http://www.innercitypress.com/ban1bether…

For UN, Is Merely Being There Enough, with Ban Under Fire for a 2d Term?
By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 26 — What has Ban Ki-moon accomplished as UN Secretary General in Myanmar and Sudan, Inner City Press asked his spokesman Monday, for the fourth day in a week.
“His record is clear,” Spokesman Martin Nesirky replied. “From standing in front of a still burning warehouse in Gaza, to visiting Haiti five days after the earthquake, to visiting Darfur refugee camps… he has achieved a huge amount.”

But the three achievements listed were only “being there” — celebrities have traveled to Haiti, and to refugee camps in Darfur and elsewhere.

Meanwhile reports on the UN’s performance in Sudan are largely negative. Rubble still fills Haiti’s streets. And even the Goldstone response is late, due to failure to translate. Myanmar, telling, was not even mentioned. Is being there enough?
Seeking the Ban Administration’s — if not yet Ban Ki-moon’s — response to the criticism being heaped upon his tenure, Inner City Press asked Nesirky when he made a piece by a heretofore big UN supporter, “Good Night, Ban Ki-moon.”

“We don’t need to comment on every piece,” Nesirky said, calling that piece a “rehash.. a lot of what is in the piece has been seen before.” A lot by not all: the piece mentions inaction on Sri Lanka: “A peacekeeping official pointed out that Ban had insisted on behind-the-scenes diplomacy in Sri Lanka even as the government was killing thousands of civilians in its campaign to erase the brutal insurgency of the Tamil Tigers: “We’re doing everything we can to avoid saying anything at all about it. That’s been our line on practically everything. The SG is clear that his final consideration is going to be the political costs of whether he should or shouldn’t speak.” That’s a very real calculation every secretary-general must make. But, he added, “There’s no sense that the deliberations include, ‘What should we do?’””

Only this year, Ban after saying he would name a panel of experts on war crimes in Sri Lanka, then delaying 90 days, has gone out of his way to limit the scope of the panel to providing advice on “models of accountability” to himself and the Rajapaksa government, if they want it. The Rajapaksas have said they will deny visas to the group; Ban through Nesirky has repeated declined to comment on the refusal to cooperate.
Now a brewing fight is Ban’s decision to bypass South African and other developing world candidates to nominate a Canadian, Ms. Carman Lapoint-Young, as the new head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services. Inner City Press, which reported exclusively on the move on the night of July 23, asked Nesirky for Ban’s response to developing world countries who say the post was meant for their regions.

Nesirky once again declined comment, except to say there is “very strong, overwhelming support” for the nominee. Sort of like the overwhelming support for a second term?

It is time for Ban Ki-moon to speak for himself on this controversy — time for him to “be there,” as it were. He will appear before the press Monday at 5:30. Before his appearance Friday at a reception for the press, Inner City Press was repeatedly told not to ask about the controversy, not to “hijack” the event. That cannot similarly be asked on Monday evening. Watch this site.

* * *

At UN, As Ban Ki-moon Switches from S. African to Canadian As New OIOS Chief, Post-Ahlenius Rebellion Spreads, Sources Say.
By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive.

UNITED NATIONS, July 23 — Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, reeling from the damning exit memo of the outgoing head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, may now get himself in more troubling in naming a replacement.

Earlier this year, Inner City Press reported that the new head of OIOS was slated to be an auditor from South Africa. This would conform to many member states’ understanding that developed and developing countries would alternate atop the OIOS: Karl Paschke of Germany, then Dileep Nair of Singapore, then Inga Britt Ahlenius of Sweden. The next was slated to be from South Africa.

But diplomatic sources tell Inner City Press that on July 23, after facing questions for a week about his interactions with OIOS, Ban told regional groupings that instead of the South Africa, he would be appointing a Canadian.

This has triggered outrage among developing countries. It comes against the backdrop of ad hoc meetings to “revitalize the General Assembly” which are discussing requiring Ban Ki-moon to come before the GA to seek his second term, and not only the Security Council.

Specifically, under the heading “Selection of the Secretary General,” the draft “takes note of the views expressed at the Ad Hoc Working Group at the 64th session and bearing in mind the provisions of Article 97 of the Charter, emphasizes the need for the process of selection of the Secretary General to be inclusive of all Member States and to be made more transparent.. including through presentation of candidates for the position of the Secretary General in an informal plenary of the General Assembly.”
Interestingly, the marked up draft of this pending paragraph reads as follows:
“10. Affirms its commitment to continuing its consideration of the revitalization of the General Assembly’s role in the selection and appointment of the Secretary General, including through (encouraging (Algeria / NAM: delete and add ‘the’) Russian Federation: retain) presentation of candidates for the position of Secretary General in an informal plenary of the General Assembly before the Security Council considers the matter (Russian Federation); Russian Federation: bracket entire para.”
10 Alt. Also encourages formal presentation of candidatures for the position of the Secretary General in a manner than allows sufficient time for interaction with member states, and requests candidates to present their views to all Member States of the General Assembly (Belgium / EU, US & Russia) (Algeria / NAM supports Islamic Republic of Iran proposal of retaining as OP 10 bis).”

In the Security Council, placating or giving patronage to the five Permanent Members would be enough to gain the second term. But if the GA and regional grouping get involved, Ban’s snubs like that of Africa for the deputy post in the UN Development Program, and the devaluation of the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa, could come back to haunt Ban.

-————————————–

NOW – THE LATEST IN THE OIOS SAGA & UNSG BAN Ki-moon.
 http://www.innercitypress.com/ban3oios07…

At UN, To Buy Support for Canadian Auditor, S. Africa Promised Deputy Post.

UNITED NATIONS, July 27 — When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon last Friday dumped a South African candidate in favor of a Canadian to head the Office of Internal Oversight Services in the discordant wake of Inga Britt Ahlenius leaving, several developing world countries cried foul.

But, this being the UN, the Ban Administration quickly moved to try to cut a deal. Ban spokesman Martin Nesirky, Monday at noon, predicted “overwhelming” support to confirm Ms. Lapoint.

A senior Ban administration official told Inner City Press that the vote would be Wednesday, that the regional groups were right that “geographic rotation” had been envisioned for OIOS, but that it just wasn’t possible this time.

Tuesday, as Ms. Lapoint’s nomination was put in the General Assembly agenda for the next morning, Inner City Press was told by diplomatic sources that the deal reached involves giving the contested OIOS “to a South African.”

The developing world was supposed to get the top spot, as one source put it, but settled for the second fiddle. It has happened before.

But the irony here is that Ban rejected Ahlenius favorite Robert Appleton in the name of a competitive, transparent selection process. Now diplomatic sources say the deputy job has been promised to a particular country and group, non transparent, non competitive, quid pro quo. Not an auspicious beginning.

South Africa and the African Group might want to remember: when Ban selected developed world Helen Clark to head UNDP, the deputy post was promised to the African Group. Then it was given to a Costa Rican. Bait and switch?

UN’s Ban and two senior advisers, OIOS deal making not shown

From the July 26 UN noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: Friday evening, I was told by several people that participated that there was a meeting between the Secretary-General and regional groupings. This name that she’s referring to, Carman Lapointe-Young, was raised. But the thing I really want to ask you, because there seems some controversy about it, is that, one, did the Secretary-General say he couldn’t find a qualified developing world candidate and, two, does he disagree with some Member States, including Venezuela and Cuba, that the understanding in forming OIOS is that the directorship would alternate between developed and developing world, and does he… this seems to be being raised. Does he disagree with that? And if so, is it true that he couldn’t find a qualified developing-world candidate?

Spokesperson: Well, I will be able to come back to you once we get a little further down the road, I’ll be able to come back to you with more on this. But what I can say is that, from the conversations so far, there appears to be very strong, overwhelming support for the candidate put forward by the Secretary-General. But, as I say, we’ll come back to it in more detail at a later stage, I think.

At UN, Ban Doubles Down on Developed World for OIOS, Nambiar Spins to Staff.

UNITED NATIONS, July 26, updated — The UN Secretariat may be playing fast and loose with applicable resolutions and Administrative Instructions as it races to try to put behind it the controversy opened by the End of Assignment Report by outgoing chief of the Office of Internal Oversight Services Inga Britt Ahlenius, diplomats and UN staff say.

As Inner City Press exclusively reported on the night of July 23, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with regional groups and told them he couldn’t find a qualified replacement for Ahlenius from the developing world, and so he was going with a Canadian. The name of Carman Lapointe-Young is being submitted to the General Assembly.

But several developing world countries are now saying that when OIOS was founded, the top post was supposed to rotate between the developed and developing world. So far it has been Germany, Singapore, Sweden — and Canada? Even if Ban manages to ram his nomination of Carman Lapointe-Young through the General Assembly, it will increase bad feelings, and bad karma.

Carman Lapointe-Young, click here for a speech of hers on audits.

Next, we have the letter from Ban’s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar to OIOS staff, trying to assuage them with assurances that Ban respects the “operational” independence of OIOS. But in fact, applicable Administrative Instructions show that Ban was supposed to appoint a OIOS review panel which, once appointed, could confirm D-2 level staff like Robert Appleton without Ban having a veto. This was never done, and Catherine Pollard’s lengthy answers last week did little to buttress Ban’s position.

Click here for Nambiar’s letter to all UN staff, forwarded to Inner City Press and published here exclusively as a public service.

Ban held a reception with the Press on Friday, but Inner City Press was repeatedly told not to ask anything about the Ahlenius memo, and didn’t. Ban will appear more formally with the press on Monday at 5:30 p.m. — it’s hard to imagine these issues not arising them.

* * *

Much of the UN rebuttal is mush and we will report on how this unfolds.

——————————

Departing U.N. official calls Ban’s leadership ‘deplorable’ in 50-page memo.

Inga-Britt Ahlenius wrote a 50-page memo upon the end of her term as head of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services. (2008 Photo By Mark Garten/Associated Press)

By Colum Lynch

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071904734.html?referrer=emailarticle

UNITED NATIONS — The outgoing chief of a U.N. office charged with combating corruption at the United Nations has issued a stinging rebuke of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, accusing him of undermining her efforts and leading the global institution into an era of decline, according to a confidential end-of-assignment report.

The memo by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a Swedish auditor who stepped down Friday as undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, represents an extraordinary personal attack on Ban from a senior U.N. official. The memo also marks a challenge to Ban’s studiously cultivated image as a champion of accountability.

Shortly after taking office in 2007, Ban committed himself to restoring the United Nations’ reputation, which had been sullied by revelations of corruption in the agency’s oil-for-food program in Iraq.

But Ahlenius says that, rather than being an advocate for accountability, Ban, along with his top advisers, has systematically sought to undercut the independence of her office, initially by trying to set up a competing investigations unit under his control and then by thwarting her efforts to hire her own staff.

“Your actions are not only deplorable, but seriously reprehensible. . . . Your action is without precedent and in my opinion seriously embarrassing for yourself,” Ahlenius wrote in the 50-page memo to Ban, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “I regret to say that the secretariat now is in a process of decay.”

Ban’s top advisers said that Ahlenius’s memo constituted a deeply unbalanced account of their differences and that her criticism of Ban’s stewardship of the United Nations was patently unfair.

“A look at his record shows that Secretary General Ban has provided genuine visionary leadership on important issues from climate change to development to women’s empowerment. He has promoted the cause of gender balance in general as well as within the organization. He has led from the front on important political issues from Gaza to Haiti to Sudan,” Ban’s chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, wrote in a response.

“It is regrettable to note,” Nambiar added, “that many pertinent facts were overlooked or misrepresented” in Ahlenius’s memo.

The departure of Ahlenius, 72, coincides with a period of crisis in the United Nations’ internal investigations division. During the past two years, the world body has shed some of its top investigators. It has also failed to fill dozens of vacancies, including that of the chief of the investigations division in the Office of Internal Oversight Services. That post has been vacant since 2006, leaving a void in the United Nations’ ability to police itself, diplomats say.

“We are disappointed with the recent performance of [the U.N.'s] investigations division,” said Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations. “The coming change in . . . leadership is an opportunity to bring about a significant improvement in its performance to increase oversight and transparency throughout the organization.”

The U.N. General Assembly established the Office of Internal Oversight Services in 1994 to conduct management audits of the United Nations’ principal departments and to conduct investigations into corruption and misconduct. The founding resolution granted the office “operational independence” but placed it under the authority of the secretary general and made it dependent on the U.N. departments it policed for much of its funding and administrative support.

