Thursday 8 October 2009

World Bank Talk Hypocritica






The World Bank at its best.
Earlier this week – the World Bank is investing heavily in coal, despite recently warning that climate change will cripple development efforts. Talk about hypocritical!
The bank has spent $5 billion over the past three years on fossil fuel projects.
The World Bank’s chief economist for sustainable development, Marianne Fay, defends this investment given that coal remains on of the cheapest and most stable energy sources available for the 1.6 billion people who currently lack electricity.
Straight from the horses mouth:
“There are a lot of poor countries which have coal reserves and for them it’s the only option. The [bank’s] policy is to continue funding coal to the extent that there is no alternative and to push for the most efficient coal plants possible. Frankly, it would be immoral at this stage to say, ‘We want to have clean hands, therefore we are not going to touch coal’.”
Sorry Marianne, “sustainable development” and coal simply don’t mix. I agree that we need to lift people out of poverty, but coal is not the way to do it.


--
"when the voice of the people become so loud the government has no alternative but to listen" Martin Luther King Jnr.

John F. Kennedy once observed that “our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.”

Today is a great day for ambition in these climate talks



Today is a great day for ambition in these climate talks. One of the most northern countries of the World, Norway, has announced that they will reduce their emissions by 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels. At this date, it’s the biggest commitment announced by an Annex 1 country. And the first that comes anywhere close to what the science demands Compared to the targets (or lack of) from countries such as USA or Canada, this target is very significant.

This is why we have to encourage this country and to spread the word about this! Norway has show that we can be ambitious in these negotiations. They have decided to break ice today, to avoid their glaciers melting and to avoid seeing more and more devestating climate consequences around the world.

Thanks to us, the tracker team, you can live and look at this exceptional time as if you were there with. Send this link round, speak about that with the politicians you know and encourage your country to follow Norway’s lead and be more ambitious.

The fight against climate change needs courage and ambition.
John F. Kennedy once observed that “our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.”

What is Redd?



What is Redd?
It's a way of paying poor countries to protect their forests. Global deforestation accounts for nearly 20% of all CO2 emissions and all previous attempts to curb it have failed. Redd — "Reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation " would allow countries that can reduce emissions from deforestation to be paid for doing so.
Where did the idea come from?
Papua New Guinea along with nine other countries proposed it in 2005 at a UN climate meeting. It has gained ground and is now likely to be one of the cornerstones of any agreement at the Copenhagen climate conference in December. It would not start until 2013, and could eventually channel tens of billions of dollars a year from rich to poor countries.
How would it work?
Countries would have to show, from historical data, satellite imagery and through direct measurement of trees, the extent, condition and the carbon content of their forests. Verification, reporting and monitoring would be done by communities which depend on the forests or by independent organisations.
Who pays?
There are several proposals. Countries could either be paid by "voluntary funding" — rather like existing official aid given by one country to another, or cash could be linked to carbon markets One plan is for an international auction of emissions allowances and another proposes to issue Redd credits which would be tradable alongside existing certified emissions reductions (CERs). Companies and governments unable to meet their obligations to reduce emissions would then buy them at the international market price. Payment for performance.
What are the problems?
How do you measure the carbon in a forest? There is no accurate data on most of the world's forested areas and so far no one agreed way to accurately measure the carbon content of vast numbers of different species of trees in different kinds of forests. Most forested countries also do not have the money to measure and assess their forests.
What about people in the forests?
Tens of millions of people live in and many more depend on the world's forests for a living. Most are traditionally marginalised or ignored by central governments. But their lifestyles could be drastically affected if governments or carbon companies move in, valuing the forests more highly than them. There are fears of land grabs and forced evictions.
Who owns the carbon?
Land ownership is highly disputed in most forested countries. Governments would have to pass new laws to refine who owns the carbon credits. Land in some countries is owned by the communities but trees may belong to the state. Does tree ownership confer carbon rights? How do you make sure that communities who protect the forests are rewarded, rather than say logging or mining companies who often have the legal rights on trees?
What about corruption?
by corrupt politicians or illegal logging companies. Many heavily forested countries are some of the most corrupt in the world and are home to some notorious logging companies close to politicians. Policing forests is nearly impossible, and money is likely to be diverted by people in power. The likelihood of international money getting to the people who depend on the forests is unlikely. Governments can overstate the case that their forests are in danger.
What if the carbon market fails?
The market price of carbon could collapse if too many Redd credits flooded onto the market. With no financial incentive to protect the trees, people would revert to logging.

