G20 not biting off more than they can chew

 

 

Posted 27 June 2011, by Staff, IRIN (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), irinnews.org

NEW YORK – JOHANNESBURG, 24 June 2011 (IRIN) – The agriculture ministers of major economies, rich as well as emerging, meeting for the first time as the world verges on another food crisis in only four years, have disappointed. Their decisions, summed up in a 24-page Action Plan on Food Price Volatility and Agriculture, lacked the teeth to bite the neck of the crisis, according to food experts and NGOs.

That the agreement was reached at all was a tribute to French agriculture minister Bruno Le Maire, who chaired the meeting, said Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. The action plan dealt with the symptoms and not the causes of the current crisis. “There is much more that could be done,” he told IRIN.

2011 began with food prices as high as they were during the 2007/08 crisis. Erratic weather, speculators, conflicts, trade restrictions, the cost of fuel and the use of food grains to produce bioethanol all played their part in keeping food, including all the major staple food grains, expensive. The world was looking to the G20 countries for decisive leadership.

Shenggen Fan, director-general of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFRPRI), a US-based think-tank, who was in Paris for the meeting, said the G20 did not identify the “most pressing priorities”, nor provide details on how to deal with them to help everyone move beyond “words and rhetoric to action and implementation”.

“Fixing the global food system and ending the food price crisis requires major surgery, yet the G20 produced little more than a sticking-plaster,” said Jean-Cyril Dagorn, a policy advisor to the Oxfam aid agency.

Biofuels

“I was looking for stronger language on three most urgent actions: biofuels, safety nets and trade restrictions,” said Fan. “I think they should have called for halting the use of food grains to produce biofuel [first generation biofuel] by curtailing subsidies and reforming policies to end the competition between food and fuel, and call for production of second generation biofuels [which are made from biomass].”

Crude oil costs around US$100 a barrel, making biofuel an attractive alternative. So more maize, vegetable oil and sugar cane are used to produce biofuel, which the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have identified as a major factor in keeping food prices high.

The US Department of Agriculture, in its World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report, released in April 2011, noted that the use of maize to produce ethanol was 31 percent of total maize output in 2008/09 and would reach a projected 40 percent in 2010/11.

The G20 ministers offered little on curbing biofuel production, merely acknowledging the need “to further analyse all factors that influence the relationship between biofuels production and (i) food availability, (ii) response of agriculture to price increase and volatility, (iii) sustainability of agriculture production, and further analyse potential policy responses.”

De Schutter said the “commercial interests of the US and Brazil have been making it impossible to achieve a result on biofuels.” He was particularly frustrated because an international consensus now sees biofuel production – and the land-grabbing that has followed – as “a major factor” in more expensive food.

Prior to the summit, US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack – a former governor of Iowa, which receives significant US government subsidies to produce ethanol – called biofuels a “tremendous job creator” and claimed that their role in pushing up food prices was overstated.

Crude oil prices will remain high in 2011 and are expected to reach $107 by 2020, according to the Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020, produced jointly by FAO and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which will make investment in ethanol and biodiesel even more lucrative.

The cautious G20 stance on first generation biofuels seemed to echo that of the African Union (AU). “We [in Africa] cannot dismiss first generation biofuels entirely – look at the success Brazil has had with sugarcane-based ethanol. We are developing a framework to ensure that production of biofuel and related issues around ‘land grab’ do not compromise food security,” said Richard Mkandawire, head of the AU Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP).

Speculation

Speculators have contributed much to the spike in global food prices, but the G20 ministers did little more than encourage their finance counterparts “to take the appropriate decisions” to regulate the markets. The lack of good and timely information is seen as a major factor driving speculation.

The Paris meeting established a monitoring system called the Agriculture Market Information System (AMIS), to be based at FAO headquarters in Rome. It will allow “major players on the agri-food markets to share data, to enhance existing information systems, to promote greater shared understanding of food price developments, and further policy dialogue and cooperation.”

A major problem with AMIS is that without the full participation of the private sector, “the information will be incomplete,” De Schutter noted. Private companies – Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus – known in the industry as the ABCD of food – control upwards of 90 percent of global grain trade. The G20 communiqué merely “[urges] private sector entities to participate in AMIS.”