The dispute between Ahlenius and Ban has underscored some of the resulting tensions and exposed a protracted and acrimonious struggle for power over the course of U.N. investigations.

While Ahlenius cited Ban’s move to set up a new investigations unit as a sign that he was seeking to undermine her independence, Nambiar said that it was intended to strengthen the United Nations’ ability to fight corruption.

Ahlenius also clashed with Ban over her efforts to hire a former federal prosecutor, Robert Appleton, who headed the U.N. Procurement Task Force, a temporary white-collar crime unit that carried out aggressive investigations into corruption in U.N. peacekeeping missions from 2006 to last year. The unit’s investigations led to an unprecedented number of misconduct findings by U.N. officials and prompted federal probes into corruption.

Ban’s advisers said they blocked Appleton’s appointment on the grounds that female candidates had not been properly considered and said that the final selection should have been made by Ban, not Ahlenius.

“The secretary general fully recognizes the operational independence of OIOS,” Nambiar said. But that, he said, “does not excuse her from applying the standard rules of recruitment.”

—————————————-

The above story, as per – http://www.orf.at/#/stories/2004590/ - also echoed in Vienna.

Scheidende UNO-Diplomatin rechnet mit Ban ab.

Die scheidende Chefkontrolleurin der Vereinten Nationen geht laut Medienberichten mit Generalsekretär Ban Ki Moon hart ins Gericht. Ban habe ihre Arbeit als oberste Korruptionsbekämpferin unterlaufen und die UNO in eine Ära des Niedergangs geführt, schrieb Inga-Britt Ahlenius laut einem Bericht der „Washington Post“ gestern in einem vertraulichen Memorandum.

Entgegen seinen Ankündigungen zum Amtsantritt 2007 habe Ban die durch mehrere Affären angeschlagene Reputation der Vereinten Nationen nicht mit allen Mitteln geschützt.

——————————
„Verwerflich“

Vielmehr habe er ihr Amt der Chefrevisorin mehr und mehr geschwächt, schreibe Ahlenius in dem 50-Seiten-Papier an Ban: „Ihr Handeln ist nicht nur bedauerlich, sondern sogar verwerflich.“ Es sei beispiellos und „meiner Meinung nach für Sie selbst beschämend“. Das Blatt zitierte: „Ich bedaure es, sagen zu müssen, dass das Sekretariat in einem Zerfallsprozess ist.“

Kritiker werfen Ban seit langem vor, die UNO nur zu verwalten und vor wirksamen politischen Initiativen zurückzuschrecken. UNO-Mitarbeiter wiesen die Vorwürfe in der „Washington Post“ als „unfair“ zurück. Ban habe mehrere politische Schwerpunkte gesetzt, etwa beim Klimaschutz und bei der Gleichstellung der Frau. Die Abrechnung der scheidenden Schwedin sei ein „höchst unausgewogener Ausdruck ihrer Differenzen“ mit Ban.,

For one thing, see there is a good South African Restaurant in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, and we go there for inspiration and nourishment from time to time. www.madibarestaurant.com/  – info@madibarestaurant.com.
 http://politic365.com/2010/07/19/happy-b…

Based on the above – we write: Two freedom fighters I most admire, writes Noel Anderson, Professor at Brooklyn College, in the struggle for South African democracy are Oliver Tambo and Nelson Mandela. Law partners and comrades, both men helped to shape the direction of the country, with Mandela leading the struggle from within, while Tambo raised international consciousness and money while exiled abroad. Tambo is no longer with us, but Mandela keeps the best of that struggle alive, becoming the first truly democratically elected President of South Africa after decades of imprisonment, and continuing to serve as a moral symbol for African and world affairs.

Born 92 years ago on July 18th, 1918, into a royal family in the Transkei, Mandela has been at the center of not just South African but global freedom struggles. He was the head of the ANC youth league and became a founding member of Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”) the armed wing of the ANC, before being imprisoned for 27 years.

President Obama, in tribute to Mandela’s work, has called on all to engage in community service. (In effect this past weekend everyone of us was called to put aside 82 minutes of his time and dedicate those 82 minutes to the community.  The United Nations has also recognized his birthday as Nelson Mandela International Day by calling on November 10, 2009 to make the !8th of July The International Mandela Day – and this year – the July 18th 2010, was supposed to be The First International Mandela Day. But it fell on a Sunday and that is a no-no for the UN Free Birds that must keep the weekend in New York for free enjoyment – really – what other reason for spending the time in this hot city? So, the UN moved to celebrate the day, this year, on  Thursday night and Friday Morning – 15th and 16th of 2010.

Strange as it sounds, its important to recognize that “Madiba” (his term of endearment), the 92 year old grandfather, still has a revolutionary spirit and still… very much alive. The press tends to talk about him the past tense, as if he is long gone and only his legacy survives. Yes, health concerns has led him to retreat from a once rigorous travel schedule, and his chronological age puts him in the twilight of his life. But Mandela is  mentally very lucid, weighs in on global politics and still advises in the affairs of his philanthropic foundation. Further, despite the controversial painting of Mandela, depicting him as dead and being used for an autopsy by political leaders, he still speaks with leaders on pressing concerns, and remains loyal to those countries that supported the freedom struggle.  Happy Birthday, Madiba!

{Dr. Noel S. Anderson is Associate Professor of Political Science and Education at the City University of New York – Brooklyn College. His work focuses on urban politics, human development and education and comparative issues in public policy – U.S. and South Africa}.

————————–

The celebration started on Thursday night 6:30 pm with a series of three talks and the screening of the documentary “MANDELA: Son of Africa, Father of a Nation, in the new ECOSOC Chamber in the UN temporary North Lawn building.

No one from the high flyers of the UN was there – their place taken by fill-ins, but luckily Jonathan Demme the director, and Peter Saraf, the co-producer of the film were there – so the aesthetics of their production could be brought up.

For the UN spoke Margaret Novicki and Nicholas Haysom.

Margaret Novicki was appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan  as the Director of the United Nations Information Centre in Pretoria, South Africa.  Ms. Novicki, a national of the United States, brings to this post extensive experience in communications, media relations and journalism, much of it acquired in Africa. Prior to Pretoria she worked for the UN in Accra. She chaired the evening. She spoke on behalf  of the UN USG for UNDPI – Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka.
Why DPI? Why not the Secretary General himself?

Nicholas Haysom, as an attorney of the South African High Court, he litigated in high-profile human rights cases between 1981 and 1993.  He acted as a professional mediator in labour and community conflicts in South Africa between 1985 and 1993, and has advised on civil conflicts in Africa and Asia since 1998. Founding partner and senior lawyer at the human rights law firm of Cheadle Thompson and Haysom Attorneys, and an Associate Professor of Law and Deputy Director at the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at Wits University in South Africa until May 1994, when he was appointed Legal Adviser to President Mandela.

Mr. Haysom was closely involved in the constitutional negotiations leading up to the interim and final Constitutions in South Africa.  He served as Chief Legal Adviser throughout Mr. Mandela’s presidency, and continued to work with Mr. Mandela on his private peace initiatives up to 2002.

Since leaving the office of the President upon Nelson Mandela’s retirement in 1999, Mr. Haysom has been involved in the Burundi Peace Talks as the Chairman of the committee negotiating constitutional issues (1999–2002). He continued to serve on the implementation committee of the Burundi Peace Accord after 2002.

Incoming UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Professor Nicholas Haysom of South Africa as Director for Political Affairs in his Executive Office, May 16, 2007. Our friend Matthew Russell Lee complained that he is never seen at the UN – but in a careful reading of the article we find there the concept of preventive diplomacy – we wish had more credence at the UN.  “He said there is a resistance to preventive diplomacy among member states, leading to the blocking of reform and regional offices of the Department of Political Affairs — he ascribed the most strenuous opposition to Latin America — and to resistance to the Responsibility to Protect doctrine and Ed Luck’s appointment as special advisor on the topic.” In short – he actually seems to be well ahead of the UN but not really of the UN – where he finds it difficult to execute policy that is factually set by only the Permant Five of the Veto Power.

What we said above was that both speakers for the UN are somehow South Africa based and not UN based.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (Xhosa pronunciation: [xo?li?a?a man?de?la]; born in a Xhosa home in Qunu, Transkei,where his father, the Town Counselor, had 4 wives and the boys lived in a separate home from the parents. Chief Jogintamba saw his potential and sent him to the Clakebury Boarding School. In 1933, at 15, he got involved in the Walter Sisulu led ANC and when he reached 30 years, that is when coincidentally Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd’s contribution to Afrikanerdom was to dress up apartheid and make it appear respectable to his followers, and the Mandela & Tambo law-firm took on the anti-apartheid legal defense.

In 1956 Mandela prepared the Freedom Charter and the people declared – “We Stand by Our Leader.” Then in 1960 happened the Sharpeville masacre and the call changed to: “Freedom in Our Time” and Wolfie Kadesh, a white man, was an activist. In 1962 Mandela went underground and George Bizios, also a white man, was his lawyer. Eventually, Mandela was apprehended and was in jail 1961 – 1988. Gowan Mbeki was imprisoned for 25 years. In August 1989 Botha resigns and De Klerk takes over and leeds the negotiations with Mandela. November 1993 both of them get the Nobel Prize. Friday, 10 Dec 1993 was Mandela’s speech in Oslo. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen…

Fully representative Democratic elections took place on 27 April 1994, and Mandela served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999.

Before his presidency, Mandela was an anti-apartheid activist. We saw how he got there from his village roots and we learned about the 27 years he spent as a FREE MAN behind bars – freer in his spirit then his captors that knew that they were the captives in the hands of the true Free World. Yes – those years – post World War II – when the UN was young and small – the World had hope for a future that will be very different from the way history evolved prior to those days. Today we can say that the hope tuned out to be pre-mature and Nelson Mandela who moved with his times forged an image for the World well ahead of his time. But no despair, his personal example moved at Least South Africa to ending its internal conflict even though many other conflicts in the World continue to rage on.

Mandela, son of Africa and Father of the New South Africa, depicted in advertisement as a barefoot young boy in what looks like a general’s coat, armed with a stick, said that his watchwords were TRUTH & FREEDOM.

———————-

From the screening event at the UN I hurried down to the Manhattan Village – to TEATROIATI at 64 East 4th Street (between Bowery and 2nd Av,) where Sabrina Lastman of Uruguay was having a showing of her CANDOMBE JAZZ PROJECT – mixture oral tradition AFRO-URUGUAYAN MUSIC with elements of Jazz. I bring this in here because in many ways it was befitting the Mandela event.

In the Mandela documentary we saw much of the peoples culture of the Indigenous Africans of the original South Africa, and somehow it must have been quite similar to what Africans, probably from the Congo region, brought with them to what are now Uruguay and Argentina. The fact that this music has survived, and in effect has now a revival, are signs of its resilience, but also of the influence Mandela’s achievements had world-wide.

The Candombe Jazz Project is a New York City-based ensemble playing Candombe, the Afro Uruguayan music tradition. CJP presents an exciting concert of original compositions by Sabrina Lastman & Beledo, arrangement of oral tradition songs, & songs by renown Uruguayan songwriters.

Candombe Jazz Project includes:
Sabrina Lastman – voice / compositions
Beledo – guitar / keyboard / compositions
Arturo Prendez – candombe drum / percussions
Special guests: Agrupación Lubola Macú

——————–

“PEACE IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT – IT IS THE CREATION OF AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE ALL CAN FLOURISH,” Mandela said. He also wanted to see the emancipation of women – not just the races. These are things the UN must write on its flag – does it?

——————

On Friday was the Official Commemorative Ceremony, in the big General Assembly Hall, that started with the usual UN delay at 10:20 am., with many Missions to the UN having one warm body sitting in their row – only South Africa, headed by a Minister, having all six seats, and some more, occupied. This was a Special Plenary, ahead of the regular daily Plenary.

The UN had the event open to outsiders, and that was nice. The problem that there were not many insiders present.

The President of the General Assembly, the former Libyan Foreign Minister Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, who is under a Schengen Travel Ban,  was not there, and that was good. Instead was one of his seconds, but the Press kit just goes ahead selling him to the innocents. We do not even know the name of the nice lady that chaired the meeting she defined as an “INFORMAL Meeting” of the GA.

