|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 20th, 2010 Press Conference at the UN World Water Day Monday, 22 March, 2010 H.E. President of the UN General Assembly , H.E. Prime Minister of Tajikistan H.E. Jan Eliasson This high-level dialogue provides an important input to the preparatory process for the Summit on the Millennium Development Goals to be held on 20-22 September 2010, and feeds into the High-Level International Conference on water to be hosted by Tajikistan in June 2010. ————————- The problem with the above press conference, which is part of the daily UN Spokesperson’s Briefing to the Press, is that the UN General Assembly President is Ali Treki, the Foreign Minister of Libya who was declared practically non-person by the Schengen countries, so he is unwelcome to Europe {a President of the UNGA – mind you – no less}, and Oqil Ghaybulloyevich Oqilov, Prime Minister of Tajikistan, just recently host to Ahmedi-Nejad of Iran, and whose country is turning into a pro-Iranian satellite. The fact that the UN water conference will be held in Tajikistan must have to do something with the push for legitimization by some of the world’s less palatable regimes. That leaves the Honorable Jan Eliason, a friend from the days he served at the UN, and a friend of humanity, the only person worthwhile on that UN panel. We say this with full knowledge that water and climate change are indeed main problems for Libya and Tajikistan, but we just do not believe that the other two speakers on that dais have shown politically real interest in this topic. We are curious what journalists will show up and how far can questioning be allowed by the UN, and by the UN General Assembly, Spokesmen. ————————- Monday 04 January 2010 Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid wreath at the statue of Ismail Samani a former king here on Monday. After welcome ceremony held by Tajikistan’s Prime Minister Oqil Oqilov, Ahmadinejad started talks with his Tajik counterpart Imomali Rakhmon. During the talks, the two presidents signed three memoranda of understanding, two documents on cooperation and a statement on expansion of bilateral relations. Later in the day, Ahmadinejad is planned to deliver speech to a group of resident Iranians at Ibn Sina Hospital, built by Iran’s private sector in the country. He is also due to inaugurate an Iranology center in the Tajikistan’s medical university. —— Saturday 09 January 2010
The Iranian president was officially seen off by his Turkmen counterpart Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov. He was in Turkmenistan to attend the inaugural ceremony of the first phase of Iran-Turkmenistan’s second gas pipeline project. The 182-km pipeline was inaugurated by the Iranian and Turkmen presidents earlier on Wednesday. President Ahmadinejad was in the region on a three-day visit which had brought him earlier to Tajikistan. He discussed major bilateral, regional and international developments with senior Tajik and Turkmen officials. A number of agreements were also signed by Iranian officials and their Tajik and Turkmen counterparts for promotion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the two Central Asian capitals. —– Saturday 09 January 2010 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concluded his two-nation tour to the Central Asian region and arrived in Tehran on Wednesday afternoon. Upon his arrival, the Iranian president was welcomed by Supreme Leader’s Advisor for International Affairs Ali Akbar Velayati, 1st Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as well as a number of high ranking officials and ministers. Speaking to reporters at the airport, President Ahmadinejad described his visits to Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as very fruitful and promising. He discussed major bilateral, regional and international developments with senior Tajik and Turkmen officials. A number of agreements were also signed by Iranian officials and their Tajik and Turkmen counterparts for promotion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the two Central Asian capital cities. —– Saturday 09 January 2010 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that world’s destiny will be decided in the Middle East. “Iran and Syria should in a joint mission establish new world order based on monotheism, justice and humanity,” President Ahmadinejad told Syrian parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash. He said the world is on verge of big developments and the tyrannical systems are fading. “Iran and Syria shoulder a crucial role in present juncture and their cooperation should further expand,” he added. The 30-year resistance of Iran and Syria is almost close to the victory stage, said the President, adding, “Resistance of nations, including Iran and Syria, has thwarted all the conspiracies of the imperialistic system in the political, economic, military and ideological domains.” The President went on to say that construction of the wall of separation in the occupied lands and of the steel war in Gaza all show the Zionist regime’s vulnerability. “The US government too will have to end up its interventions in the region and get its forces out of there.” Al-Abrash said in return that expansion of relations and cooperation among Muslim states, including Iran and Syria, has nullified enemy conspiracies.
———————————— For more information and the full programme of the day, please see: www.un.org Jonathan Rich, WaterAid, Tel.: +1 347 262 9115, Email: jonathan at jcrcommunications.com ————————————- Let the clean water flowBy CAROLINE BOIN, The Japan Times online, Saturday, March 20, 2010
LONDON — The 18th annual World Water Day (March 22) offers the same old problems and rejects the practical solutions. On Monday, 1 billion people will, as usual, spend the day without clean water and a third of humanity without adequate sanitation. As usual, some 3.5 million men, women and children will die from related diseases this year. Yet many nongovernment organizations and politicians still prefer ideology to ideas, spurning what the private sector delivers to the world’s poor. Activists often claim to be defending the poor from profit-maximizing corporations. But this has more to do with dogma than reality. Given that less than 10 percent of world water management is private, it is hard to see how they can blame corporations for poor supply. In fact, it is governments that mismanage water and misallocate it to political cronies and powerful lobbies such as farmers. The poor, in rural areas or slums, are left unconnected and unable to do much about it. Anti-privatization groups keep repeating that water should be provided by government but ignore that government has been the worst enemy of the poor. On another tack, the World Development Movement and similar groups claim that the private sector has done little for the poor, having connected only three million people in developing countries over the past 15 years. But this figure excludes Latin America and Southeast Asia where private water management — and the number of people getting water — has boomed since the 1990s. In Argentina, for example, privately managed areas got lower water prices, more connections and a drop in infectious diseases and child deaths. Activists have further misrepresented private supply by focusing on multinationals while ignoring the small-scale water vendors who get water to people whom governments have abandoned. In many African cities, they sell plastic water sachets to passersby, while in Paraguay 500 aguateros supply nearly half a million people using tankers and piped water. A World Bank researcher found in 1998 that “in most cities in developing countries, more than half the population gets basic water service from suppliers other than the incumbent official utility.” Country surveys suggest that the situation has changed little since then. The World Health Organization, like activists, disregards these “informal” water vendors, bottled water and tankers. It refuses to consider them as “improved water sources” as they are unregulated, unpredictable and allegedly incapable of serving a mass market. But to the hundreds of millions of people who rely on them, there is nothing incapable about private water providers. For many, they are the difference between life and death. Informal water vendors come in all types, but they all provide water for profit. Their clients are among the most poorly prepared to pay to protect their families from disease and to put their time to better use than searching for clean water. The success of these private water services throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia disproves the claim that the poor are too poor to pay for water and that the private sector has no incentive to serve them. In fact, the poor often pay more for water than those in prosperous areas with “formal” supplies. A World Bank survey of South American cities found that, on average, trucked water costs four to 10 times more than the public network’s price. In Kibera, the Nairobi slum of about 1 million people, jerry-can water sells at four times the average price in Kenya. Activists who accuse the private sector of putting profits before people should realize three things. First, water vendors would stop providing water and sanitation if they did not make a profit. Second, governments are largely to blame for the higher prices because they constrain or outlaw private supply. Finally, people buy from vendors willingly, often with a choice of suppliers. Water is severely under-priced in China, at around a third of the world average. As a consequence 300 million rural people have no safe drinking water. Where vendors do operate, people are prepared to pay up to 10 times the connected cost. The theme of this year’s World Water Day is quality, so legalizing the work of water vendors should be a priority. They could then own sources, land and infrastructure, get credit and expand operations, serving more people at cheaper rates with cleaner water. It is these small-scale ventures — not empty government promises — that can quickly improve water supplies for the poor. Caroline Boin is a project director at International Policy Network, London, which focuses on economic development.
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 1st, 2010 e-consultation on setting of an independent scientific body on land degradation/desertification from: Pam Chasek Dear Colleagues, We invite you to participate in a global scientific e.consultation on the needs, usefulness and options of an independent, international, interdisciplinary scientific advisory body on land degradation/desertification. The proposed body would primarily provide scientific advice to the United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification (UNCCD) to aid decision-making to combat land degradation and to achieve sustainable land management and development in drylands. It may also be relevant to various on-going efforts to harmonize knowledge on land matters. DesertNet International and UNU-INWEH have developed this e.forum to canvass contributions from different regions and interested parties on this issue and as an input into the decision made at COP9 that requests the Committee on Science and Technology (CST) to assess how to organise international, interdisciplinary scientific advice. This activity thus, supports the follow-up of the first scientific-style UNCCD conference to the CST SS-2 in 2010 which will be making recommendations to COP10 of the UNCCD. Please note that in the e.forum survey questionnaire you have to press the <save> button before proceeding to the next question! Please forward this e.mail also to other experts. The e.forum starts on 25 January 2010 and will end on 25 March 2010. We acknowledge the generous assistance and sponsorship of the GTZ CCD Project in this exercise. Best regards, ******************************************************************** Richard Thomas Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. 300 East 56th Street #11A New York, NY 10022 USA Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 22nd, 2010 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/tech… U.S. Secretary of State Clinton urges China to probe Google case. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday urged China to investigate cyber intrusions that led Google Inc. GOOG-Q to threaten to pull out of that country – and challenged Beijing to openly publish its findings. “Countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century,” she said, adding that the U.S. and China “have different views on this issue, and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently.” “Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks,” she said. “They have expunged words, names and phrases from search engine results,” Ms. Clinton said. “They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in nonviolent political speech.” “Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions,” she added. “I hope that their competitors and foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend.” She then raised the Google case. “We look to Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement,” she said, referring to Google’s recent statement that it is reconsidering its business operations in China. “We also look for that investigation and its results to be transparent.” —————- Further - Ms. Clinton wants to see INTERNET FREEDOM AS A PLANK OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY – she says that an attack on one Nation’s computer network should be seen, what it really is, an attack on all! Censorship should not be accepted by any company, and American companies must take a principled stand she further said. The US will place a “demarche” with China – a diplomatic move of protest showing its displeasure with the way China treated Google. The US is not ready to accept that this is a mere business squabble. We follow this logic and think the US should also express its displeasure the way certain well placed UN Department of Public Information officials use their positions to intefere with the dissemination of news at the UN. One outside the UN New York Times investigative reporter had looked into this three years ago, but her worldwide distributed article had no impact on the UN, neither did we see the US making a “demarche” to Mr. Ban Ki-moon. Could the State Department under the Hillary Clinton baton have a look there too? Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 29th, 2009 Finally a second shoe comes of at the UN Department of Public Information that services the Ban Ki-moon UN Administration. After the replacement of the officer in charge of Media Accreditation, now also a new Spokesperson. November 30, 2009 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is getting a new Spokesperson – a real professional – Martin Nesirky – that will hail from Vienna where he was not just spokesman for over three years at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) but was also Head of Press and Public Information. Nesirky will replace Michele Montas of Haiti who served since the beginning of the term of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, January 1, 2007, till now, November 30, 2009, thus leaving one month ahead of the end of a three years contract. Ms. Montas is retiring from the UN. More recently Mr. Nesirky in his Spokesman capacity at OSCE was instrumental in navigating the Russia backed OSCE Chairmanship for Kazakhstan for 2010. At the UN he may find his personal talents helpful in creating a new persona for the UN Secretary-General whose popularity with parts of the UN have hit a low, at a time that his reelection for a second term will be put on the table. Ms. Montas whom he replaces had none of such credentials. Prior to her appointment, Montas headed the French unit of UN Radio. From 2003 to 2004, she served as the Spokesperson for UN General Assembly President Julian Robert Hunte, of Saint Lucia, soon after she fled to New York from Haiti. In Haiti, she and her husband were also radio journalists and activists. Her husband was killed in Haiti, and she escaped to New York. We can vouch that in her first several months in the job Mr. Ban Ki-moon set her up, she had no understanding or patience for subjects of climate change – not even when the subject was raised in connection to killings going on in Africa, or the dangers to Small Island Member States of the UN. Not even in matters of the Middle East – she seemed as a fish out of water and effectively harming positions that the SG might have been more forthcoming. In press conferences of the SG she allowed only questions that she thought he would be interested in while guarding him from such questions as climate change. The anemic answer was: “As you know, the SG has been encouraging all of the relevant bodies to deal with climate change and its effects across a variety of fields.At this stage, however, what the SG is concerned with is making sure that Member states and leaders at the highest level will come to Copenhagen to deal precisely with all of the challenges of climate change and seal a deal that can help resolve all the various problems that member States face.” That was quite a lame answer from the source of “Hopenhagen” and a clear show why finally the UN deserves a professional Spokesperson it was denied during the first three years of the Ban Ki-moon Administration of the UN. The Correspondent continued with his insistence for an answer: Final answer from the Associate Spokesperson: “It’s always up to the Security Council which matters it chooses to take up under rubric of peace and security issues.” ———————————– N.B. - to be fair to Michele Montas - ———————————- P.S. – On November 23, 2009 Martin Nesirky met the media correspondents to the UN and said: A couple of things I just wanted to mention. First of all, I’m really looking forward to working with all of you; getting to know you. This is a huge challenge, of course, and I’m very keen to try to get to know you so I can help you the best that I can. That’s the first thing. The second thing is that, needless to say, I do read what’s being written. And I think there are a couple of things I’d like to make absolutely clear and very straight at the beginning. My language skills: I speak German, I speak Russian, I speak English after a fashion, I speak a little bit of Korean and an even smaller amount of French. I realize that it’s very, very important to be able to speak French. I’m going to be doing as the Secretary-General has done, which is to take extra French classes to improve on that. And that’s really all I wanted to say on that matter. The other is that I really believe that coming from outside the UN has advantages and disadvantages. You will have to bear with me as I get to know the system that you, many of you, know far better than I probably will ever do. But I am very keen to work with you so that you can help me to help you to have the stories that you need to write. Also, it seems that the UN expects Mr. Nesirky to start his work at the UN on only December 7th, which is coincidentally the day the Copenhagen Conference opens officially, does it mean that he will be there, or it means that Marie Okabe will be there and he will be in New York? We shall see! Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 28th, 2009 Kazakhstan is the ninth largest country in the world – equal in size to all of Western Europe, four times the size of Texas, five times the size of France, and has 16.5 million people. Its present GNP per capita is $6,140. It passed a Sovereignty Declaration October 25, 1990 and became an Independent State December 16, 1991 claiming to be a fledgling secular democracy – true enough when one judges by it having become a hub where various religions can meet freely – that is like having at the same table leading Jews from Israel, Shiia from Iran, Sunni from Saudi Arabia, and every Christian Denomination, with further participants from the various religions of East and South Asia. Kazakhstan attracted our attention early and our website has had several articles regarding Kazakhstan. Mr. Nursultan Nazarbayev is elected President of Kazakhstan since independence, and after the Constitution reform of 1995, his first constitutional term started in 1999 and was then reelected for further 7 years term December 4, 2007. Kazakhstan exports Oil. gas, uranium, ferrous and nonferrous metals, coal, chemicals, wool, meat and grain. From our website’s angle, we are thinking of the terrible environmental problems that Kazakhstan inherited from the Soviet rulers, the awareness of its people of this environmental damage, and a high potential for the introduction of renewable energy to the country, while at the same time aiming at becoming a hub of peace in its region. Kazakhstan is an important US ally in that part of the world. A Kazakh woman is the head of the Asian Environmental Journalists group. When we learned about the November 23-24, 2009 New York City, Harvard Club, Conference, we made it a point of interest that we wanted to participate. For those interested in further information beyond what we will be able to bring forward – please look up www.kazakhhembus.com and www.newsdeskmedia.com – organization headed by Alan Spence, that put together this conference – and www.kazakhinvest.com ————– This was a pure economic encounter with many companies that already do business in Kazakhstan, in attendance, i.e. IBM, GE, CONOCO Phillips (the President and COO), and Federal Express, and with quite a few officials of Kazakhstan present – Galymzhan Primatov the Vice-President, Bolat Zhamishev, the Minister of Finance, Daniyar Akishev, Deputy Chairman of the National Bank, Nurbek Rayev, Vice-minister of Industry and Trade, Asset Magauov the Vice-minster of Energy and Mineral Resources, Erlan S. Kozhasbay the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Kairat Umarov, the Deputy Foreign Minister, Erlan Idrissov, the Ambassador to Washington and Richard Hoagland the US Ambassador to Kazakhstan. Also, Mr. Daniel Poneman, the US Deputy Secretary of Energy and Edward Chow, Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program at CSIS in Washington DC. ———- In these days when everyone thinks about the economic crises first let us see what that meant to Kazakhstan: “Kazakhstan has stepped into the global economic crisis together with the Western countries and taken steps to come out at the same time with the Western Countries” – told me one of the Kazakh officials. Today, even in the most prosperous nations, the largest financial and industrial giants are distressed, hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs, and many businesses are closed. Kazakhstan didn’t stay apart from the adverse effect of the crisis, however, it adequately has been coping with its impact. Similar to the actions of Obama Administration, and earlier Bush Administration, leadership of Kazakhstan is fully aware of global vital risk affecting every single country without exception. In fact, in January 2009, immediately responding to the warning signals of global markets, President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev has developed and adopted an anti-crisis program. Further, government has actively pursued its implementation. The anti-crisis program is focused on five main directions: - Stabilizing the financial sector; Since the beginning of 2009 the Government of Kazakhstan has spent $15 billion for these purposes. This amount equals 14% of GDP in Kazakhstan. Globally, the figure amounts 15% of GDP in many countries. So, Kazakhstan is implementing its anti-crisis measures at the level of the developed countries. It is important to draw attention to Kazakhstan’s “know-how” entitled Roadmap Program, which is already bearing fruits. The program contains around 5,000 projects addressing issues of unemployment - creating new jobs, improving education, supporting youth, food security, etc. 2,203 projects have been implemented to date, and 70% of funds pledged to the anti-crisis measures have been absorbed. As the result of the project 256,000 jobs were created and 231,000 people were employed. Compared with last year the volume of social benefits has significantly increased. Government has signed 8,000 memorandums with private companies, saving jobs to a million people. Agriculture is one of the priority sectors of the economy. Since the beginning of the year farmers have implemented development projects in amount of $420 million. The area under cultivation has increased by 1.7 million hectares. The government has secured the country from food crisis. 40,000 tons of grain are stored in the state granaries. These actions were directed to support macroeconomic stability, business activity in the economy, and the financial system of the country. Decrease in GDP because of worsening inflation, and unemployment, has been stopped. It is fair to say that Kazakhstan has managed to avoid the worst-case economic scenario, and create the preconditions for post-crisis development. International experts and analysts have agreed with the anti-crisis measures undertaken by the Government of Kazakhstan. Rating agency Standard & Poor’s raised the outlook of the Republic of Kazakhstan from “negative” to “stable” followed by the ensuing public policy of banking system stabilization. According to the analysts of the agency, outlook revision reflects the new strategy of the government to restrict the amount of potential contingent liabilities arising from problems in the banking sector, and providing adequate resources to maintain the confidence of customers, and to enable the banking system to function, supporting the economy, despite any difficulties that may arise in the nearest future. Director of the Strategic Analysis at the Russian Consulting Company FBK, Igor Nikolayev, believes that timeliness played an important role in the effectiveness of the Anti-crisis Program in Kazakhstan. “The fact that the program was adopted on 13 January, and not 19 June, as in Russia, already has a great significance as six months delay is fraught with many consequences,” – said the economist. Some of the positive directions of the Kazakh program are saving government investment in infrastructure, support of consumer demand, as well as establishment of a special fund which deals with the purchase of “bad” assets from lending institutions, noted Nikolaev. Work of the Government of Kazakhstan to support the banking system of the republic has been frequently commended by the international expert community – Kazakhstani Anti-crisis Program is a milestone in the development of the economy. Thus, the current economic situation in Kazakhstan can be characterized by the process of overcoming the most acute phase of crisis, and the need to define a new range of problems – the transition from the rapid action to implementation of the activities in the long term. It seems that Kazakhstan has stepped into the crisis together with the western economies, and will together come out of it. The current situation proves that the country, having tried for principles based on values of democracy, which can be attributed to the Kazakhstan experience, has proven itself. Decisions of the Kazakhstani leaders in terms of ensuring stable growth of the country’s economy, as a factor in the global economy, were well-timed, helping to establish a positive image of Kazakhstan as a responsible developing country. —— Chris Robbins, a travel writer who likes to write as literature, authored “Apples from Kazakhstan” and pointed out the importance of the Silk Roads, and when these were replaced by ships it lead to 450 years that Kazakhstan vanished from the West’s eye. Yes, apples came from Kazakhstan, but then nothing happened until the 19th century British push into the region – followed by Russia and eventually the Soviet 90 nuclear tests that chewed up the country. The Scythian gold, Genghis Khan and the Mongols originated from these steps. Now they had 50 synagogues in this basically Muslim country. On the panel moderated by the Kazakhstan ambassador to Washington was Evan Feigenbaum of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, who pointed out the two main topics for the Kazakh development (a) Developing the Energy Resources and bringing them to the market, and Economic Diversification in such areas as urban transit and highways. But we also learned that the US has moved the five Central Asian States away from the Russian desk at the Department of State, first to their own desk, but now to South Asia. This is significant as we see the attempt to create for these States a joint policy rather with India – and not Russia or China. On that panel was the President of CONOCOPhillips, John Craig, the US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Jonathan Elkind, and others mainly involved in oil. I was shocked, when despite the mention of renewables in the topic, and others having spoken on DIVERSIFICATION, this panel had no word for anything but oil. I heard – “oil and gas is “center of our interest.” Fair enough – the US must diversify its dependence on oil from the Gulf area, but why not mention something also about the potential of renewable energy in Kazakhstan – and potential there is indeed? So I had to raise the question to the panel – “As we heard of concrete examples of US proposals to Kazakhstan in oil & gas, what are the concrete proposals the US took to Kazakhstan in renewables?” The answer made it clear that this panel was not prepared to answer such a question at a time the US has on its own to answer also this sort of “alternate questions” in other locations i.e. Copenhagen, and we know that Washington is working hard on making right this sort of proposals. Another energy area is the development of Uranium mines in Kazakhstan – hopefully this time less polluting then in the Soviet days. The Kazakh Vice-minister of Energy and Mineral Resources did say that he found here interest in developing wind energy in Kazakhstan – “someone connected to the UN told him so.” In the South of the country there is up to 3,000 hours solar/year. They have selected sites and work with Ambassadors back home. They also have potential for small hydro in the mountains, he said. That sounded fine, but why was there no emphasis on this by the US side of the panel? We heard rather about the structure of the oil market the various ways one gets out the oil from Kazakhstan to markets, and about a future that will need also the country’s Uranium. The moderator, Tim Gitzel, Senior VP and COO, Cameco Corporation – a publicly traded nuclear company with 11 operating sites in 3 countries is obviously interested in Uranium. Then one of the Kazakh delegates asked the President of Conoco about the Caspian Sea being a lake, and the oil project is not insured – what if there is a spill? Good question – not much of an answer! He also mentioned high octane fuel but did not say the word ethanol – something I hope the Kazakhs will carefully study some more. The Export-Import Bank of the US must by law allocate funds to small businesses also (20%) so, here, there is a way to do some good perhaps? Doris Bradbury of the American Chamber of Commerce in Kazakhstan told me that only a single one of the 255 members is interested in Renewable Energy he looks into solar panels. Lancaster Holding presented a series of industrial parks that are being developed, and FedEx is establishing its hub close to Almaty for the lines Shanghai – Frankfurt and Guangjou – Paris. GE plans for Kazakhstan are amplified by an Azerbaijan firm planning for a Caspian – Black Sea transshipment Corridor. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 20th, 2009 Svetlana Dylevskaya, an experienced Central Asian senior environment journalist and Network Editor of the Green Women Environmental Media Agency, Kazakhstan and Central Asian Network for Ecological Journalists(CANEJ) has taken up the role of chair of the Asia Pacific forum of Environmental Journalists(APFEJ).She is also the first women president of APFEJ as well as the first person to become APFEJ president from Central Asia. Following on from its 18th APFEJ World Congress of Environmental Journalists- Colombo, Sri Lanka, October 19- 22, 2009, APFEJ, announced the newly elected 19-member Administrative Council who will serve for the term 3 year term(2009 October to 2012 October). APFEJ can be rightly proud of the active participation of the attendees, more than 103 Environmental Journalists, opinion makers from 34 countries. A new APFEJ administrative Council is in place and ready to forward the APFEJ ’s directives. At the meeting, a new structure for APFEJ was proposed this includes appointing 45 country coordinators from Asia Pacific countries. As per the constitution of APFEJ, the administrative Council is elected through its full, associate and individual membership categories. Of the 19 APFEJ administrative Council members there are 8 women representatives. The Asia-Pacific Forum of Environmental Journalists(APFEJ) is a network and regional association founded in 1988, dedicated to promoting education understanding and awareness of the environment through the honest and accurate reporting of local, regional and international environmental and development issues. It acted as the head of national environmental journalist forums or media organizations of 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The APFEJ ad hoc committee was formed in 1985 at a regional conference on media and environment in Delhi organized by UN-ESCAP in collaboration with the UNEP.Today, APFEJ,is the oldest and largest organization of professional environmental journalists, contacts over 12,000 members around the world. The mission of APFEJ to build into a strong,independent and committed to promote excellence in environmental journalism worldwide by supporting environmental journalists specially Asia pacific through Professionalism, Freedom of expression, Social responsibility, environmental justice, Networking and training. The roles of APFEJ administrative Council members has been streamlined and the administrative Council itself consists only of an administrative body, which co-opts or appoints other members as needed.This is quite a different formation of the APFEJ administrative Council and means that members can feel free to come aboard the Council for The General assembly approved some amendments in the APFEJ constitution. Secretary General of Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists -NEFEJ, which is a APFEJ founding member Tika Ram Rai says he is very pleased with the appointment of such an experienced and competent Central Asia media practitioner as The new committee is formed by the core administrative group: 02).Deputy President – Mr.Tika Ram Rai, Nepal Regional Directors(5) 04).North East Asia Director – Mr.Yasuyoshi Tanaka, Japan 05).South Asian Director – Mr.Aftab Zahoor, Pakistan 06).South East Asia Director: Mr.Quoc Dzung, Vietnam 07).South Pacific Director – Ms.Nina Ratulele, Fiji 08).Secretary /Chief Executive – Mr.Dharman Wickremaratne, Sri Lanka 09).Deputy secretary General – Mr. Yang Ming-sen, China Executive Members (8) 10)Ms.Souparno Banerjee, India 11)Mr.Matai Akauol, Fiji 12)Mr.Owais Aslam Ali, Pakistan 13)Ms.Elizabeth Roxas, Philippines 14)Mr. lya Gridneff, Australia*** 15)Mr.Joseph Joh, South Korea*** 16)Mr.Eurico Pereira, East Timor *** 17)Ms.Ellaha Sadat, Afghanistan** Auditors (2) 19)Ms.Silafaga Lalua, Tuvalu * Full Member organisation Representatives – 12 (Minimum 10) ****APFEJ Past President’s – Year 1985 to 2009 02). Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists -NEFEJ 03).Philippines Environmental Journalists Inc – PEJI 04) Malaysian forum of Environmental Journalists(MFEJ)- South East Asia 05).Malaysian forum of Environmental Journalists – MFEJ 06).Philippines Environmental Journalists Inc – PEJI 07).Singapore forum of Environmental Journalists – ECO 08)China Forum of Environmental Journalists -CFEJ, North East Asia 09).Sri Lanka Environmental Journalists Forum – SLEJF 10).Bangladesh Forum of Environmental Journalists (FEJB) 11)Sri Lanka Environmental Journalists Forum(SLEJF) – South Asia 12).Green Women Environmental Media Agency, Kazakhstan For further information please visit: or contact, Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 19th, 2009 Instead of having a signed “deal” at Copenhagen, now it seems that the leaders will be happy with a compilation of National promises. By coincidence, the UN Think Tank of UNU hosted today a panel – “PUBLIC POLICY: FROM NATIONAL TO GLOBAL” – it could not have been at a better time – and trust me – it was excellent. For fun, an NGO called Sustainability had Shell Oil Company over to the UN for lunch. Not all is useless at the UN – just see what thinking people can come up with. The 150 minutes event, in the basement of the UN building, at the United Nation University – the New York Office – was the second session of a Global Public Policy Working Group that aims to explore how to make public policy become more of a reality at the global level. This second session tried to find philosophical answers to what it means to have public policy at a global level – what are the conceptual, methodological, intellectual, and political challenges to this concept in an institution that caters to sovereign Nations. How do these challenges play out in various areas, such as security, development, and environment? That is really fascinating – specially in these days when we see before our eyes how difficult it is to many National governments to see beyond the length of their noses when trying to tackle the climate change issue. I saw some UN officials, some members of country representations, many NGOs, many young students, and just one other journalist in the room. The panel was chaired by Dr. Jean-Marc Coicaud, the Director of UNU – Office in New York, and included Professor Andrew Hurrell of the Oxford University, Professor Thomas Pogge of the Yale University, and Dr. Yomo Kwame Sundaram from Malaysia, who was on many faculties in the US and UK and is now UN Assistant SG for Economic Development at the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and member of several panels that look at reforms. At the end there were quite a few questions from the floor. Policy is what governments do – directly or through agents – this in order to benefit their own citizens. When talking at the global level we have to look at the word – agents – in order to find a way to go around the Sovereignty problem. The Public aspect must involve information, fairness and equality. Dr. Sundaram reminded us that the San Francisco Conference in 1944, when it started, there was no international organization and Churchill would have preferred a set of bi-lateral agreements. It was Roosevelt who wanted something new and better then the League of Nations. In 1945 with the outcome, the league of Nation was declared dead and multilateralism was born. Then the Marshall plan and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development made allowance for the learning experience why the post WWI experience led to an immediate new resort to war. So – I guess – if you do not want troubles to hit your own citizens, you are wise to help the other side solve its problems also. From here Dr. Sundaram moved to climate change and mentioned that there were two propositions – one that there be a market for carbon emissions but the Financial Times and the Economist saw immediately that it will not work, and the other – a Global Taxation – but that comes with a huge problem – the increase of the cost of energy. Both suggestions did not as such extend the solution to the need for development. His suggestion is “front loading” – that is pushing now for huge investments – expenditures. If poor countries cannot afford this it is also not good. What he sees is the creation of a Renewable Energy Infrastructure to be created by this Global Development effort. He sees the current crisis as the chance to kill three birds in one. The current crisis was fueled with cheap credit and we have a tremendous overcapacity and thus no interest in private investment. This is the economic crisis. To get out of this through public spending, do it in one move by developing renewable energy and tackling thus all three problems in one move – the climate change issue – the development issue and the current economic problem. He also said that Carbon Tax is more solid then the Tobin Tax. People will drive less and save energy – you can then put the money in climate change projects or help on imports. If it causes the poor to have to pay more for energy – let them pay the higher prices and return to them the money in a different way. ———— As my reporting conveys, I was enthusiastic about above UNU event, but my daily amount of good feeling ended of sorts when I discovered in that UN basement that an event in the UN basement that was billed, by an entity that calls itself NGO Sustainability, as a meeting with the Ambassador from Kazakhstan, turned out to be actually an event with old Shell Oil Co. The Shell Oil presentation was well garnished with flowers – oil, gas, LNG, H2 and other renewables. The list included Natural Gas and this was explained as the bridge fuel that emits less CO2. Nothing wrong with that we also contended years ago that NG should be allowed as a bridge fuel – but we said bridge from petroleum to renewable biogas. Those days Shell Oil like all other oil companies wanted no part of this – now they do – but I still did not hear the word biogas. Further, I heard windmills – though we learned that after they connected 450,000 homes to Wind Mill Power, they stopped increasing the business and are rethinking the project – that is because they look for newer technology. Someone from the audience suggested that the subsidies ended and the effort was because of the harvesting of the subsidies. H2 is actually under study, but luckily nuclear is not. For reasons unclear neither geothermal nor wave power or any other ocean technology is under consideration – several people gasped and asked why does a company that is specialist in drilling holes under water not look into what would come natural to them? We were shown that the company developed a 3A – AAA – triangle that stands for: AVAILABLE, ACCESSIBLE, ACCEPTABLE – this for its building-reserves system. The other stuff is for the development of an “alternative business.” The company has also some contacts of making oil from sea algae that grow very fast – they also know with catalysis to make gasoline-like liquids directly from cellulose. The old rigs – that is also a treasure to be used environmentally – they are now the base for rebuilding coral reefs in areas destroyed by many causes – not just oil drilling. To who cannot guess – actually we think that Shell and BP (the other oil company with strong US presence and that is UK headquartered) are our favorites among the oil companies – so we appreciate the fact that Roma Y. Stibravy saw to it that they get a UN hearing. In fact, it was a past CEO of Royal Dutch – Shell Oil Co. that was instrumental in organizing the UN Global Compact, that under UNSG Kofi Annan was formed to bring big corporations into social and environmental workings of the UN. Our website did follow their activities with positive interest – we even found some genuine feelings on part of the Shell group even though the effort was clearly promoted by plain Public Relations goals. After some softballs, came also good questions from the three journalists present. Matthew Russell Lee from Inner City Press had to know what Shell did in Nigeria and drove the lady to say that she did not do it. Others wanted to know about “Peak Oil” as she was all roses about production at least to the end of the century. I felt I had to remind her that King Hubbert was the science head of Shell Oil and he was the one to invent the Peak Oil concept. He was fired, and I wanted to know if today someone would say something different from what she presented – he would be fired also? The third journalist present was from the ABC network. Present was also a group of graduate students in International Affairs from Columbia Universlty – clad in black – like future US diplomats. They also asked questions. OK, Shell has now “Sustainability Integrators” to learn from the Niger Delta experience. Aha! people in Niger are criminals & terrorists – People in Nigeria are family to us – those are the employees of Shell. We had to shut down production. Matthew wanted to know about local opposition and was told that if it is not Shell it is the government. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 12th, 2009
The Czar Makes Up With the Sultan
Analysis by Hilmi Toros
ISTANBUL, Aug 12 (IPS) – Once the worst of enemies, involved in 12 wars in three centuries, Turkey and Russia have suddenly become the best of friends, forging strong bonds that could be a counterpoint to the European Union if it freezes Turkey out of full membership.
The countries call their ties “multi-dimensional co-operation,” somewhat short of a “strategic partnership”, but that too may be in the offing. On an eight-hour visit to Turkish capital Ankara last week, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin signed 20 deals with his counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan. These are mostly commercial contracts in energy, collectively worth some 40 billion dollars. The two leaders also declared that rival gas pipelines Nabucco and South Stream to bring natural gas to European markets would be “complimentary” rather than “conflicting”. Nabucco, the 7.9 billion euro project backed by the EU and the United States, would bypass Russia in bringing gas from Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Iraq and potentially also from Iran to Europe via Turkey. It is due to be operational by 2014. The Russian proposed South Stream, to become operational by 2016, would carry gas from Russia to Europe through Turkey’s territorial waters in the Black Sea and onward to Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia to Austria. Its objective is to bypass Ukraine, currently the conduit for 80 percent of Russian gas pumped to Europe. In the end, conflicting or complimentary, if both projects are realised, Russia and Turkey would play a major role in meeting Europe’s growing gas needs. For Europe, either an unfriendly Turkey or Russia would endanger energy security – and it would be much worse if both were ever to gang up on the EU together. That translates into more national, less EU, interest. “If EU doesn’t want us, we won’t beg,” businessman Hasan Aydemir told IPS. “Europe has to think twice of the implications of Turkey out of its union and allied with Russia. If that happens, why not?” But Turkey within the EU is far off, if ever it will happen. Its aspiration to join the EU as the first Muslim nation is now in the 50th year since the first bid – perhaps the longest engagement on record with no marriage in sight. The accession process is faltering in the face of opposition from EU members such as France, Germany and Austria. Meanwhile, Turkish-Russian ties are in constant expansion. Russia will ship oil through a pipeline to a southern Turkish port and also deliver gas to Lebanon and Israel via Turkey. A Russian company will be involved in Turkey’s plans to build a nuclear power station. Turkey declared 2007 The Year of Russian Culture, and Russia reciprocated in 2008. Last year, trade between the two countries reached 38 billion dollars, an eight-fold increase in eight years, making Russia Turkey’s biggest partner. Trade is forecast to reach 100 billion dollars in four years. The combined diplomatic weight of the two countries may also help find solutions to regional conflicts, including disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Armenia and Turkey. They might even persuade Iran to take a more moderate stand. One or the other has solid relations with most countries involved in opposition to one another. The closeness may be helped by a similarity between Putin and Erdogan: both come from humble origins; both seem ready to bury historical enmities; both are seen as strong leaders firmly entrenched in power for years to come (they are in their 50s); both are dynamic and sporty (Putin excels in judo and Erdogan is a former soccer player); both are stern and all business. If there is the touch of a Czar in Putin, there is a Sultan in Erdogan. The Turkish leader has become a regional folk hero for his defence of Palestinians against Israeli strikes when he stormed out of a debate with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Davos, Switzerland, in February when the moderator attempted to cut short his anti-Israel oratory. The closeness contrasts sharply with the history of the two nations. The Czarist Russian and the Ottoman Turkish empires were at each other’s throats from the 17th up to the 20th centuries, when Russia eventually succeeded in wresting the Black Sea and the Balkans from Ottoman domination. Later, after World War II, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin eyed but failed to control the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits in Turkey for passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. Even as late as the 1980s, Turkey was the West’s bastion against feared Soviet expansionism from the East. If that was seen as the unwelcome Soviet Bear Hug, this now is a mutual embrace. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 20th, 2009 Turkey Gets Boost from Pipeline Politics. by Helena Cobban WASHINGTON, Jul 19 (IPS) – The political geography of the modern Middle East has been affected for one hundred years by the appetite of westerners and other outsiders for the region’s hydrocarbons. Last week, the region’s “pipeline politics” took another step forward with the signing in Turkey’s capital, Ankara, of an agreement to build a new, 3,300-kilometre gas pipeline called Nabucco, running between eastern Turkey and Vienna, Austria. The project underlines the new influential role that Turkey, a majority Muslim nation of 72 million people, is playing in the Middle East, and far beyond. The new project’s name was chosen, Austrian officials said, after the Verdi opera that representatives of the five participating countries – who include Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary, along with the two terminus states – saw together during an earlier round of negotiations in Vienna. But the name also gives clues to two intriguing aspects of the project’s geopolitical significance. The theme of the opera is the liberation from bondage of slaves held by the ancient Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (‘Nabucco’) – and it is a widely discussed feature of the Nabucco project that many European nations want access to a gas source that is not under the control of Russia. Last winter, several European nations suffered severe gas shortages after Russia, locked in a tariff dispute with transit-country Ukraine, closed off the spigots completely. But the other implication of the name is more strictly Middle Eastern. The modern-day home of Nebuchadnezzar is Iraq. Washington has given strong support to the Nabucco project – and one of the reasons U.S. officials give for this support is their hope that once Nabucco is up and running in 2015, Iraq can be one of the nations that reaps large profits by feeding gas into it. However, construction of the pipeline is estimated to cost some eight billion dollars, and many officials in the participating countries are still unclear where they will get enough gas to make it economically viable. The Nabucco participants had been hoping that a key feeder state would be one of Turkey’s eastern neighbours, Azerbaijan. But on the eve of the project’s inauguration in Ankara, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev took the CEO of the vast Russian gas company Gazprom to Azerbaijan, where they signed a contract with the state gas company that will force Nabucco to compete hard against Gazprom for any purchase it wants to make from Azerbaijan. One fairly evident other source for Nabucco’s would be Iran, which is reported to have considerable amounts of new gas coming online in the next five years. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 16th, 2009 From: haertl at oiip.at Role and Potential of the by Bolat Kabdylkhamitovich NURGALIEV (Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) Welcome: Gerhard REIWEGER (Deputy Director of the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna) Moderation: Markus KORNPROBST (Chair of International Relations, Diplomatic Academy of Vienna) After the Lecture the Embassy of Kazakhstan kindly invites to a reception. Wednesday, 22 July 2009 Registration : Please fax (no: 01/504 22 65) or send an e-mail to info@da-vienna.ac.at In cooperation with the Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan in Austria, the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna and the Academic Forum for Foreign Affairs. www.oiip.at ——————- We recommend this event as a chance to ask about Kazachstan trying to be part of an economic grouping with Russia and Belarus, while also trying to be seen as a European and Asian state at the same time. Is this a planned pivotal position or will they be seen as a Russian satelite? Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 8th, 2009 by Dennis Nottebaum 8 – 07 – 2009 http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/email/desert-energy
