Source: Rio+20 secretariat
The Women's major group has submitted its input for the zero-draft for Rio+20. The submission was developed over the last 6 months by over 70 women's organizations from over 40 countries worldwide.
Driven by a vision of an equitable and sustainable world, women are critical about the use of the term ‘Green Economy’. They are concerned it is too often separated from the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. Women are further concerned that it will be used and misused to green-wash existing unsustainable economic practices that lead to inequities and infringe on the rights of effected peoples and future generations, because it does not fundamentally and adequately question and transform the current economic paradigm. Below is an excerpt from their submission:
In particular, the current economic system:
• Harms women and the environment: while the wealthy consume more and more natural resources and are responsible for increasing levels of environmental damage, those living in poverty are suffering from degradation of their agricultural land, forests, water supplies and biodiversity, and of alteration of weather cycles due to climatic changes.
• Is inequitable and unsustainable: social and economic inequities are inherent in the present economic system and are increasing in many countries both in the North and the South; with especially adverse consequences for women and children.
• Uses performance indicators that are socially and environmentally blind: our (failing) economies are currently managed so as to achieve and celebrate growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and do not promote human and environmental welfare.
Most governments state that their objectives are progress and development, yet at the same time use economic tools which do not help attain these objectives, but instead have lead to concentration of wealth and increased inequities. Governments at Rio+20 should renew support for the objectives of equitable and sustainable development, and should commit to choosing the right economic tools. In a sustainable development framework, the economy has to fulfil social progress taking into account environmental limits.
We support the transformation from the current economic system to a sustainable and equitable economic system that ensures gender equality, human rights and environmental justice and supports sustainable livelihoods and poverty eradication.
Recommendations regarding ‘Green Economy’ in the context of Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication
- Use the term ‘Sustainable and Equitable Economy’ instead of ‘Green Economy’
- Principles of a Sustainable and Equitable Economy:
• Promotion of social equity, gender equality and intergenerational equity
• Democracy, transparency and justice
• Application of the precautionary principle
• Ethical values, such as respect for nature, spirituality, culture, harmony, solidarity, community, caring and sharing
• Global responsibility for the global common goods
• Environmental sustainability
• Common but differentiated responsibilities
- Sustainable and Equitable Economies have economic policies aiming at:
• Poverty eradication and gender equality: with fairer distribution of resources and rights, and assurance of human security of all
• Ending violence against women through legislation, support services for women, affordable access to justice for women, and information about rights and norms
• Prioritizing peace promotion and conflict prevention
• Preventing toxic and radioactive harm on women’s and children’s health, and ensuring safe waste reduction, reuse and recycling policies
• Providing women, adolescents and girls universal access to sexual and reproductive health
• Sustainable agriculture, food security and food sovereignty and recognition of women’s role in food production
• Assuring access to clean, efficient and safe energy and technologies for all, especially for women
• Safe water and sanitation for all, particularly for poor rural and urban women and girls
• Conserving biodiversity, women’s access to natural resources and respect of their environmental rights
• Necessary and equitable measures for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change
• Measures against land grabbing – protecting women’s (continued) access to (communal) land and commons
• Phasing out GMO's as women in many countries are the majority of the ‘seed keepers’
- Measure and operationalize progress through:
• Policies that recognize and promote women’s economic contributions
• Indicators that go beyond the ‘GDP’ (Gross Domestic Product), including indicators to show gender impacts
• Financial sector re-regulation and reform, encouraging long-term perspectives
• Fiscal sector reform, including new taxation to redistribute wealth, such as a financial transaction tax, and taxing of non-renewable and unsustainable resource exploitation
• Investments in women’s leadership, education, skills and entrepreneurship
• Investments in health care, child-care and social protection floor
Read the full Global Women's Submission for the Rio+20 zero-draft document from here
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
IBON International proposes minimum conditions for 'green economy' to work in developing countries
Adapted from IBON international’s Policy brief: Green economy - gain or pain for the earth’s poor?
There is a lot of attention being directed towards the Green Economy, raising fears that it may become the new framework for sustainable development in place of the long-recognized three pillars. This IBON Policy Brief takes a critical look at the concept of a Green Economy and shows how it is likely to fall short of advancing economic, ecological and social sustainability.
If the UN Green Economy Report ‘s green scenarios are the best it has to offer, developing countries will have to find radically different paths to sustainable development. As the debate heats up and specific points are critiqued further in the lead-up to Rio+20, social movements need to reemphasize in various forums and platforms at all levels the following at the minimum:
1. To reassert and further elaborate the principles of sustainable development as first enunciated in Rio 1992. These include, among others:
• the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which addresses the asymmetries between developed and developing countries;
• the pre-eminence of social equity in attaining the correct balance among the three pillars of sustainable development; and
• UN and other international instruments that have been established or elaborated, incorporating Rio principles (including the UNFCCC and CBD treaties and protocols) with other principles that uphold human rights and social justice, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Declaration on the Right to Development, and Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), among others.
2. Based on these principles, to revisit Agenda 21 and restate the global goals of sustainable development in ways that recognize diverse national conditions and interests, with a strong emphasis on the needs and aspirations of developing countries where the majority of the world’s populations live, always guided by a rights-based approach as already enshrined and elaborated in UN and other international instruments, and with due respect to national sovereignty, country ownership, and full participation by civil society.
For governments to support sustainable alternative knowledge and practices that are in the hands of the people—biodiverse ecological agriculture, community-based renewable energy systems, community-driven stewardship of ecosystems—and the values of living well in harmony with people and nature as opposed to unbridled consumerism. These make the building blocks of genuine people-centered sustainable development that enhances people’s wellbeing, equity and justice for all. But they need to be supported and promoted by an enabling environment.
3. Sustainability is inextricably linked to employment and access to productive resources. Crucial to this is the democratization of ownership, control, and decision-making over productive resources and assets in society. We should move towards more democratic modes such as cooperative, community-based, commons or public forms of ownership to ensure that economic activity provides sustainable livelihoods for all and meets the developmental goals of the community and society. This means implementing thoroughgoing agrarian, aquatic and forestry reforms for the benefit of smallholders, women and indigenous peoples in particular, and to strengthen community based stewardship of natural resources and ecosystems.
4. To promote sufficiency-based economies, i.e., those that cater primarily towards meeting local needs and demands, developing local capacities, based on available resources, appropriate technologies and resource sharing. Countries should have the right to determine their patterns of food production and consumption, and farmers should be able to prioritize food production for domestic consumption. Local and national food systems should provide food that are healthy, of good quality and are culturally appropriate.
Food production and consumption should be localized as much as possible while food reserves should be established at the local, national and even regional level to raise the resilience of food systems.
There must be an end to perverse subsidies and support for the fossil fuel industry, for agrofuel plantations, for large scale mining, big dams, industrial farming and fishing and other activities that destroy lives and livelihoods of present and future generations.
Instead, there must be a rapid transition away from fossil fuels as energy sources and towards a mix of new, renewable energy sources, with special attention to that particularly amenable to decentralized and local use such as wind, solar, and micro-hydro power.
Manufacturing should promote closed-loop production where goods are produced with minimum use of energy and materials, longer lifespans and with maximum reuse and recycling of parts and components. There must be greater support for mass public transportation, even as walking, biking and other human-powered means should also be promoted as modes of transport for short distances.