“IT IS IN OUR HANDS TO CREATE A BETTER WORLD” said Mandela – God bless him and save the GA.

That was followed by a video message from the UN Secretary General Mr Ban Ki-moon, who said that Mandela’s greatness came from: “HE FOUGHT HIS OPRESSORS FOR YEARS AND THEN FORGAVE THEM. – HE CONSTANTLY REMINDS US HE IS AN ORDINARY MAN, BUT HE ACHIEVED UNORDINARY THINGS.”

—————–

This was followed by The Minister of International Relations and Commonwealth Relations of South Africa, Ms. Maite Nkoana-Mashbane, who said that in October 1994 he helped Free South Africa.

She continued saying that in the next two days – to July 18th, people of the globe will get together to hear the words that inspired us in South Africa. She thanks in the name of President Jacob Zuma for adopting in November 2009 this resolution to have the International Mandela Day started this year. South Africa and the World are fortunate to have had a man as Nelson Mandela. She added that the UN was all the way on “Our” side in our fight against Apartheid. We owe our freedom to the role of this august house. By celebrating Mandela Day we celebrate the best for what the UN was created. UBUNTU – we believ in ourselves for what we are.

Her words were followed by a video, and we saw February 19, 1994 people of all South Africa standing peacefully in line and giving their vote.

The Minister’s presentation was clearly the highlight of the informal ceremonial, that was then followed  {informally?} by one representative from each one of UN’s major group.

—————-

This was a sad succession of obligatory diplomatic bows with some sparks of freshness.

Egypt spoke on behalf of the Non-aligned Movement – the enigma of the UN,

The Republic of Congo on behalf of the African States, spoke of the recent World Cup,

Darussalam on behalf of the Asian States, this is the Brunei Darussalam State, that clearly needs still its own liberation,

Belarus on behalf of the East European States, spoke interestingly of a long walk to Freedom,

Saint Lucia on behalf of the Group of Latin & Caribbean States, who in our opinion was the best speech  we called the Mission and asked for the speech. We attach the full speech to the end of our posting. The Afro-Caribbean Ambassador, surely descendant of slaves, H.E. Donatus Keith St Aimee, in obvious heart felt fashion said that “Few persons whose name resonate with approval on all continents – All our efforts at the UN came to essence in his life.”

Belgium on behalf of the Western European and Other States, but was mis-introduced by the Chair as speaking for the EU as temporary President of the EU. The main point was that “Let us remind ourselves that our work is far from complete – our work is for freedom or all.”

The last speaker was for the host country – the USA. who said that Apartheid was twisted and grotesque in its effort to justify oppression. Mandela overthrew apartheid by force of example.

———————————-
STATEMENT BY H. E. DONATUS ST AIMEE.

PERMANENT REPRESENTAIVE OF SAINT LUCIA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP OF LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES (GRULAC).

ON THE OCCASION OF THE OBSERVANCE OF NELSON MANDELA INTERNATIONAL DAY.

FRIDAY JULY 16TH, 2010

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to speak on behalf of Member states comprising the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC), as we show our respect and admiration for an icon of the ages.

In the annals of recorded history there are few individuals whose names resonate with esteem and are uttered with deference on all continents and in all societies.  There are few lives that are unequivocally admired or unreservedly revered by all races and ethnicities; and there are few persons who in a more emotional sense, are cherished and held dear by such a large segment of humanity. Like all celebrated and remarkable men or women, this person whom we come to honor today is identified internationally with one single name befitting his role in our global society and that name is – MANDELA.

We are here today to honor Nelson Mandela pursuant to the adoption of Resolution A/64/L.13. We are here today to commemorate a man who in a lifetime of dignity has come to represent the very ideal for which we struggle daily in the United Nations. All our words, all our actions, all our individual and collective efforts aim in their sum total to equal what is represented by the life of Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela became an international symbol because of his struggle against oppression generally and apartheid in South Africa in particular. We know his history:

· From the early nineteen forties he was a leader of one of the most significant non-violent movements in history.
· For 27 years he was imprisoned under brutal conditions even as he heard of the death beyond his prison walls, of his brothers and sisters in the struggle against apartheid. How many times he must have wondered when his time would be coming to also face death at the hands of his captors.
· Finally he was released on 11th February, 1990.
· To understand the magnitude of his suffering and indignity of his incarceration, we must comprehend that he entered prison at the age of 45 and left at age 72.

These facts as we know them only scratch the surface of the beauty that is the life of Nelson Mandela. What was it that resulted in Nelson Mandela receiving more than 250 awards over four decades including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize? It was not his physical incarceration that captured the imagination of people, it was not the brutality of apartheid nor the interest of so many supporters the world over to stop this aberration.

What captured our imagination was that Nelson Mandela’s indomitable spirit, his humanity, his humility and his vast love of his people could not be imprisoned in any way by iron, concrete or barbed wire. He went into prison in 1963 as an unbowed, proud, determined South African fighter and came out in 1990 as an unbowed, proud, determined 20th Century leader and icon.

As Mandela himself put in words:

“I cherish my own freedom dearly, but I care even more for your freedom… I cannot sell my birthright, nor am I am prepared to sell the birthright of the people to be free…”

Mandela turned down freedom at an earlier date because he insisted that it had to be unconditional and as President from 1994 to 1999, he frequently gave priority to reconciliation in order to harness all the resources of South Africa to lift the economic conditions of his people. His spirit of forgiveness, his turning of the other cheek has ensured that South Africa joined as an equal partner in the nations of this world, so that within the past month we have all had the great joy of watching South Africa host the World Cup in splendid and successful fashion.

How important it is that the Member States of the United Nations saw it fitting to adopt a Resolution to commemorate Nelson Mandela International Day, an annual event which the world would observe, now for the first time on the occasion of his 92nd Birthday, and for years to come.

We the Member States of GRULAC, have experienced in similar forms many of the travails experienced by South Africa and personified in the life of Nelson Mandela. Our region has had its own icons, and we remember their considerable contributions to the development of our nations when we pause here to honor the life of Mandela.  For this reason his life, his response to adversity, his humanity, resonates not just in our minds for the success of his mission but in our hearts for the beacon he has become for all peoples suffering repression.

What this man said was merely a punctuation for what he did, and what he did is being recognized today in this august forum so that present and future generations need not wonder as to the path to success in nation building, but merely need to follow the footsteps of this great man.

He truly is an ordinary man who has behaved in an extraordinary way!

Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy & International Affairs David Sandalow.

TOPIC:              Upcoming Clean Energy Ministerial July 19-20^th

This is written on the basis of a US Department of State Press Conference  – Thursday, July 15, 2010.

————

This article follows our posting of July 14, 2010:

The Major 17 Economies were joined by Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore and the UAE at the recent Rome meeting – to be followed by a July 19-20, 2010 Washington DC Meeting on Clean Energy – all this to build a program for Cancun.  Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 14th, 2010 by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

We said at the time that the July 19 – 20, 2010  Washington DC Ministerial meeting will be a sequel – now we are convonced that is actually a different kind of meeting and I do not think that its eyes will be towards Cancun.

———–

The Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, David Sandalow, gave a background briefing and answered questions on the web regarding the importance of the upcoming Washington DC – Clean Energy Ministerial meeting. He discussed Energy Secretary Chu’s hopes on what will be accomplished.

The following countries will be represented:  Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Norway, the Russian Federation, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, the U.A.E. and the U.K.

This list excludes Indonesia from the Major Economies Forum which are 16 + The EU and then at their Rome meeting of June 30 – July 1, 2010, added on Ministers from a variety of representative smaller economies: Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore, UAE.

This list includes in addition to the EU also all The Scandinavian States: Denmark, Norway, Spain and Sweden. As well it includes Belgium and Spain. It does not include Bangladesh, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore which were part of the meeting of June 30 – July 1, 2010 but it does include from that meeting Denmark that was a participant because of its hosting the Copenhagen meeting, and the UAE that seemingly represents the oil exporting countries.

The Washington meeting includes also Belgium because by now they have become the half year Presidents of the EU for July 1 till  December 31, 2010, and it retains Spain that held this position during the first half of 2010. To top this there is also an actual EU delegation at the table besides the temporary Presidents. We assume that this delegation is there because Malta, Cyprus and other EU delegations are not there. Place was also found for all major four Scandinavian Countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden – surely nice people all of them.

I write all of this in order to say that some better way has to be found on how to treat the EU and the World, when the Obama Administration wants indeed to show that it is serious about climate change by inviting just the large emitters that total 80% of the global emissions, or, if intent to bring in also some small representation of the small countries, that do not have substantial emissions, but proportionately are going to bear a major part of the suffering, the Rome initiative of having present also Bangladesh, Barbados and Ethiopia would have been just fine – and the total figure would have been then 16 + 1 (the EU) + 3 (this for Bangladesh, Barbados, Ethiopia) and it obviously would have included as part of the 16 also Indonesia.

For more information, the link to the website is:   http://cleanenergyministerial.org/

——————-

At question time I asked from Mr. Sandalow why is Indonesia not at the meeting, and why was the symbolic, but important participation of the small number of really very small economies dropped?

The answer was that Indonesia said they are not coming because they participate at that time at a South  Asia meeting. The fact that the small economies were dropped is “because this is for the large energy markets – for 80% of the ENERGY MARKET  and not for the whole world.”  THE IDEA IS COME UP WITH ACTIONS TO PROMOTE CLEAN ENERGY, he said.

It would have been easier to accept that answer had the US also kept out the additional 6 EU States that were not among the original 16 + EU. We also would like to ask why UAE – though we think that they clearly are a better choice then Saudi Arabia – but still not exactly your ideal partner when you try to disengage from oil even though they do in effect – as holders of serious financial reserves – also participate in the financial benefits from looking for a cleaner future.

The above, because after Copenhagen we hoped for the involvement of business interests in order to create the working alternative to the Kyoto process – the interest of business in going green. For this to be effective one must have at the table mainly the real big emitters who indeed coincide with the biggest economies.

We thought that amounted to the maximum of 16 and – under EU conditions – just one more chair for the EU. Now there will be 23 chairs at the Washington table. The higher number decreasing the chance for success.

Monday, July 19, 2010 at 9am there will be an open press conference when the meeting starts.

Social Media and Information Technology in Cuba: Recommendations for the Public and Private Sectors.

Empowering the Cuban People through Technology.

In collaboration with the Cuba Study Group & The Latin America Initiative at the Brookings Institution.
Welcoming Remarks:

• Christopher Sabatini, Senior Director of Policy, Americas Society/Council of the Americas

Presenters:

• Carlos Saladrigas, Co-Chairman of the Board, Cuba Study Group
  
• Theodore Piccone, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy, the Brookings Institution
• Christopher Sabatini, Senior Director of Policy, Americas Society/Council of the Americas

Discussant:

• Brett Solomon, Executive Director, AccessNow

This event is free of charge and open to the press.

Further event information: Please contact Matthew Aho at maho@as-coa.org or 212-277-8389.
Press inquiry: Please contact Alex Andrews at aandrews@as-coa.org or 212-277-8384.

New report makes policy recommendations for expanding online and IT access in Cuba.

New York, NY, July 15, 2010—The U.S. can help improve access to information in Cuba and lay the groundwork for future long-term economic growth if it relaxes contradictory regulations governing telecommunications investment in Cuba, says a report published today by the Americas Society and Council of the Americas in collaboration with the Brookings Institution and the Cuba Study Group.

Empowering the Cuban People Through Technology: Recommendations for Private and Public Sector Leaders shows how Washington can ease restrictions on the telecom industry, improving the private sector’s ability to invest while helping Cuba close its technology gap.

“Expanding the opportunity for U.S. telecom investors and companies to provide cell phone and Internet service to the island will help ensure that Cuban citizens possess the tools to become productive economic citizens once the shackles of political and economic state control are removed,” concludes the paper, drawing on recommendations from over 50 information technology and telecommunications executives and other experts.”

Access the report online.

Press Inquiries: Contact Alex Andrews at (212) 277-8384 or aandrews@as-coa.org.

——————————————

Some of the main points from the presentations:

Before technology was a by-product of economic development, but today it is that technology is a pre-requirement for economic development.

Cuba, because years of embargo,  has one of the most embryonic technologies; we, the US, have technologies and they need it for economic development and the closing of the gap. If the Cuban regime embarks on this we see what we can do. For technology to grow there must be a basic human security.