An international voluntary network of agriculture production monitoring based on geoinformation was also established. The Global Agriculture Geo-Monitoring Initiative will serve as “a useful input for AMIS concerning the provision of more accurate crop forecasts data.”

A Rapid Response Forum will be set up “within the framework of AMIS” for senior agriculture policy officials “to share views and plans for immediate actions in order to prevent or mitigate world food price crises.”

Trade restrictions

Eliminating trade restrictions on agricultural commodities, such as export bans, import tariffs, and non-tariff barriers, and refraining from imposing new ones – seen as a major factor in the sharp spike in wheat prices in 2010 – was critical, said IFPRI’s Fan.

“This will enhance the efficiency of global agricultural markets, lowering prices for consumers and increasing opportunities for smallholders to export their produce.” Yet the action plan merely asks the countries to refrain from imposing trade restrictions and tariffs, and “reduce” barriers where they can.

On the other hand, the G20 countries agreed to remove any export restrictions on food bought as aid by the World Food Programme (WFP). “At the moment, WFP has to seek approval from each country,” Fan pointed out. The measure will be presented to the World Trade Organization for approval.

The G20 ministers also offered support for a pilot programme for a targeted emergency humanitarian food reserve system. The feasibility study, which will take into account issues such as the eligibility of countries, size, composition, and funds for the proposed reserve, will be conducted by WFP and partners in September 2011.

“This is of course an important tool for the World Food Programme, and it will allow the WFP to have access to food stocks on time to react to crises – but at the same time, the issue of food stocks that could have a stabilizing effect on prices is studiously avoided,” said De Schutter.

“Yet that question will necessarily re-emerge, when it will be asked how the emergency food reserves shall function? Which farmers shall we buy from? Shall we turn to the local smallholders, or shall these reserves be a means for US or EU farmers to deal with their surpluses? And shall we buy at a fair price, supporting the incomes of smallholders? Whom we shall source the supplies from?”

Insurance

The G20 did spell out in some detail several ways to protect countries and food producers from various risks. At the meeting, the World Bank’s private investment arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), announced that it will be piloting a new Agriculture Price Risk Management (APRM) product to allow medium-sized and smaller agriculture producers such as cooperatives to hedge against downward price movements, and agriculture buyers such as food processors to hedge against upward price movements.

This will help reduce the effects of food price volatility. And in doing so, it will enable agricultural producers to improve their access to finance so as to increase production. The G20 countries also called on banking institutions to develop hedging strategies that could help aid organizations maximise their purchasing power.

Yes, De Schutter said, the ministers’ actions represent a step in the right direction. But what is needed is “an ambitious jump forward”.

[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=93064

Serengeti Highway Cancelled

 

 

Posted 24 June 2011, by Alex Royan, ARKive Blog, blog.arkive.com

In what is being hailed as a victory for conservationists and the wildlife of the Serengeti, the Tanzanian government has cancelled plans for a controversial highway that would have dissected the Serengeti National Park.

According to scientists, the road would have severed the migration route of 1.5 million wildebeest and a half million other antelope and zebra, with indirect impacts, such as poaching and new development, exacerbating the situation.

The mass migration of the Serengeti’s wildebeest is one of nature’s true wildlife spectacles, occurring no where else on the planet. It also brings in important tourism revenue to the relatively impoverished region.

“The State Party confirms that the proposed road will not dissect the Serengeti National Park and therefore will not affect the migration and conservation values of the property,” reads a statement from the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

A leaked government environmental impact study agreed with the findings of a recent scientific study that the road would ‘limit’ the Serengeti migration and damage predator populations (such as lions, hyaenas, cheetahs, leopards and crocodiles) due to a declining prey base.

The government estimated that by 2015, the road would carry 800 vehicles a day, mostly trucks, and that by 2035, 3,000 vehicles a day would be using the route – an average of one vehicle every 30 seconds.

“[The road's cancellation] is a wise and insightful decision by the Tanzanian Government,” said Andrew Dobson, one of the authors on the study.