5. A sustainability transition will involve adjustment costs. The highest costs should fall on global corporations, polluting industries and elites who will need to adjust to an economic redistribution. But the poor will also be affected, such as workers that work in fossil fuel industries when the shift to renewables takes place. Workers will need reskilling for green jobs and guarantees that hard-earned labor standards and union rights not be eroded in the transition. More importantly, workers need to have greater power in decision-making within the workplace and in society at large.
But social protection programs more generally—encompassing social insurance, social assistance and labor market regulations—should be enhanced and strengthened especially in developing countries most vulnerable to climate change impacts and food price volatility. Governments should support social protection programs as part of broader strategies for comprehensive social development; combined with universal provision of social services; rights-based; universal in coverage; and financed primarily through progressive financing mechanisms supported by non-debt creating international cooperation.
A social protection approach grounded in the recognition of basic human rights should provide adequate claimable entitlements for the entire population with affirmative action in favor of rural populations, women, national minorities, persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups while ensuring fair distribution of burdens between generations.
Also, Southern countries that depend on energy and manufactured exports to the North will feel the pain when a transition to lower consumption begins in the North. A coordinated redistributive transition within and between countries is necessary to cushion the impacts to the poor.
6. On the basis of public, cooperative and community-based forms of ownership, participatory and inclusive modes of decision-making and planning can ensure that economic activity contributes to meeting the goals of the community such as employment, health, education, and so on. The principle of subsidiarity—devolving decision-making to as local a level as appropriate—should be
promoted. This should reignite local political reengagement.
Policies should respect cultural diversity, and modern science should be combined with traditional knowledge in bottom-up approaches of research and development to develop technologies that are appropriate and democratic.
7. International trade, investment, finance and development cooperation should be reoriented around rules that value, respect, protect and fulfill people’s rights; economic, social, gender ecological and climate justice; self-determination and self-sufficiency. Commitments from the North in the form of adequate financing (according to common but differentiated responsibility), appropriate technology cooperation, and needs-based capacity building are of utmost importance
to support developing countries make a just transition to sustainable development pathways.
Read the full IBON International's Briefing Paper on - Green economy: gain or pain for the earth’s poor? from here
There is a lot of attention being directed towards the Green Economy, raising fears that it may become the new framework for sustainable development in place of the long-recognized three pillars. This IBON Policy Brief takes a critical look at the concept of a Green Economy and shows how it is likely to fall short of advancing economic, ecological and social sustainability.
If the UN Green Economy Report ‘s green scenarios are the best it has to offer, developing countries will have to find radically different paths to sustainable development. As the debate heats up and specific points are critiqued further in the lead-up to Rio+20, social movements need to reemphasize in various forums and platforms at all levels the following at the minimum:
1. To reassert and further elaborate the principles of sustainable development as first enunciated in Rio 1992. These include, among others:
• the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which addresses the asymmetries between developed and developing countries;
• the pre-eminence of social equity in attaining the correct balance among the three pillars of sustainable development; and
• UN and other international instruments that have been established or elaborated, incorporating Rio principles (including the UNFCCC and CBD treaties and protocols) with other principles that uphold human rights and social justice, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Declaration on the Right to Development, and Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), among others.
2. Based on these principles, to revisit Agenda 21 and restate the global goals of sustainable development in ways that recognize diverse national conditions and interests, with a strong emphasis on the needs and aspirations of developing countries where the majority of the world’s populations live, always guided by a rights-based approach as already enshrined and elaborated in UN and other international instruments, and with due respect to national sovereignty, country ownership, and full participation by civil society.
For governments to support sustainable alternative knowledge and practices that are in the hands of the people—biodiverse ecological agriculture, community-based renewable energy systems, community-driven stewardship of ecosystems—and the values of living well in harmony with people and nature as opposed to unbridled consumerism. These make the building blocks of genuine people-centered sustainable development that enhances people’s wellbeing, equity and justice for all. But they need to be supported and promoted by an enabling environment.
3. Sustainability is inextricably linked to employment and access to productive resources. Crucial to this is the democratization of ownership, control, and decision-making over productive resources and assets in society. We should move towards more democratic modes such as cooperative, community-based, commons or public forms of ownership to ensure that economic activity provides sustainable livelihoods for all and meets the developmental goals of the community and society. This means implementing thoroughgoing agrarian, aquatic and forestry reforms for the benefit of smallholders, women and indigenous peoples in particular, and to strengthen community based stewardship of natural resources and ecosystems.
4. To promote sufficiency-based economies, i.e., those that cater primarily towards meeting local needs and demands, developing local capacities, based on available resources, appropriate technologies and resource sharing. Countries should have the right to determine their patterns of food production and consumption, and farmers should be able to prioritize food production for domestic consumption. Local and national food systems should provide food that are healthy, of good quality and are culturally appropriate.
Food production and consumption should be localized as much as possible while food reserves should be established at the local, national and even regional level to raise the resilience of food systems.
There must be an end to perverse subsidies and support for the fossil fuel industry, for agrofuel plantations, for large scale mining, big dams, industrial farming and fishing and other activities that destroy lives and livelihoods of present and future generations.
Instead, there must be a rapid transition away from fossil fuels as energy sources and towards a mix of new, renewable energy sources, with special attention to that particularly amenable to decentralized and local use such as wind, solar, and micro-hydro power.
Manufacturing should promote closed-loop production where goods are produced with minimum use of energy and materials, longer lifespans and with maximum reuse and recycling of parts and components. There must be greater support for mass public transportation, even as walking, biking and other human-powered means should also be promoted as modes of transport for short distances.
5. A sustainability transition will involve adjustment costs. The highest costs should fall on global corporations, polluting industries and elites who will need to adjust to an economic redistribution. But the poor will also be affected, such as workers that work in fossil fuel industries when the shift to renewables takes place. Workers will need reskilling for green jobs and guarantees that hard-earned labor standards and union rights not be eroded in the transition. More importantly, workers need to have greater power in decision-making within the workplace and in society at large.
But social protection programs more generally—encompassing social insurance, social assistance and labor market regulations—should be enhanced and strengthened especially in developing countries most vulnerable to climate change impacts and food price volatility. Governments should support social protection programs as part of broader strategies for comprehensive social development; combined with universal provision of social services; rights-based; universal in coverage; and financed primarily through progressive financing mechanisms supported by non-debt creating international cooperation.
A social protection approach grounded in the recognition of basic human rights should provide adequate claimable entitlements for the entire population with affirmative action in favor of rural populations, women, national minorities, persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups while ensuring fair distribution of burdens between generations.
Also, Southern countries that depend on energy and manufactured exports to the North will feel the pain when a transition to lower consumption begins in the North. A coordinated redistributive transition within and between countries is necessary to cushion the impacts to the poor.
6. On the basis of public, cooperative and community-based forms of ownership, participatory and inclusive modes of decision-making and planning can ensure that economic activity contributes to meeting the goals of the community such as employment, health, education, and so on. The principle of subsidiarity—devolving decision-making to as local a level as appropriate—should be
promoted. This should reignite local political reengagement.
Policies should respect cultural diversity, and modern science should be combined with traditional knowledge in bottom-up approaches of research and development to develop technologies that are appropriate and democratic.
7. International trade, investment, finance and development cooperation should be reoriented around rules that value, respect, protect and fulfill people’s rights; economic, social, gender ecological and climate justice; self-determination and self-sufficiency. Commitments from the North in the form of adequate financing (according to common but differentiated responsibility), appropriate technology cooperation, and needs-based capacity building are of utmost importance
to support developing countries make a just transition to sustainable development pathways.