The US economy could work with Cuba. There are products that can be produced right in the neighboring Cuba. It could become like Hong Kong is to China.

All of the above based on the case of the cellular phone in Cuba. In one year they grew last year from 43,000 to over one million. All this because there was a liberalization by the government. This followed the November 13, 2009 liberalization by the Obama Administration. US law says that what is important to the PEOPLE has been liberalized – this includes cell-phone services. Now they need more efficient energy use and phone cards. It calls for more activity from the private sector.

Most interesting was the comment from the co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group – Mr. Carlos Saladrigas who among other positions is also member of the Hispanic Advisory Board of Pepsi Co., told us that he was on the trip with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when in Krakow she spoke of Freedom and Democracy and said that this has three elements: the Government, Business & Enterprise, Civil Society. He then said that it is the Civil Society that can do it with Cuba – to bring them to deal with their own future and the catch here is technology.

——————————————

SEE ALSO FOREIGN POLICY ARTICLE BY CHRISTOPHER SABATINI:
 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20…

That is a longer article to the point.

Fidel is back. In a one hour television appearance this week, his first since intestinal surgery four years ago, the 83-year old head of the Cuban Communist party appeared neither hale nor hearty. But neither did he look like El Cid, the Spanish warrior who was so inspiring that even after death his body, strapped to a horse’s saddle, cowed the Saracen hordes.

Mr Castro’s pre-recorded show coincided with Havana’s pledge to release 52 political prisoners, a decision unlinked to reciprocal US action, although it may encourage change. Legislation in Congress, for example, seeks to end the US travel ban, while leaving the broader embargo intact.

Cuba, in fact, has two embargoes. The first Cubans call the “internal embargo”; the thicket of bureaucracy and socialist antipathy to individual enterprise that has ruined the economy. The second is the US embargo. Contrary to common perception, this is not a monolith. It is more like an onion, with multiple layers, although the last one, normalisation of relations, effectively requires regime change.

Some of those layers have already been peeled off. The US is now Cuba’s fifth-largest trade partner, due to cash sales of food and medicine. Despite the travel ban, up to 200,000 US citizens also visit Cuba every year, illegally via Mexico or on direct Miami flights on educational or cultural exchanges. The US president has scope to expand ties further, for example by allowing business travel, as happened in Vietnam prior to ending that embargo in 1994. Travel would put more money into Cuba’s economy – and most likely the regime’s pockets, too. But it would also help ease ordinary Cubans’ plight and remove a scapegoat Havana has used to excuse its many ills.

Cuba has long ceased being a dagger in the heart; it can hardly even be called a thorn in the side. Its ties with Venezuela may worry some. But this relationship is qualitatively different from Cuba’s African or Central American campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s. It remains a repressive regime, and yet, while the judgment is fine, the time is right for the US to open up more to Cuba.

Doing so is risky as it may not speed the regime’s end. But any measure that reduces the possibility of Cubans streaming across the Florida Straits in the event of a chaotic transition from the Castro regime is sensible.
Barack Obama has called the current US policy “failed”. Most dissidents agree; and, when their blood is not up, perhaps even most exiles, too.

—————————————-

 http://www.iisd.ca/mea-l/guestarticle96….

MEA Bulletin – Guest Article No. 96 – Thursday, 15 July 2010

	A Proposal to Change the Political Strategy of Developing Countries in Climate Negotiations

	By Romina Picolotti (translated from Spanish)*

	Full Article If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can’t be done. Peter Ustinov Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Developing countries are definitely looking for different results in global climate negotiations. We want industrialized countries to comply with their obligations to reduce emissions. We want the effective transfer of technology. We want industrialized countries to provide the necessary financing to mitigate and adapt to climate change. And, we want the system we construct to address climate change to be fair and equitable, including the financial mechanism, and not like the present system utilizing the Global Environment Facility (GEF) where donor countries dominate the decision-making process. We have already invested 16 years in climate negotiations under the UNFCCC process since its entry into force in 1994. The last meeting of negotiators this June in Bonn showed some progress, or at least a bit more realism in defining possible achievements for the next key meeting to be held in Cancun later this year, but negotiators clearly have not overcome their incapacity to offer pragmatic solutions to what has become the most important global problem humanity has ever faced. Meanwhile, the science of climate change continues to solidify and tell us in no uncertain terms that inaction or late action means unavoidable and likely irreversible problems later. Of course, as always, the world’s most socially and economically vulnerable will also be the primary targets of the most catastrophic impacts of the planet’s changing climate. In this scenario, developing countries call over and over again for their legitimate claims over the deteriorating climate to be heard, but fail to obtain the necessary responses for these claims in the post-Kyoto rounds of negotiations. What should we do? At the last meeting of the Montreal Protocol signatories, a representative of the Federated States of Micronesia employed a metaphor that can help us find a way. He likened our climate desperation to a hypothetical neighborhood fire. It’s as if our house is about to be consumed by flames from a raging fire, and the city’s firemen show up at the door, with no truck, no water, no equipment and begin arguing about which technique would be most suitable to put out the encroaching flames. All of a sudden a group of experienced volunteer firefighters decked out with fire equipment, a water truck, and ready to put out the fire show up behind the others. As a homeowner in desperation over advancing flames, what do you do? The answer is a no-brainer, you ask the guys with the solution to put out the fire! The metaphor alludes to the Montreal Protocol (MP), hailed as the most successful environmental treaty to date. From 1990 to 2010, MP’s control measures on production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) will have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 135 gigatons of CO2.This is equivalent to 11 gigatons a year, four to five times the reductions targeted in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Yes, this is amazing! The Federated States of Micronesia used the metaphor of the house on fire to illustrate the opportunity before us to fully utilize the strength of the MP to combat the Planetary fire that climate change is becoming. Specifically, he referred to the opportunity to regulate the production and consumption of HFCs, which would produce the equivalent CO2 mitigation of more than 100 gigatons. This proposal, without a doubt, implies a great opportunity for developing countries, not only in terms of the substantive issues involved, but it also fundamentally highlights the political implications underlying the process. If we are looking for different results from climate negotiations, we mustn’t always do the same thing. Utilizing the maximum potential offered under the MP to mitigate climate change, regulating the production and consumption of HFCs would require that industrialized countries and developing countries both assume “mitigation” obligations. Mitigation obligations in the context of the MP do not mean specific CO2 reduction targets. What it means is that developed and developing countries assume the obligation to regulate the production and consumption of HFCs, which are super greenhouse gases, and by doing so we mitigate global warming. Therefore, to assume this “mitigation” obligation under the MP context should not terrify us. This is precisely the value of utilizing the MP. Our largest challenge as developing countries is not to assume or not assume mitigation obligations, but rather it is to assume them in a context that is fair, and not to assume them in the current context of the UNFCCC. From the perspective of a developing country, assuming mitigation obligations without financing, without the transfer of technology, and without decision-making power is simply suicide. It would be however, politically wise to assume these obligations in the context of the MP and set a crucial precedent. The MP has demonstrated over its 23-year history that the technology is effectively transferred, and that industrialized countries have complied with their obligations, including financing what is needed so that developing countries can comply with their own obligations to control ODS after a suitable grace period. We, developing countries, have a full voice and equal vote on the decision-making process under the MP financing mechanism known as the Multilateral Fund. Finally, the MP has also demonstrated that it is capable of creating the necessary confidence amongst States to take bold and continuous steps forward in compliance with all of the established deadlines. Moreover, developing countries have in many cases complied with obligations to reduce production and consumption of ODS before the established deadlines. Everything we are calling for under the UNFCCC process we have already achieved under the MP framework. Advancing with the inclusion of HFCs under the jurisdiction of the MP would substantially strengthen developing countries in a proactive forum as countries that actively contribute to solutions in a fair agreement, and not as countries that can only claim and denounce. Developing countries can demonstrate that with the right institutional structure we are ready to do the job. The political strategy hence, is to take advantage of the opportunity that is offered by the Federated States of Micronesia’s proposal to advance on pro-climate actions available under the MP, and utilize the MP framework to negotiate from a different vantage point in the UNFCCC process. This “other vantage point” shows what developing countries are able to achieve when industrialized countries comply with their obligations, when transfer of technology takes place, when the decision-making process includes developing country voices in a fair and equitable way, and when financing is made available. The latest report on the UN Millennium Development Goals recognizes that “the unparalleled success of the Montreal Protocol shows that action on climate change is within our grasp”. Hopefully, we will wisely take advantage of this invaluable political opportunity that the Federated States of Micronesia and the Montreal Protocol are offering, and we will not succumb to Peter Ustinov’s foreshadowing of the tragic earth-ending expert voice suggesting a solution is beyond our reach.

	*Romina Picolotti, formerly the Secretary of Environment of Argentina, heads the Center for Human Rights and Environment. She received EPA’s Climate Protection Award in 2008 for her leadership in securing historic commitment to accelerate the phase-out of HCFCs under the Montreal Protocol.

Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation Meets in Samoa.

Honiara, 15 July 2010

Press Release – “Climate Solutions: Invest in Biodiversity” is the theme of the thirteenth gathering of the Pacific Islands Round Table for Nature Conservation that opened in Samoa this morning.

The coalition of nature conservation partners works to improve collaboration and coordination towards effective conservation action in the Pacific region.

Close to 100 participants will discuss effective biodiversity conservation as the key frontline response to climate change.

Opening the meeting at the Development Bank Building in Apia today, the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment of the Government of Samoa, Hon. Faumuina Tiatia Liuga asked that participants not only focus on climate change but also recognise the importance of other environment concerns such as biodiversity conservation.

“While climate change is perceived as a hot topic on the international agenda, don’t lose sight of other environment issues in our region. Nature conservation is important and it is linked to our cultures and traditions.”

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity which underlies the importance of the meeting of the Pacific islands roundtable for nature conservation. Nations around the world are expected to have met key international targets for biodiversity loss as agreed to by Heads of State at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable development to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. The Pacific has adopted the theme “Value Biodiversity – It’s our Life” to celebrate this year.

Mr. Taholo Kami, Chair of the Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation and IUCN Oceania Regional Director, welcomed participants to the regional meeting and urged them to also celebrate good conservation efforts in the region.

“We haven’t come close to reaching the 2010 target to have a declining biodiversity loss and climate change hovers as a threat and challenges us as Pacific islanders with our livelihoods and as conservationists. From this meeting we should have exciting outcomes as we look at the link between biodiversity and conservation and take time to learn from each other in the region. “

Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation partners have been encouraged to sign a charter outlining their commitment to the 2008 to 2010 Action Strategies and Principles adopted at the 8th Pacific Nature Conservation and Protected Areas conference held in Alotau, Papua New Guinea in 2007. 13 key partners have now signed this charter.

This week the 2010 Round Table meeting aims at setting longer term priorities for the next 10 years which will be consolidated to develop as priorities for the next Action Strategy for 2013 to 2017. The role of biodiversity as a climate change solution may be reflected in the coming priorities.

Mr David Sheppard the Director of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) during his keynote speech on Climate change and Natural solutions outlined that effective biodiversity conservation is the key frontline response to climate change.

“We need to develop more effective links between climate change and biodiversity as well as Pacific solutions to Pacific problems. Nature based solutions to climate change should be given more emphasis.”

The conference ends on Friday with a presentation of meeting outcomes and resolutions. Participants are meeting in the Development Bank of Samoa in Apia and they represent nature conservation and development organisations, governments, inter-government, donor agencies, Pacific governments and community groups with an interest in Nature Conservation.

Source: http://www.sprep.org/article/news_detail.asp?id=797
 http://www.solomontimes.com/news.aspx?nw…

Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:31 AM
Bottom-UP- Approach
BY GEORGE SAEMANE FROM HONIARA
 http://www.solomontimes.com/letter.aspx?…

Thank you Dr. Tara for your analytical and thought provoking article that painted the true picture of the last four years.

I pledge no addition or edition of your opinion but simply to ask those who are intending to contest the next election not to hide behind politic rhetoric to confuse the voters to vote for you.

Please give us a clear definition of how our villages are going to included in your plan and do not cover it with pictures of utopia because we know things will get tougher.

We want people who can distinguish between their entitlements and public money.

Marginalization of the villages in meaningful development of villages is an old issue, we have hoped to instill change in the previous elections but failed.

Most new MPs who we banked on were caught unprepared by, gold, glory and you name it.

