The Coral Reef Crisis: Addressing the Threats of Global Warming and Ocean Acidification.
Public Presentation: 6th July 2009 (15:30 -17.00) at the Royal Society by Professor J.E.N. Veron
With introduction by Sir David Attenborough
Communicating the danger of major ecosystem collapse:
Coral reefs are directly impacted by the synergistic effects of global warming and ocean acidification and are likely to be placed into a situation of irreversible decline if immediate steps are not taken to reduce CO2 emissions. In December 2009, Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be meeting in Copenhagen to discuss and hopefully agree to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The scientific community has a critical role to play in informing the decision makers involved in the UNFCCC talks about the level of greenhouse gas emissions cuts required to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.
Professor J.E.N Veron is the former Chief Scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and widely regarded as the world’s leading authority on coral reef ecosystems. He has extensively researched the highly synergistic threats posed to coral reef ecosystems by global warming and ocean acidification. Professor Veron will summarise these threats and the action he believes is essential at Copenhagen this December.
This presentation will be followed by a summary of the findings and recommendations of a Technical Expert Workshop held earlier in the day.
Location: The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London, SW1Y 5AG (HUlink to mapUH)

 HUhttp://royalsociety.org/UH  The nearest tube station is Piccadilly Circus (5 minutes), Charing Cross (10 minutes) and Victoria (20 minutes).
This event is being organised by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean, the Royal Society, and the Zoological Society of London.
Please note seats are not reserved unless prior arrangements have been made with  HUaylin.mcnamara at zsl.orgUH.

Doors open 20 minutes before the presentation starts.

Aylin McNamara

Zoological Society of London
Regent’s Park
London NW1 4RY
tel: +44 (0)20 7449 6287  fax: +44 (0)20  7722 2852
  Permalink | Printer Friendly |  Email This Article
Posted in Global Warming issues, Future Meetings, United Kingdom, Asia & Australia, Australia

del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google Technorati Windows Live Yahoo! | what's this?

Discuss this article

from  Hazel.Foster at fco.gov.uk
In the wake of recent significant events involving North Korea, Peter Hughes, the UK’s Ambassador to Pyongyang, will be giving a media briefing on DPRK and the international reaction on 3 July in London.
Peter Hughes will be speaking via video-link live from Pyongyang. The FCO will be streaming questions (from media attending the event in London) and his answers through our website www.fco.gov.uk

The briefing will begin at 1015 UK time, 0515 NY time. If you don’t want to get up that early, it will be archived on the FCO website once it happens, so you should be able to view it later.

Hazel Foster (Miss)
Third Secretary Press
United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations
One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
885 Second Avenue (48th Street & 2nd Avenue, 28th Floor)
New York, NY 10017
Tel:  00 1 212 745 9288
Fax:  00 1 212 745 9316
FTN:  8451 2288

UKMis Web:  ukun.fco.gov.uk
Visit our blogs at http://blogs.fco.gov.uk

From: Hassan Mansour
He says: There is now ample evidence of the ecological impacts of recent climate change from polar terrestrial to tropical marine environments. So on behalf of the Egyptian Society for Environmental Sciences (ESES) it is our pleasure to welcome you to the fourth international conference on “Impacts of Climate Change on Natural Resources” that will take place in Ismailia, Egypt on November 10-11, 2009.

As in the past three years, this conference will offer outstanding international speakers. There will be ample time for abstracts, posters, and the many informal discussions that have helped make past meetings successful.

Those of you who attended the past conferences of ESES already know that Ismailia is a vibrant modern city, and that Suez Canal University makes an outstanding venue for this meeting.

for more information, please feel free to contact:

Hassan Mansour
Representative of the Organising comittee
 hmansour at uga.edu,  man_griesh at yahoo.com
Or visit our website: www.eses-catrina.com

further, they say:

Recently, the environment has been the topic of the hour, the whole world started to pay a great attention to the environment as a strategic choice to conserve the natural resources which will ensure the continuity and sustainability of these resources in the future.

Sinai Peninsula and Suez Canal area are characterized by their geographical importance and their richness in natural resources which include plants, animals, geological structures and marine habitats.

The natural resources of Egypt, especially these of Sinai Peninsula are facing many threats such as over collection, overgrazing, habitat destruction and urbanization which in return change the wild life, distinction of some species, threat some other and rarity of others.

Also, the unique geological structure affected by many threats as the random quarrying and overexploitation for material resources. The underground water also affected by the pollutants.

—————

Management Committee:

President:

Prof. Abdel-Raouf A. Moustafa

Vice-Presidents:

Dr. Nabil N. El-Masry

Secretary:

Dr. Mohamed S. Zaghloul

Treasurer:

Dr. Raafat H. Abdel-Wahab

Members:

Prof. Samira R. Mansour

Dr. Wafaa M. Kamel

Dr. Samy A. Abdel-Malek

Call for Papers: Climate change and simulation/gaming

A special edition of Simulation & Gaming, an international journal of theory, practice and research (Sage Publications), will focus on the numerous pedagogical and investigative methods employed to examine climate change – methods that cross disciplines, from the natural and geo sciences, through the social sciences, to education. Climate change is a quintessential issue requiring rigorous analysis and careful understanding by scientists, educators, policy makes and global citizens. We seek submissions from multiple disciplines and perspectives, employing a variety of methods to understand and teach a broad variety of climate change dimensions - process, causes, consequences and responses - social, economic and geopolitical impacts such as international migration, reconfiguration of states, poverty, trade wars, etc. We encourage articles related to climate change utilizing such methods as games, role-plays, simulations, experiential learning exercises, case studies; internet-based and digital games; modeling, game theory, computer simulation, etc.; virtual reality, augmented reality, virtual environments.

Proposals may submitted now through the end of 2009. Proposal will be reviewed within one month. Manuscripts will be published on line as articles are accepted. A printed symposium will be available after all articles are printed online.

Proposals of one to two pages may be submitted electronically (.doc, not .docx). Proposals should contain your name, email, phone, fax, address, etc.; working title for proposed paper; and a set of objectives, an abstract and/or working plan.

Proposals may be submitted to the Guest editors: Klaus Eisenack, University of Oldenburg, Germany,  klaus.eisenack at uni-oldenburg.de, Mary Pettenger, Western Oregon University, USA,  pettengm at wou.edu, Diana Reckien, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany,  reckien at pik-potsdam.de, Richard Warrick, International Climate Change Exchange, New Zealand,  cearsr at waikato.ac.nz,  Niki Young, Western Oregon University, USA,  youngn at wou.edu.

Editor of Simulation and Gaming: A Sage Journal: David Crookall,  simulation.gaming at gmail.com.

from:  Cicerone, Brett

BUSINESS STRATEGIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Location:
Lake Tahoe, California
Program Dates:
October 25-31, 2009
Application Deadline: September 14, 2009

Listen to Professor Bill Barnett describe the challenges facing executives in business, government, and nonprofit organizations with an environmental purpose. Preparing Environment Conscious Leaders.

As a friend of the Stanford Center for Social Innovation, we wanted to make sure you were aware of our pioneering executive education offering, Business Strategies for Environmental Sustainability. Drawn from a multidisciplinary curriculum and delivering strategies to gain competitive advantage through environmentally sustainable practices, Business Strategies for Environmental Sustainability is the first of its kind program designed to advance environmental responsibility across sectors.
Hosted at the Stanford Sierra Conference Center, Business Strategies for Environmental Sustainability offers executives a camp-like retreat where they can explore what it means to turn sustainable business practices into competitive advantage. The program is designed to cover a range of issues that are central to those who are leading sustainability initiatives in their roles as leaders in business, government, public agencies, and environmental advocacy organizations. Key takeaways include: frameworks to understand how organizations can strike a balance between business and environmental objectives while managing complex stakeholder relationships, and leadership skills to enable action as an internal change agent.
If you or someone you know would benefit from this program, please visit us online at www.gsb.stanford.edu or contact Brett Cicerone directly.

The silence of the powerful media about the UN.

