The following we got directly from Jian Liu who seems eager to start this new effort. We think also that this cooperative program with the Chinese Academy could create initiatives to help move Sustainable Development from its UN dead-spot.
On the other hand, we did not think that China’s involvement in the Nile Basin initiative had full credibility such an initiative deserves. Simply – this because China’s involvement in Sudan oil was a serious blemish on whatever they do in that region.
————————
from Jian Liu <jian.liu@unep.org>
date Friday, Jul 9, 2010
subject Leaving adaptation for ecosystem management.
Dear Colleagues,
I am pleased to inform you that I have shifted from the post as chief of UNEP Climate Change Adaptation Unit to a new position as director of UNEP International Ecosystem Management Partnership (IEMP), responsible for its development and operation. This means that I will be outposted in Beijing from Nairobi. IEMP is co-sponsored by UNEP and the Chinese Academy of Sciences and other international and national agencies. It aims to promote research and management of eocsystems and biodiversity in developing countries, and their integration into the emerging green economy, The eventual goal of IEMP is to become an international knowledge hub, a think tank and a centre of technology development and capacity building for ecosystem management in developing countries.
This move is not totally a separation from the climate change community. I will start by supporting UNEP climate-related programmes such as REDD+ and Ecosystem-Based Adaptation, in addition to support its ecosystem management related programmes such as the Intergovernmental Science and Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). I will still be working on the interface between ecosystems and climate change.
Let me in this context thank all of you for your generous support to my work as the chief of UNEP Climate Change Adaptation Unit during the last 2.5 years since January 2008. This has enabled me to build the core team for adaptation in UNEP, develop a comprehensive programme including key initiatives such as the Global Adaptation Network and Ecosystem-Based Adaptation, and prepare for implementation of associated projects such as the Nile Basin project.
I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce my interim successor, Mr. Tim Kasten who is the deputy director of UNEP Division of Enviromental Policy Implementation, and now serves as officer-in-charge of the Climate Change Adaptation Unit. While he takes the overall responsibility managing the unit, I would also like to introduce colleagues who are responsible for specific building blocks:
1. Ms. Anna. Kontorov ( anna.kontorov at unep.org): adaptation knowledge, including the Global Adaptation Network and Adaptation Knowledge Days;
2. Ms. Musonda Mumba ( musonda.mumba at unep.org): Ecosystem-based Adaptation Programme, including the Nile Basin Project;
3. Ms. Emily Massawa ( emily.massawa at unep.org): UNEP focal point to Adaptation Fund Board, including support the work of economics and policy for adaptation.
I do hope you will continue supporting UNEP’s work on adaptation and in the meantime to give me an extra hand for the development of the International Ecosystem Management Partnership.
My email contact will remain the same while I am in Beijing. I will also us a new email address from there: jliu at cashq.ac.cn
With best personal regards,
Jian Liu
Former chief, UNEP Climate Change Adaptation Unit
Director, UNEP International Ecosystem Management Partnership
[LondonRIG] Event 29 July 2010: Christian Aid’s Climate Change & Adaptation Work.
)
Dear all,
For those of you in London or passing by, LondonRIG will be having another informal presentation and discussion on:
“Christian Aid’s Climate Change & Adaptation Work with Links to Emerging Renewable Energy Issues” by Richard Ewbank, Climate Change Programme Coordinator at Christian Aid.
When: Thursday 29th of July 2010 at 18:30
Where: The Carpenters Arms, 12 Seymour Place, Marylebone, London
Note: The event is open to all! However due to the informal nature and short duration of the meet-up, we do not encourage or support attendance from overseas – unless you are passing by London for other reasons.
RSVP: thalia@ecoharmony.com (please respond with a YES or MAYBE if planning to come)
Topic:
‘Christian Aid has gained a high profile as a campaigning agency working on climate change but Richard will explain how their main programme work involves the rather more practical side of supporting poor communities to cope with the increasing levels of climate change that they are experiencing. This means increasing the resilience of their livelihoods, enhancing the ability of their communities to identify and plan for the likely future climate threats they may face and diversifying their sources of income.
He will describe how an important part of this process is to detect the level of climate change that has occurred and is likely in the future and to attribute livelihood risks correctly to climate or other risk factors.
With 44% of people in India and over 70% in Africa not connected to grid sources of electricity, renewable energy is a key resource in this adaptation process. ’
Please find flyer attached. Feel free to post this on your own newsletters or websites and to forward this to others who may be interested to attend.
Directions and other information about the event and the London Regional Interest Group, are available on the HEDON website:
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.
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!
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!
This is the second paper in a series of policy briefs which provides independent commentary on current themes associated with the international debate on climate finance. The papers are prepared by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Heinrich Boell Foundation and posted on the climate funds update website (www.climatefundsupdate.org).
The website has just updated information on several of its funds and will conduct a systematic update of all funds by end of July. The website will also soon expand to include new searchable graphs and databases as well as new information on Fast Start Finance.
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
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 20th Anniversary of the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro held in 1992. The 1st 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 1st PrepCom for UNCSD in New York from 17-19th May 2010.
As a participant at the 1992 1st 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)
www.Solar-Aid.org‘,’aw0′)” onmouseout=”cs()” href=”http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=B3trMOO8vTIS9EIz1lAfg1e31BvO3GrKhD92JPQAQARgBIAAoBDgAggEGY2EtcHViiAEBkAGZlwSqAQo5NDMyNjgxOTA1sgENc29sYXItYWlkLm9yZ7oBCjMwMHgyNTBfYXPAAQLaARlodHRwOi8vd3d3LlNvbGFyLUFpZC5vcmcvyAMH&num=1&adurl=http://www.Solar-Aid.org/&client=ca-pub-4223870936880387&nm=9″ target=”_top” onfocus=”ss(‘go to www.Solar-Aid.org‘,’aw0′)”>Solar Energy Charity
Helping Relieve Poverty Through The Provision of Solar Energy. Join Us!
It took 4 years of negotiations to bring about this unanimous G-192 decision of the UN General Assembly establishing the UN Women or this unwomen new UN window. You guess – there was a resistance from some at the UN regarding the need for protecting women by giving them their own UN organization – and at an Under Secretary-General level to boot. Obviously, the issue was not money – that comes from Scandinavia – but the fact that it will suggest rights for women in some countries that like to think they are UN Member States from the South.
So, what will it do? Obviously – it was for a UN entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women which gives the acronym – UNEGEEW. How is this for a name? Is UNWOMEN any better? Should they use rather the French version of the name ONU Femme because this gives ONUFEMME which sounds better then UNWOMEN – like a perfume.
Really, after 4 years of talking about women, the UN coffee clutch has managed to undo the subject with unwomen? Will it then be shoved out the door by using a UN quota system to give the job to someone from a culture that does indeed unwomen its women and hope for progress?