“It will ensure the long-term persistence of the Serengeti ecosystem and its world famous wildebeest migration, while also providing infrastructure to the people who live to the East of the Serengeti. It allows Tanzania to show great leadership to other African nations, by illustrating that the way to economic success in the 21st Century is to balance natural resource conservation with economic development.”

The Tanzanian government’s official stance on the road was that it would connect remote Serengeti communities in the north to commercial centres. However, plans for the road had drawn criticism from the UN and the U.S. government, as well as the German government, who offered to pay for local roads for cut-off people in the northern Serengeti region. The World Bank also offered to pay for an alternative route circumventing the park.

In the statement on the road cancellation, the Tanzania government says it is now considering the alternative southern route.

“A battle has been won, but the struggle to save the Serengeti goes on. Roads will still be constructed up to the edges of the park. The pressures on the Serengeti, including a commercial corridor to Uganda, still exist. The highway across the Serengeti has been proposed three times now, and can be raised again. But yes, let’s congratulate ourselves on the work we’ve done,” reads a statement from the NGO Serengeti Watch.

Please visit the original site for the illustrations accompanying the article, and for more links to photographs of wildlife

 

http://blog.arkive.org/2011/06/in-the-news-serengeti-highway-cancelled/

Master Gardeners: Corn dogs, midways, ferris wheels and sustainability

Posted 25 June 2011, by Dave Phelps (UC MArin Master Gardener), Marin Independent Journal (MediaNews Group), marinij.com

The term sustainable has been used and abused. Once the battle cry of the pioneering conservation and ecology movements, it is now the focus of marketing and hype on every level, to the point of blatant green-washing of corporate interests the world over. If we believed all the items and practices now claimed as “sustainable,” we’d be promoting a plethora of resource-draining anthropocentric interests that do little more than sustain the stock interests of a select few.

Generalities aside, besides the more recent bad apples are some true heirloom stars. The Marin Master Gardeners are a good example of a group that walks the talk.

Sponsored by the University of California Cooperative Extension, Marin Master Gardeners and the information they provide is double-checked and vetted. Their mission is “to extend research based knowledge and information on home horticulture, pest management and sustainable landscape practices to the residents of Marin County.”

The focus of the state Master Gardener Conference this year was “Rooting for Our Future, More Lessons in Sustainability.” Master Gardeners are committed to sustainable garden and landscape practices.

So while others may be fed up with the dilution of the sustainable concept and the abuse of the term, the Master Gardeners are pushing ahead with the latest proven methods and practices to help you be a good land steward, conserve and protect our natural resources, and have a beautiful, productive garden in the process.

The Marin Master Gardener booth at the Marin County Fair has been a huge success over the past two years. Hundreds of volunteer hours from dozens of dedicated Master Gardeners have created award-winning presentations featuring demonstration gardens, knowledgeable speakers on pertinent topics, and docents to communicate key concepts and promote their mission. Last year more than 7,000 came through the booth and learned how to be better gardeners.

This year the booth’s title and focus is “Sustainability: Our Bridge to the Future.” Fifteen speakers will cover topics over the five days of the fair and 45 docents have dedicated their time and expertise to further interpret the demonstration gardens and be on hand to answer gardening questions.

The focus is on education and sharing research-based information from seeds to bees, compost to irrigation, and weeds to edibles. The booth will be in the same location as in previous years, just inside the Barnyard area.

The demonstration garden will be full of displays showing rainwater harvesting, bio-swales, new irrigation technologies, biological pest management, edible gardening ideas, as well as climate-appropriate plants and lawn alternatives.

Composting, vermicomposting, and habitat gardening will also be featured. There will be examples of sheet mulching, native sod grasses, a raised vegetable bed, and even a beneficial insect display.

All the plants, featuring many UC All-Stars, edibles, and California natives will be on sale at 7:30 a.m. July 5 following the fair. Marin’s Own Compost will also be available for free at that time; first come, first served.

Be sure that you schedule your fair experience to include a walk through the Marin Master Gardener booth and catch some of the informative talks. Also make sure you get a card from one of the docents, so you can follow up online and explore areas of interest in more depth.