The mechanism behind the technology is quite straightforward and anyone who has ever tried to set a piece of paper on fire by using a looking glass will understand it: Large mirrors reflect and concentrate sunlight on one point which creates intense heat. This is used to turn water into steam that drives turbines. Thus Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) may be turned into electricity, which may then be transmitted via high-voltage direct current cables. Direct current bears the advantage of relatively low transmission losses while relying on more expensive infrastructure than alternating current. Desertec is designed to cover around 15% of Europe’s electricity consumption, plus parts of the needs of those North African states in which the facilities will be installed. In order to gather such vast amounts of energy an area of 150 by 150 km would have to be covered by mirrors. The technology to realize a project of that size is readily available, the initiators say. Solar thermal energy collectors have been used in California and Nevada for almost two decades while Spain has built four facilities over the last years. The transmission from the desert to all corners of Europe would require the installation of high-voltage direct current cables through the Mediterranean Sea; an expensive endeavor. All in all, the project costs are estimated to reach as much as 400 Billion Euro. But the investment would ultimately pay off, a study of the German Aerospace Centre says. It estimates the costs for the creation of one Kilowatt-hour of electricity by CSP to be lower than the costs of any other form of energy creation in the long run. Munich Re, the consortium leader, has long pushed for a more sustainable climate policy. The reinsurer has suffered most from major natural disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis and floods, which have been ascribed to climate change. Its major branch is the reinsurance of insurance companies. Whenever there is a hurricane in Florida, an earthquake in Italy, or a flood in Southeast Asia the reinsurance industry comes into play. Assessing the risks of these catastrophes happening therefore is an integral part of their business. Climate change has resulted in a rise of unforeseen events and the reinsurers find it increasingly hard to assess the risks of unforeseeable disasters; a reason for them to tackle climate change. However, as intriguing as the idea of Desertec may be some points have so far not been considered by its proponents. Firstly, even though a consortium of major companies has kicked the project off and put it on the agenda it cannot be realized without political will. Although major German politicians and parties have indicated their support for the undertaking, the prospects are much dimmer on the European stage. France is not going to support a project that may undermine one of its primary export goods: atomic energy. And without French support it will be harder to convince other states to join the project. Moreover, the installation of trans-European power lines is a sensitive issue. The establishment of a European energy grid has long been a troublesome project. Secondly, the plan rests on the assumption that North African countries will readily join the project. Although these countries may themselves benefit, it will be a major issue to garner long-term support in that area of the world. While solar energy is available in abundance, political stability is not. Conflicts such as Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara and despotic leaders such as Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya may put the plan in jeopardy. What is more the influence of OPEC states in the region may lead to conflict and a possible division. They will certainly see an alternative energy project as a threat to their dominant position. These states would be the big losers of the project. It would mean a shift of geopolitical power from the Middle East to the Maghreb, a reason for OPEC states to undermine any efforts. Fourthly, it is still unclear whether the project would be run as a supranational organization or a private enterprise. Given the process of privatisation in the energy sector of the EU, the European Commission will have a close look at a state-run business. On the other hand private networks will certainly find it harder to garner venture capital for a project of this size and risk level. Currently the consortium also seeks guaranteed feed-in tariffs in order to bring the project to maturity. This would again presume a long-term commitment on part of national governments and the EU. On the other hand Desertec may be an opportunity for deeper cooperation between Europe and North Africa from which both sides could possibly benefit. Ultimately, much will depend on whether Europe would be the sole beneficiary or whether North Africa would get its fair share. Such a project always runs the risk of being perceived as imposed on North African states as a neo-imperialist gesture. Additionally, solar thermal power is the only means of energy creation that comes at low environmental costs. CO2 emissions result solely from the construction and maintenance of the solar farms themselves, not from the generation of electricity. And while atomic energy always bears an incalculable risk, CPO is basically free of technological risk. Finally, solar energy is free and available in abundance. Thus CPO may be the first large-scale alternative to our use of fossil fuels and atomic power, as long as the political risks are taken into consideration. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 6th, 2009
Heard the one about the rabbi, the imam, and the Buddhist monk?
Religious leaders met for discussions at the Palace of Peace and Accord. Kazakhstan was the unlikely host of a conference uniting the world’s faiths. Jerome Taylor reports from Astana. The Independent, Monday, 6 July 2009 As a man who was born and raised within the secularism of the Soviet Union and has ruled his nation with a velvet-gloved iron fist for the past two decades, Nursultan Nazarbayev is an unlikely pin-up for religious tolerance. Like so many other Central Asian dictators, Kazakhstan’s President was perfectly positioned to take over the running of his new country after the implosion of the Soviet Union precisely because he was an apparatchik of the avowedly secular Communist Party. Decades of Soviet domination deliberately stifled overt displays of religious expression in Central Asia – particularly for the region’s majority Muslim population – and many of Mr Nazarbayev’s neighbours have continued in the same vein, treating religion as a potential political threat which needs to be closely monitored. But the 68-year-old grey-haired President, who rose from being a humble metalworker in a factory to become the leader of Central Asia’s largest and most stable country, is increasingly styling himself as a former Communist with whom the faithful can nevertheless do business. For two days last week he ensconced himself in an astonishing-looking, purpose-built steel pyramid – designed by the British architect Norman Foster – in his pharaonic capital Astana. He was there to host what was quite possibly the largest gathering of the world’s religious leaders in recent times. A list of those seated in front of the giant round table at the grandly titled Palace of Peace and Accord reads like a Who’s Who of the world’s religions. Robed Buddhist monks chatted to bearded imams who exchanged pleasantries with rabbis and priests. Top delegates to the snappily titled “Third Congress for Leaders of the World and Traditional Religions” included the Israeli President Shimon Peres, two chief rabbis, and the leader of the highly influential Al Azhar university in Cairo, generally regarded as the world’s most authoritative Islamic institution. Yet despite the unmistakably Soviet-sounding name of the conference – and a somewhat embarrassing hiccup when an Iranian delegation walked out during Mr Peres’ speech – the discussions were centred around the delightfully un-Communist notion of using religion to win world peace. Whether such deliberations will hail a new era of harmony is a moot point, according to Nicholas Baines, the Anglican Bishop of Croydon who travels regularly to Kazakhstan. He has watched Mr Nazarbayev transform himself from an open atheist into pro-religion leader who has even made the Haj pilgrimage. “I admit at times these conferences feel a bit Soviet, but there is lots of good work being done,” Bishop Baines says. “The unique contribution here is that the Kazakhs have been able to bring together some phenomenally responsible people from world religions under one roof and they have to sit and listen to each other as well as talk … Where else would you have two chief rabbis of Israel sitting in the same room as top Muslims, and they’re having to listen to each other and not just walk out or argue?” Supporters of Mr Nazarbayev say their leader’s new-found enthusiasm for promoting religious tolerance is governed by the remarkably mixed ethnic background of his country. The more cynical believe it is simply shrewd pragmatism, aimed at avoiding the inter-ethnic fallouts that have disrupted neighbours such as Tajikistan. Either way, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Kazakhstan is becoming an increasingly religious place under his rule. Tomash Peta, the Catholic Archbishop of Astana, says the government’s favourable stance towards religion means that the atheist attitudes of the Soviet era are fast disappearing. Church attendance is also rocketing. In Kazakhstan nowadays there are very few people who actively reject religion,” he says. “People are suddenly rediscovering their connection to God.” Newly-built churches and mosques have sprung up all over the country. When Kazakhstan gained its independence there were just 68 mosques to administer to the nine million Muslims who make up 57 percent of Kazakhstan’s population. Currently there are 2,300 mosques and 10 madrasas, most built in the past five years on the back of the enormous wealth generated by Kazakhstan’s oil exports. Whilst Kazakhs are keen to shed their Soviet atheism, they are simultaneously happy to keep the social advantages that came with Russian domination – especially in the cities. At Friday prayers in the main mosque in Almaty, Kazakhstan’s former capital which remains its financial and artistic hub, it is not unusual to see women in miniskirts temporarily hiring a robe for prayers before hitting the city’s notoriously raucous bars or clubs. But whilst Kazakhstan may like to portray itself as an island of ethnic and religious harmony, there are some denominations or sects which have fallen foul of the regime. Baptists, Evangelicals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Ahmadi Muslims and even Hare Krishna devotees have all created growing communities in the country. This is much to the annoyance of both Mr Nazarbayev and mainstream religious leaders who fear such “foreign sects” are damaging Kazakhstan’s historical identity. Minority religious groups frequently complain they are targeted by hostile officials. Bennett Graham, an expert on Kazakhstan at the Beckett Fund, an American human rights group which monitors religious tolerance, says the Kazakh government’s insistence that freedom of worship is absolute should always be taken with a pinch of salt. “I wouldn’t want to be overly critical, as I want to encourage steps in the right direction,” he says. “But I have yet to see President Nazarbayev exemplify robust religious tolerance in his own country towards minority religious groups, and until then, will maintain scepticism about the sincerity of the Kazakh efforts to promote religious tolerance and respect around the world.” Noticeably absent from this week’s inter-faith conference were any of those religious groups that the Kazakh state has been accused of suppressing. But Bishop Baines believes that ultimately Kazakhstan is light years ahead of some of its neighbours. “Every prediction was that of all the republics formed when the Soviet Union collapsed, Kazakhstan was the one that would fall apart because of its ethnic and religious constituency and it history,” he says. “Yet that break-up hasn’t happened. That is a remarkable legacy. They are a young country and they’re heading in the right direction.” Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 6th, 2009 As we know that many of our readers are interested in the nexus of climate change and desertification, we thought that there might be interest in participatingin the following review studies and decided to post this e-mail. ————– Dear Scientific Colleagues and Stakeholders of the UNCCD. This is an invitation to review the first drafts of scientific analysis papers contributing to the world’s fight against desertification and land degradation. (or http://dsd consortium.jrc.ec.europa.eu/php/index.php?action=view&id=160) and click the button on the left entitled ‘Online Consultation’. You can download and read the papers in PDF format there if you prefer, but all comments must be received via the web feedback system that is accessed through the above path. ————— Background For one month, from 28 May to 28 June 2009, the first drafts of the white papers will be open for review by scientists and stakeholders worldwide. We look forward to your valuable contributions. Please visit the web link mentioned above to participate in the review process. Thank you for helping to enrich these papers with your knowledge, comments and suggestions. Sincerely, Head, Program Facilitation Unit (PFU), CGIAR Program for Central Asia and the Caucasus (CAC) Coordinator, Regional Program of the International Center For Agricultural Research In The Dry Areas (ICARDA) for the CAC Region Mail Address: Program Facilitation Unit, P.O. Box 4564, Tashkent, 100000, Uzbekistan Phones: +99871 2372130, +99871 2372169, +99871 2372104 Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 3rd, 2009 Kazakh parliament approves Kyoto Protocol
ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AFP) – The Kazakh parliament Thursday approved the Kyoto Protocol on fighting global warming, making it the last signatory to the UN-led treaty to ratify the measures other than the United States. Kazakhstan, whose economic growth over the past decade had been the strongest in Central Asia, had resisted ratifying the landmark climate change conventions. “This is an important step for Kazakhstan. For ten years we couldn’t reach a decision, because for the past ten years the government had more important things to consider, like the financial code,” Environment Minister Nurlan Iskakov said. “But these ten years didn’t pass in vain. Now the document will be sent to the president for him to sign, and if he passes it into law it will attract more investment to the country.” Kazakhstan signed the treaty in 1998, but had not signed it into effect until Thursday. The US administration of then president Bill Clinton signed the Protocol but never ratified it and his successor George W. Bush in 2001 withdrew the United States from the Protocol, saying it would cripple the US economy. The Turkish parliament had on February 5 overwhelmingly approved the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol requires signatory countries to reduce or stabilise their emissions of six “greenhouse” gases blamed for heating up the planet, the principal of which is carbon dioxide. The protocol expires in 2012. On average it requires nations to reduce their emissions 5.2 percent below their 1990 level between 2008 and 2012. This would represent a 29 percent cut in overall emissions compared to levels expected by 2010. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 24th, 2009 Signaling his determination to use diplomacy to address the world’s toughest conflicts, President Obama went to the State Department on Thursday to install high-level emissaries to handle the Arab-Israeli issue and the Pakistan and Afghanistan region.
Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, will hold the title of Special Representative and will be responsible for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr. Holbrooke, a longtime diplomat was the American ambassador to the United Nations, played a central role in drafting the 1995 Dayton peace accords, which ended the war in Bosnia. He was once viewed as a potential secretary of state.
According to Helene Cooper of The New York Times’ Coverage of the event – “Underscoring the potentially tangled lines of authority, Mrs. Clinton said that the National Security Council, led by Gen. James L. Jones, would play a coordinating role on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mrs Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, emphasized this unity, saying – we want to send a clear and unequivocal message: we are a team.” Already, though, there is some jockeying over whether the State Department or the White House will dominate foreign policy — with the first skirmishes playing out in the titles given to the emissaries. Both Mr. Mitchell, the Special Envoy to the Middle East, and Mr. Holbrooke, the Special Representative, will report to Mrs. Clinton, and through her, to Mr. Obama, according to a State Department spokesman. But as if to dramatize the murkiness of the arrangement, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who accompanied Mr. Obama to the State Department, seemed confused at one point about whether the new president or the new secretary of state would introduce the emissaries. (It was Mrs. Clinton.) As a special envoy, the State Department spokesman said, Mr. Mitchell will have a more traditional role, working out of the State Department. As a special representative, administration officials said, Mr. Holbrooke will have the freedom to roam — and to represent Mr. Obama, the National Security Council and even the Pentagon. ——————- In this posting we concentrate on the enormous task before Ambassador Holbrooke. Mr. Holbrooke and General Jones, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, wanted Mr. Holbrooke to be able to speak directly to the White House, an official said. General Jones once led NATO’s Supreme Allied Command in Afghanistan, and plans to be deeply involved in Afghan policy. Mr. Holbrooke, 67, who spoke of his roots as a junior diplomat, offered no details about future policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But he demonstrated his assertive personal style, saying he would coordinate “what is clearly a chaotic foreign assistance program” in Afghanistan. Richard Charles Albert Holbrooke, according to Wikipedia – is currently vice chairman of Perseus LLC, a leading private equity firm. Until resigning in July, 2008, he was a board member of American International Group. He is a member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and serves on the Advisory Board of the National Security Network. He is also a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Citizens Committee for New York City, and the Economic Club of New York. He is the Founding Chairman of the American Academy in Berlin; President and CEO of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, the business alliance against HIV/AIDS; and Chairman of the Asia Society. Other board memberships include the American Museum of Natural History, Malaria No More (a New York-based nonprofit that was launched at the 2006 White House Summit with the goal of ending all deaths caused by malaria), Partnership for a Secure America, and the National Endowment for Democracy. He is also an honorary trustee of the Dayton International Peace Museum, as well as professor-at-large at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, his alma mater. Additionally, Holbrooke is an Advisory Board member for the Partnership for a Secure America, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to recreating the bipartisan center in American national security and foreign policy. He has also served as vice chairman of Credit Suisse First Boston, managing director of Lehman Brothers [23], managing editor of Foreign Policy, and director of the Peace Corps in Morocco. He has written numerous articles and two books: To End A War, and the co-author of Counsel to the President, and one volume of The Pentagon Papers. He has received more than a dozen honorary degrees, including a LL.D. from Bates College in 1999. As of 2005, he writes a monthly column for The Washington Post. On March 20, 2007 he appeared on The Colbert Report to mediate in what Stephen Colbert (or rather, his television alter-ego) saw as Willie Nelson infringing on his ice cream flavor time. Holbrooke was the ‘ambassador on call’ and after a short mediation process the two parties agreed to taste each other’s Ben and Jerry’s ice cream to make amends. He subsequently sang “On the Road Again” in a trio with Colbert and Nelson.
We bring here the above to show the tremendous versatility in Mr. Holbrooke’s interests, and we want to stress further, that early November, when we asked him what position he hopes he will get in the new White House, all what he said was that I am ready to serve – it seemed like he was ready to accept what is decided – provided this returns him to government service.
From all of the above list – the most relevant to us is his Chairmanship of the Board of the New York based Asia Society. Further – let us already announce here that on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, Mr. Holbrooke will appear at an Asia Society luncheon meeting on “AMERICA’S FUTURE IN ASIA” – in conversation with:
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for US Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; Nobuyoshi Sakajiri, Senior diplomatic correspondent in China for Asahi Shinbun of Japan; and Simon S.C. Tay, Chairman Singapore institute of International Affairs.
So, there is a large scope for Mr. Holbrooke’s interest in Asia – and the reality of his job that mentions Afghanistan and Pakistan is that the regional reach of his activities will involve much more then the above named two UN member States. When touching that area – the problems involve immediately also at least India, Iran, and Tadjikistan – but many more States in the region are mingled in because of the ethnic groups that live in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are really no borders before such ethnic extensions into the neighboring countries.
Our website posted many articles on this region – some of them are as follows:
Looking at what I put on that envelope, besides the circle that tells the story, there is also the article about how extreme Islam in Pakistan is enslaving the people by not letting the young get an education. This is what condemns the country to the dregs and it should not be supported by the US with the funds that mistakenly were thrown at the useless Pakistani army by US Presidents, and US Congress, that thought they will help in the cold war against the Soviets, and later against what? The Taliban that was supported by the US, overtly and covertly, when there was no Soviet enemy to fight anymore, turned naturally against the US as the US was seen now as the foreign intruder.
The whole concept of what are terrorists, will fall for redefinition in the lap of this Special Representative of the US. Will he be able to splinter the Taliban into good “Taliban” and bad Taliban like it was done with the Sunnis in Iraq?
In this context the “good” Taliban would be those that want just independent rule for their piece of land, while the bad Taliban is friend of Al Qaeda, and interested in hitting the infidel wherever they can reach him. But let me not go too far and become ridiculous in making assumptions. Let Ambassador Holbrooke propose his moves to the White House when he manages to frame some sort of policy for the fractious region – and we pray that he does not insist on the present borders between the States. In effect, easing into more logical partitions might make the formulation of progress possible.
As we mentioned that Richard Holbrooke is still the Chairman of the New York based Asia Society, we were thus flabbergasted when we got the information that Wednesday, January 21, 2009, the day after the Obama, Washington Inaugural, the Asia Society was staging a conversation on “Understanding the Mumbai Attacks: Implications for the Future of Indo-Pakistan Relations.” As the attacks were by Muslims from Pakistan, who did this because of the situation in the India occupied Kashmir, these acts of terrorism are also part of what became his mandate. Actually, the New York Times mistakenly thought that India is part of the portfolio that Ambassador Holbrooke was going to get from President Obama. That was not to be, and he has only the part of the interaction with Pakistan. Will finally India allow a plebiscite in Kashmir and accept the people’s will? This will be also a goal of Mr. Holbrooke’s efforts – one of his attempts to defocus the Pakistani Intelligence Services covert activities in India. The moderator was Dan Harris, anchor at ABC News whose journalistic career included coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The three members of the panel were -
A former Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN, Mr. Munir Akram,
An Indian-American Professor of Political Science at Brown University, Professor Ashutosh Varshney, who also co-edited “Midnight’s Diaspora” – a book of “Critical Encounters with Salman Rushdie” – and wrote extensively about the Ethnic Hindu-Muslim conflict in India.
And a former President of the Asia Society, Nicholas Platt, a former US Ambassador who served in China, Pakistan, the Philippines.
The event was opened by Dr. Vishaka N. Desai, the President of Asia Society since 2004, when she took over from Nicholas Platt. Dr. Desai said she hopes for a return to “Smart Diplomacy.”
—-
Prof. Varshney said that there was no long-term vision, so we got short-term response, and he identified two schools of thought about Pakistan:
(a) a right-wing model identified with right-wings in Washington and Delhi that the disintegration of Pakistan is a necessary step to India-Pakistan peace – and he disagrees.
(b) the US-Canada border model where $1.3 billion in food trade crosses the border daily.
——–
Ambassador Akram said that State-sponsored terrorism was a tool of choice used by India, and also Pakistan. In Pakistan this was sponsored by the CIA. In 1991-94 India was in trouble in Kashmir and offered discussions to find a solution – but nothing came out of this.
——–
Amb. Platt’s experience in Pakistan was the uneasy relationship inside the country and the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area filled with militants working against Afghanistan. He said that disintegration is neither in the cards – nor in anyone’s interest. When people are under stress communications are difficult – but he thinks there are lots of solutions.
Amb. added that when you have a government you can not allow the public to push you to suicide.
Amb. Platt: the target of the Taliban is Pakistan itself.
Amb.r Akram: Taliban and Kashmir are different things. You never attacked Taliban before they gave shield to Bin Laden after 9/11.
More Pakistanis were killed on the border then Americans in Iraq. The US did not allow us to divide the Taliban. The terrible thing is to send us into a fight against our own people.
Prof. Varshney: India cannot go to war because it can evolve into a nuclear war.
For Kashmir – Autonomy – Yes. Independence – NO.
——
Question from the floor: What are the issues to start with when looking for peace?
Amb. Platt – there are different ideas for this, but neither government is domestically strong.
CONCLUSION – there was no glimmer of an idea in this discussion for a solution – so we have to continue to work on this.
And let me add that this was a very sad event, eventually I expressed this opinion also before Dr. Desai and Prof. Varshney.
——
At the meeting was present the full cadre of Pakistani journalists from the UN, and they swarmed around former Ambassador Akram. This show of support left me blurry.
Actually, I still have The statement by Ambassador Munir Akram during the informal consultations of the UN General Assembly on “THE UN GLOBAL COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY” of June 14, 2006.
He took then a position supported also by other OIC countries (Organization of Islamic Countries) that one has to define terrorism in the proposed text so it addresses “underlying causes such as foreign occupation and the suppression of self-determination; the issue of state terrorism, the problem of insults and defamation of religion and cultures; the need for vigorous international effort to promote social-economic development and employment-creation to end extremism and terrorism.” He wanted further discussion on words: “instigation” of terrorism; “sanctuaries” for terrorists; “victims of terrorism”; – some other words he found to be loosely used – “soft targets”; “internationally shared values.” All of the above so that he can allow terrorism to flourish if it is committed by Palestinians or Kashmiris.
In short – this man was important enough at the UN to carry the blame that the UN can still not define what is a terrorist, and still has no effective decision, though there are on the books already 14 empty UN Resolutions on Terrorism.
In my notes, I found one more interesting tidbit from Amb. Akram’s Press Conference that day. This when journalist Matthew Russell Lee asked him about evictions of the Baluchis in Karachi, and further suppression of the Baluchis. The Ambassador answered that “there are no slums in Karachi, but we want to create some sort of property rights.” He also said that “there is a Baluchistan in Pakistan, an area the size of Spain, and it is kind of law and order situation. They want increased royalties – but not a secession. Our enemies want to open there a way to Central Asia.”
Having presented the above, we point our distaste at the backing of the Kashmiri terrorists, and the fact that these terrorists are based in Pakistan, but that does not mean that we see as positive the way the Indians handle the situation. in effect, a Financial Times editorial of today, February 23, 2009, points that Indian officials regard Kashmir as inalienable, and that almost half of the Indian army is used to keep down 4 million Kashmiris.
On November 4, 2008, The Asia Society hosted Professor Saeed Shafqat from the Forman Christian University, Lahore, Pakistan, on “Pakistan Outlook 2009 – Continuing Crisis or Restoring Stability?” and the results were just as inconclusive.
As Pakistan is indeed falling apart, and being a nuclear State could have global impact, so what will Amb. Holbrooke have to work with? As per another Foreign Policy article in today’s Financial Times, it seems that the new US policy will be to demand from countries that get US funding – specifically – Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to “progress in the battle against terrorism, sectarianism. and corruption. In short the US will demand more bang for its aid bucks on terror frontline.”