These last two weeks we participated at two important meetings of Business Women and women that find ways to advance in society. Will these outside-the -UN organizations be allowed to mentor the new UN baby?
============================
Candidates for Top UN Women Post From Rwanda, Tunisia, Malaysia, No Bachelet.
By Matthew Russell Lee, An Inner City Press Exclusive.
http://www.innercitypress.com/un1women070210.html
UNITED NATIONS, July 2 — As UN Women, the world body’s so-called Gender Entity, was birthed Friday in the General Assembly, Inner City Press learned for a well placed Mission about six of the eight candidates for the Under-Secretary General position at the top of UN Women.
These are the Rwandan foreign minister, Louise Mushikiwabo, UN gender advisor Rachel Mayanja (nominated by Gabon), a Malaysian official who heads up the gender work of the Non Aligned Movement, officials from Tunisia and Norway and, Inner City Press is told, Sri Lanka’s Radhika Coomaraswamy.
The biggest donor, assured for that reason a seat on the Executive Board, is said to agree that the USG should come from the Global South. So the Norwegian, it seems, has little chance.
UN’s Ban and Bachelet, UN Women not shown
Earlier on Friday, Inner City Press asked UN Deputy Secretary General Asha Rose Migiro to name the candidates, since she had said the process would be open and transparent. Eight countries, she said, have submitted names, including one country naming another’s national. She gave as an example the United States nominating her. “Have they?” Inner City Press asked. No, she said.
Not on the list is Michelle Bachelet of Chile. Some say she wanted UNICEF and is miffed. Others say she will only take it if offered: i.e., if it is not a competitive process.
we learned the following – “Argentina in Cup dilemma.”
a short article by Jude Webber from Buenos Aires that appeared in the Financial Times (in print) of July 3, 2010.
“”No one in Argentina wants the national team to fail to make the World Cup final – except, perhaps, the planners at the foreign ministry trying to get a visit to China back on track.
Cristina Fernández, the president, abruptly cancelled a trip to Beijing in January at the height of a row over the use of central bank reserves to pay off debt because she did not want to leave her estranged vice-president in charge.
The cancellation of the visit, in which she had been due to meet her counterpart Hu Jintao, went down like a tonne of bricks in Beijing and the ill-feeling was widely seen as contributing to China’s subsequent decision to tighten restrictions on imports of soya oil from Argentina, a key supplier.
Ms. Fernández apologised profusely for the faux-pas and the trip was rescheduled – but officials in this football-mad country must have momentarily taken their eyes off the ball: the visit was rearranged for mid-July.
That seriously complicates the presidential agenda: diplomatic sources expect Ms Fernández to attend the World Cup final on July 11, if Argentina make it. But that would mean she would have to race to China for a meeting now pencilled in for July 13-15, and would potentially miss being homecoming queen in Buenos Aires if Argentina triumph.
Commentators are already speculating that Ms Fernández and Néstor Kirchner, her husband, predecessor and likely presidential candidate in 2011, are dreaming of appearing on the balcony of the presidential palace beside football legend Diego Maradona, the national coach.
If Argentina win their third World Cup, a pragmatic solution is bound to be found, but Mr Kirchner knows first-hand the dangers of putting football over business: he once kept former Hewlett-Packard boss Carly Fiorina waiting because he was engrossed in conversation with Mr Maradona. The computer group reportedly returned the snub by switching key investments to Brazil.
A senior Chinese source in Argentina admits the timing is tricky and the dates “are an issue we are discussing with the foreign ministry”.”
——————
Having seen above article earlier today, that is before watching the Argentina-Germany game, played in Cape Town, on ABC in New York, I clearly thought of the political pickle the Kirchner Argentinian internal politics came up with because of some policy vision confusion. Please, you do not push around China when you want their money – just because of internal dissensions!
THE BEAUTIFUL GAME:
With Germany and Argentina saying NO TO RACISM – on South Africa’s anti-racism day - the Argentinians in the crowd dancing to their anthem, and just about half of the Germans singing their anthem, under the watchful eyes of Chancellor Angela Merkel, present to encourage them, the game started very fast – and the first German goal came about after less then 6 minutes.
The non-anthem singing members of the German team had names like Khedira and Boateng, but to my surprise I learned that even the Argentinians had an Ibrahim that was born in France, but clearly must have been of North Africa lineage. Whatever – this is the globalization of the football game that nevertheless is clearly anchored now in West Europe and in the Southern American cone. These games may now come up with a picture that further narrows it to one anchor – and it is Western Europe. But the last words were not said yet. What is clear nevertheless, is that Japan, China, the Koreas, or anyone else of Asia, will still have to practice for years before having an impact on the World Cup and in Europe the football field has lost some of its evenness – France, England, Italy were the early flunkies.
But this article is really about China – and not because it is great in football. They surely have the money to buy players if they wish to do so. We rather believe they will develop a speedy game and enter it with their own people – but who knows? Surely they will not be left out for long. For one thing – Argentina could help by sending to them Diego Maradona and help this as a joint start-up effort. Maradona will not be needed in South Africa beyond today either.
[UNelections] New Leadership at UNFCCC – Figueres Takes Office Next Week.
UNelections Monitor, Issue #144 – New Leadership at UNFCCC – Figueres Takes Office Next Week
New York, July 2, 2010 – The United Nations’ new head for climate change negotiations takes office in Bonn, Germany next week. Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica, who succeeds Yvo de Boer of the Netherlands, was selected in May in a process featuring competition and a greater level of formality than in other recent appointments, but which also was kept largely confidential. She is the first person from a developing country to hold the position of Executive Secretary. The appointment of a woman also has been noted and welcomed.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Figueres on May 17, and the appointment was endorsed by the Bureau of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the same day.
Many have welcomed Figueres’ appointment, including environmental organizations, governments, and private companies. An op-ed on the news site Business Green wrote, “if you were to develop the composite CV of the ideal person to replace … de Boer it would look a lot like the resume submitted by Figueres.” The UNFCCC said, “Ms. Figueres’ leadership at the helm of the UNFCCC comes at a crucial time in global efforts to take effective action on climate change,” referring in part to the upcoming conference in Cancún, Mexico, where some hope that a legally binding agreement will be reached.
Figueres has served as Costa Rica’s climate change negotiator for 15 years, and she is credited with helping to secure Latin America’s cooperation with the Kyoto Protocol.
She has particular experience on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM aims to stimulate sustainable development and emissions reductions by allowing countries to trade “credits” toward their emissions limitation commitments. She represented Latin America and the Caribbean on the Executive Board of the CDM in 2007 and co-Chaired the negotiating group on the CDM at the 2009 Copenhagen Conference of the UNFCCC. Figueres is said to have been a “key architect” of the new financial instrument “programmatic CDM” with four “groundbreaking publications that have marked global thinking on this novel concept.”