The University of California Marin Master Gardeners are sponsored by UC Cooperative Extension. For questions about gardening, plant pests or diseases, call 499-4204 from 9 a.m. to noon, and 1 to 4 p.m. weekdays, or bring in samples or pictures to 1682 Novato Blvd., Suite 150B, Novato.

if you go

• June 30 (Kids Day)
Noon: “Dig into Compost”
2 p.m.: “Come Play the Seed Game”
4 p.m.: “Planting Sunflowers, Counting Bees”

• July 1
Noon: “Composting Kitchen Scraps”
2 p.m.: “Herbs Year-Round”
4 p.m.: “Irrigaiton Tips: Systems and Sensibility”

• July 2
Noon: “Starting Your Fall Garden From Seed”
2 p.m.: “Water-Wise Plants for your Garden”
4 p.m.: “Attracting Bees to your Gardens and Gables”

• July 3
Noon: “Easy and Sustainable Garden Maintenance”
2 p.m.: “Designing with Succulents in Pots”
4 p.m.: Invasive Plants — Help!”

• July 4
Noon: “How Can We Work with our Darned Clay Soil?”
2 p.m.: “Growing Hardy Vegetables in Pots”
4 p.m.: “Growing Edibles and Ornamentals Together Beautifully”

 

http://www.marinij.com/lifestyles/ci_18350307

The Changing Climate In Gamo Highlands – Video Report

The Changing Climate In

Gamo Highlands

- Video Report –

 

Posted 25 June 2011, by Staff, Indigenous Peoples, Issues & Resources, indigenouspeoplesissues.com

This video is a compilation of three videos made by community members from Doko, Ezo, Zozo and Daro Malo in the Gamo Highlands of Ethiopia. The video focuses on environmental dependencies, the strong links between the local culture and the environment, the issue of deforestation and increasing pressures on local resources and the impacts of climate and environmental change at the local level.

Please go to the original site for an interactive map of the Gamo Highlands region.

 

http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11105:ethiopia-the-changing-climate-in-gamo-highlands-video-report&catid=68:videos-and-movies&Itemid=96

Collusion in Kansas Force-Feeds Coal Power

“This is not how government is supposed to work”

Posted 21 June 2011, by Brian Smith, EarthJustice, earthjustice.org

Americans are worried about their government. We imagine backroom deals are cut, fates are foretold and the little guy always gets shafted because powerful interests own the cops.

Recent events in Kansas prove these fears can be spot-on.

The Kansas City Star has unearthed emails showing the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the agency responsible for enforcing the federal Clean Air Act, had an “improper relationship” with an air permit applicant.

That permit would allow an 895 MW coal-fired power plant to be built by the Sunflower Electric Power Corporation. Opponents say this plant isn’t needed and will pollute Kansans while most of the power will go to Colorado.

The emails show that 6,000 public comments were summed up into 275 questions. KDHE sent these questions to Sunflower to get their take on how to respond to public opposition. Some of the responses KDHE produced as their own work were nearly verbatim copies of the responses suggested by Sunflower. KDHE even helped Sunflower set up a computer program to process the questions.

A Lawrence Journal World editorial today concludes that KDHE “failed miserably” at their duty to be the independent, unbiased analysis body of public concerns with the permit.

An editorial in The KC Star lays the blame for this scandal squarely at the feet of former governor Mark Parkinson, and his fellow coal advocates.

“The permit process is a shameful legacy of former Kansas governor Mark Parkinson. The Democrat reversed the refusal of his Democratic predecessor, Kathleen Sebelius, to grant a permit for a coal-burning plant in western Kansas. Sebelius and her secretary of health and environment, Roderick Bremby, said the plant would pollute Kansas air while generating most of its power for Colorado. Parkinson fired Bremby in early November after Sunflower officials said they thought he was slowing down the permit process. With Bremby gone, regulators worked nights and weekends to process Sunflower’s permit.”

In response to the mess, Republican state legislators defended the agency’s collusion with an applicant as simply pro-business.

“Being cozy with business is not necessarily bad,” said Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican. “Kansas needs to be open for business. We don’t have mountains. We don’t have oceans. If we don’t allow for people to make it easy to make a profit in Kansas, there really is no reason to come here.”