Wednesday 7 October 2009

Climate change will affect the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals




Climate change will affect the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals

Climate change will affect the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MGDs) since it will increase poverty, affect education, women and children, and plunge the whole world into a disaster.
The impacts of climate change were indiscriminate and affected anybody over 300,000 deaths are recorded annually due to climate change while over 300 million people are affected severely by climate change annually
Millions of people especially in Africa are already suffering from the effects of climate change, examples of people migrating from the drought and flood hit areas in some part of the Northern region recently.

We MUST put in place mitigation measures to reduce the effect of climate change on our people

"when the voice of the people become so loud the government has no alternative but to listen" Martin Luther King Jnr.

Kenneth Nana Amoateng
Abibimman Foundation
Ghana National Youth Coalition on Climate Change (GNYCCC)
GCAP/MDGs-Ghana
P.O.BOX BT 1 Tema
Flat 1/A 74 Site 3
(OPP T.DC),Commmunit 1
Tema-Ghana/African
E-Mail: abibimmanfoundation@gmail.com,amoatengken@yahoo.com
Tel# 233-22-213918
Mob# 2332-244023651

I'm on assignment to my generation.

Ghana has lost 45 per cent of forest cover



Ghana has lost 45 per cent of forest cover

Ghana has already lost about 45 per cent of her forest cover, and suggested an efficient regulation of the activities of chain saw operators in the country.

Currently about 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide is produced annually out of which about 17 billion tons is released into the atmosphere.Africa will reduce its carbon dioxide emission since the continent contributed very little to carbon dioxide emission globally.

Low public awareness about the subject and the effects of forest cover and climate change. emphasizing the need for people to know about the happenings , to facilitate attitudinal change among the wider public.

"when the voice of the people become so loud the government has no alternative but to listen" Martin Luther King Jnr.

Kenneth Nana Amoateng
Abibimman Foundation
Ghana National Youth Coalition on Climate Change (GNYCCC)
GCAP/MDGs-Ghana
P.O.BOX BT 1 Tema
Flat 1/A 74 Site 3
(OPP T.DC),Commmunit 1
Tema-Ghana/African
E-Mail: abibimmanfoundation@gmail.com,amoatengken@yahoo.com
Tel# 233-22-213918
Mob# 2332-244023651

Achieving the clamate change adaptation requires Political and National Leadership


Achieving the clamate change adaptation requires Political and National Leadership
Achieving the clamate change adaptation requires consistent political will from government and other state actors. It is government’s primary responsibility to put in place mitigation measures to stem the raging effects of climatic changes.
Ghana has not done so much on climate change and the imapct is beein felt currently. The rainfall patterns have currently reduced by 20 per cent. Been a developing country, it is imperative for government and other stakeholders to act now to reverse the trend.
Government as a matter of urgency should begin mass awareness creation by engaging citizens and other relevant stakeholders to mitigate its impact. Ghana also need to develop an adaptation measure to safeguard her citizens especially the poor.
“By 2020, between 75 million and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change. If coupled with increased demand, this will adversely affect livelihoods and exacerbate water-related problems.”
“Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries and regions is
projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons and yield potential, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas, are expected to decrease. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.”“Local food supplies are projected to be negatively affected by decreasing fisheries resources in large lakes due to rising water temperatures, which may be exacerbated by continued over-fishing.”
“Towards the end of the 21st century, projected sea-level rise will affect low-lying coastal
areas with large populations. The cost of adaptation could amount to at least 5-10% of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Mangroves and coral reefs are projected to be further
degraded, with additional consequences for fisheries and tourism.”