Figueres also advises private companies involved in climate change mitigation, including the Carbon Rating Agency (CRA), which seeks to establish standards for the global carbon markets.
Figueres has non-profit experience as well. She founded the Center for Sustainable Development in the Americas (CSDA), which promotes Latin American countries’ participation in the UNFCCC, and she has served on the board of the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS).
Figueres began her career in 1982 as Minister Counselor for Costa Rica’s embassy in Bonn, Germany. In Costa Rica, she was Director of International Cooperation in the Ministry of Planning, and later became Chief of Staff to the Minister of Agriculture.
She has a Masters degree in Anthropology from the London School of Economics and a Certificate in Organizational Development from Georgetown University. She speaks Spanish, English and German.
Figueres’ publications include analysis of the design of the climate regime and book chapters on global environmental governance published by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
Upon her appointment as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Figueres expressed her “gratitude” and her “great respect for the institution and a deep commitment to UNFCCC process. There is no task that is more urgent, more compelling or more sacred than that of protecting the climate of our planet for our children and grandchildren.”
She also has noted that UNFCCC conferences must observe transparency and inclusiveness. Having observed that their absence at the Copenhagen Conference contributed to its disappointing outcome, “what we need to be mindful of is that all interests that will be there among parties of the UNFCCC are represented” (BBC). Moreover, the UN is the only viable forum for dealing with climate change, as only the UN offers every country a voice when negotiating, and there is “no alternative” to it in tackling complex climate challenges (Xinhua).
Finally, she has noted the importance of the appointment of an Executive Secretary from the developing world. Her appointment marks the “first time this is in the hands of the developing world, and I think that’s actually quite symbolic and represents the much greater role that the developing world is taking in the climate negotiations” (Living on Earth interview, May 28).
Post of Executive Secretary
The UNFCCC is an international treaty, the “parent” of the legally binding 1997 Kyoto Protocol. States that have signed the UNFCCC are known collectively as the Conference of Parties (COP). The COP’s current focus is to negotiate a new international agreement on climate change, a “successor” to the Kyoto Protocol, to take effect in 2012. With its goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, the treaty would “shape the way countries power their economies” and thus is very complex to negotiate.
The COP is governed by a Bureau. The Executive Secretary is the head of the Bureau.
The Bureau is made up of delegates from 11 COP member countries, representing the five geographic regions. The Bureau handles administrative and management issues of the negotiation process, advises the President of the COP, and serves to represent each regional bloc and other groupings for negotiation. The current members of the COP Bureau are: Australia, Bahamas, Denmark, South Korea, Mali, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Sudan and Russia.
Figueres will have five months to prepare for the next COP meeting, which will take place in Cancún, Mexico beginning in late-November. Preparatory talks will take place in Bonn, Germany in August and in China in October.
The position of Executive Secretary “is currently at the Assistant Secretary-General level [but] may be upgraded to that of Under-Secretary-General,” according to the March 11 letter of the Secretary-General asking governments for nominations for the position, “depending on the outcome of a review to be undertaken by the Secretary-General of the structure of the UNFCCC secretariat.”
—————————————–
Selection Process:
Although the selection process was kept confidential by the Secretary-General’s office, and reliable information was difficult for stakeholders to find, the process seemed to include some important elements of an accountable, qualifications-based process. These included announced criteria and a clear timeline. In addition, the process was competitive.
The selection procedures are outlined below, followed by an analysis of the process’ integrity.
Qualifications and Call for Nominations
On March 11, the Secretariat circulated a call for nominations and position guidelines on the UNFCCC Executive Secretary, which highlighted criteria that a successful candidate would need to fill.
The Secretary-General’s letter requested missions to the UN to nominate candidates by March 31.
The criteria were:
Commitment to a global strategy to address climate change and its consequences through the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol;
Capacity to work with the President, the Bureau and the delegates of the COP, and the willingness to provide objective leadership when required;
Proven skills in management and the capacity to provide leadership to an autonomous secretariat of approximately 450 staff and a total expenditure of up to USD 100 million per year;
Vision, high professional standing and knowledge of the issues involved in the climate change and sustainable development spheres;
Ability to, and experience in collaborating actively with the UN Secretary-General, with heads and senior staff of UN system agencies, funds and programmes as well as of other international entities, the private sector, and civil society organizations;
Excellent communication and representational skills; and
Highest possible standards of integrity in professional and personal matters.
Candidatures
In response to Ban’s call, eleven countries nominated candidates, the UN reported on April 15. The UN declined to name any of the candidates or nominating countries, but several candidates were identified by their governments and other reports. They were:
In a noon press conference at UN headquarters on April 15, the spokesperson for Secretary-General Ban, stated, “… it is standard practice, not just for this job but for any job – we do not reveal the names of candidates.”
He added that the appointment would “be made following a normal competitive process run by a selection committee and in consultation with the bureau of the UNFCCC.”
Five candidates for the post were interviewed by the Secretary-General’s selection committee beginning in late April, according to reliable sources speaking to the UNelections Campaign. The interviewed candidates – also known as the shortlist – were:
Figueres,
Pasztor,
van Schalkwyk,
Sharma, and
Thompson.
The shortlist was notable for its geographic and gender balance, with two women and candidates from four UN regional groups.
The selection committee that reviews candidates and conducts interviews for a high-level appointment generally is made up of UN officials ranking as Assistant Secretaries-General (the level of the post being filled) or higher, and established and overseen by the office of Ban’s Chef de Cabinet, Vijay Nambiar.
Decision by Secretary-General
Following the interviews, the selection committee made recommendations to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who was responsible for the final decision.
Ban’s decision to appoint Figueres reportedly was influenced or reinforced by the Alliance of Small Island States, known as AOSIS, which made a strong bid for Figueres, a candidate from a small developing country, over Marthinus van Schalkwyk, rumored to be the other leading candidate.
According to the Economic Times, Figueres’ candidature was strengthened by “the support she enjoys from many members of the [Alliance of Small Island States]”, or AOSIS, to which she is seen as a “strong ally.” For this reason, her appointment “is being viewed as part of an effort to reach out to small island states and less developed countries in a bid to rebuild the trust between nations.”
“Although [van Schalkwyk is] respected personally, small island states that feel threatened by climate change are understood to have resisted the appointment of someone from the BASIC bloc of countries” (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), reports the BBC.
It also has been suggested that Figueres was selected because of her “great reputation of being a negotiator, a conciliator who brings people together,” and of “having a deep understanding of its processes and its outstanding issues.”
Another explanation for Ban’s decision is that he plans to appoint van Schalkwyk instead as Under-Secretary-General to lead the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). The appointment of its current head, Inga-Britt Ahlenius, expires this year after a five-year, non-renewable term that began April 20, 2005.
Approval by COP
UN officials presented Ban’s decision to a meeting of the UNFCCC COP Bureau on May 17. The Bureau reportedly gave Figueres’ nomination its unanimous support, which finalized the appointment.