Read the full IBON International's Briefing Paper on - Green economy: gain or pain for the earth’s poor? from here
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Rio2012 through the lens of the Arab Spring
By Social Watch
The Arab Spring gave this region’s civil society fresh tools to contribute to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio2012). “The Arab peoples’ revolutions and uprisings which erupted first in Tunisia in December 2010 reflect the interlink between sustainable development, democratic governance, and freedom,” noted the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND) in the paper it submitted to the preparatory process of the meeting.
The Agenda 21 approved by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) “highlighted the nexus between sustainable development and democratic governance in order to protect human rights, to protect citizenship and to build the state of rights and the rule of law,” remarks the ANND report.
This submission was prepared in cooperation with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policies and International Affairs and the Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development, and in coordination with the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia and the Regional Office for West Asia for the UN Environmental Program.
These are some excerpts from this comprehensive report:
On “green economy”
Any consensus on the concept of the ‘Green Economy’ should fully integrate the previously established consensus on Sustainable Development. […] Steps should be taken to ensure that the ‘Green Economy’ concept does not become a step backwards from the initial commitments to Agenda 21, even as it strives to encompass a new approach to presenting the global sustainability problematic. This cannot be achieved without a wider understanding of sustainable development, which encompasses a revision of the overall production and consumption trends in the world today, and to which rights, equity, fairness, and common but differentiated responsibilities are central.
This would necessitate re-orienting investment, trade, and finance policies to focus on these objectives, including harnessing regional cooperation on these fronts towards increasing production and demand at the regional level.
The implications of the crisis
Such an approach is crucial in terms of working towards recovering from the current financial and economic crisis, including restoring growth in the employment markets and generation of decent jobs, as well as the stability in the markets of basic products.
The global economy already suffers from production and consumption patterns that unsustainably exploit natural resources, leading to serious environmental and ecological problems and exacerbating inequalities among the peoples of the world. […] Problems such as climate change, soil degradation, and water scarcity emerged as global threats to biodiversity, food sovereignty and security, and livelihoods of various communities around the world, and overall right to development.
The importance of water resources
Of all natural resources, water is the most strategic, and its mismanagement threatens the world’s population. Energy efficiency, water security and food security are closely intertwined and cannot be viewed separately. This issue is pressing the arid Arab Region, where most countries’ water supply depends on expensive energy-intensive processes
The question of inequality
It is essential to re-evaluate existing policies and trade agreements that contradict the concept of Sustainable Development and address the structural imbalance of power distribution in the global economy that is tilted to privilege the few. For example, international trade rules should not be used as tools to fight against public support directed towards developing alternative energy sources and technologies, nor for trade protectionism, nor blocking the use of new ‘environmental’ technologies by developing country peoples.
The role of the states
Poverty incidence is rising in the Arab region, along other developing countries, while economic growth is being achieved in many of the same countries. Poverty is being manifested more viciously among rural populations whose livelihoods often depend on agriculture. […] Developing countries have often prioritized integration in the global economy through trade and investment liberalization, borrowing, expansion for privatization deals and public-private partnerships, overall economic deregulation, and over-focus on macro-economic stability.
Concurrently, national productive capacities have been marginalized along with the national development project generally, which includes addressing inequalities, empowering people through employment generation and wages, and establishing comprehensive rights-based social plans. This further weakened developing countries, increasing their dependence on food imports, and exacerbating their vulnerability to external shocks. Accordingly, we saw countries achieve economic growth, while poverty, unemployment, and inequities were on the rise.
The limits of such an approach were laid bare during the people’s revolutions in the Arab region. Indeed, economic and social policies defined from the top-down have often only been exacerbating inequalities, poverty, and unemployment, while economic growth numbers were overstated by oil-exports, without proper re-distribution policies and mechanisms or local empowerment.
What to expect from Rio2012
The Rio+20 process and Summit offer an important opportunity to revive the focus of Sustainable Development. […] Intraregional and intra-thematic coordination and cooperation on sustainable development should be improved among regional commissions and international funds, programmes, agencies, and development banks, in coordination with United Nations institutions.
Any implementation requires policies and mechanisms that ensure the involvement of local stakeholders, represented in various forms of civil society groups and constituency groups, including women, indigenous people, and people with special abilities, who are empowered to make and implement decisions that often concern them primarily.
We highly recommend the establishment of “Sustainable Development Council”, on par with such other [UN] institutions as the Security Council, the Human Rights Council, and the Economic and Social Council. This international governance body will have the authority to monitor the implementation of Sustainable Development initiatives of member states, where its resolutions are binding, and legitimacy and authority cannot be broken by politically powerful states.
Read the full Submission presented by the Arab NGO Network for Development (Beirut) to the Zero Draft Rio + 20 Document
The Arab Spring gave this region’s civil society fresh tools to contribute to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio2012). “The Arab peoples’ revolutions and uprisings which erupted first in Tunisia in December 2010 reflect the interlink between sustainable development, democratic governance, and freedom,” noted the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND) in the paper it submitted to the preparatory process of the meeting.
The Agenda 21 approved by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) “highlighted the nexus between sustainable development and democratic governance in order to protect human rights, to protect citizenship and to build the state of rights and the rule of law,” remarks the ANND report.
This submission was prepared in cooperation with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policies and International Affairs and the Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development, and in coordination with the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia and the Regional Office for West Asia for the UN Environmental Program.
These are some excerpts from this comprehensive report:
On “green economy”
Any consensus on the concept of the ‘Green Economy’ should fully integrate the previously established consensus on Sustainable Development. […] Steps should be taken to ensure that the ‘Green Economy’ concept does not become a step backwards from the initial commitments to Agenda 21, even as it strives to encompass a new approach to presenting the global sustainability problematic. This cannot be achieved without a wider understanding of sustainable development, which encompasses a revision of the overall production and consumption trends in the world today, and to which rights, equity, fairness, and common but differentiated responsibilities are central.
This would necessitate re-orienting investment, trade, and finance policies to focus on these objectives, including harnessing regional cooperation on these fronts towards increasing production and demand at the regional level.
The implications of the crisis
Such an approach is crucial in terms of working towards recovering from the current financial and economic crisis, including restoring growth in the employment markets and generation of decent jobs, as well as the stability in the markets of basic products.
The global economy already suffers from production and consumption patterns that unsustainably exploit natural resources, leading to serious environmental and ecological problems and exacerbating inequalities among the peoples of the world. […] Problems such as climate change, soil degradation, and water scarcity emerged as global threats to biodiversity, food sovereignty and security, and livelihoods of various communities around the world, and overall right to development.
The importance of water resources
Of all natural resources, water is the most strategic, and its mismanagement threatens the world’s population. Energy efficiency, water security and food security are closely intertwined and cannot be viewed separately. This issue is pressing the arid Arab Region, where most countries’ water supply depends on expensive energy-intensive processes
The question of inequality
It is essential to re-evaluate existing policies and trade agreements that contradict the concept of Sustainable Development and address the structural imbalance of power distribution in the global economy that is tilted to privilege the few. For example, international trade rules should not be used as tools to fight against public support directed towards developing alternative energy sources and technologies, nor for trade protectionism, nor blocking the use of new ‘environmental’ technologies by developing country peoples.
The role of the states
Poverty incidence is rising in the Arab region, along other developing countries, while economic growth is being achieved in many of the same countries. Poverty is being manifested more viciously among rural populations whose livelihoods often depend on agriculture. […] Developing countries have often prioritized integration in the global economy through trade and investment liberalization, borrowing, expansion for privatization deals and public-private partnerships, overall economic deregulation, and over-focus on macro-economic stability.