We the Youth must investment in clamate change adaptation


--
"when the voice of the people become so loud the government has no alternative but to listen" Martin Luther King Jnr.

Youth Actions at Bangkok UN climate change talks





























International Youth sound the alarm: WE ARE ON THE ROAD TO FAILURE!!

International Youth have declared "NO Confidence" in the road to Copenhagen!

This has been announced today in ayouth press conference by the International Youth attending the UN climate change talks here in Bangkok.The delegation cited the failure of reaching a committment from developed countries on strong targets, agrowing concern that asecond committment period in the Kyoto protocal will not be secured, and a lack of guarantees for protection of Indegeneous people's rights and interests,in its Declaration.

The current text of the draft climate deal is so weak and so full of "false solutions"-measures like offsetting that actually make the problem worse-it is currently unacceptable.

"Youth are sounding the alarm.These talks have been polluted by self-interested corporations and countries looking to profit off of our crisis," said Joshua Russell from US and Rainforest Action Network. " We can not allow rich countries to use U.S inaction as an excuse to kill United States or any other single country. We see Copenhage n as abeginning, not an ending.We will not accept adirty deal."

One young person from each country, organisers from an international youth climate movement of hundreds of thousands,addressed those attending the negotiations today.
"My people are exeperiencing the severe effects of cliamate change," said Anil Rimal from Nepalese Youth Climate Action."This is happening now, not in 2050 , and people are loosing their lives, homes and livelihoods. We can not afford to delay global action."

"The youth have been looking to the rich developed countries like the EU to take a leading role to secure an ambitious climate change deal in Copenhagen," said Ann Collins from the UK Youth Climate Coalition." They arwe failing us".

With less than two weeks of negotiations remaining before Copen hagen meeting, the pressure is on developed countries to commit to providing finance and atleast a 40% reduction in e missions by 2020. " if they do not, we will witness the derailment of this climate deal in Copenhagen." said Grace Mwaura from Kenya.

Paulina Monforte from the Youth Environmental Network of Yucatan, Mexico countinued by saying " any agreement in Copenhagen must include the numbers 1.5 degrees and 350ppm order to afeguard the survival of all nations peoples."

"Young people all arround the world are working locally and internationally for gueniune solutions." Concluded Gemma Tillack from the Australian Wilderness Society. " We are building a strong civil society and working in our communities and will not give up on a strong and fair climate agreement. We will never give up, because it is our future at risk."

Tuesday 6 October 2009

African Youth back up Civil Society Voice

In the press confererence organised by the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) on 5th Oct here at Bangkok,on behalf of the african civil society organisations, The African Youth representatives joined and backed up the African Civil society Organisation's working on climate change issues! African CSO call on industrilised countries to fufill their committments under the Convention and its kyoto protocal including the polluters pay principle! Provision of adeqaute and predictable financing for adaptaion, mitigation and technology transfer and capacity building for developing countries, deep emmision cuts atleats by 45%below by 2020 and 90% reduction by 2050 by the so called annex1 countries.