Sadly, Kansans are learning that even when they speak up, it may not matter if state agencies are in bed with the very industries they are supposed to regulate. The Star suggests a way out of this mess that could help restore the public’s faith in government:

“Either the courts or the EPA should put the brakes on the Sunflower project. A coal plant that will affect air quality for decades is too important to be the end result of a polluted process.”

We agree. Legal steps by Earthjustice may help that process along. As described by Amanda Goodin, Earthjustice attorney representing Sierra Club in this case.

“EPA has the obligation to enforce the Clean Air Act and protect air quality and public health throughout the country; specifically, EPA has the obligation to object to permits that don’t comply with the Act, like the Sunflower permit.”

http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-june/collusion-in-kansas-force-feeds-coal-power

Failed duty

 

Posted 21 June 2011, by J-W Editorials, LJ World (The Lawrence-Journal World — The World Company), www2.ljworld.com

 

This is not how government is supposed to work.

An email trail examined by a Kansas City newspaper reveals a disturbingly cozy relationship between the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the Sunflower Electric Power Corp., which was seeking a KDHE permit to build a coal-fired power plant in southwest Kansas. After several years of contentious dealings during which a permit for the plant was denied several times, it appears that, during the closing days of Gov. Mark Parkinson’s term, elements of the permit process were virtually turned over to Sunflower officials.

Key among those was KDHE’s decision to simply forward public comments about the power plant to Sunflower officials who then supplied responses. In many cases, those answers, or something very much like them were simply passed along in a way that made them appear to be unbiased responses that were researched and supplied by KDHE.

According to the news report, KDHE received almost 6,000 comments from various experts and members of the public concerning the power plant project. Although it had taken KDHE staff about 10 months to review and respond to almost 800 public comments it received in 2007, the department was able to deal with the 6,000 comments in about seven weeks.

It was no secret that this project was on the fast track after Parkinson bartered a deal in May 2009 that would allow one coal-fired plant to be built. Sunflower submitted a new permit application in January 2010. The permit still was under review when KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby was dismissed from his post on Nov. 2, 2010. The next month, acting KDHE Secretary John Mitchell approved the permit.

During that seven weeks, the emails, obtained through a public records request, show that KDHE officials boiled the 6,000 comments down to about 275 questions, which it sent to Sunflower to obtain written responses. The emails also show instances where KDHE staff members asked Sunflower officials whether the department should even respond to some comments. The relationship was so tight that a Sunflower employee was sent to Topeka to help set up a computer program to organize the public comments for KDHE and Sunflower.

What the emails reveal is a relationship that is highly inappropriate for a state agency and a company it has the duty to regulate. It wouldn’t be unusual for KDHE to seek input or technical information from Sunflower, but to allow the utility to pick the questions it will address and then supply the answers was, in Bremby’s words, “a total abdication of responsibility.”

The conduct of KDHE in this matter transcends any judgment on the merits of the Sunflower application. Whether or not they believe the southwest power plant should be built, Kansans should be extremely concerned by the process by which that permit was approved. KDHE’s charge was to make an independent, unbiased appraisal of the power plant project and the various issues raised in public comments about the permit.

The trail of email officials left behind indicates they failed miserably in that task.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/jun/21/failed-duty/

Kansas agency, utility worked closely on permit for plant

Kansas agency, utility worked closely on permit for plant

 

Posted 18 June 2011, by Karen Dillon, The Kansas City Star, kansascity.com

Hundreds of emails document that officials of a Kansas power plant enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Kansas regulators who issued them a building permit in December.

The Sunflower coal-fired power plant already had been controversial, with critics claiming it is unneeded and would pollute the air. So the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) had promised an impartial review of the permit.

But during the months the department was writing the 275-page permit — which will determine emissions releases for years to come — staffers were in almost daily contact with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. officials, The Kansas City Star has found.

In fact, the relationship was so close that the department allowed Sunflower to respond to questions from the public and then passed some of the answers off as their own. Those questions and answers were supposed to help shape the permit’s requirements.

In essence, the Kansas agency handed over the permit process to Sunflower, said Maxine Lipeles, co-director of the environmental program at Washington University’s law school.

“I don’t see how an agency can credibly argue that it can delegate its decision-making authority to an applicant,” Lipeles said.