——
Returning to the Conversation of January 22, 2009 at the Asia Society, I asked from one of the Pakistani Journalists, and then from Dr. Vishaka Desai and Professor Ashutosh Varshney – why those two models that were presented that regard a break-up of Pakistan, rather then a much more positive outcome – a way out from that original sin of the break-up of the old greater India – the creation of the larger United Indian Subcontinent where Pakistani States four or five of them, join the 32 States of India, in a union where each single State in that Federation is entitled to its self rule in true autonomy. The Federation continues to be secular, but home rule in the member States allows for locally agreed laws. Perhaps indeed this was not possible in 1948 – but with the miserable experience since, why could they not see that this is a most reasonable solution. After all, India is a striving economy, destined some day to become a leading economy, and Pakistan goes from bad to worse all the time.
The Pakistani, gave me an earful of past transgressions, Dr. Desai said that the Pakistani military would never allow this, and Professor Varshney also did not seem enthusiastic with the suggestion. I hope that Ambassador Holbrooke will consider this sort of ideas in order to stir up the dust and dry blood that he will encounter. Then money talks, and if money is dried up from those generals and intelligence officers that do not produce anyway, the resistance to this sort of approach might become less outspoken.
================ AND FROM THE ASIA SOCIETY NEWS:
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on January 10th, 2009 The Japan Times online, Sunday, Jan. 11, 2009. Central Asia’s giant is waking up. By MARCEL DE HAAS The SCO emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Union in 1996. Today, its members are Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, while Mongolia, Iran, Pakistan and India are observers. Russia and China remain the lead actors. Since its launch, the SCO’s military exercises have become increasingly ambitious, growing from largely bilateral to inclusion of all members. The SCO is also beginning to work together in the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime. Until recently, the SCO’s members addressed energy issues only bilaterally. But, in order to coordinate energy strategies and strengthen energy security, last year the organization launched a club that unites energy-producing and energy-consuming states, transit countries, and private companies. The SCO promotes free trade, too, and aims to build essential infrastructure such as roads and railways to link its members and boost commerce between them while also harmonizing customs systems and tariffs. China, for example, seeks markets for its products and further energy resources, while Russia aims to use the SCO to promote its anti-Western agenda. The group’s other members — led by China and Kazakhstan — want to strengthen their already robust levels of economic cooperation with the West. Thus, for example, at the SCO summit in August, Russia did not get the support of other members regarding the Georgia conflict. These diverging objectives make it hard to believe that the SCO will ever evolve into an eastern version of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. True, its members have held joint military exercises and have expressed a desire to build the SCO into a more mature security organization. But the SCO still lacks many essential elements of a full-grown NATO-style security organization. It makes sense for the West, particularly the European Union, to seek cooperation with the SCO, as this would also help counter Russia’s attempts to use it as a tool for its anti-Western policies. It would also prevent the SCO from turning into a militarized entity. These may look like negative reasons for the EU to engage with the SCO, but there are also ample positive reasons for encouraging cooperation. Europe needs energy supplies from Central Asia, and Central Asia needs European investment. Another sphere of mutual interest is Cooperation with NATO looks strategically wise. Given China’s importance in military and economic matters, growing energy and trade ties between Central Asia and the West, and the reasonable assumption that Central Asia’s security will continue to have great significance for Western security, cooperation between the SCO, the EU, and NATO looks inevitable. This is all the more true in view of common security threats faced by NATO and the SCO in Central Asia, such as al-Qaida and Taliban- sponsored terrorism and drug trafficking. But both NATO and the SCO have so far hesitated to engage in closer contact. It is hard to discern whether NATO has any opinion at all about the SCO. At best, NATO seems to regard it as being neither a problem nor an opportunity. Perhaps inevitably, the SCO — with Russia and China as its leading members — regards NATO’s increased presence in the region with some mistrust. As long as NATO remains reluctant to enter into a dialogue with the SCO, such a cautious attitude looks set to linger, and may even intensify. Consideration also needs to be given, therefore, to the establishment of a NATO-China Council, along the lines of the NATO-Russia Council, and to the creation of arrangements that would facilitate greater cooperation with the SCO as a whole. Such cooperation would not bridge the main differences between SCO members and the West over issues like democratization and human rights. Cooperation would also need to comprise much more than mere joint policy development, and should involve the practical pursuit of mutually beneficial, smaller-scale ad hoc projects. NATO and the SCO could work together on neutralizing antipersonnel mines in Afghanistan, as well as other possible types of confidence-building measures, such as joint police training and counter-narcotics operations. If security cooperation is to be a success, politically sensitive issues should be avoided, with the emphasis squarely on practical measures. This approach would serve the interests of the EU, NATO, SCO members and, not least, Afghanistan. Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 28th, 2008 The UNU on Arid Aquaculture. The UNU researchers issued a report “Arid Aquaculture Among Alternative Livelihoods Promoted to Relieve Worsening Pressure on World’s Drylands” as a result of the four-year study in cooperation with the International Centre on Agricultural Research in Dryland Areas (ICARDA), and UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program. “Arid aquaculture” using ponds filled with salty, undrinkable water for fish production is one of several options experts have proven to be an effective potential alternative livelihood for people living in desertified parts of the world’s expanding drylands. While it may sound far-fetched, researchers say using briny water to establish aquaculture in a dry, degraded part of Pakistan not only introduced a new source of income, it helped improve nutrition through diet diversification. The researchers also showed it possible to cultivate some varieties of vegetables with the same type of brackish water. The project based on the results of the research will be launched by the project partners in Istanbul, Turkey, at 1:00 pm local time Nov. 12 at meetings of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. A policy brief based on the Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD) project and News Release on “Arid Aquaculture Report” are available on-line. People in Marginal Drylands. Managing Natural Resources to Improve Human Well-being. A policy brief based on the Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands (SUMAMAD) project Drylands_policy_brief.pdf Arid Aquaculture Among Alternative Livelihoods Promoted to Relieve Worsening Pressure on World’s Drylands. Four-year Study Calls for Urgent Reforms to Avert Further Desertification That Threatens Millions of “the Poorest of the Poor” Worldwide. Dryland policy brie new release.doc Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 24th, 2008 We post the following – an eight months old article – because of the news that Russia’s Lukhoil is intent on buying 30% of the Spain’s Repsol – this is a clear evidence that the Gideon Rachman Article still holds true. Rachman was talking about the Natural Gas Pipelines from Russia to West and Central Europe via The Ukraine and Belarus, with potential of investment in pipelines that could bypass these countries – but he believes that the overall interest of Russian business will not make it necessary to look for these alternatives – in effect one could rather foresee that Russia would be just as reliable in its supplies as the Soviet Union was before, this because of the entanglements of international investments and business in general.
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 18th, 2008 The Drylands, Deserts, and Desertification – 2008 Conference. December 14-17, 2008, Sede Boqer Campus, The Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Israel. www.desertification.co.il THE PROGRAM As Available on November 18, 2008. There might be still Changes and Additions, as well – further Poster Sessions. Download this schedule: detailed_program_sessions_1611_publish.doc Please note that the list of presentations is still not final. Pre Registration will begin on the evening of December 13, 2008
Day 1, December 14, 2008: LIFE AND SOIL DEGRADATION IN THE DRYLANDS
8:00-9:00 Registration
9:00 – 9:30 Welcome
9:30 – 10:15 Plenary Address: Cutting through the Confusion: An Old Problem (Desertification) Viewed through the Lens of a New Framework (the DDP, Drylands Development Paradigm) – James Reynolds, Duke University (U.S.A)
10:15 – 10:30 Respondents: Thomas Schaaf,, Chief, Ecological Sciences & Biodiversity Section, UNESCO, Ingrid Hartman, Amoud University, Borama, Somaliland, Godfrey Olukoye Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Uriel Safriel, Hebrew University, Israel
Moderator: Alon Tal
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
11:00-12:30 Parallel Sessions I
1. Soil Degradation and the Drylands
Chair: Professor Yonah Chen, Hebrew University Agricultural Faculty, HYPERLINK “mailto:yonachen@agri.huji.ac.il” yonachen@agri.huji.ac.il
Causes and Consequences of Soil Damages in Bosnia and Herzegovinia: Some Experiences in Soil Conservation, Markovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Soil Decomposition in a Tropical Semi-arid Region in Central Mexico, Maria Hernandez Cerda, Enrique Romero, Gonzalo Madero, (Mexico)
Soil Communities in the Arava Valley Desert System, Stanislav Pen-Mouratov, Tamir Mayblat, and Yosef Steinberger (Israel)
Effect of plant patchiness on soil microbial community structure Ali Nejidat, Eric A. Ben-David, Yonatan Sher, Regina Golden, Eli Zaady (Israel)
2. Desert Ecology (A)
Chair: Professor Tamar Dayan, Tel Aviv University, HYPERLINK “mailto:DayanT@tauex.tau.ac.il” DayanT@tauex.tau.ac.il,
Water and Carbon Balances of Tamarix Desert Vegetation Under Variation in Precipitation and Groundwater Table,Hao Xu, Yan Li, (China)
Periodic and Scale-free Patterns: Reconciling the Dichotomy of Dryland Vegetation, Jost von Hardenberg, Assaf Kletter, Hezi Yizhaq, Ehud Meron (Israel)
Water Balance in Desert Mammals and in Flying Birds: Different Evolutionary Paths with Similar Physiological Outcomes, Berry Pinshow (Israel)
Desertification In the Grasslands Of Central Australia: Effects Of Fire And Climate Change, C. R. Dickman, G. M. Wardle, A. C. Greenville and B. Tamayo (Australia)
3. Benchmarks and Indicators of Desertification
Chair: Professor Moshe Shachak, Ben Gurion University, shachak@bgu.ac.il
Spatial Vegetation Patterns Indicating Imminent Desertification Max Rietkerk (Netherlands)
Do Vegetation Indices Reliably Assess Vegetation Degradation? A Case Study in the Mongolian Pastures, Arnon Karnieli Y. Bayarjargal, M. Bayasgalan, B. Mandakh, J. Burgheimer, S. Khudulmur, and P.D. Gunin (Israel)
Results On Changes Of Vegetation Structure And Composition In Semi-Desert Steppe,B.Mandakh Ph.D, Ganchimeg Wingard, (Mongolia)
Restoration of Pasture Vegetation and Assessment of Desertification in Kazakhstan Mirzadinov R.Ð., Baisartova Ð.Y., Bayazitova Z.Е., Torgaev Ð.Ð., Makhamedzhanov N.Т., Usen К., Karnieli A., Mirzadinov (Kazakhstan)
4. Pastoralism and the Drylands (A)
Chair: Dr. Eli Zaady, Gilat Research Station, Volcani Institute
Complex Interactions Between Climate and Pastoralists in Desert Grasslands, Curtin, charles (U.S.A)
Sustainable Grazing Strategies for Semi-arid Rangelands of Central Argentina, Roberto Distel (Argentina)
Trophic interactions and the ecology of habitat degradation in grasslands, Yoram Ayal(Israel) 12:30 – 14:30Short Field Trips and Lunch Break
14:30-16:00 Parallel Sessions II
5. Remote Sensing and Assessment of Desertification Processes (A)
Chair: Professor Danny Blumberg, Ben Gurion University, blumberg@bgu.ac.il
Progress in mapping global desertification, S. D. Prince (U.S.A)
Desertification Risk Assessment in Northeastern Nigeria Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques, Taiwo Qudus, S.O. Mohammed, (Nigeria)
Integrating Remotely-sensed Vegetation Phenology and Rainfall Metrics to Characterize Changes in Dryland Vegetation Cover: Example from Burkina Faso Stefanie Herrmann, Thomas Hopson, (U.S.A)
On the Definition of Desertification through the Case Study of the Egyptian-Israeli Borderline, Arnon Karnieli, Christine Hanisch, Zehava Siegal and Haim Tsoar (Israel)
Evaluation of optimal time-of-day for detecting water stress in olive trees by thermal remote sensing, Nurit Agam, Alon Ben-Gal, Yafit Cohen, Victor Alchanatis, Uri Yermiyahu, and Arnon Dag, (Israel) 6. Drought and Salt Resistant Plants for Sustainable Dryland Development (A)
Chair: Dr. Gozal Ben Hayyim, The Volcani Institute HYPERLINK “mailto:vhgozal@agri.gov.il” vhgozal@agri.gov.il