Although it had been reported that Ban would consult with the COP in making the decision, it seems that the Bureau simply accepted his only recommendation in a largely ceremonious procedure.
Reuters reported that Figueres was “Ban’s only recommendation” to succeed de Boer, and that it was “just a courtesy” to present it to the Bureau.
Analysis of Process
Positive steps taken in this appointment process included the use of specific criteria in evaluating the candidates (“position guidelines”), and the public listing of those criteria. These correspond to two elements repeatedly called for by the UNelections Campaign – formal candidate qualifications and an official timeline and systematic reporting.
In addition, the fact that eleven countries nominated individuals for the post contributed to ensuring that the Secretary-General could select someone highly qualified. Indeed, the WWF noted that the candidatures submitted included strong candidates, “particularly from developing countries.”
Another feature of high-level appointments called for by the UNelections Campaign is inclusion of geographic and gender considerations. The reported shortlist included at least one person from each of the UN’s regional groupings, with the exception of the Group of Western European and Other States (WEOG), and three of the candidates on the list were women.
The appointment of a woman is particularly welcomed in light of the recent creation by Ban Ki-moon of an Advisory Group on climate change financing that included 19 men and no women (a woman was added later), as well as the importance of women’s voices in climate change, which is known to disproportionately impact women.
Despite these positive steps, the process fell below international standards in its level of transparency following the call for nominations. Strict confidentiality was imposed by the Secretary-General’s spokesperson in speaking with the press and by senior officials in the Executive Office who managed the selection process. The names of candidates and the selection committee’s shortlist were kept confidential and obtained only informally.
As a result, reliable information was difficult for stakeholders to find.
Greater transparency at all stages would afford media, civil society, and all Member States the opportunity to research candidates and provide feedback to the Secretary-General. During his term as Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon has not employed the previous practice of circulating a shortlist for high-level appointments, instead insisting on the necessity of confidentiality and that, despite the record of previous Secretaries-General, it is “standard practice, not just for this job but for any job – we do not reveal the names of candidates.”
Overall, the competitive nature of the appointment, the selection of someone regarded as very well qualified for the position, and a woman from a small, developing country reflects relatively well on the Secretary-General’s appointment process this time. Steps toward greater transparency would bring his future appointment processes closer into line with international standards.
———————
Reactions:
Below are excerpts from various stakeholders’ reactions to the appointment of Figueres to lead the UNFCCC.
§ Figueres “promises to be an inspiring leader who can keep a high level political dialogue going in order to secure the first critical elements of a climate treaty in Cancún, Mexico in December,”
§ She “will bring forward her experience with government, business, and civil society and at the same time the perspective of a developing country government. Her background should allow her to foster trust between countries and to push for an ambitious climate deal.”
§ “We are convinced that Ms. Figueres will maintain an open door policy and engage widely with civil society,”
§ “Through her many years of participation and leadership in the multilateral climate process, Ms. Figueres has demonstrated the expertise and commitment needed to lead the UNFCCC at this critical stage. She understands the issues, the history, and the many interests at play. These assets will be essential as she works with parties to strengthen confidence in the UNFCCC process, set realistic expectations going forward, and facilitate practical progress.”
§ “Seeing as climate change disproportionately affects women – as do natural disasters – the election of Christiana Figueres is particularly heartening. Figueres has an impressive background in UN climate change work and is thought not only to have a profound understanding of the issue, but also extensive experience of dealing with the bureaucratic processes of the UN. This could make her more likely to effect change.”
Member States:
US: Figueres is “well-qualified with a deep background in UN climate change negotiations.”
China: Welcomed the appointment of a candidate from a developing country. “Climate change issues are closely related to world development, especially the development of poor countries.”
Denmark: Figueres is “highly experienced, she is well connected, she knows all the negotiators. She knows the dossiers.”
Japan: “As one of her co-chairs in the [CDM group in December], I know for sure that [Figueres] will lead us in a balanced and transparent manner. I have a great confidence in her leadership and would like to provide her, the secretariat, and the negotiation process with all necessary support.”
Is “honoured and delighted that such a highly regarded and experienced figure has been appointed to this important post and we welcome her appointment wholeheartedly. We feel that this can herald a new impetus to the international negotiations to secure a new global deal for climate change, as Ms. Figueres understands what is required to get the sector participants fully engaged and how financial flows can make a difference in mitigation, adaptation and market mechanisms.”
“Christiana Figueres’ background in finance makes her an excellent choice to shepherd the UNFCCC towards a global climate deal, with an integral role that the carbon markets can play in achieving its objectives. She is widely seen as a negotiator who is able to bring complex issues between parties to a common approach.”
o “We’re delighted that someone with such a background in the process of the negotiations and with such respect among parties and observers, including the private sector, has been given the job.”
o She needs to “restore the world’s confidence in the international negotiating process after the low point of Copenhagen and she needs to find a way to bring private sector stakeholders and economic stakeholders in the public sector, such as finance ministries, into the heart of the process.”
o “Christiana has been involved in the climate change negotiations since the early days of the UNFCCC and, having worked in the public, private and NGO sectors, she perfectly combines diplomatic skills with a great mix of expertise, in particular on market-based instruments and regulatory issues…. Her intelligence, eloquence, determination, responsiveness and gentleness is outstanding – but the way she is approachable by stakeholders at all levels and builds trust amongst them is unique and this is exactly what is needed within the UNFCCC process.”
“If you were to develop the composite CV of the ideal person to replace the out-going Yvo de Boer it would look a lot like the resume submitted by Figueres.”
“The appointment of a woman from a relatively small developing country to one of the most high profile UN posts is also to be welcomed, particularly given that the climate change negotiations continue to be dominated by middle-aged men in dark suits from the world’s most powerful economies.”
“…She clearly genuinely and passionately cares about the urgent need to combat climate change.”
Finally, Yvo de Boer commented, “I have known Christiana Figueres for many years and can testify to her deep commitment and work to establish the robust and effective international climate regime that is the only way for all nations to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. She is familiar with the different interests a successful outcome of negotiations must address and can help stakeholders to find common ground. I wish her every success.”
The UNelections Monitor is a free service. To subscribe: http://unelections.org/mailman/listinfo/monitor. Please forward widely to individuals and organizations with an interest in UN appointments and elections.
Yvo de Boer officially steps down today from his post as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), making way for incoming UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres.
Mr. de Boer took over the position in September of 2006, shepherding the unwieldy international climate negotiating process through several landmark sessions, including Bali in 2007 and Copenhagen last year. Everyone, including de Boer, was disappointed by the outcome of COP15, yet he defends the work of his UNFCCC colleagues in the face of near insurmountable odds and relentless international acrimony throughout COP15.
And it was at the feet of the international community that de Boer laid some of his harshest criticism before stepping down from the UNFCCC.