Josep Xercavins i Valls *

“The Conference on the crisis: a key moment for the future of the UN” and/or “The silence of the powerful media about what is happening at the UN”

In a few days the “UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development” will take place in the United Nations Headquarters in New York, from 24 to 26 June 2009.

It is currently impossible to say how this conference is going to end. However, according to the process that led to this conference -with two main experts like D’Escoto and Stiglitz - and to the contents of its negotiation, we can probably say that it will mark a moment in history. On the one hand, for the future actions that will be carried out to put an end to the global crisis. On the other, for the impact it may produce on the future of the UN, especially (or not) on its future role in financial and economic governance. Last but not least, in relation to the crucial performance of the media when having to report about these subjects. This text discusses the power of the media and the future of the UN.

Above observation about the Press and the UN sounds like a joke.

Please see what we e-mailed to Mr. Gary Fowlie as we wanted to cover exactly this event - we were not honored with a reply as to-date.

***

To:  Mr. Gary Fowlie, Chief, Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, United Nations Department of Public Information.

From: Pincas Jawetz, editor-in-chief The Sustainable Development Media Think Tank servicing www.SustainabiliTank.info

Date: June 16, 2009

Subject: Accreditation for the purpose of covering the June 24 - June 26, 2009, United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development to be held at UN Headquarters in New York.

Dear Mr. Fowlie,

As per UN published material - I quote and attach bellow - you are personally in charge of the accreditation process - and with the history of your full knowledge of my own person and the media outlet that I have helped create, the fact that I am actually the editor in chief at www.SustainabiliTank.info - a worldwide recognized online media outlet - I apply directly to you in this e-mail to obtain the above mentioned accreditation.

a. I am the appointing officer of our media and I appoint myself - So this is my self-accreditation letter and letter of assignment.

b. My photocopies of Press card and Passport are - I trust - in your files - if you do not have them anymore they clearly will be provided in person.

c. I understand the need for an on-line accreditation form, but if I do not get your OK for my accreditation - according to history - it will just turn into a waste of time if I start the usual way.

d. As you know above UN meeting is on the top of interest priorities of our global readership, and it would be nice to serve them direct information from covering this from within the UN building.

Sincerely yours,

Pincas Jawetz

***

——————

The  Josep Xercavins i Valls * follows:
“The silence of the powerful media about what is happening at the UN”

What a pity! There were, there are and there will be so many things to explain, to analyze and to discuss in connection to the current crisis that I can not but claim against one of the worst manipulations of our times: the “unbearable” silence of the media about this UN Conference. An especially unbearable silence since it is only “heard” on the side of the richest and most powerful. Two extremely opposite examples prove these statements:

1. The powerful media could not do anything against the conference. On May 24, the New York Times published a very harsh article by Neil MacFarquhar, in which D’Escoto was described as “a ranking Sandinista and the fractious president of the United Nations GA”. Anyone can read it and form an opinion about it. The article gets quite distorted when it says that D’Escoto bases his proposals on a report by the Stiglitz Commission (not that caricaturable), a statement that the reader can only find at the end of the article - in an article that is hard to read.

What is really interesting, though, is the fact that -surprisingly- the article was not echoed by other media. They probably preferred to ignore it rather than vilify it. In my opinion, it was more dangerous for their interests to spread the word about the conference: they would then run the risk that someone may talk about its contents and even get excited about it.

2. An article of the author writing these lines, only published in the Other News of Roberto Savio (whose motto I’m “copying” now is a phrase appeared on the wall of Barcelona’s old Customs Office, at the beginning of 2003: “What walls utter, media keeps silent”), has appeared in some thousands of Spanish-speaking web pages (the English version was late and then I did not deem it appropriate to distribute it - what I now regret). The article was called: “From the G20 to the G192 -the UN- : At last, a real answer to the crisis?”

Obviously, in this case, the reason of this self-spreading over the Net was not the author’s name (totally unknown); it must be the interest for the subject itself. Therefore, and to use the terminology surrounding the crisis, there was and there is “market” for the subject. ¡Of course! In short, once again, the strategy has been to avoid talking about the conference and its contents, in order to avoid thinking a real alternative to the mentioned hegemony.

Apart from the seriousness of such silence, what is really alarming is that the citizens all over the world have been deprived of the necessary information to form their own opinion and to put pressure or not, in any direction, with regards to what is being discussed these days at the UN. As a result, the governmental representatives are busy in one of the most important processes in recent times, and yet in the dark. The only information about it is offered by the civil society organisations that, under the name of the “Global Social and Economic Group Crisis Group”, try to do the follow up, to lobby and inform about what is happening in the New York headquarters. This is allowing me, for instance, to write this article but, unfortunately, the power of the public opinion will not arrive in time.

It is not the moment to go into this in depth, but it is becoming clearer and clearer the urging need to fight for the freedom and the right to truthful and plural information about what is happening in the world.

“The Conference about the crisis: a key moment for the future of the UN”

The present global crisis is so important that also offer a window of opportunity in terms of global governance. At least, the crisis is playing and will play a substantial role in determining which “institutional” actors, which multi-polar international relations, which multilateral organisations, etc. will be more or less well placed in the political section of the “financial and economic tsunami”.

For the rich and most powerful countries -where the crisis, its causes and its first consequences were born and developed- the better would have been that nothing had changed in the political arena.  With a “dead” Bush, our current French “Napoleon”, Sarkozy, organised the first “party” of the G20, to pretend that things would change so that, as always, nothing changes.

An extraordinary meeting of the G8 would have been much more appropriate. These states (some more than others) were responsible for the crisis and, therefore, it was their duty to assume responsibilities and arrange things in their own homes.

Before the G20 meeting, one statement by the Forum UBUNTU raised some of the details of the situation:

1. Our perplexity, because the main protagonists who have worked to impose this model over the last 25 years, the G7 and the Bretton Woods Institutions (the IMF and the WB), are now taking on the role of saviours in this disaster, when they should rather be seen as the guilty parties to a large degree, and should consequently accept the responsibilities that pertain to them.

2. Our indignation regarding the meeting called for 14 November in Washington for, among others, the following reasons:

a. That precisely Washington, home of the Government and Organisations most responsible politically for what is now happening, is the one calling the meeting.

b. That invitations to the meeting have been issued in a totally arbitrary and discriminatory form. As if, for example, the poorest countries, those who have suffered most from this model and will probably suffer most from the consequences of the current debacle, had nothing to say about what to do now and in the future.

c. That it not only fails to take advantage of but even overshadows the Doha Conference on Financing for Development to Review the Implementation of the Monterrey Consensus, scheduled for 29 November to 2 December, especially when this Consensus includes a section on systemic - structural issues, which have been worked on for months in the United Nations’ most pluralistic and transparent framework, and which, appropriately reviewed and extended in the current context, could contribute to opening the way to a new world economic and financial model.

The G20 went by, above all, as a big media circus to stop any possible alternative movement, and the Doha Conference 2008 came, unfortunately despite predictably enough, to nothing.

However, history has its own ins and outs. The General Assembly of the UN is been presided since last September - although the appropriate election was carried out months earlier - by Father Miguel D’Escoto. Because of his strong determination, he dared to open a new approach, different of the G20’s one, to look, analyze and to propose about the crisis: the “Stiglitz Commission” (created, by the way, just a few weeks before the first meeting of the G20) and he also managed to introduce the following article on the Doha Declaration 2008:

79. The United Nations will hold a Conference at the highest level on the world financial and economic crisis and its impact on development. The Conference will be organised by the President of the UN General Assembly and its modalities will be defined by March 2009 at the latest.

It was not in March, nor the first week of June, but now it seems impossible that the Conference does not take place the last week of June. We will later have more time to relate all the obstacles that were overcome to get to this end.

Although d’Escoto managed to get approved an article (the above article) whose  restrictive reading would prevent the Conference to treat further matters other than the effects of the crisis on development - an argument repeatedly used at the negotiations’ table by, amongst others, the US and Europe -, our ‘Father D’Escoto’ has grabbed the opportunity and put all his energy in, precisely, transforming the Conference into a milestone, possibly ‘historic’, that can place the UN at the front of the world financial and economic governance.