Concurrently, national productive capacities have been marginalized along with the national development project generally, which includes addressing inequalities, empowering people through employment generation and wages, and establishing comprehensive rights-based social plans. This further weakened developing countries, increasing their dependence on food imports, and exacerbating their vulnerability to external shocks. Accordingly, we saw countries achieve economic growth, while poverty, unemployment, and inequities were on the rise.
The limits of such an approach were laid bare during the people’s revolutions in the Arab region. Indeed, economic and social policies defined from the top-down have often only been exacerbating inequalities, poverty, and unemployment, while economic growth numbers were overstated by oil-exports, without proper re-distribution policies and mechanisms or local empowerment.
What to expect from Rio2012
The Rio+20 process and Summit offer an important opportunity to revive the focus of Sustainable Development. […] Intraregional and intra-thematic coordination and cooperation on sustainable development should be improved among regional commissions and international funds, programmes, agencies, and development banks, in coordination with United Nations institutions.
Any implementation requires policies and mechanisms that ensure the involvement of local stakeholders, represented in various forms of civil society groups and constituency groups, including women, indigenous people, and people with special abilities, who are empowered to make and implement decisions that often concern them primarily.
We highly recommend the establishment of “Sustainable Development Council”, on par with such other [UN] institutions as the Security Council, the Human Rights Council, and the Economic and Social Council. This international governance body will have the authority to monitor the implementation of Sustainable Development initiatives of member states, where its resolutions are binding, and legitimacy and authority cannot be broken by politically powerful states.
Read the full Submission presented by the Arab NGO Network for Development (Beirut) to the Zero Draft Rio + 20 Document
‘Right to survive is non-negotiable’: Civil Society urges the Dhaka Climate Vulnerable Forum
By Kimbowa Richard
Ahead of the November 13 – 14, 2011 Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) to be held in Dhaka (Bangladesh) prior to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations going to be held from 28 November to 9 December 2011 in Durban, South Africa, a group of CSOs ( Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples’ Network on Climate Change and Biodiversity - BIPNet, Climate Change and Development Forum - CCDF), Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods - CSRL, Equity and Justice Working Group - EquityBD, Network on Climate Change Bangladesh - NCCB and 350.org on behalf of the people of the countries most vulnerable to climate change have issued a statement titled: Right to survive is non-negotiable.
The 18-point statement outlines the CSO expectations for the consideration of CVF. It observes that ‘G77 and China’ being unable to protect the interests of the most vulnerable people, represented mostly by the Least-Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) of Africa, Asia, Caribbean and the Pacific, and appreciate the emergence of CVF as an alternate platform to voice the concerns of the Most Vulnerable Countries (MVCs). It urges the participating countries to make CVF a formal negotiating platform in the UNFCCC processes to ensure the right to survive of over a billion most vulnerable people on earth, the segment of the mother earth who are the least responsible for building up and contributing to atmospheric load of greenhouse gases and who, ironically, have been struggling just to ensure their survival in the wake of climate change.
It calls on all Parties of the UNFCCC to recognise the CVF as a legitimate collective voice of the people most vulnerable to climate change in the negotiation processes, where the group comprising the majority of Parties to UNFCCC; three-quarters of the membership of the G77; and in excess of 1 billion people globally. The statement appreciates the CVF for envisioning the platform to ventilate common positions of the vulnerable country Parties to UNFCCC.
It expresses profound disappointment to the fact that the global leadership collectively failed to live up to their promises towards settling with firm collective actions by 2009, as agreed through the Bali processes and that a few Parties have been deliberately wasting time to delay firm actions which might have created much improved opportunities for the most vulnerable to first survive and then thrive on a least cost development pathway.
The CSOs urge upon the CVF to reemphasize the principles enshrined in the UNFCCC that the global response to climate change should be undertaken on the basis of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and that they should not interfere with the realisation of the right to survive and the right to equitable economic growth for vulnerable countries.
It also notes that a global response to climate change that is agreed at COP17 must be consistent with what the science demands for the continued survival of the people, cultures and countries that are most vulnerable to climate change.
With regard to the Shared Vision the statement calls on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with renewed urgency and determination to ensure that a fair and safe legally binding agreement is reached at COP17 which will deliver long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at 350 ppm level that limit global average temperature increases to no more than 1.5°C compared with pre-industrial levels; that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak no later than 2015; and must reduce by at least 95% below 1990 levels by 2050 (though this should be revised upwards if the science so dictates).
On Mitigation, the statement urges for urgent action that the science demands in that Annex 1 Parties must reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against 1990 levels by 2020. The majority of this action must be undertaken domestically in order to guarantee a low carbon global future. In addition, finance and technological support must be made available for developing countries for the implementation of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) which must not count towards fulfilment of any Annex 1 emissions reductions. Also the major emitting Parties that are not making any reduction commitment for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, following a shorter second commitment period, can join the third commitment period to contribute to GHG emission reduction to save the planet earth.
On Adaptation, the statement identifies three key crucial principles that must be addressed through the possible adaptation framework: focus on the most vulnerable countries, communities and people; rights-based approach to adaptation; country-owned, transparent, participatory, sustainable, gendered, community-based, and drawing on local and indigenous knowledge. In addition, the adaptation framework must take into account that: adaptation should be defined in communities and countries, not globally; communities should be empowered to take local action and decide what is needed for their adaptation; Internal and international movement, relocation, rehabilitation and reintegration of people displaced by weather related extreme events and trends.
On Finance, the statement recognises the commitment made by developed country governments in Cancun to mobilize jointly $100 billion per year by 2020 from a wide range of public, private and alternative sources of finance. Since the ultimate needs of developing countries, based on numerous expert reports, are very likely to be higher, and the CSOs call for agreement in Durban on a trajectory of scaled-up climate finance from 2013 to 2020 capable of at least meeting and exceeding this figure.
Furthermore the statement stresses that this finance should be new and additional to pre-existing commitments of development assistance (0.7% of GNI) and provided so as to provide predictability to developing countries. It further stresses that that streamlined direct access to public, grant-based finance is vital to meet the urgent adaptation needs of MVCs.
The statement notes that the commitments of developed countries to provide adequate, new and additional and predictable climate finance to developing countries should be met first and foremost through direct contributions from national budgets. A significant portion should be provided through the
new Green Climate Fund, with an allocation of at least 50% to adaptation, in view of achieving an appropriate thematic balance with mitigation, and paying particular attention to the needs of MVCs. The provision of finance for adaptation should be grant-based.
In addition to the budget contributions of developed countries, the CSOs call on the international community to agree and implement without delay innovative sources of public finance that respect the principles of the UNFCCC. Such sources will be vital in enhancing the overall scale, additionality and predictability of climate finance flows.
The statement observes that carbon pricing instruments for the international transport sector, if implemented based on ‘no net incidence principle’ for developing countries, and taking particular account of the needs of the MVCs, is a particularly promising option which should be explored in Durban. The CSOs welcome recent reports assessing such options, including the report of the UN Secretary General's High Level Advisory Group on Financing for Climate Change and the report of the World Bank, IMF and other international organizations to the G20.