The one thing that has appalled me most is to witness the degree to which the international community is cutting off its nose to spite its face,” de Boer said at a Hong Kong business conference last week.
“(The world) is behaving as though climate change is somebody else’s problem… This is in the collective interest and it’s a collective challenge” he said, adding that ”Unless we deal with that challenge … we really are in big trouble.”
Yvo de Boer’s final round of international negotiations ended last month with the conclusion of two weeks of talks in Bonn, Germany in preparation for CO16 in Cancun, Mexico. Despite de Boer’s cautious optimism for progress as the outcome of the Bonn talks, few hold out the kind of expectations for a “fair and binding” climate deal at COP16 that haunted COP15.
Upon handing the reigns to Figueres, who shocked some last month with her assessment that a “final, all-ecompassing” international climate treaty would likely take decades to achieve, de Boer will take up a climate advisory job at consulting firm KPMG.
Master of Science in Sustainable Development, Management and Policy
Study in a Unique Multidisciplinary Environment
The Master of Science (MSc) degree programs* at MODUL University Vienna offer a unique multidisciplinary approach, working with research teams from three different departments: public governance and management, tourism and hospitality management and new media technology. Our research and teaching staff actively participate in international scholarly and professional networks and are at the forefront of their field, which enables us to bring you right to the heart of scientific practice.
Are you interested in studying the principles of sustainable development and understanding the impact of environmental policies on local communities and international businesses or the impact of economic development policies on environmental quality? Do you want to investigate what policies can be implemented to reduce environmental impacts in the tourism production chain? Do you want to understand to what extent the success of local environmental policy depends on civic participation in policy making? The future world needs people with comprehensive knowledge of both environmental and development issues to provide leadership for our local and global communities.
As a MU Vienna Master of Science graduate, you will be able to address the globalization and sustainability challenges of this millennium.
As a graduate of the MSc in Sustainable Development, Management and Policy you will be qualified for positions as consultants, scientists, policy advisors, program coordinators and environmental marketing specialists at research institutes, in government, in globally presented companies or at NGOs all over the world. In addition, the MSc degree prepares students for a subsequent PhD program. For further information, see the folder for the MSc programs.
Strenghts of the Study Program
Studying in a multi-disciplinary research environment with an emphasis on critical thinking and the application of specialist knowledge to the challenges of the 21st century
Understanding the emergent trends and key management issues by empowering the analytical skills of students
The open atmosphere at MU guarantees the best support for writing the master thesis
Facts & Figures
Title
Master of Science in Sustainable Development, Management and Policy
Duration
Full time 4 semesters (Extended 6 semesters), graduates awarded with 120 ECTS
Organization
Study year is divided into fall and spring semester (master thesis in the 3rd and 4th semester)
Curriculum
Comprises Management & Research Core courses, courses in Innovation and Change Management, Environmental Systems and further courses in the field of specialization
Language
English is the study language
Max. Students
30 per year
Tuition Fee
EUR 19.000 (paid in two installments, tuition fee does not include reading material). In the case that additional courses need to be completed, extra costs could be involved
Program Start
Annually in Mid-September
Admission Criteria
Admission to this master program is granted to persons who have completed at least the equivalent of a bachelor’s or diploma degree, and ideally can demonstrate their research skills and their basic knowledge of the natural and/or social sciences.
A suitable preparation for the MSc in Sustainable Development, Management and Policy might include courses from among physics, geology, technical sciences, biology, geography, earth sciences, planning, sociology, policy sciences, law, management, or economics. Selection will be based upon transcripts of courses and grades taken at previous universities and other educational organizations.
All candidates whose native language is not English and who have not graduated from an undergraduate program conducted in English are required to provide proof of proficiency in the English language by showing that they have passed one of the tests below or by satisfying the Admissions Committee in a form deemed appropriate by the Committee:
- TOEFL (570 PBT or 230 CBT or 88 IBT) or
- IELTS 5.5 (no sub-score under 5.0)
MODUL University Vienna reserves the right to request that individual applicants submit TOEFL or IELTS scores, even if they have attended a secondary school conducted in English, to ensure their English skills meet the expected academic level.
CV and motivation letter
Credit transfer applications must be submitted together with the admissions documents.
The Admission Committee will make decision on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for admission. The admission committee decides on:
Type of acceptance (full acceptance / conditional acceptance)
If credits are transferred to the program
Merit scholarships
Additional courses that need to be taken by candidates who do not fulfill all requirements for entering the program
For further information on the admissions process, please contact admissions@modul.ac.at.
* Degree programs are subject to accreditation by the Austrian Accreditation Council.
MODUL University Vienna’s Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management maintains exchange agreements with many institutions.
For general information on the exchange programs please contact the International Officer at the Student Service Center. http://www.modul.ac.at/study_abroad
among the list of such institutions is also included the -
City University of New York, USA
The City University of New York (CUNY) is the largest urban public university in the USA and also offers a program in Hospitality Management. An exchange program is under development.
——————————————————-
Contact
Admission Services
For information for prospective students, please contact:
Much of the drive in this direction emanates from Israel’s elder statesman, President Shimon Peres. For years he has described oil as “a great problem.” On the one hand he is well aware of Arab interests in black gold, and at the same time he realizes that fossil fuels will not last for ever. As a result of both factors, he plays an active role in trying to encourage Israeli entrepreneurs in the direction of cleantech.
At the Copenhagen gathering on climate change some six months ago, it was Peres who committed Israel to drastically reducing its carbon emissions. The country has set itself a domestic 10-year target of producing 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources.
Israel already recycles some 70 percent to 80 percent of its water. “Something that doesn’t happen anywhere else,” said Levy.
————————
by David Harris
The thousands of visitors to this week’s cleantech exposition in Tel Aviv likely cannot help but be impressed by the rows of stalls showing off the best of Israel’s green technologies. In a short time, Israel has become a world leader in the industries of tomorrow that capitalize on alternative energies and maximize the use of as little water as possible.
In the age of depleted ozone and climate change, Israeli inventors and entrepreneurs have joined forces to prevent desertification in Africa, bring water solutions to farmers in China and India and electricity generation to anywhere with a fair share of sunny days.
Yet all of this success is merely the by-product of years of desperation within Israel, where year-round heat and a lack of water combined to make farming tough in a country that was once predominantly desert.
—————
FROM SAND TO SUCCESS:
Israel’s move into cleantech began in the sphere of water, without which the country would not have survived.
“Israel had no choice. Being naturally innovative they looked for creative solutions,” said Karin Kloosterman, an editor of the Middle Eastern environmental Internet site Green Prophet.
Additionally, a research facility in the United States may have received a 10-Million-dollar grant for a water project, but a similar Israeli facility would be awarded perhaps only a tenth of the cash, meaning inexpensive solutions had to be found, Kloosterman said Wednesday.