In an interview with Cuba’s official newspaper Gramma (which denotes either a certain naivety or an excess of confidence…), Father D’Escoto explains:

We are facing a totally unprecedented situation. We have to remember that it is been always prohibited for the General Assembly to discuss or intervene in international financial affairs, such matters were reserved to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WBG) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). But this situation cannot continue like this… So this summit to be held in June will be the first opportunity in the history of the United Nations to tell everyone: ‘come and lets all talk’. We are -and we must be - in the 21st Century, the Century of Reconciliation and of inclusive democracy. We do not want only the G-8 or the G-20 to be the ones that speak or take decisions, we will respect their criteria (opinions), we will listen, but in a real democracy, the majority decides, that is why I have started to insist that the voice of the G-192 must be THE voice, that of all members of the United Nations. There are good feelings about the meeting, convened at the highest level, because this battle has to be made at the United Nations in order to participate democratically in the design of a new financial, economic, monetary and trade architecture. That is what we pretend to do. I think that the meeting in June will be considered as the first session of a meeting that will be kept open.

It is indeed the role of the United Nations what really is under discussion these days, about its role in governing financial and economic issues. It is therefore an incredible window of opportunity, in the short and medium term, to achieve a UN different from what it is today. That is, from a UN that is the complex and contradictory result of:

a) a physical place where the Security Council hosts the winners of the Second World War; b) the main reference of international law around the various Human Rights Declarations; c) a necessary humanitarian agency, although with a lot to improve, as it is normally the case in all human endeavours; d) etc.

to a UN that is a real institution of world democratic governance (which can only be achieved and exerted when politics decide over finances and economy). A UN that is the real expression of consensus-building capacity - whenever it is possible - amongst the states of the world, or else the result of democratic majorities reached in the General Assembly. Despite the usual criticisms about the democratic legitimacy of the UN General Assembly where each member state has a vote - something that must be corrected, but that this text will not deal with -, the reality tends to correct it as key decisions reflect the relative positions of the biggest current groupings (US, Europe, G77 and China, Russia, etc.).

And finally, if I write these lines today and now, it is because I see some signs for hope:

1) a certain re-composition of the G77 (the group of 140 countries that normally negotiates together as the voice of the developing countries) that, having recovered those members who shared tablecloths with rich and powerful countries in the G20 meetings, is now together behind proposals such as the creation of a Economic Security Council or the review of the harmful agreement (and original sin of the multilateral international organisations) between the UN and the Bretton Woods Institutions to bring them back under the real and effective supervision and coordination of a strengthened ECOSOC; and

2) the feeling that the Obama US, even with a confused Europe, has not put up much resistance to debating and negotiating all these issues given the strength -immeasurable and maybe immaterial- of “our Father D’Escoto”.

——————————

*Josep Xercavins i Valls, Professor at Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC); former coordinator of the UBUNTU Forum Secretariat

Mr. Ban Ki-moon, with the obvious exception of some US judges, is now the main relic left from the appointments backed by the US Administration  of former President G.W. Bush. It is obvious that President Obama’s people will have to take a serious look at this if they would like to see a more forthcoming UN as part of their view of the World. We said so quite a while ago, and wonder how this slowly trickles now into the main media. This is specially interesting when the newspaper which we hold in highest esteem is pointing out this issue in such clear terms:

UN disquiet puts Ban’s second term in doubt.
By Harvey Morris at the United Nations
The Financial Times,  June 17 2009
Pervasive criticism of Ban Ki-moon’s performance as United Nations secretary-general, from within the organisation and among envoys assigned to it, is raising doubts about his prospects of a second term, according to senior officials and diplomats.

In an untypically robust defence of his stewardship, Mr Ban acknowledged last week that there had been negative assessments. However, he also drew attention to the challenges he had faced since he took the post as a compromise candidate at the start of 2007.

Approaching the mid-point of his first five-year term, Mr Ban told a press conference it was up to UN member states to decide whether he should serve a second.

“When the time comes, I hope the member states will judge what I will have achieved by that time,” he said. He complained that UN states were not backing him. “It is just impossible. I need more political support. I need more resources by the member states.”

In his own defence, Mr Ban said: “I have been working as the voice of the voiceless people, and defend those people who are defenceless.” But aides fret that his voice is not being heard loudly enough.

The questioning of Mr Ban’s record has become a staple of conversation among staff at the UN’s New York headquarters and of diplomatic chatter among the foreign missions that crowd midtown Manhattan.

The decisive judgment on his performance, however, will be that of member states, and specifically of the five permanent members of the Security Council that have a veto on a second term.

He received their unanimous backing in 2006 when the experienced South Korean career diplomat and former foreign minister offered a safe pair of hands to undertake the task of reforming a 60-year-old bureaucracy that the US and others regarded as dysfunctional. But Mr Ban expressed his frustration at the slow pace of internal reform: after spending 30 months in office he has only just got his senior management team in place.

On the world stage, however, he has left a shallow footprint, with his performance often contrasted with that of Kofi Annan, his predecessor.

His natural preference for conciliation - whether over Israel’s invasion of Gaza or Sri Lanka’s suppression of Tamil Tiger rebels - has been interpreted as appeasement by human rights groups and even by UN staff members.

One UN-watcher noted, however, that Mr Ban’s caution in speaking out firmly on some pressing issues was matched by a lack of resolution by the Security Council.

“The secretary-general’s leadership is crucial, but the failures must be brought home equally to the Security Council. On issues like Sri Lanka, where civilian suffering has been immense, the . . . council cannot even agree to put Sri Lanka on its regular agenda,” said Carne Ross, a former UK diplomat who heads Independent Diplomat, a New York-based non-profit advisory group.

“While there have clearly been some disappointments, a lot rests on Ban’s ability to deliver on his selfproclaimed number one priority: ’selling the deal’ on a new climate agreement in Copenhagen [in December],” Mr Ross said.

The European permanent members of the Security Council - the UK and France - are at best neutral towards Mr Ban, while the administration of Barack Obama, US president, is yet to reveal its hand on how it regards Mr Ban, a candidate appointed with the support of the previous Bush administration.

* Japan decided yesterday to tighten its sanctions against North Korea, stemming the trickle of exports that flows to the isolated communist state and introducing further restrictions on travel there. The decision was made ahead of a meeting yesterday between Lee Myung-bak, South Korea’s president, and Barack Obama in Washington.

—————

and further from the UN:

UN’s Ban Hit With Staff “No Confidence” Vote, on Asbestos, G to P, Tamil Protest

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press: News Analysis

A UN GC City, June 16 — Reeling from low grades from the Economist and questions of viability in the Financial Times, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday was hit with a vote of “no confidence” from the UN Staff Union regarding implementation of the Capital Master Plan and the management of human resources.

The resolution criticizes Ban and his team for relocating staff to “swing space buildings before the security risk assessments were done,” for the manner of asbestos removal and for stifling meritocracy and “career advancement including the leap from G to P” — from general to professional staff.

Each of these issues has been festering for months, and most can be attributed back to the UN Department of Management, headed by Angela Kane. Ms. Kane herself has acknowledged a failure to communicate about the postponement of the National Competitive Exam, but similar issues exist around the G to P exam.

  The resolution was voted for by over 200 staff members at a meeting on June 16, with no opposition, one abstention. According to one attendee, “the mood was one of distrust, of Angela Kane, Michael Adlerstein and Ban Ki-moon. It was stated again and again that Management is not acting in a responsible, safe or appropriate manner.”

CMP chief Michael Adlerstein first said the security risk assessments were done, then referred all questions to the Department of Safety and Security, whose Bruno Henn “no commented” the issue.

Ms. Angela Kane, beyond an icy relationship with the UN Staff Union, has lashed out at the press, specifically and generally, first proposing for the first time in the history of UN Headquarters to charge journalists money to cover it, then trying to subject whistleblowers to exposure.  The pretext is an open office plan which the resolution notes was “never negotiated with the staff representatives.”

Ms. Kane has complained that the UN’s responses are not published, while telling the Press that she has no time to answer questions.