The statement welcomes the recent progress towards the implementation of Financial Transaction Taxes (FTT) in some developed countries, and calls on those countries to guarantee that a significant proportion of the revenues generated are dedicated to international development and climate finance, with particular regard to the needs of MVCs. At least USD 150 billion per year must be made available through the UNFCCC for climate change requirements in developing countries, of which at least USD 50 billion per year must be for adaptation and MVCs should be prioritized. It stresses that finance must not be in the form of loans and the scale of finance required must be reviewed and revised as necessary as more information regarding adaptation needs and the extent of impacts become known. This finance must be raised through binding commitments for Annex 1 Parties, based on their historical responsibility and financial capability.
On the Green Climate Fund (GCF) the statement proposes that it must ensure: the continuity in national climate change planning and priority setting; common and simplified access, including direct access by country governments and civil society, the establishment of a single national mechanism to receive and channel funds in line with coordinated national plans, the citizenry and civil society monitor their own government’s progress against national plans.
Source
Ahead of the November 13 – 14, 2011 Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) to be held in Dhaka (Bangladesh) prior to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations going to be held from 28 November to 9 December 2011 in Durban, South Africa, a group of CSOs ( Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples’ Network on Climate Change and Biodiversity - BIPNet, Climate Change and Development Forum - CCDF), Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods - CSRL, Equity and Justice Working Group - EquityBD, Network on Climate Change Bangladesh - NCCB and 350.org on behalf of the people of the countries most vulnerable to climate change have issued a statement titled: Right to survive is non-negotiable.
The 18-point statement outlines the CSO expectations for the consideration of CVF. It observes that ‘G77 and China’ being unable to protect the interests of the most vulnerable people, represented mostly by the Least-Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) of Africa, Asia, Caribbean and the Pacific, and appreciate the emergence of CVF as an alternate platform to voice the concerns of the Most Vulnerable Countries (MVCs). It urges the participating countries to make CVF a formal negotiating platform in the UNFCCC processes to ensure the right to survive of over a billion most vulnerable people on earth, the segment of the mother earth who are the least responsible for building up and contributing to atmospheric load of greenhouse gases and who, ironically, have been struggling just to ensure their survival in the wake of climate change.
It calls on all Parties of the UNFCCC to recognise the CVF as a legitimate collective voice of the people most vulnerable to climate change in the negotiation processes, where the group comprising the majority of Parties to UNFCCC; three-quarters of the membership of the G77; and in excess of 1 billion people globally. The statement appreciates the CVF for envisioning the platform to ventilate common positions of the vulnerable country Parties to UNFCCC.
It expresses profound disappointment to the fact that the global leadership collectively failed to live up to their promises towards settling with firm collective actions by 2009, as agreed through the Bali processes and that a few Parties have been deliberately wasting time to delay firm actions which might have created much improved opportunities for the most vulnerable to first survive and then thrive on a least cost development pathway.
The CSOs urge upon the CVF to reemphasize the principles enshrined in the UNFCCC that the global response to climate change should be undertaken on the basis of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and that they should not interfere with the realisation of the right to survive and the right to equitable economic growth for vulnerable countries.
It also notes that a global response to climate change that is agreed at COP17 must be consistent with what the science demands for the continued survival of the people, cultures and countries that are most vulnerable to climate change.
With regard to the Shared Vision the statement calls on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with renewed urgency and determination to ensure that a fair and safe legally binding agreement is reached at COP17 which will deliver long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at 350 ppm level that limit global average temperature increases to no more than 1.5°C compared with pre-industrial levels; that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak no later than 2015; and must reduce by at least 95% below 1990 levels by 2050 (though this should be revised upwards if the science so dictates).
On Mitigation, the statement urges for urgent action that the science demands in that Annex 1 Parties must reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against 1990 levels by 2020. The majority of this action must be undertaken domestically in order to guarantee a low carbon global future. In addition, finance and technological support must be made available for developing countries for the implementation of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) which must not count towards fulfilment of any Annex 1 emissions reductions. Also the major emitting Parties that are not making any reduction commitment for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, following a shorter second commitment period, can join the third commitment period to contribute to GHG emission reduction to save the planet earth.
On Adaptation, the statement identifies three key crucial principles that must be addressed through the possible adaptation framework: focus on the most vulnerable countries, communities and people; rights-based approach to adaptation; country-owned, transparent, participatory, sustainable, gendered, community-based, and drawing on local and indigenous knowledge. In addition, the adaptation framework must take into account that: adaptation should be defined in communities and countries, not globally; communities should be empowered to take local action and decide what is needed for their adaptation; Internal and international movement, relocation, rehabilitation and reintegration of people displaced by weather related extreme events and trends.
On Finance, the statement recognises the commitment made by developed country governments in Cancun to mobilize jointly $100 billion per year by 2020 from a wide range of public, private and alternative sources of finance. Since the ultimate needs of developing countries, based on numerous expert reports, are very likely to be higher, and the CSOs call for agreement in Durban on a trajectory of scaled-up climate finance from 2013 to 2020 capable of at least meeting and exceeding this figure.
Furthermore the statement stresses that this finance should be new and additional to pre-existing commitments of development assistance (0.7% of GNI) and provided so as to provide predictability to developing countries. It further stresses that that streamlined direct access to public, grant-based finance is vital to meet the urgent adaptation needs of MVCs.
The statement notes that the commitments of developed countries to provide adequate, new and additional and predictable climate finance to developing countries should be met first and foremost through direct contributions from national budgets. A significant portion should be provided through the
new Green Climate Fund, with an allocation of at least 50% to adaptation, in view of achieving an appropriate thematic balance with mitigation, and paying particular attention to the needs of MVCs. The provision of finance for adaptation should be grant-based.
In addition to the budget contributions of developed countries, the CSOs call on the international community to agree and implement without delay innovative sources of public finance that respect the principles of the UNFCCC. Such sources will be vital in enhancing the overall scale, additionality and predictability of climate finance flows.
The statement observes that carbon pricing instruments for the international transport sector, if implemented based on ‘no net incidence principle’ for developing countries, and taking particular account of the needs of the MVCs, is a particularly promising option which should be explored in Durban. The CSOs welcome recent reports assessing such options, including the report of the UN Secretary General's High Level Advisory Group on Financing for Climate Change and the report of the World Bank, IMF and other international organizations to the G20.
The statement welcomes the recent progress towards the implementation of Financial Transaction Taxes (FTT) in some developed countries, and calls on those countries to guarantee that a significant proportion of the revenues generated are dedicated to international development and climate finance, with particular regard to the needs of MVCs. At least USD 150 billion per year must be made available through the UNFCCC for climate change requirements in developing countries, of which at least USD 50 billion per year must be for adaptation and MVCs should be prioritized. It stresses that finance must not be in the form of loans and the scale of finance required must be reviewed and revised as necessary as more information regarding adaptation needs and the extent of impacts become known. This finance must be raised through binding commitments for Annex 1 Parties, based on their historical responsibility and financial capability.
On the Green Climate Fund (GCF) the statement proposes that it must ensure: the continuity in national climate change planning and priority setting; common and simplified access, including direct access by country governments and civil society, the establishment of a single national mechanism to receive and channel funds in line with coordinated national plans, the citizenry and civil society monitor their own government’s progress against national plans.
Source
Friday, November 11, 2011
Vulnerable states forum to press for climate funding, technology
Source: Alertnet, November 11, 2011
Ministers and high-level officials from about 20 developing states will call on richer nations to provide increased funding and technological support for their efforts to tackle climate change, at the close of a meeting in Dhaka on Monday.