Initially, Israeli companies worked only on finding technologies that would help solve Israeli problems. However, with time, the country’s cleantech sector has become increasingly focused on exports and profits rather than solutions for domestic use, according to Daniel Levy, an environment consultant whose client list includes the Israeli environment ministry.
These days Israeli inventions can be found around the world. Netafim dip irrigation is arguably the best example. “Grow more with less” is the company’s tag line. Since the company came into being in 1965, it has led Israel to the number-one spot in the industry, in which Israel controls at least 50 percent of the market.
In the potato-growing areas of China where Netafim know-how has been implemented, the company claims a 40 percent reduction in water consumption and a 15 percent to 16 percent increase in the tuber yield. Indeed, many people in the East and West alike will have tasted these potatoes in the form of the products of the Frito-Lay brand.
————————
PROFITABILITY:
While those days of finding solutions for Israeli farmers and households lie in the not too distant past, nowadays it is full steam ahead for Israeli scientists and cleantech firms. On Tuesday, the Israeli desalination giant IDE announced a deal with China’s Tianjin power plant that will make it China’s largest desalination facility, producing some 200,000 cubic meters of water every day.
“IDE’s technology will enable us to realize an environmentally- friendly power-seawater-desalination-salt production model, helping us to minimize our environmental footprint while reducing our costs,” the Tianjin plant’s general manager said in a statement.
Another Israeli success story, Solel, claims its ability to harness the sun’s energy and to create solar power plants is already so advanced it is challenging the competitiveness of gas- powered electricity generation stations in California.
“Israel has plenty of sun and a lack of oil and other fossils so the experience of Israel with basic solar heaters demonstrates the opportunity of Israel to use solar energy and our potential is very high,” said Sergey Biryukov of the Ben-Gurion National Solar Energy Center at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in the arid south of Israel.
Much of the drive in this direction emanates from Israel’s elder statesman, President Shimon Peres. For years he has described oil as “a great problem.” On the one hand he is well aware of Arab interests in black gold, and at the same time he realizes that fossil fuels will not last for ever. As a result of both factors, he plays an active role in trying to encourage Israeli entrepreneurs in the direction of cleantech.
At the Copenhagen gathering on climate change some six months ago, it was Peres who committed Israel to drastically reducing its carbon emissions. The country has set itself a domestic 10-year target of producing 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources.
Israel already recycles some 70 percent to 80 percent of its water. “Something that doesn’t happen anywhere else,” said Levy.
——————–
EXPORT PRIORITY:
Yet it is overseas sales that remain the key factor for the myriad cleantech companies operating in Israel today.
“There are many different pieces and pipes, valves, filters, monitors and meters that all fit together and in some cases each of those components is another company. When Israelis start up an idea they don’t think about really using it in Israel because the country is so small,” said Kloosterman.
Israeli companies see the Tel Aviv cleantech expo as a platform for them to display their wares, technologies and patents in a bid to expand their business into China, India and elsewhere.
“Companies, researchers and professionals display their newest developments, novel technologies and outstanding quality services in the fields of environmental protection and green solutions, infrastructure, renewable energy, waste treatment, water technologies for treatment, desalination, harvesting, purification, filtration and more,” reads the material in the exhibition’s press pack.
Its organizers are marketing Tel Aviv as being at the meeting place of three continents, namely Asia, Europe and Africa. The country boasts some 320 cleantech companies, which is quite a number for such a small state.
While Israelis wait for domestic improvements in the sphere of electricity generation from renewable sources and for a major desalination plant to come on line in 2013, the country’s entrepreneurs continue to sign deals, particularly in China, and soon they hope that they will, along with Chinese companies, be able to offer advanced cleantech solutions countries around the world.
Senate Panel Votes To End Oil Spill Liability Cap.
ByRichard Cowan from Washington DC for Reuters.
July 1, 2010
Congress on Wednesday, June 30, 2010, took major steps to rein in Big Oil’s offshore drilling practices, as one Senate panel voted to lift all caps on liability in oil spills and another moved to deny offshore leases to companies with poor track records.
The action on Capitol Hill comes 72 days after an explosion involving a BP oil rig, which has left millions of gallons of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from a ruptured deep-water well.
—————–
Action kicked off on Wednesday in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where Democrats pushed through a bill eliminating the $75 million cap on liability that oil companies currently enjoy for damages from offshore spills, like the one devastating the U.S. Gulf coast.
The committee’s vote would open the oil industry to potentially unlimited compensation for economic losses suffered by local businesses and communities and for damages to natural resources.
The change, if approved and made law, would apply retroactively to BP Plc’s massive Gulf of Mexico spill, although the company has already said it would cover all costs, which will run into the billions of dollars.
—————-
As the environment panel worked on its legislation, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved a separate bill to tighten rules on offshore oil drilling projects.
It would increase civil and criminal penalties on the industry for illegal practices and would tie those penalties to inflation. Notably, it also would limit lease sales to companies with good track records — a move that could hurt future operations for companies like BP.
The panel’s legislation also ratchets up safety requirements, such as mandating redundant blow-out preventers for wells and additional permits for deepwater projects.
—————
On the other side of Capitol Hill, Democratic Representative George Miller said he will offer legislation in the House to deny BP new offshore oil and gas drilling leases for up to seven years because of its “extensive record” of worker safety and environmental violations.
Miller is a close confidant of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and chairs the House Education and Labor Committee. Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said she has not yet reviewed the details of Miller’s bill “but shares his concerns about BP’s poor record.”
While lawmakers in both the Senate and House of Representatives have made the liability legislation a top priority following the BP spill, a senior Democrat, Senator Max Baucus, expressed reservations about imposing unlimited liability on the oil industry.
Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved its bill, Baucus said that a $10 billion cap that had been kicked around in May, “made some sense to me” and he questioned whether the removal of all caps would hurt some U.S. firms while helping foreign ones.
It was unclear whether Baucus would try to amend the bill later in the legislative process.
The liability and offshore drilling safety bills could be combined with other energy and environmental measures being queued up for passage as early as next month, or they could move through Congress individually. Both are expected to have President Barack Obama’s backing.
Whitney Stanco, an analyst at Concept Capital’s Washington Research Group, predicted the full Senate would make some significant changes to the liability bill.
“We continue to believe the language will likely be moderated on the Senate floor to allow for some risk-adjusted liability limits for shallow-water facilities,” Stanco said.
BP has agreed to establish a $20 billion compensation fund to pay claims from its spill in April, which continues to devastate communities and the environment along the Gulf coast. But total liabilities could eclipse that sum.
Kenneth Feinberg, the official overseeing the fund, said he expects to complete the first phase of work in setting up the claims facility within the next 30 days.
—————–
REPUBLICANS CALL IT COSTLY
Republicans said lifting the liability cap would prevent smaller companies from offshore drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico, which holds the most promising untapped crude oil reserves in the United States. It could open the door to more foreign operators, such as Chinese firms, they said.