The Economist magazine gave Mr. Ban a failing grade of two out of ten on management. When Inner City Press asked Mr. Ban for his response, his statement was passionate, but largely laid the blame elsewhere. But this new “no confidence” vote does not bode well.

Additionally, as Inner City Press previously reported, Ban may be subject to a rare street protest on the night of June 17, 2009, - that is tonight - when he and Bill Clinton are slated to receive a “global humanitarian award” at the St. Regis Hotel.

Further - Tamils who watched the bloodbath on the beach in Northern Sri Lanka and the UN withholding casualty figures and satellite photos blame Ban. 

  The UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development to be held at UN Hedquarters in New York, 24 to 26 June 200.
The United Nations is convening a three-day summit of world leaders from 24 to 26 June 2009 at its New York Headquarters to assess the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression. The aim is to identify emergency and long-term responses to mitigate the impact of the crisis, especially on vulnerable populations, and initiate a needed dialogue on the transformation of the international financial architecture, taking into account the needs and concerns of all Member States.

The United Nations summit of world leaders in June was mandated at the Follow-up International Conference on Financing for Development, held in December 2008 in Doha, Qatar. Member States requested the General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann to organize the meeting “at the highest level”.

«We have an historic opportunity —and a collective responsibility— to bring new stability and sustainability to the international economic financial order.»

Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann
President, 63rd Session of the General Assembly.

Part of this - as a side event 25 June, 2009, 3:00p.m.- 6:00p.m., in the  ECOSOC Chamber, United Nations Headquarters,  the UN University is staging two presentations and a potential discussion: “Recovering from the Global Crisis -  Towards an Action Plan for Africa and the Least Developed Countries.”

This event is organised by the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER and UNU-ONY) in collaboration with the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa (OSAA), the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (OHRLLS) and will consider the impact of the current global economic crisis on Africa and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

The aim is to focus the attention of the international community on the policy responses and measures needed to accelerate Africa and LDCs’ recovery from the crisis. This is underpinned by a belief that the crisis will not diminish or eliminate the growing hope and progress that many countries have been experiencing, and that recovery can be achieved earlier rather than later, if the appropriate and coordinated responses are now implemented in timely fashion. Given that statistical offices in African countries need support and resources now more than ever, this side event will also discuss the assessment and monitoring of the situation and its impact.

The event will consist of two conceptual/background papers, followed by a panel discussion.

Opening remarks:

Cheick Sidi Diarra
Under Secretary General, Special Adviser on Africa and High Representative for the LDCs, Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDs)

Jean-Marc Coicaud
Director, United Nations University Office at the UN in New York (UNU-ONY)

Speakers:

Asha-Rose Migiro
United Nations Deputy Secretary-General

Dr. Dipu Moni
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and Chair of the LDCs

Wim Naudé
Senior Research Fellow and Project Director, UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER)

Abdalla Hamdok
Director, Economic Commission for Africa (ECA)

Stephen Groff
Deputy Director, Development Co-operation Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Alhaji Bamanga Tukur
Chairman, African Business Roundtable

Roger Nord
Senior Advisor, African Department, International Monetary Fund

A different press release says that actually this event will look like:

Date: 25 June 2009 14:00 - 16:30
Contact person: Wim Naudé, Senior Research Fellow

This event was originally scheduled for 2 June, 2009 and has been changed to 25 June 2009.

United Nations University Office at New York UNU-ONY announces:

This event is organised by the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER and UNU-ONY) in collaboration with the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa (OSAA), the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (OHRLLS) and will consider the impact of the current global economic crisis on Africa and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs).The aim is to focus the attention of the international community on the policy responses and measures needed to accelerate Africa and LDCs recovery from the crisis. This is underpinned by a belief that the crisis will not diminish or eliminate the growing hope and progress that many countries have been experiencing, and that recovery can be achieved earlier rather than later, if the appropriate and coordinated responses are now implemented in timely fashion. Given that statistical offices in African countries need support and resources now more than ever, this side event will also discuss the assessment and monitoring of the situation and its impact.

The speakers will include Jeffrey D. Sachs (The Earth Institute), and Wim Naudé (UNU-WIDER) and will be followed by a panel discussion. Announcement page.

Register for this event now: http://recoveringfromglobalcrisisafrical…

To register for Webcasting of this event: http://recoveringfromglobalcrisisafrical…

For information, please contact Ranita Ragunathan at UNU Office in New York UNU-ONY. Email: ragunathan(at unu.edu. Tel: +1 212 963-6387

We assume that both these events will happen and while the first one is the conventional UN event - during conference hours in the afternoon, it is actually the second event that will be the think-tank event, as a side event, during the inter-hours at lunch time, that will present some outside input.

If the UN will facilitate it, we would like to check out both - and present our honest compairison.

The National Museum of the American Indian presents a public symposium on Saturday,

June 27, 2009 from 2:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Mother Earth: Confronting the Challenge of Climate Change

Please join us after the symposium for an Indian Summer Showcase Concert featuring Andes Manta performing traditional music from the Andean Highlands at 5:00 p.m. at the Museum’s Welcome Plaza.

These events are free and open to the public.

Symposium information:
Native peoples are responding to the urgent challenge of climate change in creative ways, calling on traditional knowledge and adapting new technologies to craft solutions to this planetary crisis. Join us at this important symposium for engaging presentations and lively discussion about innovative indigenous strategies, from the Arctic to Amazonia. Speakers include Patricia Cochran (Inupiat), chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council; Robert Gough of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy (Intertribal COUP); Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez (Ribereño/Caboclo), director of international programs, Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), Columbia University; and Deborah Tewa (Hopi), renewable energy specialist and educator. Moderated by José Barreiro (Taino), assistant director for research, National Museum of the American Indian.

Please help spread the word.
Mother Earth: Confronting the Challenge of Climate Change
Saturday, June 27, 2009, 2:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
National Museum of the American Indian
Elmer and Mary Louise Rasmuson Theater
4th Street and Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC

Metro: L’Enfant Plaza, Maryland Avenue/Smithsonian Museums exit
For further information, please contact  NMAI-SSP at si.edu

While the UN ran two more weeks of climate change hot air in Bonn, the US and China negotiated for real in Beijing. As we keep saying - the answer is in Washington and Beijing all the rest is really a waste of time on that road to Copenhagen. Will there be a US-China agreement before December? At least an agreement to make sure that by 2010 there will be a solid new Framework?

————

America and China talk climate change
Heating up or cooling down?
Jun 11th 2009 | BEIJING
From The Economist print edition
The big two emitters try to stop finger-pointing and save the planet

THOUSANDS of officials from all over the world this week neared the end of two weeks of difficult talks in Bonn under the United Nations’ climate convention. But they were conscious that even more difficult and probably more important negotiations were under way in Beijing. America’s most senior climate-change officials were meeting their Chinese counterparts. The two countries are by far the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. They will determine whether a worthwhile global treaty to limit emissions can be concluded as planned in Copenhagen in December.

The treaty is to replace the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012. Some 180 countries will take part in the negotiations, but many feel that, on this issue more than any other, China and America make up a “G2” that determines the global post-Kyoto agenda. Shortly before traveling to Beijing, America’s climate-change envoy, Todd Stern, said that, though China may not be the “alpha and omega” of the international process, it was close. His delegation included President Barack Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, and David Sandalow, the assistant energy secretary.

Details of the talks were scanty. Mr Stern was able to call them “a step in the right direction on the road to Copenhagen”. But progress is painstaking. Zha Daojiong, an energy-security expert at Peking University, says that, although he himself disagrees, many Chinese still feel the world’s original big polluters should be the first to pay for cleaning things up. Others suspect American critics see the issue as yet another stick in a relentless campaign to bash China. As one American official acknowledges, climate change is emerging as the biggest issue in bilateral relations, supplanting trade and human rights.

For their part, American critics of China make much of the rapid growth in its energy consumption. Indeed, in 2007 China overtook America as the world’s leading carbon emitter, with an estimated 1.8 billion tonnes of fossil-fuel emissions. As it decides how America should curb its own emissions, Congress remains keenly aware that potentially painful and costly steps will mean little if China stays on anything approaching its current trajectory.