In this election the loudest voice calling for change are the existing politicians and they are doing this by forming Political Parties left, right and center. Is this not a political ploy to divid us to vote them in, only to find that they throw their different colors and wear the same coats we see in the last house?

Old times we know your works and some a below satisfactory, you have nothing to prove cause your history has already proven who you are and what you are capable of doing.

New Kids on the Block, please if you are going to represent us then go in and do not be lured by power,money and entertainment. We want our villages to have good water supply, sanitation, improved housing, road systems and skills to run our canteens, grow our cocoa, coconut plantations etc. We want to be players in the economic activities in this nation.

We believe you have enough money to achieve the above in the next 12 years if our friend in need and indeed Taiwan continues t help us

Please do not confuse us in the name of dialogue by linking us with the Arab league, they have enough internal problems. Please do not allow us to bear part of their problem. History has shown over and over again that money is linked to human resource.

Old Timers there is still time for you to change your attitudes to deserve our votes. There is room for improvements

New candidates you must be a changed person to induce change . For we can only offer what we have.

Let us forget about “Bottom up Approach”, Rural Advancement” and Rural Development to talk more about Village Development, after all Solomon Islands is made up of villages.

God Bless our villages and Solomon Islands.

————————————

Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:21 PM
Green Party Charter
BY PAUL DRAKE FROM NEW ZEALAND
 http://www.solomontimes.com/letter.aspx?…

Dear Editor; a couple of weeks ago I wrote to the Solomon Times suggesting that a Solomon Island Green Party be formed.

I have had quite a few enquiries for the Green Party (NZ) constitution from Solomon Islanders in Brisbane, Wellington Taiwan and Japan and I hope they take the initiative and form a SIGP by the next election.

I have read a very good letter from Travis Kalione advising voters to steer clear of candidates making promises. I agree promises are cheap!

Those standing for parliament, however should state very clearly what they stand for; eg. Labour or business etc.
“A man who does not stand for something.
Will fall for anything”
G.K. Chesterton.

This is the Aotearoa New Zealand Charter:

The charter is the founding document of the Green Party of Aotearoa , New Zealand.

The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi [The Treaty of Waitangi] as the founding document of Aotearoa NZ; recognises Maori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa NZ; and commits to the following four principles.
[Tangata Whenua; means the 1st people of the land]

Ecological Wisdom:
The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are a part of the natural world.
This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.

Social Responsibility:
Unlimited material growth is impossible; therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resourses, both locally and globally.

Appropriate Decision Making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.

Non Violence:
Non violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.

The above is the Greens philosophy in a nut shell, the constitution is an elaboration of the above.

The Charter is simply a declaration of what a party or individual stands for.

The above document can be used as a good yard stick to measure the other parties in the coming election.

Any more inquiries are welcome you can e-mail me at ekard at slingshot.co.nz

God bless

Paul Drake

————————

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:20 AM
SI Independence Celebrated in Adelaide, South Australia
BY APOLLOS KALIALAHA IN ADELAIDE

The highlights on the occasion were the Warriors welcome performed by the community’s men and the community’s Children singing the two National Anthems of Solomon Islands and Australia.

The Solomon Islands Community in Adelaide, South Australia, has celebrated the Solomon Islands 32nd Independence Day on the 10th July, 2010.

It was a real Pacific Island atmosphere, as those took part and attended included friends from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, North Solomons, Tuvalu and Tongan communities. Others were friends, in-laws and Ex-RAMSI officers.

The two special guests on the occasion were the South Australian Lieutenant Governor Mr Hieu Van Le and the Solomon Islands High Commissioner to Australia His Excellency Mr. Beraki Gino. The Governor in his speech spoke highly of the effort that the Solomon Islands community has put together to register their community in the Multicultural Community of South Australia.

In his capacity as Chairman of South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission, the Governor has pledged his support for the Solomon Islands Community just as any newly formed community in South Australia. Solomon Islands High Commission to Australia His Excellency Mr. Beraki Gino has congratulated the group and thanked them for inviting him to this historical event.

“Because this is the first official event the community has hosted since becoming a community last year, it was indeed an honor to be part of the celebration,” he said.

As guest of honor he cut the Solomon Islands birthday cake, kindly donated by a PNG family who are very close to the SI community. The High Commissioner hosted a breakfast with the Solomon Islands community before catching his flight back to Canberra the next day.

The highlights on the occasion were the Warriors welcome performed by the community’s men and the community’s Children singing the two National Anthems of Solomon Islands and Australia. Food for the night was an Island dinner menu, something that really impressed most of the guests.

President of the Solomon Islands Wantok Association of South Australia, Apollos Kalialaha thanked the Solomon Islands community and guests for their attendance.

THE WORLD CUP FINAL – THE GAME IS TODAY IN CAPE TOWN AND THE DUTCH CANNOT LOSE.
IT IS EITHER THE NETHERLANDS TEAM WINS, OR THEIR MAN WITH THE SPANISH TEAM – JOHAN CRUYFF – THE DUTCH SOCCER LEGEND AND COACH OF F.C. BARCELONA WINS.

The above reminds us that it was the English that played in the World Cup 32 and not the UK – this because the British do enter four separate teams in the games (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) rather then a united UK team. The question that will be asked very soon is then why cannot Catalonia have also their own team. This year Spain is made up basically of Catalonia players and all those professional outsiders – mainly from the Caribbeans and Africa. Johan Cruyff would then have coached the Catalonia team.

“I am Dutch” said Cruyff to El Periodico of Spain where he lives, “But I will always defend the football Spain plays.” In effect, because of him, the soccer Spain plays is downright Dutch in its concept.

Hendrik Johannes Cruijff , born April 1947 in Amsterdam,  known as Johan Cruyff, is a retired Dutch footballer and current manager. He won the Ballon d’Or three times, in 1971, 1973 and 1974, which is a record jointly held with Michel PlatiniMarco van Basten. Cruyff was one of the most famous exponents of the football philosophy known as Total Football , and is widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time.

After his retirement from playing in 1984, Cruyff became highly successful as manager of Ajax and later Barcelona; he remains an influential advisor to both clubs. His son Jordi has also gone on to play football professionally.

In 1999, Cruyff was voted European Player of the Century in an election held by the IFFHS, and came second behind Pelé in their World Player of the Century poll. He came third in a vote organized by the French weekly magazine France FootballBallon d’Or winners to elect their Football Player of the Century.

As a Dutch international, Cruyff, played 48 matches, scoring 33 goals.

Cruyff led the Netherlands to a runners-up medal in the 1974 World Cup and was named the player of the tournament. Thanks to his team’s mastery of Total Football, they coasted all the way to the final, knocking out Argentina (4–0), East Germany (2–0), and Brazil (2–0) along the way. Cruyff himself scored twice against Argentina in one of his team’s most dominating performances, then he scored the second goal against Brazil to knock out the defending champions. The Netherlands faced hosts West Germany in the final. Cruyff kicked off and the ball was passed around the Oranje team 13 times before returning to Cruyff, who then went on a rush that eluded Berti Vogts and ended when he was fouled by Uli Hoeneß inside the box. Teammate Johan Neeskens scored from the spot kick to give the Netherlands a 1–0 lead, and the Germans had not even touched the ball. Only during the latter half of the final was his playmaking influence stifled by the effective marking of Berti Vogts, while Franz Beckenbauer, Uli Hoeneß, and Wolfgang Overath dominated the midfield, enabling West Germany to win 2–1.

Cruyff retired from international football in October 1977, having helped the national team qualify for the upcoming World Cup of 1978. Without him, the Netherlands finished runners-up in the World Cup again. Initially the reason given for missing the 1978 World Cup were political reasons given a military dictatorship was in power in Argentina at that time. In 2008, however, Cruyff stated to the journalist Antoni Bassas in Catalunya Ràdio that he and his family were involved in a kidnap attempt in Barcelona a year before the tournament, and that this had caused his retirement. “To play a World Cup you have to be 200% okay, there are moments when there are other values in life,” he said.

He was the coach of the Barcelona club during the 1988 – 1996 years leading them to winning the European cup in 1992. He established the soccer youth academy – La Masia – where a third of the current Spanish team learned to play and helped make Spain soccer team policy which is based on keen passing and combination play.

On 2 November 2009, at age 62, Cruyff was named as manager of the Catalonian national team.

ROOTING FOR DUTCH – For Final – South Africans Put Past Aside.

Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

Many black South Africans are supporting the Netherlands against Spain in Sunday’s title game.

By JERÉ LONGMAN, The New York Times.
Published: July 10, 2010.

JOHANNESBURG — Given that the Dutch are former colonial masters and their descendants instigated the harsh racial policies of apartheid, one might think that many South Africans, blacks especially, would not cheer for the Netherlands against Spain on Sunday in the World Cup final. In truth, many will not, but mostly for reasons involving the aesthetics of soccer, not a half-century of state-mandated oppression of blacks. “Loads of us favor Spain, but it is because they have a flair, a quality,” said Lucas Radebe, a black South African who was captain of World Cup teams in 1998 and 2002. “This is all about football. History is history.”

Go to the Goal Blog

2010 World Cup Teams

Select a Team ——– Algeria Argentina Australia Brazil Cameroon Chile Denmark England France Germany Ghana Greece Honduras Italy Ivory Coast Japan Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria North Korea Paraguay Portugal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa South Korea Spain Switzerland United States Uruguay

Schalk Van Zuydam/Associated Press

The former President Nelson Mandela, in picture, has long preached the healing power of sports in post-apartheid South Africa.

David Cannon/Allsport

In 1987, the Dutch star Ruud Gullit, left, dedicated an award to the imprisoned Mandela. Mandela, center, with François Pienaar after South Africa won rugby’s World Cup in 1995.

Central Press/Getty Images

Steve Mokone was the first South African to play professionally in Europe.

On the other hand, many black and mixed-race South Africans are rooting for the Netherlands, along with white Afrikaners, who are of Dutch descent. Radebe said that 16 years after the fall of apartheid, this represented a sign of progress, a recognition of deep historical and cultural connections, and a confirmation of Nelson Mandela’s belief in the healing power of sports.

In 1995, a year after being voted president, Mandela famously wore the jersey of the Springboks, the national rugby team largely supported by whites and resented by blacks, as South Africa won the world rugby championship here.

“We forgive and forget,” Radebe said. “You’ve got to live in the world and you want to do it in peace. Mandela said we had to tolerate each other. Somebody has to give in so we can make our way forward. Sport has the power to unite people and change individuals.”

As could be expected, many Afrikaners are supporting the Dutch, who are seeking their first World Cup title. Historical links between South Africa and the Netherlands extend to 1652, when the Dutch East India Company established a supply station for ships rounding the Cape of Good Hope.

“Definitely, we’re supporting the Dutch; our roots are there,” said Cherie Smith, 52, a teacher. Her daughter, Sarah Jane, a model, has painted her fingernails orange, the Dutch color, bought an orange shirt to wear and even an orange wig.

“She’s a redhead, so orange is not her color, but she really feels a connection,” Smith said.

Generally, people here do not view former colonial powers solely through the prism of the past. Many South Africans supported England, another former colonial overlord, earlier in the World Cup and are devoted television watchers of the popular English Premier League.

Many black South Africans also rooted for the Netherlands in its semifinal match against Uruguay, mostly because Uruguay had earlier defeated South Africa and ousted Ghana — the continent’s final hope in the tournament — after a controversial play in which a Uruguayan player illicitly used his hand to block a shot from going into the goal.

A soccer connection has existed between the Netherlands and South Africa for more than half a century. The first black South African soccer player to play professionally in Europe was Steve Mokone, who joined the Dutch team Heracles in the late 1950s, a decade after apartheid had been codified in 1948.

In 1999, a Cape Town team in South Africa’s Premier League took the name of Ajax and began operating in a joint venture with the renowned and powerful Amsterdam club.

An important symbolic gesture against apartheid occurred in 1987, when Ruud Gullit, the Dutch star, was named European player of the year and dedicated his award to Mandela, who was still imprisoned at the time.

Gullit met Mandela after his release, and told The Times of London in 2007 that Mandela said to him: “Ruud, I have lots of friends now. When I was on the inside, you were one of the few.”

Such a gesture by Gullit further endeared the Dutch to many black South Africans, said Radebe, the retired captain.