Scott Allegrucci, an opponent of the plant who submitted questions that were answered by Sunflower employees, was even more blunt:

“This is a horrific transgression in terms of public trust,” Allegrucci said.

KDHE officials said they were not able to discuss their relationship with Sunflower, citing an appeal of the permit filed by the Sierra Club in January.

But last December, when acting-KDHE Director John Mitchell announced he had approved the permit, he added that a thorough review had been important in the permitting process.

KDHE “has a duty to examine a company’s permit application objectively and fairly,” Mitchell said.

In a statement, Sunflower said it could not comment at length because of the ongoing litigation but that it had done nothing wrong:

“Within the air permit process, all three entities — KDHE, the applicant and the public — have specific roles and responsibilities. Sunflower fulfilled its role and responsibilities accordingly.”

Construction of the plant has not yet begun because of the litigation, Sunflower told the state this month.

The public comments in the permit matter, industry and legal experts told The Star.

The comments from regular citizens, experts and non-profit organizations not only ask important questions about how much pollution will be allowed but also raise issues that the regulating agency might not have known about. Sometimes, an entire permit can be rewritten because of comments, experts said.

Some state laws and agencies specifically prohibit allowing an applicant to respond for the state to public comments. Kansas law implicitly requires the state to respond, Lipeles said.

“It doesn’t mean you can’t have input from the company just like you have input from other members of the public,” she said. “But the question is who is making the tough calls and who was responding to the comments and the questions.”

Some state legislators who voted for Sunflower said they were not necessarily alarmed by the close relationship.

“Being cozy with business is not necessarily bad,” said Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican. “Kansas needs to be open for business. We don’t have mountains; we don’t have oceans. If we don’t allow for people to make it easy to make a profit in Kansas, there really is no reason to come here.”

Schwab said, however, he would not want the health of the public to be compromised by the Sunflower permit. If he learned that it would be, “I would really get concerned,” he said.

Contentious

For five years, Sunflower’s proposed coal plant near Holcomb in western Kansas has been highly contentious, attracting national attention.

Proponents say the plant will bring crucial new jobs to a depressed area.

Opponents say the plant will pollute, draw down precious water reserves and provide electricity that isn’t needed in Kansas. Colorado residents will receive much of it.

Construction was blocked in 2007 when Kansas became the first state in the country to deny such a building permit because of health concerns about greenhouse gases.

But a change in governors led to a 2009 settlement agreement between then-Gov. Mark Parkinson and Sunflower that overrode the greenhouse gases concerns and allowed the permitting process to begin again.

As part of the process, KDHE received almost 6,000 comments from a spectrum of groups, experts and the public and even hundreds from Sunflower employees. It was the most ever for a Kansas power plant project. Yet the department was able to plow through the comments in seven weeks.

That compares to the 10 months it took KDHE staff to review and respond to almost 800 public comments it received in 2007 for the first Sunflower coal plant application.

In December 2010, KDHE approved the building permit.

Soon after, The Star asked KDHE in an open records request for email exchanges between KDHE staff and Sunflower employees over 18 months. The newspaper received more than 1,400 emails.

The emails show the department selected 238 comments that were substantive enough to merit a reply and inclusion in the permit. Sometimes, many people had asked similar questions, and those were grouped as one comment.

KDHE gave Sunflower access to the 238 comments, and the company appears to have written responses to almost all of them.

A spot check of 22 Sunflower responses shows that the department took 18 of them, at times almost verbatim, and published them as part of the final permit without acknowledging Sunflower as the author.

In addition to the Sunflower comments, the emails showed:

• KDHE sometimes let Sunflower take the lead in other ways. State staffers asked company officials in some cases to decide whether KDHE should even respond to some of the public comments.

• KDHE staff expressed concern to a Sunflower official about something the department’s director, Roderick Bremby, did that could make it difficult to meet deadlines. Bremby was pushing for an extension of the public comment process.

• Although Parkinson had said he was not involved in the permitting process, several emails discussed meetings with his staff and Sunflower and KDHE officials. At least one meeting was in the governor’s office.