China asserts its simple right to develop rapidly and make progress towards attaining Western living standards. It also points out that its consumption and emission levels per head remain a mere fraction of America’s. Moreover, a large chunk of its emissions come from producing goods consumed by rich developed nations, which have exported much of their manufacturing industry to China.

Lastly, China points to its impressive improvements in energy efficiency and coal-plant cleanliness in recent years, and its increasingly ambitious commitments to invest in renewable energy sources. According to Deborah Seligsohn, based in Beijing for the World Resources Institute, an American think-tank, China has received too little credit for the steps it has already taken and its commitment to do more. Others argue that China’s leaders have decided both that the Obama administration is serious about climate change, and that China, especially in its drought-prone north, will be a big loser from global warming. On this analysis, they may adopt even more ambitious energy-efficiency targets, if not emissions limits.

Mr Zha urges America to refrain from browbeating China into accepting distant targets for future reductions. That, he said, would be a narrow and empty victory, since it is too late for vague visionary principles. What is needed instead, he argues, is a workable timetable under which America agrees to rethink restrictions on sophisticated exports to China, and Beijing reduces tariffs to encourage the import of cutting-edge green technology.

In this context, another development in Sino-American relations strikes a discordant note. Sichuan Tengzhong, a private Chinese company, is to buy the division of General Motors, a beleaguered American carmaker, that makes the Hummer, a gas-guzzling hulk. There could be few clearer illustrations of the shifting contours of the quarrel between rich and poor countries over who is more to blame for climate change and who should do more to arrest it. Looking more like a tank than a car, the Hummer for years seemed to embody the worst excesses of American consumerism. Now, unless Chinese regulators reject the deal, as they may, it will become another symbol of China’s commercial clout and polluting potential.

————–

and from Bonn - the usual hot air:

UN Climate Talks Advance, Poor Urge More CO2 Cuts

Date: 15-Jun-09
Reuters, Alister Doyle and Gerard Wynn

BONN, Germany - Climate talks made progress on Friday toward a new U.N. treaty to curb global warming but ended far short of calls by developing nations for the rich to make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Four years of talks to widen the existing Kyoto Protocol have struggled to agree on how to share the cost of efforts to curb greenhouses gas mainly emitted by burning fossil fuels.

The United States and Europe warned in closing remarks on Friday that the private sector would finance the climate fight, not their governments.

“I look back on this as a significant session that has advanced our work in important ways,” Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, told a news conference at the June 1-12 talks among 183 nations in Bonn.

He said governments staked out far clearer views after their first review of a draft legal text of the treaty due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December to succeed Kyoto.

But developing countries called for more, despite the global recession.

“We finally managed to have a positive exchange on the numbers” for developed nations, China’s climate ambassador Yu Qingtai told Reuters. “But still we hear repeated statements resisting calls for further meaningful cuts.”

China and many developing nations want the rich to cut by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the worst effects of global warming such as droughts, floods and rising sea levels.

Offers made by developed countries so far work out at cuts of between 8 and 14 percent below 1990, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

The United States and Europe poured cold water on hopes for major public funds, such as the 1 percent or more of national wealth demanded by many poor nations to help them avoid a model of high-carbon growth dominant since the Industrial Revolution.

“The key issue is not the number,” said Jonathan Pershing, head of the U.S. delegation, referring to “marginally” bigger investments to improve efficiency or to install low-carbon instead of polluting coal plants.

“We’d like to change that” view of developing countries that governments would bankroll the fight against climate change, he said, adding that carbon offset markets could play a big role.

The European Union also underscored that private finance would dominate in the climate change fight.

Pershing said progress in Bonn had been “slow,” and the European Commission’s Artur Runge-Metzger said “enormous effort” was required to get a deal in Copenhagen in December.

The United States expected China to undertake action, such as setting renewable energy targets, but not be legally bound to prove curbs. China and the United States are top emitters.

“We have advanced perhaps a couple of miles toward Copenhagen. We still have thousands to go,” said Jennifer Morgan of the London-based E3G think-tank. The next meeting will be in Bonn in August.

Outside the talks in a Bonn hotel, protesters brought along two live camels and laid out some sand to illustrate fears of creeping desertification. “We spit on weak targets,” one banner said, another said: “Shrinking targets, growing deserts.”

The chair of a group looking at new actions to curb emissions by all countries said a draft text had swollen with new ideas from about 50 pages to 200. Big breakthroughs were likely to happen only in Copenhagen, he said.

“This is like the evolutionary process in reverse. The Big Bang comes at the end,” said Michael Zammit Cutajar, of Malta.

——————-

and on the New York Times an article is full of optimism which is fine with us, but at this stage might be misleading like that famous pot that puts the lobster to sleep.

Climate Change Treaty, to Go Beyond the Kyoto Protocol, Is Expected by the Year’s End.

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published, the New York Times, June 12, 2009.
The world is on track to produce a new global climate treaty by December, the top United Nations climate official said Friday as delegates from more than 100 nations concluded 12 days of talks in Bonn, Germany.

The delegates issued a 200-page document that they said would serve as the starting point for treaty negotiations that open in Copenhagen in December.

“Time is short, but we still have enough time,” the official, Yvo de Boer, who is the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said at a briefing. “I’m confident that governments can reach an agreement and want an agreement.”

The goal is a climate treaty that would go beyond the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a climate-change agreement that set emissions targets for industrialized nations. Many of those goals have not been met, and the United States never ratified the accord.

The document issued Friday outlines proposals for cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases by rich countries and limiting the growth of gases in the developing world. It also discusses ways of preventing deforestation, which is linked to global warming, and of providing financing for poorer nations to help them adapt to warmer temperatures.

But many environment advocates and politicians suggested that delegates had not made enough progress in winnowing down those options. “Of course we have to respect the way the United Nations works,” Denmark’s minister for climate and energy, Connie Hedegaard, said in a statement after the talks ended. “But to me, there is no doubt that things are moving too slow.”

Representatives of poor countries complained repeatedly in the talks that developed nations had not made an adequate commitment to reduce their emissions. They expressed particular dismay over Japan’s announcement this week to reduce emissions by only 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

Shyam Saran, India’s envoy on climate change, called such targets “unsatisfactory.” China and other developing countries have demanded that richer nations reduce emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in that period.

Experts described some of the back-and-forth as predictable jockeying in the months leading up to the make-or-break talks to negotiate a treaty in December.

Jonathan Pershing, who led the American delegation at the Bonn talks, said the discussions had unfolded about as fast as could be expected given the number of nations involved and the size of the task. He predicted a treaty would emerge in December.

He said that American negotiators acknowledged at the talks that “climate change is an urgent problem and it needs a global and immediate response.”

Despite the shortage of specific commitments, environmentalists took heart from the strong involvement of many nations, especially the United States and China, which jointly produce 40 percent of the world’s heat-trapping emissions. (In declining to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the United States cited China and India’s lack of participation.)

“There are a lot of options to work out, but we have come a long way,” said Alex Kaat, a spokesman for Wetlands International, which fights the destruction of rainforests and decaying bogs. “There is now text on paper, and that’s progress.”

 THE ECONOMIST, June 11, 2009 -

http://www.economist.com/world/internationl/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13825201

had an article “Secretary-general of the UN - The score at half-time - Ban Ki-moon has turned in a mixed performance so far. He needs to improve.”

This article prompted questioning on the part of Matthew Russell Lee at the Press Conference at the UN and this resulted in an interesting posting on InnerCityPress.

UN’s Ban Questioned on Record, on Sri Lanka, Half Time Pep Talk -all this as there is an ECONOMIST evaluation of the Ban Ki-moon UN at half-time of his First Term.
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, June 11 — Half way into the five year term as UN Secretary General he was awarded in 2006, Ban Ki-moon on June 11 tried to defend low grades he has received for his management of the UN and not “speaking truth to power.”