“Players like him made a difference for people of color, in fighting racism, in making it to the highest level of the game,” he said.

While the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa supported apartheid, anti-apartheid activism sprang up in the Netherlands diplomatically and among nongovernmental organizations, historians said. This is precisely why he was rooting for the Netherlands on Sunday, said Themba Ngcobo, 50, a black business owner from Johannesburg.

“I will cheer the Dutch because they contributed a lot to the democratizing and developing of this country,” Ngcobo said. “We understand the past, but we look at the present.”

The Dutch influence in South Africa is particularly resonant around Cape Town. Cape Dutch architecture features rounded gables, thatched roofs and whitewashed walls. Choral singing in so-called Malay choirs features 18th- and 19th-century Dutch songs sung by mixed-race, or colored, people, many of whom are descendants of slaves brought to South Africa centuries ago by the Dutch from Indonesia, India and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).

Afrikaans, one of 11 official languages in South Africa, is an offshoot of Dutch that is believed to have emerged in colonial times as a way for masters and slaves to communicate.

Among the 18.5 percent of white and mixed-race people, Afrikaans remains the primary language, according to Peter Alegi, an associate professor of history at Michigan State University who is a visiting Fulbright scholar at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, South Africa.

Yet Alegi added: “At school, my two daughters learn Afrikaans, but none of their schoolmates knew that it came from the old Dutch. How much awareness there is of the Dutch connection here is an open question to me.”

Another factor may blunt any enmity that black South Africans might have for the Dutch team, Alegi said.

“Many of the Dutch players are of Caribbean or African diaspora connection,” he said. “People look at the Dutch team and they seem to be diverse racially and ethnically. It might be hard to associate that with a white supremacist past.”

Sean Bvurero, 18, who is black, said he had long supported the Dutch because he liked their players, especially wing Arjen Robben. His friend Thandi Mpungose, also 18, said he was rooting for Spain, but added, “It has nothing to do with the past.”

Thilda Dikeledi, 23, a grocery clerk in the Morningside section of Johannesburg who is black, said she would support the Netherlands because the team played confidently and with passion.

“The past doesn’t mean anything,” Dikeledi said. “Football is football. In the end, this is a game.”

Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria (Spanish pronunciation: [mi?t?el ?at?e?let]; born September 29, 1951) is a moderate socialist politician who was President of Chile from 11 March 2006 to 11 March 2010—the first woman president in the country’s history.

She won the 2006 presidential election in a runoff, beating center-right US dollar billionaire businessman and former senator Sebastián Piñera with 53.5% of the vote.

She campaigned on a platform of continuing Chile’s free-market policies, while increasing social benefits to help reduce the gap between rich and poor, one of the largest in the world.

Bachelet, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with studies in military strategy, served as Health Minister and Defense Minister under President Ricardo Lagos.

Bachelet is the second child of archaeologist Ángela Jeria Gómez and Air Force Brigadier General Alberto Bachelet Martínez.

Facing growing food shortages, the government of Salvador Allende placed Bachelet’s father in charge of the Food Distribution Office. When General Augusto Pinochet came to power in the September 11, 1973 coup, General Bachelet, refusing exile, was detained at the Air War Academy under charges of treason. Following months of daily torture at Santiago’s Public Prison, on March 12, 1974, he suffered a cardiac arrest that resulted in his death. On January 10, 1975, Bachelet and her mother were detained at their apartment by two DINA agents, who blindfolded them and drove them to Villa Grimaldi, a notorious secret detention center in Santiago, where they were separated and submitted to interrogation and torture.^[13] Some days later they were transferred to Cuatro Álamos (“Four Poplars”) detention center, where they were held until the end of January. Later in 1975, thanks to sympathetic connections in the military, both were exiled to Australia, where Bachelet’s older brother Alberto had moved in 1969.

Her paternal great-great-grandfather, Louis-Joseph Bachelet Lapierre, was a French wine merchant from Chassagne-Montrachet who emigrated to Chile with his Parisian wife, Françoise Jeanne Beault, in 1860 hired as a wine-making expert by the Subercaseaux vineyards in southern Santiago.

In February 1979, Bachelet returned to Santiago, Chile from East Germany. Her medical school credits from the GDR were not transferred, forcing her to resume her studies from where she had left off before fleeing the country. ^{[citation needed]} She graduated as M.D. on January 7, 1983^. She wished to work in the public sector wherever attention was most needed, applying for a position as general practitioner; her petition was, however, rejected by the military government on “political grounds.” Instead, because of her academic performance and published papers, she earned a scholarship to specialize in pediatrics and public health at Roberto del Río Children’s Hospital (1983–1986). During this time she also worked at PIDEE (Protection of Children Injured by States of Emergency Foundation), a non-governmental organization helping children of the tortured and missing in Santiago and Chillán. She was head of the foundation’s Medical Department between 1986 and 1990. Some time after her second child with Dávalos, Francisca Valentina, was born in February 1984, she and her husband legally separated. She is a separated mother of three and describes herself as an agnostic.

In 1990, after democracy was restored in Chile, Bachelet worked for the Ministry of Health’s West Santiago Health Service and was a consultant for the Pan-American Health Organization, the World Health Organization and the German Corporation for Technical Cooperation.

Driven by an interest in civil-military relations, in 1996 Bachelet began studies in military strategy at the National Academy for Strategic and Policy Studies (Anepe) in Chile, obtaining first place in her class.^[2] Her student achievement earned her a presidential scholarship, permitting her to continue her studies in the United States at the Inter-American Defense College in Washington, D.C., completing a Continental Defense Course in 1998. That same year she returned to Chile to work for the Defense Ministry as Senior Assistant to the Defense Minister. She subsequently graduated from a Master’s program in military science at the Chilean Army‘s War Academy.

In 1996 Bachelet ran against future presidential adversary Joaquín Lavín for the mayorship of Las Condes, a wealthy Santiago suburb and a right-wing stronghold. Lavín won the 22-candidate election with nearly 78% of the vote, while she finished fourth at 2.35%. At the 1999 presidential primary of Coalition of Parties for Democracy (CPD), Chile’s governing coalition since 1990, she worked for Ricardo Lagos’s nomination, heading the Santiago electoral zone.

On March 11, 2000 Bachelet—virtually unknown at the time—was appointed Minister of Health by President Ricardo Lagos. She began an in-depth study of the public health-care system that led to the AUGE plan a few years later. She was also given the task of eliminating waiting lists in the saturated public hospital system within the first 100 days of Lagos’s government. She reduced waiting lists by 90%, but was unable to eliminate them completely and offered her resignation, which was promptly rejected by the President.  Controversially,  she allowed free distribution of the morning-after pill for victims of sexual abuse.

On January 7, 2002 Bachelet was appointed Defense Minister, becoming the first woman to hold this post in a Latin American country and one of the few in the world. While Minister of Defense she promoted reconciliatory gestures between the military and victims of the dictatorship, culminating in the historic 2003 declaration by General Juan Emilio Cheyre, head of the army, that “never again” would the military subvert democracy in Chile.  She also oversaw a reform of the military pension system and continued with the process of modernization of the Chilean armed forces with the purchasing of new military equipment, while engaging in international peace operations.

A moment which has been cited as key to Bachelet’s chances to the presidency came during a flood in northern Santiago where she, as Defense Minister, led a rescue operation on top of an amphibious tank, wearing a cloak and military cap.

In late 2004, following a surge of her popularity in opinion polls, Bachelet was established as the only CPD figure able to defeat Lavín, and she was asked to become the Socialists’ candidate for the presidency.

According to The Economist magazine the government of Bachelet opted to make social protection and the promotion of equality of opportunity her main priority. Since becoming President, her government built 3,500 crèches daycare for poorer children. It introduced a universal minimum state pension and extended free health care to cover many serious conditions.
A new housing policy aimed at abolishing the last remaining shanty-towns in Chile by 2010 featured grants to the poorest families. Some of them had to pay just US$400 for a house costing about US$20,000.

In October 2009 Ms Bachelet’s popularity peaked at 80 percent according to a public opinion poll by conservative polling institute Adimark GfK., and in March 2010 she showed an approval rating of 84%, and in terms of specific characteristics attributed to Chile’s president, ‘loved by Chileans’ reached a record 96%.

The Chilean Constitution does not allow a president to serve two consecutive terms, so Bachelet left office in March 2010.

Chile’s October 16, 2006 vote in the United Nations Security Council election—with Venezuela and Guatemala deadlocked in a bid for the two-year, non-permanent Latin American and Caribbean seat on the Security Council — developed into a major ideological issue in the country, and was seen as a test for Bachelet. The governing coalition was divided between the Socialists, who supported a vote for Venezuela, and the Christian Democrats, who strongly opposed it. The day before the vote the president announced (through her spokesman) that Chile would abstain, citing as reason a lack of regional consensus over a single candidate, ending months of speculation.

Continuing the coalition’s free-trade strategy, in August 2006 Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In October 2006, Bachelet promulgated a multilateral trade deal with New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4),  also signed under Lagos’ presidency.  She also held free-trade talks with other countries, including Australia, Vietnam,  Turkey and Malaysia. Regionally, she signed bilateral free trade agreements with Panama, Peru and Colombia.

At the beginning of 2010 Chile became the OECD’s 31st member, and its first in South America. This acceptance for OECD membership marked international recognition of nearly two decades of democratic reform and sound economic policies; for the OECD, Chile’s membership was a major milestone in its mission to build a stronger, cleaner and fairer global economy

She speaks Spanish (her native language), English, German, Portuguese and French.

In 2009 Forbes magazine ranked her as the 22nd in the list of the 100 most powerful women in the world (she was #25 in 2008, #27 in 2007, and #17 in 2006). In 2008, TIME magazine ranked her 15 on its list of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Eleanor Clift wrote on politicsdaily.com on June 10, 2010 that Michelle Bachelet moved the Chilean Government from Macho – to – Maternal. She was clearly the best qualified person to establish and head the new UN institution that was baptized with the terrible name UNWOMEN. And you know what, letting into the UN building a highly qualified person may endanger the minions working there. That, is what doomed on me today, this because I also learned an additional fact about Bachellet’s Chile, and that is why I write this UPDATE.
 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/10/…

The additional fact I learned today came from reading material that will appear in an Energy Management Magazine Published in India. The article is by – Ms. Jimena Bronfman, Vice Minister of Energy, Chile , and it deals with Chile moving into leadership position on energy issues – and you guessed right if you said that Dr. Bachelet started this. In effect the Ministry of Energy – which for Chile is a Ministry of Energy Efficiency – was set up at the end of her days in the Presidential Office. We are sure that this was not an easy task to fulfill – but we are sure that it will be one of her most important legacies. We know that Energy Efficiency is not a top priority of the G77 real on-going leadership and this, more then anything else, explains the diatribe we described in our original posting which we updated now.

The creation of the Ministry of Energy in February 1^st 2010 is an important milestone in this process. The law that is the basis for Chile’s current institutional framework also includes the creation of the Chilean Energy Efficiency Agency, a public private entity that will implement the public policies designed by the Energy Efficiency Division of the Ministry.

Energy Efficiency is one of the main goals of Chile’s national energy policy, families are changing their habits and industries, corporations and local governments are trying to reduce their energy consumption by adopting energy-efficient measures. This fostering environment was recently faced by the February 27^th earthquake and tsunami that devastated several regions of our country. We have taken this catastrophe as an opportunity and a challenge to rebuild our towns and cities using energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The Ministry of Energy is working with other ministries, such as the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education to include energy efficiency measures and non-conventional renewable energies in the reconstruction of health and education infrastructure and emergency housing. We are also developing a pilot project to rebuild a town with the leading best practices in sustainability and energy consumption, so it can be replicated in other parts of the region and world.

Energy Efficiency is key to Chile’s competitiveness and economic growth. According to studies carried out before the earthquake, energy efficiency measures could help reduce Chile’s energy demand by around 14% by 2020. This would have a positive financial impact in the reconstruction process, as public funds saved by reduction of energy consumption can be reallocated to other priorities of the rebuilding program.

Energy Efficiency will also help Chile, whose economy is based on exports, to reduce its carbon footprint and be competitive in a world that is increasingly carbon-conscious. Although Chile’s contribution to global greenhouse emissions is low compared to many other nations, our wines, copper, fruits, fish and wood products are sold in developed markets that will require sustainable production processes.