The second forum for countries vulnerable to climate change - coming two weeks ahead of the U.N. climate conference in South Africa - is intended to add weight to the main concerns of poorer governments in the global negotiations.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina will open the Dhaka gathering, which will be attended by government representatives from parts of Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific already suffering the impacts of climate change.
A draft declaration, posted on the Bangladesh foreign affairs ministry website, says the group of vulnerable states is resolved to "demonstrate moral leadership by committing to a low-carbon development path on a voluntary basis", but their ability to do so is constrained by inadequate financial and technological support from outside their borders.
"Many vulnerable countries are prepared to take steps themselves to address climate change - for example, a number have committed themselves to go carbon-neutral - but the resources are just not available for them to put those measures in place," said Ross Mountain, director general of DARA, a humanitarian think tank that is supporting the event.
A briefing paper issued ahead of the forum notes that only 8 percent of the $30 billion in "fast start finance" promised to help poorer nations kickstart their climate change responses between 2010 and 2012 has been disbursed so far, and nearly all that money is being diverted from planned development aid increases, rather than being new funding.
In addition, the briefing points to "a complete absence of any commitments whatsoever to provide climate finance to developing countries during the years 2013 to 2020".
At the 2009 U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, as well as pledging the fast-start funding, developed countries agreed to "mobilise" $100 billion per year by 2020. But they did not say what they would offer in climate aid in the intervening seven-year period. This ambiguity is a growing concern for vulnerable nations and could turn into a sticking point at U.N. negotiations.
CALL FOR ACTION ON EMISSIONS
The draft statement for the Dhaka forum also calls for the "immediate conclusion of a broad-based and inclusive legally binding agreement on greenhouse gas emission cuts, attaining a limiting of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius".
It warns that any vacuum in the international framework governing emissions reductions - given that the first phase of the current mechanism, the Kyoto Protocol, expires at the end of 2012 - "could seriously endanger political and economic momentum".
A press release issued ahead of the meeting notes that vulnerable developing countries are willing to play a bigger role in limiting global warming, including through larger-scale participation in carbon markets - which many have so far had little access to - and concerted action to reduce hazardous "largely poverty-linked" non-carbon emissions, such as black carbon, methane and ozone.
No breakthrough on a new global deal to cut emissions is expected at the Durban summit, however, with diplomats and NGOs emphasising incremental progress and the improvement of existing mechanisms for monitoring and managing climate change.
Irrespective of if and when an international accord is finally crafted, countries already suffering the effects of extreme weather, such as droughts, floods and storms, and rising seas say they need better access now to the green technologies largely owned by richer nations.
According to the draft declaration for the Dhaka meeting, participating states are seeking immediate agreement to begin the transfer of technologies and relevant research they need to pursue renewable energy and green growth, and protect their water security and agricultural sectors in the face of shifting climate and weather patterns.
The statement also presses for early discussions on creating an international framework to manage climate-induced displacement, which is already a worry for low-lying island nations and countries with long coastlines such as Bangladesh.
"It's the immediacy of the effects of climate change that countries are endeavouring to get across," Mountain told AlertNet. "This is a real issue that needs to be addressed now."
A scientific report by the U.N. climate panel, the main findings of which will be issued next Friday, is expected to say that climate change has already increased the magnitude and frequency of some weather and climate extremes, and will have a worse impact in the future, making some parts of the world difficult for humans to live in.
Nations scheduled to attend the Dhaka "Climate Vulnerable Forum" on Nov. 13-14 include Bangladesh, Bhutan, Costa Rica, East Timor, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, the Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, the Philippines, Rwanda, Tanzania, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Vietnam.
"That a growing number of developing countries are pursuing green development, and continue to press for climate justice, is a message that should also give pause to the slowest-moving industrialised countries," wrote former Costa Rican president and DARA trustee José MarÃa Figueres in an online commentary on the forum.
Source
Ministers and high-level officials from about 20 developing states will call on richer nations to provide increased funding and technological support for their efforts to tackle climate change, at the close of a meeting in Dhaka on Monday.
The second forum for countries vulnerable to climate change - coming two weeks ahead of the U.N. climate conference in South Africa - is intended to add weight to the main concerns of poorer governments in the global negotiations.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina will open the Dhaka gathering, which will be attended by government representatives from parts of Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific already suffering the impacts of climate change.
A draft declaration, posted on the Bangladesh foreign affairs ministry website, says the group of vulnerable states is resolved to "demonstrate moral leadership by committing to a low-carbon development path on a voluntary basis", but their ability to do so is constrained by inadequate financial and technological support from outside their borders.
"Many vulnerable countries are prepared to take steps themselves to address climate change - for example, a number have committed themselves to go carbon-neutral - but the resources are just not available for them to put those measures in place," said Ross Mountain, director general of DARA, a humanitarian think tank that is supporting the event.
A briefing paper issued ahead of the forum notes that only 8 percent of the $30 billion in "fast start finance" promised to help poorer nations kickstart their climate change responses between 2010 and 2012 has been disbursed so far, and nearly all that money is being diverted from planned development aid increases, rather than being new funding.
In addition, the briefing points to "a complete absence of any commitments whatsoever to provide climate finance to developing countries during the years 2013 to 2020".
At the 2009 U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, as well as pledging the fast-start funding, developed countries agreed to "mobilise" $100 billion per year by 2020. But they did not say what they would offer in climate aid in the intervening seven-year period. This ambiguity is a growing concern for vulnerable nations and could turn into a sticking point at U.N. negotiations.
CALL FOR ACTION ON EMISSIONS
The draft statement for the Dhaka forum also calls for the "immediate conclusion of a broad-based and inclusive legally binding agreement on greenhouse gas emission cuts, attaining a limiting of global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius".
It warns that any vacuum in the international framework governing emissions reductions - given that the first phase of the current mechanism, the Kyoto Protocol, expires at the end of 2012 - "could seriously endanger political and economic momentum".
A press release issued ahead of the meeting notes that vulnerable developing countries are willing to play a bigger role in limiting global warming, including through larger-scale participation in carbon markets - which many have so far had little access to - and concerted action to reduce hazardous "largely poverty-linked" non-carbon emissions, such as black carbon, methane and ozone.
No breakthrough on a new global deal to cut emissions is expected at the Durban summit, however, with diplomats and NGOs emphasising incremental progress and the improvement of existing mechanisms for monitoring and managing climate change.
Irrespective of if and when an international accord is finally crafted, countries already suffering the effects of extreme weather, such as droughts, floods and storms, and rising seas say they need better access now to the green technologies largely owned by richer nations.
According to the draft declaration for the Dhaka meeting, participating states are seeking immediate agreement to begin the transfer of technologies and relevant research they need to pursue renewable energy and green growth, and protect their water security and agricultural sectors in the face of shifting climate and weather patterns.
The statement also presses for early discussions on creating an international framework to manage climate-induced displacement, which is already a worry for low-lying island nations and countries with long coastlines such as Bangladesh.
"It's the immediacy of the effects of climate change that countries are endeavouring to get across," Mountain told AlertNet. "This is a real issue that needs to be addressed now."
A scientific report by the U.N. climate panel, the main findings of which will be issued next Friday, is expected to say that climate change has already increased the magnitude and frequency of some weather and climate extremes, and will have a worse impact in the future, making some parts of the world difficult for humans to live in.
Nations scheduled to attend the Dhaka "Climate Vulnerable Forum" on Nov. 13-14 include Bangladesh, Bhutan, Costa Rica, East Timor, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, the Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, the Philippines, Rwanda, Tanzania, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Vietnam.