At Mr. Ban’s press conference for June, his spokesperson Michele Montas pointedly did not call on Inner City Press. Only a week before she had said the UN should be able to regulate the Press, after a memo revealed her attendance at a May 8 meeting at which legal threats and “complaining to Google News” about Inner City Press was discussed. On June 11, she looked elsewhere to award the right to question.

But CNN’s longtime correspondent, characteristically classy, yielded his question to Inner City Press. {Video posted on that website} To inquire into Ban’s views on his Spokesperson’s and top officials’ seeming underlying of freedom of the press, while necessary and to later be asked, had to take a back seat to a bigger picture question. From the UN’s transcript, the question and then Ban’s annotated answer:

Inner City Press: There is an article in today’s Economist, called “Ban Ki-moon - the score at half time”. It reviews half of your first term. I want to ask you to respond to it. Under the rubric “truth to power” they give you a three out of ten, and they use the example of Sri Lanka - they say that Mr. Ban denied that the UN had leaked grim civilian casualty figures. On management they give two out of ten. There are some better grades, I acknowledge. On management, they say there is a problem with communicating with senior staff, that you have to show more leadership in drumming up peacekeepers.

I might add to that, protection of whistle-blowers and free press. I just wanted to know, do you agree with any of this critique, are there things you intend to do better in a second term? What do you make of this piece in the Economist assigning those two grades?

SG: I would regard it as the judgment of the Economist. There may be a different judgment on my performance. First of all, during the last two and a half years, I had three priorities. First of all, to catalyze a global response to critical global issues – like climate change, managing the consequences of the international economic crisis, global health and global terrorism. On climate change, you may agree with me that from almost dead - if not dead, a dormant status - this issue has risen to the level of leaders of the world. It has become a top priority issue of this world. I am going to really work hard to seal the deal in Copenhagen in December. I am working for all humanity, for the future of Planet Earth.

more on this please read at:  http://www.innercitypress.com/ban09june2…

and we hope indeed that our readers will indeed be interested to go to the referenced originals. We clearly have difficulty with the credits the UNSG avails himself on the climate change issue - just because folks that are not too familiar with the issues did indeed say some good things about areas they are less interested in.
for www.SustainabiliTank.com, the Economist’s evaluation of the UNSG involvement on Climate Change is much too high at a 8/10 grade. We would not give him personally more then a 4/10 as we think that (a) there was really no progress whatsoever and (b) whatever the advances in the public’s  perception of the problem came from the UK initiative at the UN Security Council and from the President of the UN General Assembly, Definitely not from the UNSG or from his staff at the UN Department of Public Information that to our evaluation worked basically against the dissemination of climate change information. To them - those interested in the subject are plain hot headed NGOs.

Further, as we and those in the know say, hyping up Copenhagen will not bring real results in December - as important as that meeting is indeed.

We got insensed enough to actually post a comment on the ECONOMIST’s web - as follows:

 PincasJ wrote:June 12, 2009 21:14
The 8/10 score for “The bigger picture” - “To his credit, climate change was Mr Ban’s early priority” is just wrong and too high. I had the chance to ask Mr. Ban Ki-moon questions on climate change, at the Asia Society, back in October 2006, when he was still campaigning for the job, and was not impressed that he understood the implications fully, or what was started under his predecessor Kofi Annan.

When he got the job, he brought in a new USG for Information - Mr. Akasaka to replace the Kofi Annan appointee Shashi Tharoor - and the UN Department of Public Information, under Director Fawzi, and Press Accreditation Chief Fowlie, started to remove from the whole UN system all those interested in climate change - saying these are just hot NGOs. If a journalist was asking those days about Darfur in context of climate change, that was a cause to remove the journalist as his question was deemed inappropriate - and that might have been the one journalist who indeed understood the subject - and that might be today accepted knowledge

In short, it was in 2007, the UK under their previous Prime Minister, at the time of their Presidency of the Security Council, that saved climate change as a topic in the UN of Ban - his trip to visit Korean scientists at the Antarctica or similar excesses aside.

On the “bigger picture” I would rather give Mr. Ban a 4/10 and this in part for when approached personally he still did not intervene with his staff. The World deserved and probably should get better.

PincasJ (Pincas Jawetz of www.SustainabiliTank.info)

—————-

So, what is this all in our view:  The UN’s secretary-general - His score at half-time?

THE ECONOMIST article of June 11, 2009 - http://www.economist.com/world/internati…

and they have also a series of comments -   http://www.economist.com/world/internati…

those on top of the reaction at the UN to that article as we posted based on the Inner City Press.

We hope our readers will go to the original article and we will just concentrate at what was actually the one solid positive remark of which we are really quite unenthusiastic as we think it is just inaccurate. That is the so called “Bigger Picture” score -  that The Economist posted right after the “Truth to Power” evaluation;

The original from THE ECONOMIST:

Truth to power: 3/10 There is nothing wrong with quiet diplomacy if it gets the job done. Mr Ban’s low-profile efforts got humanitarian aid into Myanmar after the cyclone where others failed. All the same there is a sense that he ducks too easily, too often.

After a tough word with Robert Mugabe produced a tongue-lashing in return, say insiders, Mr Ban did his darnedest never to upset Zimbabwe’s despot again. Similarly he tries not to cross the Russians, who are also prone to throwing tantrums.

Mr Ban is hoping for re-election; indeed, he keeps score of the miles he travels and the hands he shakes. Partly for that reason, say UN-watchers, he tries not to offend China over the conflict in Darfur, and over efforts by the International Criminal Court to arrest Sudan’s president, an ally of China’s, on war-crimes charges. Not wanting to annoy America, Israel’s chief ally, Mr Ban also largely kept his head down over the fighting in Gaza.

After Sri Lanka’s war ended, Mr Ban denied that the UN had leaked grim civilian casualty figures (indeed, some UN officials reportedly sought to suppress the toll). That obscured his other responses—such as an appeal to aid the Tamil refugees. With Sri Lanka’s government shielded by China, India and others at the Security Council and at the UN Human Rights Commission, human-rights groups had hoped Mr Ban would speak up more for the victims.

•   The bigger picture: 8/10 To his credit, climate change was Mr Ban’s early priority. He brought together government heads and nudged their officials along when agreement seemed elusive, putting his best Secretariat brains to work on the issue. When the food crisis erupted, he quickly knocked heads together so that various bodies, including the World Bank and the World Food Programme, could co-operate and help vulnerable countries. Yet the credit crunch has again pushed the UN to the sidelines.

We clearly agree to the 3/10 assessment of “Truth to Power” but completely disagree with the 8/10 score on “The Bigger Picture” - here it should have been in all honesty just 4/10 and no more.

We made our case in previous paragraphs and in our post at THE ECONOMIST. Keeping one’s head down in order to get reelected = the hallmark of good diplomacy - is in effect dooming the UN from becoming a serious institution.

———–

We expect to meet the UNSG this coming WEdnesday when he and former US President Bill Clinton get from the US Foreign Policy Association the  Global Humanitarian Awards at the Global Philanthropy Awards Dinner.
The St. Regis, New York City
June 17, 2009 6:30 PM - 9:30 PM

Following, Paolo Scaroni, Chief Executive Officer, ENI, and Brendan Dougher, Managing Partner, New York Metro Region, PricewaterhouseCoopers will receive the Foreign Policy Association’s Corporate Social responsibility Award.

The Foreign Policy Association’s Corporate Social Responsibility Award is given to individuals and companies who are committed to good corporate citizenship in the communities they serve.

Recent recipients of the Corporate Social Responsibility Award include Paul S. Otellini, president and CEO, Intel Corporation; and David M. Cote, chairman and CEO, Honeywell International; and John J. Conroy, chairman and CEO, Baker & McKinsey.

We assume that President Clinton gets the Global Humanitarian Award for the terrific amount of work he did in his post-Presidency era.

We can thus assume that UNSG Ban Ki-moon gets his Global Humanitarian Award as an encouragement for good deeds in the remainder of the time he will lead the World body.

We will report on what we learn from the aura at the FPA, the speeches given, and the important folks in the hall.

             Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale University.

