização das práticas sustentáveis: apoio dos líderes, foco em execução, orientação externa e integração profunda.

“A primeira abordagem é caracterizada por líderes ativamente engajados nas companhias, incentivos a funcionários e estratégias claras; a segunda, por uma abordagem clara, responsabilidade e compromisso dos gestores intermediários; a terceira, pelo uso de ideias externas, redes e relacionamentos, assim como o compromisso dos gestores intermediários; e a quarta, pelo incentivo a funcionários para um trabalho sustentável, foco em talentos e compromisso com a sustentabilidade de todos os níveis de gestão”, comentaram as analistas.

“Nossos líderes de sustentabilidade estão representados em cada uma dessas quatro abordagens, confirmando que não há uma única fórmula para o sucesso em sustentabilidade”, continuaram Bonini e Bové.

As autoras concluíram que, para ir em frente com a aplicação da sustentabilidade em toda a cadeia de produção, as empresas devem incluir em suas estratégias três ações: estender o ciclo de vida de seus produtos; buscar tecnologias que levem à melhoria dos índices de sustentabilidade; e focar nas estratégias de sustentabilidade que se quer adotar, como o desenvolvimento econômico ou mudanças de práticas de negócios, e depois dessa definição, desenvolver a estratégia com não mais de cinco prioridades claras e bem definidas.

Publicado em Economia Verde-Green Economy, Empresas, Gestão sustentável, Responsabilidade corporativa, Responsabilidade Social Empresarial RSE, Seguro e sustentabilidade, Sustentabilidade | Marcado com , , , , | Deixe um comentário

Keeping Track of Adaptation Actions in Africa



Targeted Fiscal Stimulus Actions – Making a Difference


African development and economic growth are being strangled by climate change, which poses major challenges to already fragile situations at the household, national and regional levels. In recognizing resource limitations and capacity constraints in adequately responding to the multiple challenges facing vulnerable communities, it is important that targeting particular climate risks includes climate change adaptation actions that offer new opportunities. Co-benefits that go beyond the targeted and non-targeted sectors and communities to improve income, social welfare, eradicate poverty, create jobs, protect or restore ecosystems and provide cross-cutting solutions that serve other sectors as well are especially desirable.

Currently, adaptation actions are prioritized for implementation on an as-needed basis typically applied to high-risk communities, ecosystems and sectors, instead of being prioritized based on the potential of the action to generate environmental, social and economic benefits capable of spurring new actions to promote private and public investments and foster new investment partnerships. Therefore, other catalysing techniques are required to attract national budget resources and private sector investments. In order to provide economic incentives for public or private sector investment in adaptation actions, it becomes important to keep track of adaptation actions in such a way that they can be factually represented by figures, graphs and attractively detailed life stories showing how adaptation has contributed to human welfare, poverty alleviation, job creation (i.e., in the Green Economy) and strengthened ecosystems.

From these drivers stems this publication, “Keeping Track of Adaptation Actions in Africa” (KTAAA). Using projects conducted in various countries in sub-Saharan Africa, KTAAA shows, in a myriad of ways, the direct benefits of adaptation actons and their capability to provide transitional pathways to green growth and sustainable development. KTAAA also shows how concrete demonstration actions can provide solutions that can move countries and communities in Africa towards climate-resilient development. These actions that deliver solutions with multiple benefits and diverse beneficiaries – ranging from reducing environmental impacts to engineering a transition to greener economic growth – can be embraced by other countries. The various adaptation lessons highlighted in this booklet are highly relevant in contributing to decision-making processes. By highlighting concrete examples of success, KTAAA seeks to act as a catalyst and spur the world community to greater actions through the policy sphere.


Mr. Mounkaila Goumandakoye
Director and Regional Representative
Regional Office for Africa
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Hon. Dr. Binilith Mahenge
Minister of State-Environment, United Republic of Tanzania and President, Africa Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN)

See the full report.

Publicado em Cambio climático, Clima, Climate Change, Comunidades, Financiamentos, Impactos ambientais, Mudança climática, Projetos ambientais, Sustentabilidade | Marcado com , , , , | Deixe um comentário

ONU: Adaptação climática de baixo custo pode ajudar no desenvolvimento da África

Africa Adapt Climate Change - Capa Relatório Africa Adaptations Actions

Por Jéssica Lipinski, Instituto CarbonoBrasil

Um novo relatório publicado nesta terça-feira (12) [terça-feira, 12/08/2014] pelo Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente (PNUMA) afirma que investimentos em ações de adaptação climática de baixo custo podem garantir que os impactos das mudanças climáticas não impeçam o crescimento dos países africanos.

O documento, intitulado Keeping Track of Adaptation Actions in Africa (KTAA) – Targeted Fiscal Stimulus Actions Making a Difference (Monitorando ações de adaptação na África – ações de estímulo fiscal fazem a diferença), inicia apontando os atuais e futuros impactos previstos das mudanças climáticas nos modos de sobrevivência, agricultura e saúde humana e ecossistêmica no continente.

Por exemplo, o texto indica que os africanos podem ser atingidos por um declínio de 20% a 50% na disponibilidade de água. Além disso, até 2050 a população da África deve dobrar, alcançando dois bilhões de pessoas, a maioria dependente da agricultura para sua sobrevivência.

“Com 94% da agricultura dependente das chuvas, os futuros impactos das mudanças climáticas – incluindo o aumento de secas, enchentes e do nível do mar – podem reduzir o rendimento das colheitas em algumas partes da África em 15% ou 20%. Tal cenário, se não solucionado, pode ter implicações graves para os Estados mais vulneráveis da África”, alertou Achim Steiner, sub-secretário-geral da ONU e diretor executivo do PNUMA.

Por isso, a segunda parte do relatório mostra como alguns países do continente, através de ações de adaptação climática de baixo custo, estão conseguindo melhorar a saúde e o funcionamento de ecossistemas; capacitar comunidades para gerir sustentavelmente ecossistemas; melhor a produtividade agrícola; e armazenar água de forma inovadora.

Africa Adapt Climate Change - Foto PNUMA

Um dos casos apontados é de um projeto de ecossistemas aquáticos na comunidade local de Timbou, no Togo, que levou a um aumento do acesso à água para uso humano, agricultura e gado de 448%.

Outro é de um projeto de ecossistemas florestais de US$ 100 mil em Ruanda e Uganda que treinou 2,5 mil agricultores em gestão da terra, estabelecendo 432 hectares de terraços graduados, 74 quilômetros de vias fluviais, 105 hectares de sistemas de drenagem e 789 hectares de floresta. O projeto também ajudou a dar origem a um investimento de US$ 25 milhões pelo Ministério da Agricultura de Ruanda.

“Usando projetos implementados em vários países da África subsaariana, o relatório KTAA demonstra claramente como os investimentos em ações de adaptação podem oferecer não apenas soluções de baixo custo para desafios das mudanças climáticas, mas podem na verdade estimular economias locais através do uso mais eficiente do capital natural, da criação de empregos e do aumento da renda familiar”, observou Steiner.

“Integrando as estratégias de adaptação às mudanças climáticas a políticas de desenvolvimento nacional, os governos podem oferecer caminhos de transição para o crescimento verde e proteger e melhorar a vida de centenas de milhões de africanos”, concluiu o diretor executivo do PNUMA.

Crédito imagem: PNUMA

Publicado em Cambio climático, Climate Change, Comunidades, Desenvolvimento sustentável, Financiamentos, Mudança climática, Projetos ambientais | Marcado com , , , , , , | Deixe um comentário