In order to achieve our goals we are currently developing the Energy Efficiency Strategy for 2020. At the moment a draft proposal is being reviewed by key actors from the private and the public sectors who will be involved in the actual implementation of the strategy. The main objective of this process is to promote a broad discussion of the specific proposals, introduce appropriate improvements and gain comprehensive support for the energy saving goals contemplated in the strategy.  The official version of the E3 will be published after completion of this discussion period, hopefully by the end of November 2010.

Other challenges for this year include the implementation of the rest of our institutional framework, which will be completed by the creation of the Chilean Energy Efficiency Agency, a public-private non-profit entity that will implement the Ministry’s public policies. It will be funded mainly through public funds but will include private sector representatives in its board. The focus of the Agency’s work will be guided by the E3 strategy; however, we shall also aim at developing other important projects such as education. We strongly believe that a crucial driver for change in these matters is highly-skilled human resources. Therefore, education in schools, undergraduate and post-graduate education is needed to introduce strong energy efficiency programs. Other important aspects of energy efficiency lie in smart-grid and net-metering programs.

Another main priority for 2010 is the development of energy efficiency labelling for cars, new houses and domestic appliances. Labelling is currently mandatory for refrigerators and light bulbs, and we aim to expand this initiative so consumers have all the information available to make the right decisions.

We also want to continue growing our international alliances and cooperation. We have already executed collaboration agreements with several countries and organizations worldwide, and we will work to strengthen and deepen those relationships. Energy Efficiency is a global effort that can be fostered by exchanging best practices that will benefit consumers, industries and countries all over the world.

—————————–

The China and Developing States, the full name of the G77 that purports speaking for 130 out of the 192 UN Member States, is a UN charade – simply, because there never was a common interest among all these various States Now, with China becoming at least a G2 with the United States, if not the straight Global Economic Super power, for her to use the leadership of this rag-tag bunch and push into leadership positions at the UN – Libya, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. resulted in turning the whole UN into a laughable enterprise. Bravo to little Palau that walked out on this continuous obstructionist committee circuit that calls for time-out whenever the UN tries to reach some decision. We watched them at climate Change meetings where Saudi Arabia is their representative.

Perhaps there was once s difference between the industrialized European  – North American countries plus Japan, and the rest of the world – this when the UN was created and the decolonizing process was giving birth to many new UN Member States – in effect multiplying by three the total number of global independent States, but since then much has changed.

The Latin ABC, Mexico, Korea, Turkey, India, Indonesia, South Africa have all knocked successfully at the corporate doors of development and entered the G20. The OECD club includes most of these G20 plus most EU States and Israel that is a perpetual  G77 pariah. They have now real interests to defend and not much time for posturing – so we will see slowly a realignment also at the UN. OK, China and South Africa will not want to give up their positions as leaders of the 130. It keeps some of their diplomats in the circuit and the UN will continue the fiction, but how long hence that the AOSIS/SIDS will still play this game? When will they see that Palau was indeed a trailblazer? Will the lack of action on Climate Change by some of the major OECD members who effectively joined the Saudis in opposing real action on climate, push these States back into the G77 arms?

—————————————-

THURSDAY, JULY 08, 2010
Chile Threatens to Split South Unity in World Body.
Thalif Deen
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 7 (IPS) – The Group of 77 (G77) has historically maintained a united front, vociferously protecting the economic interests of developing countries at the United Nations. But its longstanding solidarity is now being threatened by the continued presence of a single Latin American country which recently joined the ranks of a rich elitist group.

Chile, which was formally inducted last May into the 30-member Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), described as an exclusive club of industrial nations, has given no indications of leaving the G77, thereby triggering a sharp division of opinion among its 130 members. “Chile wants to have it both ways,” one G77 member told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It wants to have one foot in the OECD and another in the G77. But this is unacceptable to some of us.”

When Mexico and South Korea broke ranks with the developing world and joined the Paris-based OECD back in 1994 and 1996, respectively, both countries quit the G77, the largest single coalition of developing countries at the United Nations.

Chakravarti Raghavan, editor emeritus of the Geneva-based South-North Development Monitor published by the Third World Network, told IPS if Chile does not voluntarily quit the G77, the group must find a way around its longstanding convention of consensus decisions, and “politely but firmly throw Chile out”.

“This will be in line with the spirit and the intentions behind the formation of the Group of 77 and its functioning over all these years,” he added.

“It is probably about time that the G77 being an informal grouping expel Chile – on the simple ground that you can’t belong to two different groupings,” said Raghavan, who is considered a foremost authority on the G77, and who has written extensively about the Group since its inception in June 1964.

“It is my impression that Mexico, when it joined OECD, initially wanted to be in both camps, but was told it was not possible,” he added.

On North-South economic issues at the United Nations, the G77 and the OECD hold diametrically opposite views – most or all of the time.

The OECD is home to some of the world’s major economic powers, including the United States, Britain, Germany, France and Japan. Most of the emerging economic powers, including Brazil, India, China and South Africa, are longstanding members of the G77 and not members of the OECD.

But according to the OECD, it is planning to have discussions with Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa – all active members of the G77 – “with a view to possible membership”.

The G77 has lost four other members over the years: Cyprus and Malta (both in May 1994) and Romania (January 2007) when they joined the European Union.

A fourth country, Palau, a small island developing nation in the Pacific, withdrew from the G77 in June 2006, ostensibly for financial reasons.

Besides Chile, Mexico and South Korea, the OECD has also added three other non-G77 members into its ranks: Estonia, Slovenia and Israel.

Speaking off-the-record, a diplomat from a G77 country expressed a dissenting point of view when he told IPS: “There is nothing in the G77 rules or guidelines stating that an OECD member has to quit the G77.”

He said Chile is well within its rights to remain a member of the G77.

“And, while there may be a few in G77 who may not be pleased about Chile remaining in the G77, there are no serious moves afoot to push them out of the grouping,” he said. “Most of us, support Chile remaining in the G77. There will be strong resistance from a number of us if anyone tries to eject Chile from the G77.”

And as an after-thought, he added: “The OECD had made leaving the G77 a condition for Mexico’s entry into the OECD. However, when Chile was applying to the OECD, there was no such condition.”

Moreover, he said, Mexico stated that leaving the G77 should not be a condition for Chile’s entry.

Another G77 delegate told IPS that if Chile does not voluntarily leave the Group, as Mexico and South Korea did in previous years, a divided G77 may be forced to take a decision either way.

Meanwhile the former G8 – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia – has been expanded into the G20 to include seven developing nations (besides Australia, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey and the European Union).

The seven developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa – are still members of the G77.

Chile has argued that G77 members that belong to the G20 should be considered in the same light as G77 members belonging to the OECD. But the G20 is not considered a formal body like the OECD, which is treaty-based and whose decisions are binding on all its members.

According to an OECD statement, the invitation to Chile to become the Organisation’s 31st member came at a time when the OECD is expanding its relations with the region.

As an OECD member, Chile will participate in all areas of the OECD’s work, from economic and financial policy to education, employment and social affairs. It will also join with other OECD countries to share experiences and best practices, setting new standards and developing new governance mechanisms for its economy and society more broadly.

The statement said that during two years of accession negotiations, Chile was reviewed by some 20 OECD committees with respect to OECD instruments, standards and benchmarks.

The invitation to take up membership confirms that Chile is taking appropriate steps to reform its economy including in the areas of corporate governance, anti-corruption, and environmental protection, the statement said.

Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) hosts Regional Workshop on Economics of Climate Adaptation.

CCRIF has recently launched a project to produce a quantitative knowledge base for key climate change risks and adaptation strategies for decision making across the region, building on and contributing to the Review of the Economics of Climate Change (RECC) process. Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) hosts RegionalWorkshop on Economics of Climate Adaptation On 12 and 13 May, over 50 representatives from Caribbean governments and international agencies met in Barbados to discuss the initial results from a recent investigation into the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) in the Caribbean. This study, part of CCRIF’s technical assistance programme, will enhance the development of a fact base for developing sound climate change adaptation strategies in the region.

Since the launch of the project in February, a team composed of Caribbean Risk Managers on behalf of CCRIF, the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (5C’s) and other regional partners, has been intensely involved in data collection and

analysis for a number of countries with analytical support provided by McKinsey & Company and Swiss Re. The workshop, which was held at the Caribbean Development Bank, provided an introduction to the Economics of Climate Adaptation approach and its application in the Caribbean and focussed on sharing the findings of the study with the participants examining the key insights and results for wind, sea level rise/coastal flooding, inland flooding and salinisation of groundwater.

The final outputs of this study will include a risk baseline which will provide transparency about current and future expected
losses from climate risks under three climate change scenarios; and assessment of adaptation measures – identification of feasible and applicable measures to adapt to the expected risks based on quantitative analysis of total cost and expected benefits of risk mitigation and transfer measures.

The results of the study will assist decision makers throughout the Caribbean region in defining and developing sound adaptation strategies and business cases which can be incorporated into national development plans. The recent Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen reconfirmed the commitment to provide funding and technical assistance for climate adaptation
to developing countries. The ECA study will help Caribbean leaders develop programmes that will be strong candidates for adaptation assistance.

The innovation of the ECA methodology lies in its positioning across different knowledge sectors, spanning climate science, the financial industry and economic research. The analysis is based on joining four main elements:
1. Climate change scenarios based on the most recent available scientific evidence.
2. Hazard models forecasting the occurrence of hurricanes or other damaging events.
3. Economic damage functions linking the intensity of events to economic impact.
4. Value distribution models describing each country’s economic and population exposure to hazards in a granular, precise way.

Hurricanes can be dangerous, listening to the hurricane warning messages and planning ahead can reduce the chances of injury or major property damage.
BEFORE:
Know your Emergency Shelters Contact the National Disaster Office for the closest shelters. Have disaster supplies on hand
Flashlight and extra batteries; Portable, battery-operated radio and extra batteries; First aid kit; Non-perishable (canned food) and water; Non-electric can opener; Essential medicines; Cash and
credit cards; Sturdy shoes Protect your windows: Permanent shutters are the best protection. A lower-cost approach is to put up
plywood panels. Trim back branches from trees: Trim branches away from your home and cut all dead or weak branches
on any trees on your property.

Check into your Home and Auto Insurance: Confirm that policies are valid and coverage is appropriate.

Make arrangements for pets and livestock: Pets may not be allowed into emergency shelters for health and space reasons. Contact your local humane society for information on animal shelters.

Develop an emergency communication plan: Make sure that all family members know what to do. Teach family members how and when to turn off gas, electricity, and water. Teach children how and when to call police or fire department and which radio station to tune to for emergency information.

Hurricane Watches and Warnings:
A hurricane watch is issued when there is a threat of hurricane conditions within 24-36 hours. A hurricane warning is issued when hurricane conditions (winds of 74 miles per hour or greater, or dangerously high water and rough seas) are expected in 24 hours or less.

DURING A HURRICANE WATCH:
Listen to the radio or television for hurricane progress reports
Check emergency supplies
Fuel car
Bring in outdoor objects such as lawn furniture, toys, and garden tools and anchor objects that cannot
be brought inside
Secure buildings by closing and boarding up windows
Remove outside antennas and satellite dishes
Turn refrigerator and freezer to coldest settings. Open only when absolutely necessary and close
quickly
Store drinking water in clean jugs, bottles, and cooking utensils.

DURING A HURRICANE WARNING:
If you need to evacuate your home, lock up home and go to the nearest shelter
Take blankets and sleeping bags to shelter
Listen constantly to a radio or television for official instructions
Store valuables and personal papers in a waterproof container on the highest level of your home
Stay inside, away from windows, skylights, and glass doors
Keep a supply of flashlights and extra batteries handy
Avoid open flames, such as candles and kerosene lamps, as a source of light
If power is lost, turn off major appliances to reduce power “surge” when electricity is restored.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone (202) 223-4975, fax (202) 223-4979, or email coha@coha.org.

COHA is formulating a series of analyses of the breaking news from Havana that Cuba is in the process of releasing 52 political prisoners.

In immediate response to the latest news from Cuba – COHA released the following report by Staff Member Sara Nawaz.

COHA Staff Memorandum: Cuba Pledges to Release Political Prisoners.

State Department Must Seize Golden Opportunity to Utilize Momentum to Change its Cuban Strategy, and not Duck Behind Shallow Platitudes.