Revisioning Human-Earth Relations

 http://fore.research.yale.edu/index.html

The Forum on Religion and Ecology is the largest international multireligious project of its kind. With its conferences, publications, and website it is engaged in exploring religious worldviews, texts, and ethics in order to broaden understanding of the complex nature of current environmental concerns.

The Forum recognizes that religions need to be in dialogue with other disciplines (e.g., science, ethics, economics, education, public policy, gender) in seeking comprehensive solutions to both global and local environmental problems.

Forum Coordinators:
Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, Yale University

Forum Administrative Assistant:
Tara C. Maguire Knopick, Yale University

Forum Web Content Managers and Newsletter Editors:
Sam Mickey and Elizabeth McAnally, California Institute of Integral Studies

With thanks to Anne Custer for the original development of the Forum Web site, and Ann Keeler Evans and Donna Rosenberg for their administrative work with the Forum.

————-

Summer Solstice Celebration with Paul Winter & Friends

Dear Forum community,

We want to inform you about the Summer Solstice Celebration with Paul Winter & Friends on Saturday, June 20, 2009. The two-hour concert will begin at 4:30 a.m. and will be held at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine (1047 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY).

Paul Winter will be joined by an array of outstanding musicians from different musical backgrounds for a festival of the Earth’s music as we greet the summer and one of the longest days of the year. The Summer Solstice Celebration is a sublime experience; the first rays of sunlight filter through the Cathedral’s stained glass above the High Altar as guest artists and members of the Paul Winter Consort perform in different parts of the Cathedral. The musicians meet at the stage in the Great Crossing as morning overtakes night and we welcome the day.

This celebration will be dedicated to Thomas Berry.

For more information, including free music downloads, visit: http://solsticeconcert.com/

Tickets are now on sale at: https://www.ovationtix.com/trs/pe/729160…

Warmly,
The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale
 http://www.yale.edu/religionandecology

 From: Mirjam Harmelink of Harmelink Consulting -   post at harmelinkconsulting.com

IEPEC 2010 “Counting on Energy Efficiency-It’s Why Evaluation Matters!”
Paris, France - June 8-10, 2010.

European Call for Abstracts open to anyone working in the evaluation fields including scholars, practioners, policymakers, and students. To submit your abstract please visit: http://tinyurl.com/IEPECParis

The call for abstracts is open.  Please visit our website at http://www.iepec.org and follow the links in the left hand navigation bar for IEPEC Paris.

Examples of Topics:
•   Evaluation design, implementation and results
•   Evaluating programme performance
•   Evaluating behavioural change programmes, including
1. Advertising campaigns
2. Advice provision
3. Websites
•   Evaluating energy supplier obligations and certification schemes
•   Linkages between performance management (outputs) and evaluation (outcomes) to develop effective programmes
•   Using evaluation to develop more effective policy and strategies
•   Using evaluation to inform national savings estimates

BACKGROUND
Energy efficiency and climate change are an increasingly important focus of policy for national, regional and local governments throughout Europe. Everyone recognises that effective evaluation is crucial; however, approaches differ between nations and programmes. The first IEPEC Europe-based Conference will be held in 2010. The conference will bring policymakers and evaluators from Europe and North America together to share best practice and to establish a strong and vibrant evaluation community.  EPEC Europe will be modelled on the successful non-profit North American IEPEC conference which has been a central feature of evaluation in North America since 1984.

THE PLANNING TEAM
The conference chairs will be Nigel Jollands (International Energy Agency) and Paolo Bertoldi (European Commission) and the organising committee includes policymakers and evaluators from throughout Europe.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND
The conference will be held in Paris between June 8 2010 and June 10 2010. It is particularly suitable for:

1. Policymakers with programmes to improve energy efficiency and address climate change who will be able to:
•   Meet and share experience with other policymakers who are interested in evaluation
•   Meet experienced evaluators
•   Learn about effective evaluation approaches taken in Europe and North America
•   Share experience with others regarding the use of evaluation to inform policy and deliver improved outcomes

2. Evaluation professionals involved in energy efficiency and climate change who will be able to:
•   Meet and share experience with other evaluation professionals
•   Meet policymakers with an interest in evaluation
•   Learn about the developing European energy policy environment and the implications for evaluation

WHAT IS IEPEC
The International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (IEPEC) is a biennial professional conference for energy program implementers, evaluators of those programs. The purpose of the conference is to provide a forum for the presentation, critique and discussion of objective evaluations of energy programs. The Conference advances the goals of conserving natural resources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by helping to overcome one of the key barriers to implementing energy programs - the lack of confidence in the reported results.

The core product of this conference is the documentation of unbiased, peer-reviewed evaluations that establish the basis for accurate information and provide credible evidence of program success or failure.  Researchers will find the IEPEC website to be an outstanding resource as almost all past proceedings are posted there and are available for searching at no cost.  IEPEC is a non-profit organization and has been run almost entirely by dedicated, volunteer,  evaluation professionals since 1984.

We are delighted to be able to come to Europe and applaud the efforts of many including Nigel Jollands of IEA.  For a complete list of our current planning members, please see below.

SEARCH OVER 600 PAPERS…
IEPEC is pleased to offer, at no charge, a new service for energy evaluation professionals.  We have posted the complete set of papers from our 1984, 1985,  1989, 1991, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2007 conferences on our website.  Feel free to search these files and use the information to improve or add efficiency to your work. This service is made possible by the support of our sponsors.
Step One:  Go to www.IEPEC.org
Step Two:  Bookmark this site as a Favorite (Ctrl D)
Step Three:  Navigate to “Past Program Papers”
Step Four:  Select the year you want to search
Step Five:  Dig in…

CONFERENCE TIMELINE
Call For Abstracts:  June 2009–closes November 2, 2009 Posting of Selections:  February 2010 Registration Opens:  February 2010

Conference Schedule (2010)
Workshops/Networking Social:  June 8
Opening Session:  June 9
Poster Reception:  June 9
Final Session: Late Afternoon June 10.

JOIN OUR SPONSORS
We are currently recruiting sponsors for the 2010 European version of IEPEC’s North American based program.  If interested, please contact Ed Vine at  Ed.Vine at UCOP.edu or Nigel Jollands at  Nigel.Jollands at IEA.org

CURRENT SPONSORS
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Alliance to Save Energy Databuild Dethman and Associates Energy Markets Innovation Inc.
European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy International Energy Agency International Energy Program Evaluation Conference Research Into Action Summit Blue Consulting, LLC Tecmarket Works

PLANNING TEAM  2010
Paolo Bertoldi, European Commission
Didier Bosseboeuf, ADEME
Ben Bronfman, Quantec
Kirsten Dyhr-Mikkelsen. Ea Energy Analyses Mirjam  Harmelink, Harmelink Consulting Ken Double, Energy Saving Trust Pierre Landry, Southern California Edison Kevin Lane, Environmental Change Institute Guido Mattei, European Consutling, Brussels Charles Michaelis, Databuild Jennifer Otoadese, Oxford University Centre for the Environment Marcel Paven, Autorità Energia Federica Stabile, ENEA Iris Sulyma, BC Hydro Bobbi Tannenbaum, KEMA Ed Vine, California Institute for Energy and Environment Harry Vreuls, Senter Novem

You are invited to a side event hosted by IISD:

A Phased Approach to a Safe Climate: Encouraging Developing Country Participation in a Future Climate Change Regime.

Hosted by IISD

Side Event

Wednesday, 10 June 2009
18:00 - 19:30
Room Tram (MOT)

IISD recently completed a report, Encouraging Developing Country Participation in a Future Climate Change Regime. The report proposes a possible post-2012 climate change regime: A Phased Approach to a Safe Climate.