Thursday 1 October 2009

WHY WORLD BANK ? WHY AFRICAN? NOT AGAIN THIS TIME


WHY WORLD BANK ? WHY AFRICAN? NOT AGAIN THIS TIME

UNFCCC recognises the need for financial resources to be provided to developing countries to assist them in meeting the costs of mitigation and adaptation measures” is inaccurate.
Developing country parties to the UNFCCC do not need assistance’” in the conventional understanding of the term. Instead, it is the legally binding obligation of developed country parties to provide the necessary “new and additional” financial resources to meet the costs incurred by developing countries to implement all their obligations under the Convention, and not just for mitigation and adaptation. Financial resources are therefore obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC and not considered as development aid.
“The provision of financial resources to developing countries, as well as transfer of technology, are commitments of developed country parties to the Convention, so there is no donor-donee relationship within the Convention. This flows from the application of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities which is reflected in the Convention, from its preamble, to the objectives, principles, commitments, implementing articles and the functions of all the main bodies of the Convention”, said the negotiator.
Specifically, in order to address criticisms that the funds were inconsistent with the provisions of the UNFCCC and threatened to undermine negotiations under the Convention, the new proposals for the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) and the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) now include four introductory pages reciting various provisions of the UNFCCC and reiterating the funds’ consistency with the UNFCCC process.
Additionally, the Bank mistakenly conflates the UN with the UNFCCC, with the UNFCCC being a negotiated, internationally binding treaty separate from the UN as a general entity. Developing countries have argued that financial resources disbursed in fulfilment of obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC should be placed under the authority (and not just guidance) of the Convention’s Conference of Parties (COP).
The fact that the CIF will not come under the authority of the UNFCCC COP in itself is a reflection of the climate investment funds’ inconsistency with the UNFCCC provisions and in disregard of developing countries’ demands under the Convention.
Although Article 11 of the UNFCCC (used by the World Bank to justify the CIF) states that “developed country parties may also provide and developing country parties avail themselves of financial resources related to the implementation of the Convention through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels”, the developing country negotiator points out that the parties had decided that such funding “through channels outside the Convention’ should be consistent with the policies, programme priorities and guidance provided by the parties”.
Furthermore, developing countries under the Convention have called strongly for “direct access” to any funds established for the purposes of meeting obligations under the UNFCCC and not access mediated by secondary institutions, such as MDBs and other agencies, because “in the end, countries do the implementation, not the institutions”, said the negotiator.
The negotiator expressed surprise that proponents of the climate investment funds claimed that there was an absence of similar instruments providing financing for climate change activities to be financed by CIF resources: “There already exist within the Convention a number of mechanisms and processes for identifying needs, setting programmes and priorities, setting eligibility criteria, conducting needs assessments (vulnerabilities, technologies, financial), capacity building and mechanisms for reporting, measuring and verification, which we must all strengthen rather than set aside so that another institution which claims it knows the Convention than the Parties do can do it”.
The negotiator also pointed out that the Bank has made a serious error in its proposals when referring to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) as “the financial mechanism of the Convention” when the GEF is only “an operating entity” of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC. Although the GEF remains the only entity under the mechanism at present, this does not preclude the parties to the Convention designating another facility as an operating entity to carry out the task of providing financing under the treaty.
Developing countries have consistently rejected the notion that GEF is “designated as the financial mechanism of the Convention” as the Bank asserts, because “we do not believe that it fulfils an important criterion of the financial mechanism - that it has an equitable and balanced representation of all parties within a transparent system of governance’“.
The GEF, like the proposed climate investment funds, has a system of governance that is not under the authority of the UNFCCC COP and remains contingent upon donor contributions. Although the GEF is supposed to come under the guidance of the COP, the guidance remains to be interpreted by the GEF trust fund committees and implemented according to their interpretation.
Similarly, while the revised CIF proposals allude to the UNFCCC, they do not locate the CIF within the framework of the Convention. The proposed governance structure of the CIF, while revised from earlier drafts which gave donor countries overriding control over the funds and now provides for equitable representation from donor and recipient governments on the respective trust fund committees, remains problematic for this reason.
This highlights the fundamental flaw with the Bank’s climate investment funds which is that they have been designed and promoted by donor countries with considerable stealth and speed and without significant input from developing countries. Stakeholder comments were only invited on the blueprint drafted by Bank staff and approved by potential donor countries. There was no opportunity to discuss whether or not the Bank was the most appropriate institution to be helming this initiative.
Moreover, there is evidence that many such “interim” funds established under the auspices of the World Bank have expanded rather than shrunk over the years, such as the Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF) aimed at providing a temporary instrument for pioneering carbon transactions while the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - the Kyoto Protocol’s mechanism for carbon trading - was being developed and made operational. According to a report by the Washington-based think tank, the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network (SEEN), nine years on and $2 billion later, “the World Bank’s carbon portfolio has expanded to 11 funds and carbon financing has become a mainstream’ part of its overall lending program”.
There is also no guarantee that the resources from the CIF will be transferred to a UNFCCC fund. The new proposals merely state that upon termination of the SCF and CTF, the trustee (in this case, the World Bank), “will endeavour to transfer donors’ pro-rata shares to another fund which has a similar objective as the [SCF or CTF] as determined by the Trust Fund Committee[s]” unless the donors choose to have their shares returned.
Consequently, while the new proposals allude to the UNFCCC, they reflect a poor understanding of the status and terms of the Convention and their implications for developed and developing country parties to the treaty. Moreover, the concerns which have been raised by developing countries and civil society groups about the design of the funds and the nature of the process by which they have been proposed, have not been seriously taken into account.
Primarily, the proposed funds continue to be premised on an aid framework for climate financing placing climate change financing on a donor-recipient platform for engagement rather than as resources disbursed to meet commitments under international law. The creation of the CIF also supports the World Bank’s increasing encroachment into climate change financing and policymaking, a role which has been heavily criticised given its track record on the environment.
According to Bank documents, the Strategic Climate Fund will be comprised of targeted programmes aimed at providing financing to pilot new approaches to reduce carbon emissions and create greater climate resilience in developing countries while the Clean Technology Fund is aimed at accelerating transformation to low-carbon economies through cost effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the development and deployment of “clean technologies” in developing countries.
By Celine Tan, Warwick,