"That a growing number of developing countries are pursuing green development, and continue to press for climate justice, is a message that should also give pause to the slowest-moving industrialised countries," wrote former Costa Rican president and DARA trustee José MarÃa Figueres in an online commentary on the forum.
Source
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Uganda’s zero draft submission does not link ‘green economy’ to its development challenges
By Kimbowa Richard
Uganda through its Permanent Mission to the UN made a submission to the preparatory process for the Rio+20 conference, to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012.
Among the key statistics, the submission notes that:
-The unprecedented rise in population growth (at 3.2 per cent per annum - the third highest population growth rate in the world) and joblessness especially among the youth is a challenge to the future livelihoods and living standards.
-Uganda’s economy is heavily dependent on natural capital with a population largely youth constituting 70% of it and 85% being rural based
-It also notes that the share of land covered by forests though declined from 25% in 1990 to 18% in 2006.
-Performance in child and maternal health has been less impressive – Infant mortality declined marginally from 81 in 1995 to 76 in 2005, while maternal mortality reduced from 506 to 435 over the same period
I would also like to add that:
-Over 90% of the population is dependent on biomass as a source of energy and less that 7% can access modern forms of energy (electricity, solar, LPG)
-Uganda consumes 16-18 million tonnes of firewood annually mainly in rural areas. This is equivalent to annual per capita consumption of 0.6 tonnes of air-dried wood
-charcoal production is a major industry employing 200,00 people (Kayanja and Byarugaba 2001) and contributing US$ 20m/yr to rural incomes (Knopfle 2008)
-The Ministry of Water and Environment estimates that timber production from private owned forests will be exhausted by 2013.
-Most timber is currently procured from private lands (with 70% of the forest estate) using wasteful methods.
-The demand for timber is estimated at 750,000 m3/year (Kayanja and Byarugaba 2001) compared to the current sustainable timber harvesting levels of 53,000m3/year over the next 30 years from central forest reserves.
Uganda ‘concurs’ with UNEP understanding of a green economy and emphasises the promotion of green investment in agriculture, water, waste management, forestry, energy, tourism, transport and education. However there is no link between this and the above challenges in terms of what is needed and how this can be done. In addition, the submission does not show any priority starting point (like energy) to kick-start this transition to a ‘green economy’
For example, the current power outage in the country has increased from 2 to 3 hours a day in July to up rationing lasting up to 24 hours to date. This is affecting businesses and the efficient delivery of social services (schools, health centres and banking institutions) all over Uganda. One of the reasons for this is that Uganda’s main power supplier, Umeme, has been forced to institute a load shedding programme after private suppliers Aggreko, ElectroMax, and Jecobson switched off their thermal power supply to the national grid over lack of fuel to run these ‘mega’ generators.
In my view the implication of this is that energy is an inevitable entry point that Uganda should have highlighted as a clear candidate to the transition to a green development path. This is because it impacts on the above statistics in the negative way.
For example maternal health could significantly be deterred, if health centers are equipped with power to work throughout the day and night. Also provision of modern energy sources can reduce chances of children developing respiratory complications emerging from use of biomass energy for cooking and lighting. This is where international cooperation comes in and hence should be plainly be put on the Rio+20 ‘negotiation table’
The current high population growth rate and youth unemployment is a huge challenge for Uganda in social, economic, and environmental angles. The lack of job opportunities for example is driving many to exploit the dwindling forest cover at the expense of the wider ecosystem functions and hence affecting the rain-fed agriculture on which the country depends. How then can we make use of the transition to a green economy to create (green) jobs rather than lock out more unemployed youths in a the long run? Is there any technology transfer or capacity building possibility to support this?
Such linkages is what Uganda misses in its submission to Rio + 20 secretariat that can benefit from the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities
Uganda through its Permanent Mission to the UN made a submission to the preparatory process for the Rio+20 conference, to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012.
Among the key statistics, the submission notes that:
-The unprecedented rise in population growth (at 3.2 per cent per annum - the third highest population growth rate in the world) and joblessness especially among the youth is a challenge to the future livelihoods and living standards.
-Uganda’s economy is heavily dependent on natural capital with a population largely youth constituting 70% of it and 85% being rural based
-It also notes that the share of land covered by forests though declined from 25% in 1990 to 18% in 2006.
-Performance in child and maternal health has been less impressive – Infant mortality declined marginally from 81 in 1995 to 76 in 2005, while maternal mortality reduced from 506 to 435 over the same period
I would also like to add that:
-Over 90% of the population is dependent on biomass as a source of energy and less that 7% can access modern forms of energy (electricity, solar, LPG)
-Uganda consumes 16-18 million tonnes of firewood annually mainly in rural areas. This is equivalent to annual per capita consumption of 0.6 tonnes of air-dried wood
-charcoal production is a major industry employing 200,00 people (Kayanja and Byarugaba 2001) and contributing US$ 20m/yr to rural incomes (Knopfle 2008)
-The Ministry of Water and Environment estimates that timber production from private owned forests will be exhausted by 2013.
-Most timber is currently procured from private lands (with 70% of the forest estate) using wasteful methods.
-The demand for timber is estimated at 750,000 m3/year (Kayanja and Byarugaba 2001) compared to the current sustainable timber harvesting levels of 53,000m3/year over the next 30 years from central forest reserves.
Uganda ‘concurs’ with UNEP understanding of a green economy and emphasises the promotion of green investment in agriculture, water, waste management, forestry, energy, tourism, transport and education. However there is no link between this and the above challenges in terms of what is needed and how this can be done. In addition, the submission does not show any priority starting point (like energy) to kick-start this transition to a ‘green economy’
For example, the current power outage in the country has increased from 2 to 3 hours a day in July to up rationing lasting up to 24 hours to date. This is affecting businesses and the efficient delivery of social services (schools, health centres and banking institutions) all over Uganda. One of the reasons for this is that Uganda’s main power supplier, Umeme, has been forced to institute a load shedding programme after private suppliers Aggreko, ElectroMax, and Jecobson switched off their thermal power supply to the national grid over lack of fuel to run these ‘mega’ generators.
In my view the implication of this is that energy is an inevitable entry point that Uganda should have highlighted as a clear candidate to the transition to a green development path. This is because it impacts on the above statistics in the negative way.
For example maternal health could significantly be deterred, if health centers are equipped with power to work throughout the day and night. Also provision of modern energy sources can reduce chances of children developing respiratory complications emerging from use of biomass energy for cooking and lighting. This is where international cooperation comes in and hence should be plainly be put on the Rio+20 ‘negotiation table’
The current high population growth rate and youth unemployment is a huge challenge for Uganda in social, economic, and environmental angles. The lack of job opportunities for example is driving many to exploit the dwindling forest cover at the expense of the wider ecosystem functions and hence affecting the rain-fed agriculture on which the country depends. How then can we make use of the transition to a green economy to create (green) jobs rather than lock out more unemployed youths in a the long run? Is there any technology transfer or capacity building possibility to support this?
Such linkages is what Uganda misses in its submission to Rio + 20 secretariat that can benefit from the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities
Innovative vision from Bill Gates at the G20 Summit
By nature.com, November 9, 2011
Bill Gates gave the G20 summit a workable plan to boost development around the world.
