Selected areas will be preferentially assisted to mitigate for climate change. Capital will be distributed according to the age-old ways we do things, which means that not all will get.

Best,

D

Dar es Salaam is a fast growing town with growing water problems, you don’t want to spent FCCC money on this?

Please explain.

Best,

D

Problems Encountered in Dar es Salaam

Dar es Salaam the former capital city of Tanzania is situated near coast of Indian Ocean with a total population of 2497940 (Source: http://www.tanzania.go.tz/2002cencus.html). There are rivers like Kibangu, Ubungo, Sinza, Msimbazi, and Mtoni within the city. Dar es Salaam city is facing a problem of floods and shortage of water and also pollution due to urbanization influx, increasing squatter settlements and lack of resources to facilitate proper functioning. Due to poor budget allocation disposal of solid wastes, storm water drainages and discharge of wastewater are poorly managed. This has resulted into over flooding of the roads in the city causing problems for the traffic. The urban rivers, which are a source of drinking water, are also used for sewage and industrial waste disposal and rubbish dump. Catchment area of the Ruvu river, the main source of Dar es Salaam water supply is not well managed. Lands that should have been left unused, because they are wetlands contributing flow into the river or are forest reserves or have other ecological or hydrological significances have been invaded by dwellers and are being cultivated. So the Ruvu River has taken a different course, which seems to cause environmental problems.
Due to poor planning of housing development and bureaucracy by the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements, the people settle in valleys, waste lands and swamps in Dar es Salaam city. Also due to inadequate drainage, these areas are flooded every now and then causing hazards to people and houses during rainy seasons, which is made worse by poor sitting of dwelling houses i.e. in flood plains.

see also:
http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2006/05/11/66165.html

Adaptation is just fine if you can afford to pay for the changes. One might even find…er…opportunities for business ideas in the change if you have capital to invest and a business acumen. Lots of money will be…er…floating around out there waiting to be made.

Best,

D

I lived in Tanzania. Simply improving drainage during the rainy season in Dar es Salaam gives less flooding, less malaria, less damage.

http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/family/regentijd1.jpg

Adaptation is not a magic wand that makes everything good again, and sometimes it is not possible, certainly not for individuals, and often enough not possible for populations. Advocates of adaptation frequently think that it is a strategy for others and they will not have to take part. Simply to say adapt and go not further is a response of the ethically challenged. Adapt how, at what cost, in money and lives and quality of life.

Avoiding situations where dire choices have to be made is advisable, but evidently not to those who would rather not confront necessary changes to their own behavior.

Within our lifetimes, it is more a question of mitigation being untenable (the changes are going to happen, whatever realistic attempts we try to make) and the only option (if there is one at all) is to adapt!

That depends a bit on “lifetime” of course, and the mitigation still might have significant benefits for future generations – I’m not really arguing that mitigation is a complete waste of time.

Maybe some would argue that the current/committed changes are not significant enough to actually require any adaptation – after all, we are still some way short of the “dangerous” threshold. This seems like a possible mindset given the attitude that +2C is “dangerous” and avoiding this is the main (only) priority. But I don’t know, I’m just guessing here.

Sea level rise is a good example of this. It is typically discussed in terms of how much the sea level will change, but almost never (except amoung a few specialists) in terms of how much of this change is avoidable via mitigation, on what time scales, and with what certainty. According to the current consensus, there is already a significant commitment to climate change in the works regardless of future mitigation.

This doesn;t mean we forget about mitigation, but it does mean that we must focus on adaptation. We might mitigate, but we will adapt. That is certain, 100%. Given this reality, it is amazing the the FCCC is structurally biased against adaptation.

Thanks!