• Sunflower moved to help the department even before all the comments were in. The company sent a staffer to Topeka from Hays, Kan., to help set up a computer program to organize the public’s comments for KDHE and Sunflower, according to emails.

Bremby, no longer KDHE director, said he was “very disappointed” about the relationship with Sunflower after reviewing the emails The Star obtained.

“It is disgusting,” Bremby said. “We are supposed to be working with the applicant but not for the applicant. We also work for the citizens of the state.

“There was a total abdication of responsibility.”

Bremby was the director who denied the first permit. He was fired Nov. 2 by Parkinson after Sunflower officials and legislators who support the coal plant complained to the governor that Bremby was delaying the permitting process.

Bremby said he was especially disheartened that KDHE gave the public comments to Sunflower to answer.

“The public believes it is the government’s objective response to an inquiry, when, in fact, it is not.” said Bremby, who now oversees the Connecticut Department of Social Services. “That is not right.”

If KDHE staffers had technical questions, Bremby said, they might sometimes contact the applicant for information, but normally the staff would hire a consultant to do research that it couldn’t do.

Through his assistant, Parkinson declined comment for this story.

But in November, after receiving criticism, Parkinson posted on his blog that he had not unduly interfered in the permit process, and that KDHE would conduct a fair and independent review.

The department would decide on the permit “only if it can conduct a thorough review of all the comments that it has received.”

After leaving office in January, Parkinson became the chief executive officer and lobbyist for the nation’s largest trade group in Washington D.C., representing nursing-home companies.

Some legislators said there may be legitimate explanations for Sunflower’s role in the permit process.

KDHE received an overwhelming number of comments — so many that they might have been a delaying tactic by the plant’s opposition, said Steve Morris, a Hugoton Republican and Senate president.

“I still think the health and environment did the best they could to respond to those,” said Morris, a leader in supporting the plant.

He said it would not be easy to determine whether Sunflower answered questions that it shouldn’t have.

“I would have to actually look at the question and see how technical it was and whether it would be appropriate for Sunflower to answer or whether it would be appropriate for KDHE to answer.”

Rep. Pat Colloton, a Leawood Republican, said the pattern of responses uncovered by The Star “certainly raises a serious question of whether (KDHE) fulfilled their responsibility to exercise an independent judgment.”

But she also said it’s possible that the department had somehow researched the Sunflower responses once they were submitted.

“I don’t want to impugn them without really hearing from them,” Colloton said.

Email trail

Elaine Giessel’s comments to KDHE show how the agency worked with Sunflower in many cases.

Giessel, a naturalist for a parks department, told KDHE that she was concerned about the effect of emissions on wetlands and wanted to know whether the agency had taken that into consideration.

But when KDHE issued the permit with its official responses, Giessel said, she discovered the agency hadn’t fully addressed her comments.

“I found it astounding,” she said. “They didn’t really answer the questions.”

After Giessel learned many of her questions actually were answered by Sunflower, the unsatisfactory answers made more sense to her, she said.

“I think it is inappropriate,” Giessel said.

Emails show the department sent Giessel’s questions to Sunflower and received back responses from Sunflower’s Wayne Penrod.

“I have reviewed these comments and questions and have developed what seem to me to be appropriate responses,” said Penrod, the company’s environmental manager.

Sunflower also played a role in deciding which comments should appear in the permit.

On Nov. 23, Marian Massoth, KDHE’s air permitting chief, asked Penrod whether there should be responses to comments from a church group, a natural gas association and a Topeka attorney: “If you don’t think they are necessary to our responses, I’m okay with not specifically addressing these 3.”

In another email, Penrod told KDHE staff that they had not addressed three verbal comments made during a public hearing but should. Penrod provided those comments, which also were published in the final permit almost as he had written them.

Even the Environmental Protection Agency’s comments were sent to Penrod.

Karl Brooks, EPA Region 7 administrator, said it wasn’t up to his agency to decide whether the department had acted improperly. Nothing in federal law dictates how a state agency is supposed to reply to comments, he said.

“It may be a review in court, in this case Kansas, would say that KDHE didn’t act independently enough,” Brooks said. “But that would be a question for the court to decide.”