What a shame that the latest lurch of the financial crisis in Greece and the eurozone overshadowed all else at last week's G20 summit in Cannes, France. For on the agenda was a brief but important report on ways to boost funding for development, research and innovation in health and agriculture. If implemented, its suggestions would stimulate innovation and go a long way towards helping to alleviate poverty, hunger and disease. The report came from computer-tycoon-turned-philanthropist Bill Gates, and although the typically vague final G20 communiqué gave his suggestions only brief mention, that they feature at all in the current climate is a notable achievement.
Gates, the first private individual to address a G20 summit, pleaded for countries not to let the financial crisis cause them to renege on their existing pledges, which would generate an additional US$80 billion annually from 2015 onwards.
Some programmes, such as the GAVI Alliance — formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation — have seen pledges increase this year (see http://go.nature.com/qlldf4), and donors must follow through with the cash. Others have not been so lucky. Donations to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, for example, last year fell far short of its funding target (see Nature 467, 767; 2010). And the comprehensive Global Funding of Innovation for Neglected Diseases (G-Finder) report, due next month, is expected to say that most donors slashed funding for neglected-disease research and development last year — causing an overall fall of more than $100 million, or more than 5%. The risk is that the financial crisis could roll back the huge progress that has been made in both funding and outcomes for global health and research since neglected diseases returned to the international agenda in the mid-1990s — and also stymie a recent resurgence of interest in agricultural research and development (R&D) for developing nations.
To combat this threat, Gates rightly emphasized the urgent need for new funding mechanisms to boost development and make it less vulnerable to financial turmoil. And he made a compelling case for measures that, between them, could potentially raise more than $100 billion a year. Gates also put his finger on a key point: cash flow between rich and poor countries is not a one-way street of aid from donors to recipients. Many poorer nations have substantial natural resources, the revenues from which exceed that of aid. Yet countries are sometimes given raw deals by foreign companies exploiting those resources, and revenues can also end up in the bank accounts of corrupt public officials. The result is a haemorrhaging of financial resources, some of which could otherwise be spent on building labs, hospitals and sanitation systems, training researchers and doctors, or buying bed nets and drugs.
To tackle this, Gates called on the G20 countries to embrace the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a World Bank-backed scheme, launched in 2002, to oblige companies and countries to make public the terms of oil, gas and mineral deals in order to better monitor both whether the deals are fair and where that money goes. The sums involved are potential game changers that could also transform neglected diseases and agricultural R&D. Gates points out that, at peak production, Uganda's oil reserves are estimated to generate $2 billion annually, which is almost as much as the country's entire national budget of $3 billion. However, the confidentiality of the terms of deals with firms makes it impossible to track either whether countries are getting good deals, or where all the cash goes.
The EITI is gaining traction, and teeth, with US President Barack Obama announcing in September that the United States would adopt legislation to make it EITI compliant, and the European Union is considering following suit. But Gates is right to call on all G20 countries to endorse the EITI, and to force companies listed on their stock exchanges to disclose the royalties they pay to governments — and for that measure to be extended to resources such as land and timber.
Gates also called for a share of sovereign wealth funds to be invested in infrastructure, and lent his support to proposals for a small tax on tobacco and financial transactions, and a carbon tax on aviation and shipping fuel, which together could raise at least tens of billions of dollars. Financial-transaction taxes already exist in several countries, and, as Gates said, “are clearly technically feasible”. Likewise, UNITAID, an international organization that helps to accelerate development and scale-up of access to treatments for HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, is largely financed by an airline tax paid by its member states.
Gates deserves great credit for highlighting these issues and helping to keep them on the international agenda. Research leaders and politicians must press for them to remain there, and for action to follow. It would be a fitting result if the man whose operating systems forced the world to learn the keyboard sequence CTRL-ALT-DEL can spark a much-needed reboot of funding of research for development.
Source
Bill Gates gave the G20 summit a workable plan to boost development around the world.
What a shame that the latest lurch of the financial crisis in Greece and the eurozone overshadowed all else at last week's G20 summit in Cannes, France. For on the agenda was a brief but important report on ways to boost funding for development, research and innovation in health and agriculture. If implemented, its suggestions would stimulate innovation and go a long way towards helping to alleviate poverty, hunger and disease. The report came from computer-tycoon-turned-philanthropist Bill Gates, and although the typically vague final G20 communiqué gave his suggestions only brief mention, that they feature at all in the current climate is a notable achievement.
Gates, the first private individual to address a G20 summit, pleaded for countries not to let the financial crisis cause them to renege on their existing pledges, which would generate an additional US$80 billion annually from 2015 onwards.
Some programmes, such as the GAVI Alliance — formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation — have seen pledges increase this year (see http://go.nature.com/qlldf4), and donors must follow through with the cash. Others have not been so lucky. Donations to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, for example, last year fell far short of its funding target (see Nature 467, 767; 2010). And the comprehensive Global Funding of Innovation for Neglected Diseases (G-Finder) report, due next month, is expected to say that most donors slashed funding for neglected-disease research and development last year — causing an overall fall of more than $100 million, or more than 5%. The risk is that the financial crisis could roll back the huge progress that has been made in both funding and outcomes for global health and research since neglected diseases returned to the international agenda in the mid-1990s — and also stymie a recent resurgence of interest in agricultural research and development (R&D) for developing nations.
To combat this threat, Gates rightly emphasized the urgent need for new funding mechanisms to boost development and make it less vulnerable to financial turmoil. And he made a compelling case for measures that, between them, could potentially raise more than $100 billion a year. Gates also put his finger on a key point: cash flow between rich and poor countries is not a one-way street of aid from donors to recipients. Many poorer nations have substantial natural resources, the revenues from which exceed that of aid. Yet countries are sometimes given raw deals by foreign companies exploiting those resources, and revenues can also end up in the bank accounts of corrupt public officials. The result is a haemorrhaging of financial resources, some of which could otherwise be spent on building labs, hospitals and sanitation systems, training researchers and doctors, or buying bed nets and drugs.
To tackle this, Gates called on the G20 countries to embrace the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a World Bank-backed scheme, launched in 2002, to oblige companies and countries to make public the terms of oil, gas and mineral deals in order to better monitor both whether the deals are fair and where that money goes. The sums involved are potential game changers that could also transform neglected diseases and agricultural R&D. Gates points out that, at peak production, Uganda's oil reserves are estimated to generate $2 billion annually, which is almost as much as the country's entire national budget of $3 billion. However, the confidentiality of the terms of deals with firms makes it impossible to track either whether countries are getting good deals, or where all the cash goes.
The EITI is gaining traction, and teeth, with US President Barack Obama announcing in September that the United States would adopt legislation to make it EITI compliant, and the European Union is considering following suit. But Gates is right to call on all G20 countries to endorse the EITI, and to force companies listed on their stock exchanges to disclose the royalties they pay to governments — and for that measure to be extended to resources such as land and timber.
Gates also called for a share of sovereign wealth funds to be invested in infrastructure, and lent his support to proposals for a small tax on tobacco and financial transactions, and a carbon tax on aviation and shipping fuel, which together could raise at least tens of billions of dollars. Financial-transaction taxes already exist in several countries, and, as Gates said, “are clearly technically feasible”. Likewise, UNITAID, an international organization that helps to accelerate development and scale-up of access to treatments for HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, is largely financed by an airline tax paid by its member states.
Gates deserves great credit for highlighting these issues and helping to keep them on the international agenda. Research leaders and politicians must press for them to remain there, and for action to follow. It would be a fitting result if the man whose operating systems forced the world to learn the keyboard sequence CTRL-ALT-DEL can spark a much-needed reboot of funding of research for development.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)