Potentials for Utilizing the Mulberry (Morus Alba) and the Neem (Azadirachta Indica) For Desertification Control In Northern Ghana: the Experience of the Sericulture Promotion And Development Association, Ghana. Paul Kwasi Ntaanu (Ghana)
Phenology, Floral and Reproductive Biolgy Studies of Genus Zizipus in Negev Desert Conditions, Manoj Kulkarni, Bert Schneider and Noemi Tel-Zur (Israel)
Dissecting the Molecular control of Stomatal Movement in CAM plant: A Potential Source for Genes Conferring Drought Tolerance in C3 Plants, Yaron Sitrit (Israel)
Comparison of Germination Strategies of Four Artemisia Species (Asteraceae) in Horqin Sandy Land, China, Li Xuehua, Liu Zhimin and Jiang Demning (China)
Role of Hydrophilins in Water-stressed and Salt-stressed Environments, Dudy Bar-Zvi, (Israel)
7. Water Management Strategies in the Drylands
Chair: Dr. Alfred Abed- Rabbo, Bethlehem University, abedrabo@gmail.com
Water Management in a Semi-arid Region: An Integrated Water Resources Allocation Modeling for Tanzania, Shija Kazumba (Tanzania/Israel)
Towards Sustainable Management of Wadis in Semi-Arid Environments- IWRM Approach, Walid Saleh, Amjad Aliewi, Anan Jayyousi (Dubai)
Is Desalination Right for Sydney? Phoenix Lawhon Isler(Australia)
16:00-16:15 Coffee Break
16:15-17:15 Parallel Sessions III
8. Remote Sensing and Assessment of Desertification Processes (B)
Chair: HYPERLINK “http://home.geoenv.biu.ac.il/lecturer_html.php?id=33” Prof. Hanoch Lavee, Bar Ilan University , HYPERLINK “mailto:laveeh@mail.biu.ac.il” laveeh@mail.biu.ac.il
Assessing Land Cover Change and Degradation in the Central Asian Deserts Using Satellite Image Processing and Geostatistical Methods, Arnon Karnieli, Tal Svoray, Uri Gilad, (Israel)
A Dynamic Model of Dryland Hydrology Using Remote Sensing, Elene Tarvansky, (United Kingdom)
The Effect of Wildfires on Vegetation Cover and Dune Activity in Australia’s Desert Dunes: A Multi-Sensor Analysis, Noam Levin, Simcha Levental, Hagar Morag (Israel)
9. Desert Ecology (B)
Chair: Dr. Yehoshua Shkedy, Chief Scientist, Israel Nature and Parks Authorit, HYPERLINK “mailto:y.shkedy@npa.org.il” y.shkedy@npa.org.il
Is Grass Scarcity in the Chihuahuan Desert A Result of Shrub-Grass Competition or Soil Moisture Limitation? Giora Kidron and Vincent Gutschick (Israel/U.S.A)
Short-term responses of small vertebrates to vegetation removal as a management tool in Nizzanim dunes, Boaz Shacham and Amos Bouskila (Israel)
Microbial diversity of Mediterranean and Arid soil ecosystem. Ami Bachar, Ashraf Ashhab, Roey Angel, M. Ines M. Soares and Osnat Gillor, (Israel) Effects of woody vegetation and anthropogenic disturbances on herbaceous vegetation in the northern Negev, Moran Segoli, Eugene David Ungar, Moshe Shahack (Israel)
10. Land Restoration Strategies
Chair: Dr. Avi Gafni, Director of Research, Keren Kayemeth L’Yisrael, Avig@kkl.org.il
Role of Wetlands in Sustainable Drylands D. Mutekanga (Uganda)
Restoration of Abandoned Lands, Gabrielyan Bardukh, (Armenia)
Desertification in the Sahel: causes, prevention and reclamation Dov Pasternak (Israel) 11. Strategies for Living in the Drylands
Chair: Prof. Avigad Vonshak, Director Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, avigad@bgu.ac.il
Micro-Climatic Effect of a Manmade Oasis During Different Season in an Extremly Hot, Dry Climate, Oded Potchter (Israel) Ecological sanitation (ECOSAN) as an alternative approach for sustainable dry-land development, Amit Gross (Israel)
Has dependence on runoff agriculture on the dryland environment of the central Negev mountains changed significantly in the last few thousand years? Testing the contribution of the geological substrate, Wieler Nimrod. Avni Y. Benjamini C. (Israel)
12. Pastoralism and the Drylands (B)
Chair: Mr. Shmulik Friedman Head of Israel Grazing Authority HYPERLINK “mailto:shmulikf@moag.gov.il” shmulikf@moag.gov.il
Normative Carrying Capacity of an Isralei Forest for Domesticated Grazers. David Evlagon, Samuel Komisarchik, Yehuda Nissan, No’am Seligman (Israel)
Herd No More: Livestock Husbandry Policies and the Environment in Israel: from 1900 Until Today, Liz Wachs, Alon Tal (U.S.A)
17:15-19:00 Poster Session (including contest) and Cocktail
19:00-20:00 Dinner
20:00 Evening Activities (optional)
Moonlit Hike in Nahal Haverim (Please come w/ walking shoes and warm clothes)
—————————————
DAY 2,December 14, 2008: VEGETATION’S ROLE IN SUSTAINABLE DRYLAND LIVING
8:00-8:30 Registration
8:30 – 10:15Plenary Addresses
Professor Pinhas Alpert, Director, Porter School of the Environment, Tel Aviv University,
“Climate Change’s Impact on Desertification in the Mediterranean Region”
Rattan Lal,Director, Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, Ohio State University. “Carbon Sequestration in the Drylands: Where we Are? Where we might go?”
Dan Yakir, Head, Department of Environmental Sciences & Energy Research, Weitzman Institute, “Israel Forestry, Carbon and the Drylands: Recent Findings from Israel”
Moderator: Mark Windslow, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Germany
9:45-10:00 Coffee Break
10:00-11:30 Parallel Sessions IV
13. The Role Vegetation in Combating Desertification (A)
Chair: Dr. Elli Groner, Arava Institute for desert studies/BIDR, elli.groner@arava.org
Use of Indicator Species in Enhancing the Conservation of Drylands of Kenya J. Aucha, V. Palapala, and J. Shiundu (Kenya)
Green Spots as a Tool to Combat Desertification in the Aral Sea Region, Lilya Dimeyeva, (Kazakhstan)
Vegetation Change in Response to Grazing and Water Level Decline in the Enot Zukim Nature Reserve (en Fescha) Israel, Linda Whittaker, Margareta Walczak, Amos Sabach and Eli Dror (Israel)
Improving sustainability and productivity of rainfed field crops in the Negev regions
David J. Bonfil (Israel)
14. Drought and Salt Resistant Plants for Sustainable Dryland Development (B)
Chair: Professor Micha Guy, Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, HYPERLINK “mailto:michagu@bgu.ac.il” michagu@bgu.ac.il
The chemical induction of Polyploidy Mutan in Zizphus Mauritiana, Noemi Tel Zur and Mohmmad A.Taher (Israel / Jordan)
Using the Model Plant Arabidopsis Thaliana and Extremophile Arabidopsis Relatives to Identify Genes that Can Confer Plant Tolerance to Arid Conditions, Simon Barak (Israel)
Recently Domesticated Native Desert Herbs for Sustainable Planting in Arid and Saline Areas, Elaine Solowey (Israel)
Pattern Formation, State Changes and Catastrophic Shifts in Poa bulbosa Production as Responses to Simulated Grazing, Hadeel Majeed, Yaakov Garb, Moshe Shachak (Israel)
Germination and seedling survival in NaCl solutions after desiccation of some halophytes-used in pasture and fodder production in the solonchak salinities of the Kyzylkum desert, in Uzbekistan, Tanya Gendler, Japakova Ulbosun, Nicolai Orlovsky and Yitzchak Gutterman (Israel)
15. Afforestation in the Drylands
Chair: Dr. Gabriel Shiller, The Volcani Institute, HYPERLINK “mailto:vcgabi@volcani.agri.gov.il” vcgabi@volcani.agri.gov.il
Dryland Afforestation, Bill Hollingworth, (Australia)
Soil and Water Management along with Afforestation for Rehabilitation of Desertified Areas of the Israeli Negev, Yitzak Moshe (Israel)
Land Restoration in the Mediterranean, V. Ramon Vallejo, (Spain)
The Impact of Tree Shelters on Forest Survival of Eight Native Broadleaf Species in Forest Plantations in Israel, Omri Boneh (Israel)
16. Irrigation in the Drylands
Chair: Dr. Alon Ben-Gal, Gilat Research Station, Volcani Institute, bengal@volcani.agri.gov.il
Combating Land Degradation in Irrigated Agriculture Through Systematic Characterization of Saline-Sodic Soils for Improved Irrigation Efficiency in Kenya - E.M. Muya, (Kenya)
Adaption of Drip Irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa, Towards a Strategy for Technology Transfer, Lonia Friedlander (U.S.A)
Managing salt, nutrient and soil structure in reclaimed water irrigated vineyards of South Australia, Biswas and McCarthy (AU)
Future strategies for drainage problems in the desert area (IGNP) of Western Rajasthan in India, Kiran Soni Gupta (India)
Root zone salinity management strategy for the Australian drought, Schrale (AU)
17. Climate Change in the Drylands
Chair: Dr. Yeshayahu Bar-Or, Chief Scientist, Ministry of Environmntal Protection, HYPERLINK “mailto:Ybo@sviva.gov.il” Ybo@sviva.gov.il
Climate Change Trends in an Extreme Arid Zone, Southern Arava (Israel and Jordan) Hanan Ginat, Yanai Shlomi, Danny Blumberg (Israel)
Climate change and its effect on Mediterranean Basin ecosystems, Pua Bar (Kutiel) (Israel) Climatic Change and Desertification Predictive Modeling In The Northeastern Nigeria.
Dr. Ojonigu Ati And Taiwo Qudus (Nigeria)
11:30-13:30 Open Campus Lunch Break
13:30-15:00 Parallel Sessions V
18. The Role of Vegetation in Combating Desertification (B)
Chair: Mr. Tauber Israel, KKL, HYPERLINK “javascript:addSender(%22IsraelT@kkl.org.il%22)” IsraelT@kkl.org.il
Desertification not at all costs – a matter of temporal and spatial scales and policies
Pua Bar (Kutiel) (Israel)
Cropping systems in the Indian arid zone and long-term effects of continuous cropping
N.L. Joshi (India)
Establishing the Relationships between Soils, Vegetation and Ecosystem Dynamics: A Strategy for Land Degradation Control in Nurunit Marsabit District, Kenya, E.M. Muya, (Kenya)
19. Indigenous Knowledge in the Combating of Desertification
Chair: Prof. Aref Abu Rabia, Ben Gurion University, HYPERLINK “mailto:aref@bgu.ac.il” aref@bgu.ac.il
Ethnobotanical Approach to the Conservation of Dryland Vegetation James Aucha (Kenya)
Environmental and Economic Potential of Bedouin Dryland Agriculture, Khalil Abu Rabia, Elaine Solowey and Stefan Leu (Israel)
Traditional Knowledge and Technologies: Administration of Common Goods from the Perspective of Goat Producers in the Lavalle Desert, Laura Maria Torres (Argentina)
20. Managing Drought in the Drylands Chair, Mr. Yaakov Lomas, Israel Metereological Institute, HYPERLINK “mailto:lomasjakob@yahoo.com” lomasjakob@yahoo.com Drought Risk Reduction in Rajasthan, India Madhukar Gupta (India)
Merits and Limitations in Assessing Droughts by Remote Sensing, Arnon Karnieli and Nurit Agam (Israel)
The Impact of Long Term Drought Periods in Northern Israel, Moshe Inbar (Israel)
Hydric Characterization of the Sinaloa State (Mexico), Through the Aridity and Aridity Régime Indices, Israel Velasco, (Mexico)
Economic Sustainable rainfed wheat production under Semi-Arid climatic conditions – Agrometeorological criteria for planning purposes, Lomas (Israel)
21. Carbon Sequestration
Chair: Dr. Noam Gressel, Assif Strategies, HYPERLINK “mailto:noam@assifstrategies.com” noam@assifstrategies.com
Semi-arid Afforestation and its Effect on Land-atmosphere Interactions,
Eyal Rotenberg et. al., (Israel)
Capacity of the forest ecosystems to sequester carbon (Case of the watershed basin of Rheraya- area of Marrakech) ) Rachid Ilmen (Morocco)
Halting Land Degradation and Desertification: A Win-Win Mitigation Strategy Neglected by the Climate Establishment, Stefan Leu (Israel)
Special Round Table discussion: Mid-east Regional Cooperation to Research Desertification with Arab and Israeli Desertification Experts
Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli experts meeting and discussing common concerns and solutions to address desertification in the Middle East region.
Moderator: Prof. Avigad Vonshak
Jeffrey Cook Workshop in Desert Architecture and Planning
Architecture and Urban Planning in the Drylands
Dryland Urban Expansion: Environmental Problems and Urban Planning, the Case of Urmuqi China S. Liu (UK)
Towards a Comprehensive Methodology for Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE): A Hot Dry Climate Case Study, Isaac Meir, Eduoardo Kruger, Lusi Morhayim, Shiri Fundaminsky, Liat Frenkel, (Israel)
Sick Building Syndrome in a University Building – an Educational Survey, Lusi Morhayim, Issac Meir (Israel)
Urban Sustainability in Desert and Dryland Areas – a First Exploration, Yodan Rofe and Gabriela Feierstein (Israel/Argentina)
Microclimatic Issues in the Planning of a Modern City in a Desert Environment, Evyatar Erell (Israel)
Sustainable Architecture in the Outback/Desert Regions of Australia: The Paradigm in Theory and Practice, Terence Williamson (Australia)
Arch. Suhasini Ayer-Guigan (India)
Arch. Mary Hancock (UK)
Arch. Laureano Pietro (Italy)
15:30 Bus Ride to Mitzpe-Ramon
16:00-17:00 Sunset Overlooking the Ramon Crater, Visit to Ramon Visitor’s Center
17:30 PLENARY LECTURE: Professor Uri Shani, Director, Israel Water Authority,
“Addressing Scarcity in the Drylands: Israel’s New Water Management Strategy”,
Moderator, Ms. Hila Ackerman, Director of Environmental Department, Ramat Negev Regional Council
19:00 Dinner
20:00 Evening Activity: Music & Dancing OR Astronomy Lecture
—————————————–
DAY 3, December 16, 2008: FIELD TRIPS
————————————— DAY 4, December 17, 2008: THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS- POLICIES AND PARTNERSHIPS TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION
8:00-8:30 Registration
8:30 – 10:15Plenary Addresses/ Panel – Reconsidering the Axiom of “Bottom Up” Desertification Programs: Lessons Learned about Partnerships and International Assistance
Chris Braeuel UNCCD Focal Point, Canada,
Christian Mersmann, Director, The Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, Rome
Alon Tal, Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research
DelphineOuedraogo, Ministry of Environment, Focal Point to UNCCD, Burkina Faso
Moderator: TBA 10:00-10:15 Coffee Break
10:15-11:50 Parallel Sessions VI
22. The Contradictions of “Gender Equality” in Development Discourses in Desert Regions (Panel A) Chair: Prof. Rivka Carmi, President Ben Gurion University, president@bgu.ac.il Rethinking modern education among indigenous Negev Bedouin, Sarab Abu-Rabia-Queder (Israel) Looking Ahead: Bedouin Women, Higher Education, Identity and Belonging,Ronnie Halevi (Israel/U.S.A.)