The Sierra Club, whose comments also were sent to Sunflower, was more outspoken about the responses.

“We were incredibly disappointed,” said Stephanie Cole, spokeswoman for the club’s Kansas Chapter. “Thousands of people and our organization as well as others went to substantial lengths to draft our comments.”

Cole said KDHE allowed Sunflower to inappropriately control aspects of the permit process.

“It’s not only a disservice to the thousands of Kansans who participated in the process, but it calls into question KDHE’s ability to adequately protect the health and environment of Kansans,” she said.

Other states

Officials in some other states say they would never allow an applicant to play such a huge role in responding to public comments.

Their state laws allow some interaction on technical questions but make it clear that an applicant should not respond to comments, officials said. That would be a conflict of interest.

“I don’t see why I would do that,” said Carol Crawford, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources air permit engineer. “I’m the person responsible for writing the responses. I might need some information, and I might ask the applicant for some information, but then it is up to me to decide how to respond to the comment.”

It’s important for a state agency to respond to public comments because those are part of a legal document, experts said. If the public raises an issue and the state fails to respond, that can be used as the basis of a lawsuit. And if the public fails to raise a concern, often it prevents them from suing the state.

“Once we issue the draft permit, then it is our responsibility to defend that draft permit and to respond to comments,” said John Paul, administrator of the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, Ohio. “It’s real important that those (comments) be in the record, that they be addressed and that there be a record of why we made the decisions we made.”

Missouri and Kansas laws say that state agencies should issue responses to comments, although neither says specifically that the agency must write them.

Lipeles of Washington University said the laws shouldn’t have to be that specific. It’s implicit that a state regulatory agency would research and write its own responses to public comments, she said.

That applies to Kansas, she said.

“If you look at the statute and the regulations and the way they are framed, expressly and implicitly, the agency has to be making the decisions,” Lipeles said.

---

COMPARE THE RESPONSES
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) received a question about whether a federal study addressed possible changes to wetland areas.•The Sunflower Power Electric Corp. sent a response to the department. Here’s part of it:

“FLMs evaluate only visibility impacts as they relate to Federal Class I areas, so no visibility impact was performed on Class II areas at the behest of the FLM. Sunflower did, however, conduct a visibility analysis at Scott Lake State Park, which is downwind and some 50 miles distant from Holcomb and was the Class II area for visibility evaluation identified by KDHE and EPA.”

•The final permit uses much of Sunflower’s response, but says the response is from KDHE. The permit response begins:

“Federal Land Managers (FLMs) evaluate only visibility impacts as they relate to Federal Class I areas and none was requested by an FLM. Sunflower did conduct a visibility analysis at Scott Lake State Park, which is downwind and approximately 50 miles from Holcomb Station. This was the Class II area for visibility evaluation identified by KDHE and EPA.”

---

A TIMELINE
Key developments in the Sunflower coal-fired power plant:•2006: Sunflower files an application to build three 700-megawatt coal-fired plants.

•November 2006: KDHE holds public hearing and almost 400 people turn out, so many that some couldn’t get in. Almost 700 people submit written comments

•2007: KDHE staff recommends approval of two power plants.

•October 2007: Roderick Bremby, then-KDHE director, rejects approval of the plants because of health concerns over greenhouse gases, the first such rejection in the country.

•November 2007: Sunflower challenges Bremby’s decision in court.

•January 2008: A poll shows Kansans oppose the plant 2 to 1.

•2008: Three times lawmakers pass bills to resurrect the project but fail each time to override a veto from then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

•May 2009: After Sebelius leaves office for a Washington D.C. appointment, Gov. Mark Parkinson hammers out a deal with Sunflower to let it build one 850-megawatt coal-fired plant.

•2009: The Kansas legislature approves the deal.

•January 2010: Sunflower submits a new permit application.

•Nov. 2, 2010: Parkinson fires Bremby amid accusations Bremby was delaying the permitting process.

•December 2010: KDHE’s acting secretary approves the permit.

•January 2011: Sierra Club appeals the permit. The case is before the Kansas Supreme Court.

To reach Karen Dillon send email to kdillon@kcstar.com.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/18/2959875/kansas-agency-power-company-worked.html