“Drilling will be so costly that only a few will be able to afford it,” said Senator James Inhofe, the senior Republican on the committee. “Who are those? Big Oil,” he said.
Instead, he offered an alternative, which was blocked by Democrats, that would have given the president the discretion in setting liability limits, tied to the type of offshore projects.
Deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has been the biggest hope for growth in U.S. domestic oil production over the last decade. A string of major discoveries over the past decade by companies including BP have rejuvenated investment in deeper and more difficult waters.
More than 1,000 spill lawsuits have been filed against Shell alone.
One of the worst environmental disasters of our time is occurring right before our eyes. Sadly, it is not BP’s Gulf Oil Spill.
In May of this year an ExxonMobil pipeline ruptured in Akwa Ibom, Nigeria, pouring a million gallons of crude into the delta before the leak was plugged. Just a week later, an explosion occurred at the Shell Trans Niger pipeline, spilling thousands of gallons into the river, the work of a saboteur. Days after that, a massive oil slick was found on Lake Adibawa. Then another massive slick discovered in Ogoniland.
The incident in the Gulf begins to pale in comparison when you realize that this has been going on for over fifty years in Nigeria, and the problem is only getting worse.
Royal Dutch Shell last year spilled 14,000 tons of crude into the creeks of the Niger delta. No accountability, no payouts to the residents and villages in the area. With over 600 oil fields in the area, and a massive, tangled network of pipelines, security is next to impossible. Some of the pipes are over 40 years old, rusty, and beginning to fail. Others are attacked by rebels, as militia groups and companies via for control of the black gold. According to a Nigerian government spokesman:
“We had 132 spills last year, as against 175 on average. Safety valves were vandalised; one pipe had 300 illegal taps. We found five explosive devices on one. Sometimes communities do not give us access to clean up the pollution because they can make more money from compensation”
Life expectancy in rural communities has sank to just over 40 years for the last two generations. Many communities have no access to clean water. Nigerian Nnimo Bassey, watches with amazement at the efforts being made in the Gulf by BP and the U.S.
“We see frantic efforts being made to stop the spill in the US,” said Nnimo, “But in Nigeria, oil companies largely ignore their spills, cover them up and destroy people’s livelihood and environments. The Gulf spill can be seen as a metaphor for what is happening daily in the oilfields of Nigeria and other parts of Africa.”
With Nigeria being markedly poorer nation then the United States, people depend all the more on farming and fishing, and availability of fresh drinking water. The situation has spun completely out of control. Exact figures are hard to come by, since the government and the oil companies routinely cover up incidents. However, independent studies show there have been over 7,000 spills between 1970 and 2000, and two thousand major spillage sites, in a place roughly two and a half times the size of California.
The Gulf Oil spill is certainly a disaster, but its important to keep things in a global perspective. Nigeria as a much smaller nation with two thousand times the major spill sites of the United States. Over one thousand spillage lawsuits have been filled again Shell alone. One report by the World Conservation Union calculated in 2006, that up to 1.5 million tons of oil had been spilled in the delta over the last 50 years. To put that in perspective, that’s 50 times the size of the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster.
Ben Ikari stands over a growing oil slick, at a lake just outside of his village. One of the pipelines across the way has ruptured or has been tapped or sabotaged. The village community relies on this lake for its drinking water.
“The oil companies just ignore it. The lawmakers do not care and people must live with pollution daily.” says Ben, “The situation is now worse than it was 30 years ago. Nothing is changing. When I see the efforts that are being made in the US, I feel a great sense of sadness at the double standards. What they do in the US or in Europe is very different.”
The story is the same all across the country. Chief Promise, Village leader of the Otuegwe, recalls the Shells spill last year.
“We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots,” said Promise, “This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest. We told Shell of the spill within days, but they did nothing for six months.”
The Niger delta supplies 40% of all imported crude oil for the United States. With the recent tragedy in the Gulf, one only hopes it might shed some light onto the Niger delta region, so that companies such as Shell or ExxonMobil will begin to take greater responsibility. This is needed now more than ever. As supplies begin to diminish, companies are drilling in deeper, more remote, and much riskier areas, the risk of major spills go up with every year.
Once more – the problem is not BP – it is us! It is us having gotten addicted to oil and having allowed the industry to enslave the whole country in support of our worst egoistic pursuits. Even the Sierra Club leadership has thrown in the towel.
On May 1, less than two weeks after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell announced that he would “ensure that BP and other liable parties take full financial responsibility” for the unfolding disaster. Yet even as Caldwell prepares to go after the oil company for billions in damages, his hands are tied. He says the case could cost as much as $100 million over several years. That’s money his state, which is facing a $320 million budget deficit, not to mention the economic impact of the spill, just doesn’t have.
As any lawyer who advertises on late-night TV could tell you, there’s an easy solution to that problem. Forty-eight states allow their attorneys general to hire private attorneys on a contingency basis. In other words, if outside lawyers help the state win a big civil case, they get a cut of the cash. This tactic can be a win-win for states, particularly when deployed against well-funded adversaries, since it comes with few financial risks and the potential for big rewards. In the 1990s, private attorneys suing tobacco companies on contingency won billions of dollars on behalf of state governments (while pocketing as much as a quarter of the settlements).
But that approach is a non-starter in Louisiana, one of two states that bar their AGs from pursuing contingency lawsuits. (The other is Wisconsin.) Just last week, an effort to greenlight a contingency case against BP failed in the state legislature. So did a proposal to tax the company and another that would have allowed Louisianans to sue it for punitive damages. These bills’ deaths underscores just how much influence the oil and gas industry wields in the state even as it faces the worst environmetal disaster in its history. The contingency bill’s demise “is devastating for the state of Louisiana,” writes Attorney General Caldwell in an email to Mother Jones. He adds that he’ll still prosecute BP as best he can. “We will continue to fight for the state even if all we have is a slingshot and a stone.”
The contingency bill was introduced on the same day that the Deepwater Horizon’s well blew out. After it passed the state senate in early June, it was condemned by the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, the US Chamber of Commerce, and its local affiliate, the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry—all of which count BP as a member. In a joint email, the Chamber and LABI write that they oppose contingency lawsuits “that can be used as fishing expeditions and harassment tools against business and industry.”
In response to such concerns, Louisiana legislators amended the bill to limit its scope to the the Deepwater Horizon case. They also exlcluded damages to natural resources and capped attorneys fees at $100 million. But the oil and business lobbies wanted an even lower cap, says Senate president Joel Chaisson, a Democrat who represents an area west of New Orleans. According to him, their lobbyists worked with House speaker Jim Tucker and state Rep. Tim Burns, both Republicans, to stall the bill until the legislature adjourned for the summer last week, effectively killing it. Burns says he’d accepted the $100 million cap but wanted more time to make sure the bill prevented conflicts of interest in how private attorneys would be hired. Tucker did not return a request for comment. “Those lobbyists played far too great a role in this process,” says Chaisson, who blames them for blocking “the most important bill of the session.”