The nation and its natures: Depictions of women Environmental Educators in the Israeli Negev Desert, Miri Lavi-Neeman, (Israel/USA) “My Life? What is there to tell?” : Interpreting the life stories of multiply marginalized women in an Israeli ‘Development Town” Sigal Ron (Israel)
23. Public Policy, Economics and Desertification
Chair: Dr. Moshe Schwartz, Ben Gurion University, moshesc@bgu.ac.il
Economic Instruments for Mitigation of Desertification Problems in Armenia Gevorgyan Suren, (Armenia)
Land Degradation, Subsidies Dependency and Market Vulnerability of Stock –breeding Households in Central Crete Hugues Lorent, et. al., (Belgium)
The Value of Israel’s Forests and Desertification, Tzipi Eshet, Dafna Disegni and Mordehcai Shechter (Israel)
Current Status and Issues for Combating Desertification In Western Rajasthan, Kiran Soni Gupta, (India)
How To Put Desertification and Water Management in The Political Agenda: The South Italy Development Policies, Carlo Donolo (Italy)
24. Food Security in the Drylands
Chair: TBA
Livelihood Strategies: Indigenous Practices and Knowledge Systems in the Attainment of Food Security in Botswana, Maitseo Bolaane (Botswana)
Drought and food insecurity: a rationale for national grain reserves, Hendrik Bruins (Israel)
Drought Management Planning in Water Supply System, Enrique Cabrera (Spain)
The Impact of Drought on Agriculture in Jordan, Sawsan Batarseh and Hendrik J. Bruins (Jordan)
25. Case Studies – Projects that Combat Desertification
Chair: Beth-Eden Kite, Deputy Director, Mashav, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, beth-eden.kite@mfa.gov.il
Combating Desertification: An Attempt at Wasteland Development in Rajasthan, India, Kusum Bhawani Shanker, (India)
Valuing the Successes of combating desertification – Experience of Burkina Faso in the rehabilitation of the productive capacity of the village territories, Ouedraogo Delphine (Burkina Faso)
Development of Drylands of Kenya Using the Jatropha Curcas Value Chain J.A. Aucha, V. Palapla, and J. Shinundu, (Kenya)
Production Diversification for Expanding the Economic Foundations of Argentinean Monte Desert Communities, Elena Maria Abraham, Giuseppe Enne (Argentina)
11:50-12:00 Coffee Break
12:00-13:00 Parallel Sessions VI
26. Bottom Up: Community Participation in Programs to Combat Desertification
Chair: Dr. Haim Divon, Deputy Director, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Man, Desert and Environment, Hanan Ginat, Noa Avriel-Avni (Israel)
People and institutional participation in forest management for sustainable development: options for drylands based on experiences from Sudan. Edinam K. Glover (Finland)
Dryland Gardening: A Sustainable Solution to Desertification? Southern Africa as a Case Study, Adam Abramson (U.S.A)
27. Culturing Desertification: Gender and the Politics of Development (Panel B) Chair: Dr. Pnina Motzafi-Haller, Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, pninamh@gmail.com
Development and the Role of Women in Pakistan, Masooda Bano, (UK)
Domestic Water Provision and Gender Roles in Drylands, Anne Coles (UK) Women’s Work: Gender and the Politics of Trash Labor in Dakar,Rosalind Fredericks, (USA) 28. The Negev Desert – Development and Conservation
Chair: Dr. Yodan Rofeh, Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, yrofe@bgu.ac.il
The Israeli Negev Desert: From Frontier to Periphery, Yehuda Gradus (Israel)
The National-Strategic Plan for Developing the Negev – Negev 2015: An Old Prospect or a New Future, Na’ama Theshner (Israel)
The potential of TOD for development of the Northern Negev, Prof. Dani Gat (Israel)
Sense of place and naming in Hura as an example of the changing spatial consciousness of Beduoin in the Negev, Arnon Ben Israel and Avinoam Meir (Israel)
29. The Political Ecology of Deserts and Desertification
Chair: Dr. Yaakov Garb, Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, ygarb@bgu.ac.il
Rebuilding the Land: Political Ecology of Land Degradation in Somaliland Ingrid Hartman (Germany)
Desertification Narratives (and Their Uses) in the Middle East and North Africa, Diana Davis (U.S.A)
Desertification or Greening in the Sahel? Case study of Inadvertent Greening in the Oued Kowb, Mauritania, Stefanie Herrmann, Mamadou Baro, Aminata Niang (U.S.A)
Political Ecology: Wind Erosion on the U.S. Southern High Plains
R. E Zartman and A.C. Correa (U.S.A)
30. Assessing International Efforts to Combat Desertification
Chair: Professor Uriel Safriel, Hebrew University, uriel36@gmail.com
Follow the Money: Navigating the International Aid Maze for Dryland Development Pamela Chasek (U.S.A)
The Global Mechanism – Lessons Learned C. Mersmann, (Italy)
Research Priorities of the UNESCO Chair on Eremology Gabriels (Belgium)
An Analytic Review for International Collaborations for Drylands Research and Sustainable Development, J. Scott Hauger (U.S.A)
A Conference to Improve the Flow of Science into the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Mark Winslow (Germany)
13:00-14:30 Lunch and Concluding Session
e-mail: desertification at bgu.ac.il —————————————————— See also: Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 17th, 2008
Permalink |
| ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 31st, 2008
BEIJING, Oct 22 (IPS) - Cast in the role of global saviour in the unfolding financial turmoil, China is playing host to a meeting of Asian and European leaders in Beijing this week that is expected to castigate the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism and press for a reshaped global economic order.
*** U.S. Treasury Department officials and politicians have all called on Beijing to show a pro-active attitude and join efforts with the Western world to fight the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Qin Gang said Beijing had adopted a “responsible and constructive attitude” in dealing with the crisis. But few details have emerged over the role China is expected to play. Latest economic figures show that the country’s economy is also vulnerable to the effects of the global economic slowdown. The National Statistics Bureau said on Monday the economy expanded by just nine percent in the third quarter, the slowest rate in five years. By comparison, the economy grew 10.6 percent in the first quarter and 10.1 in the second quarter of 2008. The slowdown was blamed on plummeting demand for Chinese goods as consumers in the U.S. and Europe cut back on spending. In recent weeks Beijing has grown more critical over the lack of financial surveillance in developed economies, which it blames for the spiralling crisis. The deputy governor of China’s central bank, Yi Gang, who took part in the emergency G20 meeting in Washington earlier this month, chastised the International Monetary Fund for allowing too much leverage in the system and failing to exert control of big Western financial institutions. But there has been less certainty about what would replace the current order of international capitalism. “The demise of Wall Street Anglo-Saxon model doesn’t signify the victory of China’s financial modus operandi,” said a commentary in the 21st Century Economic Herald. “Even as we criticise Wall Street’s excesses, we should be aware that China’s model of financial operation is not necessarily the answer,” it said. “True, Chinese banks are stable and they don’t pursue excessive profits blindly. But they are far from free from red tape and administrative interference.” According to Qin Gang the ASEM summit offers the “perfect platform” for leaders to discuss ways of dealing with the crisis.
————— The update comes October 31, 2008 to the original posting of October 25, 2008 and it deals specifically with the place of Mongolia in all of the above. This because of a breakfast meeting at the Asia Society in New York today, October 31, 2008 – the traditional Halloween day, and I will mention after a few further lines why I say this. The meeting today had the title – Mongolia Rising: The Incredible and Continuing Story of Mongolia’s Emergence as a Free Market Democracy. At the breakfast meeting spoke the US Ambassador to Mongolia, Mr. Mark C. Minton, and in the audience sat also Ambassador Ms. Enkhtsetseg Ochir, the Permanent Representative of Mongolia to the UN. Jamie F. Metzl, the Exec. VP of Asia Society chaired. Strangely, when I looked up the website of the Asia Society, I found that on October 31, 2005 The Asia Society Washington DC Center had a meeting on Mongolia. Here the strange coincidence of the Halloween date repeating itself exactly three years later and my possibility to compare the progress of relations between the US and Mongolia in the last three years – to the date. The information from 2005 - http://www.asiasociety.org/speeches/us-m… Strangely, already at that first meeting there was a reference to Halloween, but that was a very serious meeting – “US-Mongolia Relations: History and Future Prospects.” That meeting, according to the pdf had a large cast of Ambassadors participating, including Tony Lake, and it was arranged before President Bush trip to Mongolia – the first Summit of a US President with a Mongolian President. Since then there was a return visit – a Summit of the presidents in the Washington DC White House in 2007. Mr. Mark Minton, a career member of the US Foreign Service got to UlaanBataar in December 2006 after having served in Korea and Japan, so he was in Mongolia for the last two years of the US- Mongolia rapprochement. So why Mongolia? It is a country, the size of Alaska, of 3 million people, and 45% live now in the capital area urban environment. Culturally they are close to Tibet and are of the same religious belief as the Tibetan Buddhism, thus I would assume also close culturally to Bhutan, but they were a nomadic people. In the 20th century that brushed with Soviets, Chinese and Japanese occupation and are fiercely intent on preserving their freedom. Being geographically wedged in between China and Russia, they want that “third neighbor” that geography did not give them. So thy go the long distance and want the US as their third neighbor. To reach the US they developed their democracy so they can interact with countries beyond their two immediate neighbors. They reorganized their army as a peace making army and they participate in UN peace missions like Sierra Leone, and with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. in exchange the US established an AID program involved in preventive health care and in construction workers education as the transformation from the nomadic lifestyle created needs for new skills in the housing sector; further the US Peace Corps are active in Mongolia – it is actually the largest per capita Peace Corps location. But obviously the US does not have Mongolia to itself, the Japanese foreign aid is the largest in Mongolia and the EU, Australia, and Canada are also active. Democratization made large progress – there is transparency, a judiciary, there are elections and they have a market economy and the leaders are involved in diplomacy. They are visited often by the Dalai Lama and the university is in exchange with the University of Alaska. Obviously, the US is interested in Mongolia’s mineral resources – so is China. Peabody Coal and Rio Tinto International are active in Mongolia. Hilton International opened this year. Mongolia is becoming a middle income country. It is landlocked but is starting to take advantage from its location by becoming a country of transit between China and Russia. In the democracy department there was a blemish recently when after the summer elections there were riots. The Ambassador explained those as inexperience because they have an army but not good police service. The fact was that the army, that was trained for peace work, did not know how to act when called in after the opposition protests about the elections. The authorities panicked and the army was inefficient. An adviser to Nature Conservancy criticised the ambassador as he said nothing about the environmental problems and the mining industry. Further there are issues resulting from foreigners buying up grazing land for meet production and farming. The nuclear issue came up as Mongolia wants to be part of the six Party talks on North Korea programs. Further, what was not mentioned is that Mongolia declared its nuclear-weapon-free status. In effect I have in front of me UN General Assembly document A/c.1/63/L.28 where Kazakhstan, Morocco, and Mongolia brought up together Mongolia’s rejection of nuclear weapons. Also, in recognition of their specific situation, Japan let Mongolia host one of the six-Party talks commissions. Japan is also looking into the problem with desert dust from Mongolia reaching Japan. From all this material, what is China doing when insisting in bringing in Mongolia to the meeting they hosted between the 27 EU countries and the four major Asian economies, when besides Japan, India and Korea, they also invited Pakistan and Mongolia? We understood Pakistan as sort of balance to India, but now we also figure that bringing in Mongolia has more to do with trying to redirect this country towards Europe and weakening a runaway relationship with the US directly, or via Japan. The bottom line is that because of size and economic potential, Mongolia is a country with much higher importance then it might be assumed from the mere 3 million people. China night then want to keep it in its own orbit and to guard it from “third neighbors’” exaggerated footholds. Permalink |
| ### |