The of Arican Express

The of Arican Express


Position

To request developed countries to commit themselves to at lest 40% emission reduction by 2020 according to the science and in the same time they must commit to assist us to adapt to climate change and where appropriate and voluntary expressed to mitigate using for example the Kyoto flexible mechanism


Disappointed

Developed countries showed lack of commitments to take on meaningful emission reduction targets required to stabilized atmospheric GHGs which is reduction to the survival of vulnerable continents especially African

Concerned

About the progress so for under KP and urge the speeding up of negotiations so that we have a comprehensive outcome in Copenhagen .otherwise the historical opportunity to correct the climate crisis will be missed and this will affect the integrity of the convention and the Kyoto protocol

Acknowledge

Acknowledge the new Japanese pledge to reduce its emission and encourage other Annex I Parties to scale-up their pledges in order to enhance the outcome in Copenhagen

Support

To ensure that the process is supported by effective consultations, clarifications and open dialogues with all groups

LET THE COMMITTMENTS BE LEGALLY BINDING

LDCs seek for legal binding commitments from the Developed countries to finance climate change adaptations implementation programme
• In the meeting of the Contact group on enhanced action on Adaptation and its associated means of Implementation that took place on 30th September 2009 in conference room 2, UN building Bangkok, at 10:00-11:30 facilitated by Thomas, negotiators from developing countries emphasized and expressed more concern over increased and non conditional funding of climate change adaptation implementation programmes in the vulnerable countries. The Bangladesh on behalf of the LDCs also suggests that the current text in the negotiation document still loose on how urgent and emergent will the implementation funds be available. South Africa on a related note seeks to ensure that an international comprehensive adaptation implementation programme be adopted from these negotiations.Bangaledsh seeks that this fund be apublic fund controlled by parties and at least in arrange of 600 billion US dollars in addition to parties capacity building. Developed countries however, and Norway in particular ,still needs to know from the developing countries which specific actions to be supported in the adaptations implementation programme and also requested this very contact group (adaptation and implementation) to avail linkages in the document to the Financing contact group of the negotiations. Issues of the implementation programme being spear headed by the respective national planning units, sounds more of generic, Norway mentions! Colombia however, emphasizes that in the adaptation implementation programme, indigenous peoples’ representation must be given a higher consideration as well as strategic Information, Education and Communication system. Global south youth, the issue is here on your table, what is our action in support or not, on these upcomings??

By David Ssomwegerere
Energy Crossroads,
Uganda

What about the Future..

With a great concern I have been following on the negotiation and I am attentive to the following items THE FUTURE, THE YOUTH and THE CO2. the negotiations have this big acronyms and terminologies and very well structured sentences which are quite good for a good publication..
If the question of climate change is about the future, who is the future? Is it not the Youth? Is it not the future generation?? If it is about the future generation, why are the items Youth and Future generation, not been mentioned in the current documents under negotiation as many time as the CO2??