This side event will include a presentation on the results of IISD’s research, and perspectives on the proposed Phased Approach from respondents from developed and developing countries

Agenda

Opening Remarks and Presentation of Research
•   Deborah Murphy – Associate, IISD
•   John Drexhage – Director, Climate Change & Energy, IISD
•   Dennis Tirpak – Associate, IISD

Respondents
•   Branca Bastos Americano, Technical Advisor,  Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazil
•   Eric Thu, Professional Staff Member, United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
•   Fernado Tudela, Vice Minister for Planning and Environmental Policy and Principal Negotiator on Climate Change Issues in Mexico
•   Kim Chan-woo, Director General , Ministry of Environment, South Korea
•   Micheal Martin , Chief Negotiator and Ambassador for Climate Change, Canada
•   Yang Hongwei, Director, CDM Project Management Center, China

The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD Programme) is a collaboration between FAO, UNDP and UNEP. A multi-donor trust fund was established in July 2008 that allows donors to pool resources and provides funding to activities towards this programme.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the cutting down of forests is now contributing close to 20 per cent of the overall greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Forest degradation also makes a significant contribution to emissions from forest ecosystems. Therefore there is an immediate need to make significant progress in reducing deforestation, forest degradation, and associated emission of greenhouse gases.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agenda item on “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and approaches to stimulate action” was first introduced at the Conference of the Parties (COP11) in December 2005 by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by eight other Parties. The challenge was to establish a functioning international REDD finance mechanism that can be included in an agreed post-2012 global climate change framework. Progress has been made and the need to meet the challenge is now reflected in the Bali Action Plan and the COP13 Decision 2/CP.13. A functioning international REDD finance mechanism needs to be able to provide the appropriate revenue streams to the right people at the right time to make it worthwhile for them to change their forest resource use behaviour.

In response to the COP13 decision, requests from countries, and encouragement from donors, FAO, UNDP and UNEP have developed a collaborative REDD programme. The UN-REDD Programme is aimed at tipping the economic balance in favour of sustainable management of forests so that their formidable economic, environmental and social goods and services benefit countries, communities and forest users while also contributing to important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The aim is to generate the requisite transfer flow of resources to significantly reduce global emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The immediate goal is to assess whether carefully structured payment structures and capacity support can create the incentives to ensure actual, lasting, achievable, reliable and measurable emission reductions while maintaining and improving the other ecosystem services forests provide.

————————————–

From:  Charles McNeill
Senior Policy Advisor
United Nations Development Programme
The UN-REDD Programme is having an event at the current climate change meeting in Bonn:

MRV, MULTIPLE BENEFITS & GOVERNANCE: KEY ISSUES FOR REDD IMPLEMENTATION

Tuesday, 9 June 2009
1:00pm – 3:00pm

Solar Room, Ministry of Environment , Bonn

Speakers:

Peter Holmgren, Director, Environment, Climate Change & Bioenergy Division, FAO

Barney Dickson, Head of the Climate Change & Biodiversity Programme, UNEP-WCMC

Rosalind Reeves, Forest Campaign Manager, Global Witness &
Laura Furones, Regional Manager for Latin America Forest Team, Global Witness

Charles McNeill, Senior Policy Advisor, UNDP

Monitoring systems that will allow credible and affordable Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of REDD performance are critical for successful implementation of any REDD scheme.  Many countries are in the early phases of designing such systems by preparing and testing technical methodologies for accurate measurements, including field measurements and remote sensing, to enable monitoring of emissions from forests and land use.

MRV requirements under REDD are about trends in emission levels and therefore concern the stock and flows of forest carbon.  Specific MRV requirements will be determined through the UNFCCC process, building on IPCC guidelines.  Additionally, for REDD to be successfully  delivered by countries, alignment with national development contexts is needed to address synergies and trade-offs among multiple benefits (including livelihoods, biodiversity and ecosystem services).

The aim of the event is to support countries in developing appropriate institutional and governance mechanisms to operationalize MRV systems. Speakers will also describe ongoing work of the UN system on multiple benefits beyond carbon.  Implementation issues at the national level including institutional capacities will be explored.  The CSO speakers will address the governance and independent monitoring aspects of MRV for REDD.

———————
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)  announced its latest CLIMATE related publications:

 - Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: A review and lessons for REDD
Paying people to protect forests can be an effective way to tackle deforestation and climate change but only if there is good governance of natural resources, claims this study funded by Norway’s Government. IIED, the World Resources Institute and the Center for International Forestry Research looked at existing efforts to pay people in developing nations to protect ecosystems in return for the services — such as fresh water, wild foods and climate control — they provide. It aimed to see if such payments could be used to help tackle climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). A review of 13 schemes that make payments for ecosystems services in Africa, South-East Asia and Latin America concluded that performance-based payments can be part of REDD but only if important preconditions are met.

 http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=1…

 - Community-based adaptation to climate change: an update
Over a billion people - the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities  - will bear the brunt of climate change. For them, building local capacity to cope is a vital step towards resilience. Community-based adaptation (CBA) is emerging as a key response to this challenge. Tailored to local cultures and conditions, CBA supports and builds on autonomous adaptations to climate variability, such as the traditional baira or floating gardens of Bangladesh, which help small farmers’ crops survive climate-driven floods. Above all, CBA is participatory – a process involving both local stakeholders, and development and disaster risk reduction practitioners. As such, it builds on existing cultural norms while addressing local development issues that contribute to climate vulnerability. CBA is now gaining ground in many regions, and is ripe for the reassessment offered here.

 http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=1…

From the Charles Morris “World Diary” or the week’s preview - we find that today, Monday June 7, 2009 -

Start The Montreal International Economic Forum, and The African Energy Conference in Tanzania. Then on Thursday there will be a meeting of the G8 Development Ministers in Rome - but none of these has anything in their announcements that says they will focus on climate change.

On Wednesday June 10, 2009, very appropriately,  The Yearly Meeting of The Institute of International Finance starts its meetings in Beijing  - after all that is were the money is - but they do not mention climate change.

Better are the Brazilians who start the Latin American Cities meeting in Sao Paulo on Tuesday to discuss the economy and energy issues, and the EU, will talk in Brussels starting Wednesday on the creation of a “Green” future.

 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.

To begin the review, please go to the website www.drylandscience.org

(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

The Committee on Science and Technology (CST) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has called for a Scientific Conference on the topic of “Bio-physical and socio-economic monitoring and assessment of desertification and land degradation, to support decision-making in land and water management.”  The Conference, popularly known under the shorter title ‘Understanding Desertification and Land Degradation Trends’, will take place at the UNCCD Conference of Parties in Buenos Aires, Argentina during 22-24 September 2009.

In preparation for that Conference, three Working Groups have drafted ‘white papers’ summarizing leading scientific knowledge relevant to the topic assigned by the Convention that leads towards recommendations that can support decision-making in land and water management by the Convention and its Parties. Each of the three Working Group white papers is about 80-100 pages long consisting of several chapters. In addition, there is a cross-cutting topic that the Working Groups collectively address (denoted ‘S1’).

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,
The Dryland Science for Development Consortium (DSD)

————
Dr. Christopher Martius

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
Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Mail Address: Program Facilitation Unit, P.O. Box 4564, Tashkent, 100000, Uzbekistan
Street Address: 6, Osiyo Street, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Phones: +99871 2372130, +99871 2372169, +99871 2372104
Fax: +99871 1207125

Dear Colleagues:

You are hereby cordially invited to join us Monday evening (8th June) in room ‘Metro’ at the Ministry of Transport to discuss a new research paper prepared by the Öko-Institut for the Global Wind Energy Council:

“A framework for a sectoral crediting mechanism in a post-2012 climate regime”

The paper is available for download at:

http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/904/2009-022-en.pdf

The paper will presented by:

Lambert Schneider:  Öko-Institut

Martin Cames:  Öko-Institut

Panelists responding will be:

Carolina Fuentes Castellanos, Delegation of Mexico

Gerie Jonk, Delegation of The Netherlands

Kim Carnahan, IETA

Nicolas Höhne, Ecofys

Ned Helme, Center for Clean Air Policy

The panel will be moderated by Steve Sawyer, Global Wind Energy Council

——————-

Steve Sawyer

Secretary General

Global Wind Energy Council

Rue d’Arlon 63-65

1040 Brussels

tel +32-2-400-1030

fax +32-2-546-1944

 http://www.gwec.net