On Wednesday, July 7, Cuba vowed to release fifty-two political prisoners, five immediately and forty-seven in upcoming months. If successfully carried out, this would mean that about one-third of current political detainees on the island will have been released, leaving approximately one hundred still in custody. This is the first large-scale prisoner release by Havana since 1998, when upwards of 100 political prisoners were released following Pope John Paul II’s visit to Cuba. Spurred on by E.U. pressure, the current release was negotiated by the energized Archbishop of Havana Jaime Ortega, Spanish foreign minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos, and Cuban president Raúl Castro. The Obama administration, which so far has failed to live up to its campaign rhetoric of broadening ties with Cuba, would be wise to seize this opportunity to warm up its outdated and unproductive Cuban strategy.

Despite promises to shift U.S. policy toward Cuba in the direction of greater flexibility, the Obama administration has so far only managed to reverse some of the more extremist policies implemented by President George W. Bush. While the current administration removed the limit on remittances to Cuba, as well as the cap on travel that prevented Cuban Americans from traveling to the island more than once every three years, its Cuban policies otherwise have been lame, listless, and bereft of imagination. While necessary, these have ultimately been only token steps that have failed to ignite much enthusiasm in Latin America because of their limited nature. Furthermore, despite Obama’s orders for the CIA to close Guantanamo Bay last year, the prison will now remain open for the next two years.

For full article click here

—————————————–

COHA Previous Releases on Cuba:

• Disparities in U.S. Immigration Policy toward Haiti and Cuba: A Legacy to be Continued?
by COHA Research Associates Alice Barrett & Kelsey Cary

• Travel to Cuba Legislation Mired by Scandal, Fierce Opposition
by COHA Research Fellow Katya Rodriguez and Research Associate Carl Patchen

• Cuba-U.S. Rhetoric Timeline: Hope for a Basic Shift in Policy Disintegrates into Continued Polarization
by COHA Research Associate Katya Rodriguez

• Cuba’s Health Politics: At Home and Abroad
by COHA Senior Research Fellow Julie Feinsilver

• Cuba – Russia Now and Then
by COHA Research Associate Evgenij Haperskij

• No “Common Policy,” as Europe Grapples over its Future ties with Cuba
by COHA Research Associate Evgenij Hapers

• ¿Cambio?The Obama Administration in Latin America: A Dissapointing Year in Retrospective
by COHA Research Fellows Guy Hursthouse and Tomás Ayuso

—————————————-

Clinton “Encouraged” by Cuba’s Prisoner Accord.

WASHINGTON, Jul 8 (IPS) – In the most positive U.S. statement on developments in Cuba in recent memory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday said the reported agreement between President Raul Castro and the Cuban Catholic Church regarding the release of 52 political prisoners was “very welcome”. At the same time, independent analysts here said the accord, in which Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos also played a role, should bolster chances that Congress will approve pending legislation that would end the ban on U.S. citizens travelling to Cuba.

“All of this will strengthen the chances of passage (of the bill) by the House of Representatives,” said Geoff Thale, a Cuba specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). “To the extent the (Congressional) debate will be about the human rights situation in Cuba,” he told IPS, “this will provide evidence that the situation is improving and that engagement is more likely to produce results than isolation.”

Indeed, anti-Castro Cuban Americans expressed concern about the possible political implications here of a major prisoner release. “Those who perish in Castro’s dungeons deserve better than to be used as ploys by the Castro apparatus to extract concessions and financial rewards that will enable the regime to extend its stranglehold on the Cuban people,” said Cuban-born Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as the Archdiocese of Havana announced the accord in Havana.

“We must not be fooled. Until all political prisoners are liberated; all political parties, labour unions, independent media are legalised and allowed to operate freely; until the Cuban people are able to exercise their universal rights free of coercion and intimidation, maximum pressure must be exerted on the Cuban tyranny,” she added. Under the accord, which was the lead story in Thursday’s Washington Post, the Castro government will release 52 political prisoners over the next several months. Five of the prisoners are to be released immediately and sent to Spain, while six others are to go to prisons closer to their homes.

The 52 prisoners were among 75 dissidents – 23 of whom have already been released – who were rounded up during a major crackdown in March 2003 and sentenced to as much as 20 years for anti-state or counter-revolutionary activities. It is not yet clear whether any or all of them will be required to leave the country as a condition of their release, although published reports have quoted Spanish government sources as indicating that Madrid will take them in. The State Department said Thursday they would also be “welcome” in the U.S. but that “those released should be free to decide whether to remain in Cuba and those who do leave should be able to return to their country.”

The Havana-based Cuban Commission for Human Rights said the number of political prisoners held in the country’s prisons currently stands at 167, the lowest number since former President Fidel Castro took power in 1959. Release of the 52 would reduce their population by about one-third, according to Elizardo Sanchez, the Commission’s long-time president.

Amnesty International, which uses narrower criteria in determining who qualifies as a “prisoner of conscience”, said the release of the 52 would leave only one such prisoner, Rolando Jimenez Posada, in confinement. Posada, a lawyer who publicly protested the 2003 crackdown, was himself arrested in April of that year and is serving a 12- year sentence for “disrespecting authority and revealing secrets about state security police”.

“We welcome the commitment to release these prisoners, but there is no reason why all 53 prisoners of conscience held in Cuba should not be released immediately, said Susan Lee, director of Amnesty’s Americas Programme. “Forcing them to leave the country would be yet another attempt to suppress freedom of expression and movement in Cuba,” she added.

from: Bill McKibben - 350.org <organizers@350.org> date Thu, Jul 8, 2010 subject: Tell Obama: Put Solar on the White House!

Dear Friends,

Washington DC is in the grip of an epic heat wave as I write these words. It hasn’t been enough to get our Senators and Congressmen to do anything about the climate crisis, but it is a constant reminder of the sun’s power, going to waste.

We thought we all could do something about that this summer, so today we’re launching a little campaign asking President Obama to put solar panels on the roof of the White House. It’s easy to sign on–just click the following link to add your name.

http://www.putsolaron.it/whitehouse

This new campaign is part of our huge push towards the 10/10/10 Global Work Party, where millions of people in 114 countries (and counting!) have already signed up to do something sustainable in their communities on that October day. We hope the president will join in both the work and the party, and help install those panels–if you agree, we’ve made it incredibly simple for you to send along your invitation. Just click here. And just so you don’t think we’re singling out the president, we’re launching this same campaign today in every other country in the world.

President Obama won’t, of course, be doing much to solve climate change with just that one act alone. We really need him to push for comprehensive laws that put a price on carbon and wean us off coal and oil–push much harder than he has so far. We’re a little worried that the Obama administration will use their new solar panels to claim that they’re sincere about climate change without working to pass the legislation and enact the regulations that really matter–none of us wants to be used for a photo opportunity. That’s why the message we’ll all be sending is: you’ve taken symbolic action, so now get to work on the real thing.

And the symbolic action is important. Solar panels sat on the roof of the White House during the Carter administration, but were pulled down by the next occupant of the building, and never replaced. That sent a simple message: renewable energy didn’t really matter. (Not surprisingly, when the panels came down the subsidies for solar energy also disappeared, and now other nations are leading the way on clean energy).

We need the opposite message: every roof  in the country should have solar panels–for hot water and for electricity. Panels on the White House will remind every visitor to Washington of that simple fact–it will do as much good as the wonderful organic garden that the First Lady planted on the South Lawn. (In the year since, the number of Americans with vegetable gardens grew 19%; Burpee Seeds reported sales up by a third!).

Nothing replaces legislation that really cuts carbon.

But one way to build support for those changes is to show how easy it is to start to work. So tell President Obama-it’s time to roll up those sleeves, put solar on the White House and join the Global Work Party!

Onwards,

Bill McKibben for 350.org

P.S. Good news arrived just as we were getting ready to launch this global campaign. President Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldives confirmed he’d be up on the roof of his official residence on 10/10/10 putting up a solar array. It’s fifteen degrees cooler today in his capital city than it is in Washington, so there’s every reason to hope President Obama will match his gesture!

==================

If in need of solar panels, we just got the following e-mail: http://www.grapesolar.com/index.php?acti…

Rio+20 Summit Preview Article: Another Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in 2012: Leading or Misleading the World through a Green Economy? by Uchita de Zoysa

To: SustainabiliTank

Dear Sir/Madam,

Another Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in 2012: Leading or Misleading the World through a Green Economy?

I am herewith sending you an article themed “Another Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in 2012: Leading or Misleading the World through a Green Economy?”. This is one of the first international reviews of the planned Rio+20 Summit or the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) to be held in 2012.

The summit is planned as the 20^th Anniversary of the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro held in 1992. The 1^st Preparatory Committee meeting of the summit was held in last May, which I participated, was arranged in a hurry without much notification to governments across the world. Specially the Southern developing countries are still  not aware of this critical process that will determine their futures. The process is very weak and the agenda dominated by the so called ‘Green Economy’ has already created doubt over the objectives and the successful outcome of the summit.

This article is written with firsthand experience and quoting the different people who participated in meetings I was involved in organizing at the 1^st PrepCom for UNCSD in New York from 17-19^th May 2010.

As a participant at the 1992 1^st Rio Earth Summit and now involved in the Rio+20, I feel its my duty to early inform readers of the importance of this summit.

I  would greatly appreciate if your paper would publish this article at the earliest convenience to create early awareness amongst our government, stakeholders and citizens.

I thank you in advance for your kind support.

Sincerely,

Uchita de Zoysa

Chairman – Global Sustainability Solutions (GLOSS)

—————————-

Managing Director – D&D Strategic Solutions (D&D)

Executive Director – Centre for Environment & Development (CED)

Convenor – Climate Sustainability PLATFORM

253/10, Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka

tel/fax: +94 11 2768459 mobile: +94 777 372206

e-mail: uchita@sltnet.lk / info@glossolutions.com /ced@sltnet.lk /betterworld@sltnet.lk

skype: betterworldasia         skype: uchita.de.zoysa

web: www.glossolutions.com

blog: http://betterworldasia.blogspot.com/

blog: http://ddstrategicsolutions.wordpress.com/

blog: http://centreforenvironmentdevelopment.blogspot.com/

blog: http://www.climatesustainabilityplatform.blogspot.com/

blog: http://climatesustainability.blogspot.com/

—————————-

ANOTHER EARTH SUMMIT IN 2012 (by Uchita de Zoysa).doc 64K   View Download =======================================

UN-SUPPORTED RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTRE FOR WEST AFRICA OPENS IN CAPE VERDE.

A new regional centre to help develop the renewable energy potential for West Africa opened today in Cape Verde, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which is supporting the facility, said.

The Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (ECREEE), a specialized agency of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), is based in Praia, the capital of Cape Verde. It is supported by UNIDO and the Governments of Austria, Cape Verde and Spain.

It will help develop renewable energy and energy efficiency markets in West Africa, formulate policy, build capacity and quality assurance mechanisms, as well design financing plans. The centre will also implement demonstration projects with potential for regional scaling up.

“The current energy systems in the ECOWAS region are failing to support the growth prospects of the over 262 million inhabitants, especially the needs of the poor. The creation of ECREEE is a central milestone in efforts to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and services in the region,” said Yoshiteru Uramoto, Deputy to UNIDO’s Director-General.

“Investing in renewable energy systems and introducing energy efficient technologies will contribute to the region’s economic and social development without harming the environment,” he added.

It is estimated that a total of 23,000 megawatts of large and small hydroelectric potential is concentrated in five ECOWAS member States, of which only 16 per cent has been exploited.

Traditional biomass is already the main source of energy for the poor majority and accounts for 80 per cent of total energy consumed for domestic purposes. There are also considerable wind, tidal, ocean thermal and wave energy resources available. The region has vast solar energy potential.

UNIDO has a number of projects in Africa where renewable energy sources like small hydro, biomass gasification, wind energy, solar thermal and photovoltaic energy are used to promote the development of small industries, particularly in rural areas, that contribute to growth and poverty reduction.

The agency has also developed an energy programme for 18 countries in West Africa, including all ECOWAS member States, funded by the Global Environment Facility. ECREEE will become the main implementing agency of the $150 million programme that will focus on the energy access agenda and energy efficiency in key sectors of the economy.

We have received the following Earth Conscious Magazine File from our UNEP – Caribbean Contacts and thought this is a worthwhile Magazine that will be liked by our readers. This posting is intended so that we transmit the link to the Magazine File.