Chaisson says he’s “fairly shocked” that the oil industry was able to defeat the measure, but perhaps he shouldn’t be. According to Louisiana’s lobbying database, the state has 72 oil and gas lobbyists, 25 chemical industry lobbyists, and 43 lobbyists for chambers of commerce and business groups. There are only seven environmental lobbyists (two of whom also lobby for Chevron) and two lobbyists for fishing interests (who are currenty siding with oil interests to oppose the Obama administration’s now-suspended six-month moratorium on deepwater oil and gas drilling). Between 2003 and 2008, oil and gas interests donated $2.2 million to Louisiana political parties and political candidates—more than in any Gulf state besides Texas, where many oil companies are headquartered.
The state’s beleagured environmentalists have long sought to tighten regulations on oil companies, but have been stymied by the industry’s clout as well as the state’s legal pecularities. According to Loyola University New Orleans law professor Dane Ciolino, Louisiana may be the only state in the country that doesn’t allow plaintiffs to sue for punitive damages stemming from pollution. (Or most legal claims, for that matter—punitive damages aren’t recognized under the French common law that underlies Louisiana’s legal system.) A 1982 proposal to tax oil and gas processing was floated by a Republican governor but defeated at the hands of Texaco lobbyist Edwin Edwards, who was between terms as the state’s Democratic governor.
So far, the BP spill has not provided environmentalists with new leverage in Baton Rouge. During their most recent session, Louisiana legislators also considered bills that would have allowed plaintiffs to seek punitive damages for injuries related to “the drilling, equipping, operating, or producing of an oil or gas well” and would have taxed oil processing to fund coastal restoration; both failed. As the legislature adjourned, Darrell Hunt, a lobbyist for the Louisiana Sierra Club, lamented that it had not passed a single bill to tighten controls on oil and gas companies since the spill. “If this situation in the Gulf didn’t change the minds of people and get them to vote for those bills,” Hunt laments, “I don’t know what would.”
Yet Hunt did not lobby for the punitive damages bill, or the tax on oil companies, or the contingency bill. “It would have been counterproductive,” he says. “The Sierra Club is so goddamn weak in Louisiana that any statement of support on those bills would have been just meaningless.” Instead, he spent much of the most recent legislative session fending off a bill, promoted by chemical companies, that would have dismantled Tulane University Law School’s Environmental Law Clinic, which has a long record of suing the state’s anemic environmental regulators to enforce the law.
Nevertheless, Hunt doesn’t believe that Louisiana is bought and paid for by the oil industry. “It’s more complicated than that,” he says. “You know, it’s almost part of our DNA.” Indeed, Hunt is a former lobbyist for Chevron, and he says he doesn’t consider himself a critic of the oil and gas industry. He questions the wisdom of a deepwater drilling ban, suggesting that the federal government could reassess rig safety in no more than two weeks.
Expecting Louisiana to go after the oil industry may be unrealistic, but Hunt says it may yet give its favorite business a mild dose of tough love. “At the end of the day, the state’s approach to the industry will be like that of a parent towards a child who has acted up,” he says. “There will be some reprimands, and maybe some time out, but at the end of the day it’s still our kid.”
Josh Harkinson is a staff reporter at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.
Shortly after we posted our reporting from the June 24, 2010, meeting of the Cecilia Attias Foundation For Women – Dialogue for Action, we received the following e-mail relating to Myanmar/Burma:
See YouTube – BURMA – NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE THE STAND.
from
Kyaw Thi Ha <burmafreedomnow@gmail.com>
to
PJ@sustainabilitank.com
date
Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM
subject:
See YouTube – BURMA – NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE THE STAND
As we reported already at the UN Summit in Johannesburg. in 2002, in our Promptbook on Sustainability that can be viewed on our home-page, we regard the high seas as part of the Global Commons and doubt the legality of “Finders Keepers” when oil was found at one mile depth under the right-to-drill awarded by the US Government to a private Multinational Company. This was legal robbery in our opinion, and now nature and the residents of all sea shores will be left holding the bag of suffering.
So what does a UN meeting of the “Law of the Sea” conclude in such days of sorrow?
Looking at the results of the meeting we found that the fact that the UN was so restrictive when it comes to information from the five-days meeting may have to do with the paucity of real achievements at the meeting – even a paucity of topics that were discussed that have any practicality when looking at the immensity of this problem that we call organized robbery.
There was much talk about “capacity building” but it did not cover substance. Talking about pollution, the issue important to the US NRDC seemed to be noise pollution.
We know co-chair Don Mac Kay from New Zealand as a well intended, hard working, diplomat, but his hands were tied by the lack of cooperation from major UN Member Nations that own the technologies of reaping the treasures of the sea.
Climate Change is taboo topic at these meetings, and true pollution and disasters were never on the table, one wonders why these people spent money – theirs or ours – in order to come to New York for a meeting that was not allowed to address the problems of the day – and got distracted by the World Cup games.
—————————–
The IISD reporting, is excellent as usual, if not for them nobody would realize the expanse of time wasted when the real problems are not being tackled by the traveling bureaucrats of the Nations involved.
—
SUMMARY OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING OF THE OPEN-ENDED INFORMAL CONSULTATIVE PROCESS ON OCEANS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA
21-25 JUNE 2010
The eleventh meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (Consultative Process or ICP-11) took place from 21-25 June 2010, at UN Headquarters in New York. The meeting brought together over 300 representatives from governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions.
Delegates convened in plenary sessions throughout the week to discuss: a general exchange of views on capacity building in ocean affairs and the law of the sea, including marine science; inter-agency cooperation and coordination; issues that could benefit from attention in future work of the General Assembly on ocean affairs and the law of the sea; process for the selection of topics and panelists so as to facilitate the work of the UN General Assembly; and consideration of the outcome of the meeting. In addition, a discussion panel was held to consider capacity building in ocean affairs and the law of the sea, including marine science.
A Co-Chairs’ summary of ICP-11’s discussions was prepared Thursday evening by Co-Chairs Amb. Paul Badji (Senegal) and Amb. Don MacKay (New Zealand) and distributed Friday morning for consideration in plenary. Co-Chair Badji emphasized that the summary is intended for reference purposes only, reflecting a “natural consensus” of the plenary and panel discussions. After discussing the report paragraph by paragraph it was accepted and will be submitted to the UN General Assembly for consideration at its 65th session under the agenda item, “Oceans and the law of the sea.”
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW OF THE SEA AND THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS
On 1 November 1967, Malta’s Ambassador to the UN, Arvid Pardo, asked the nations of the world to recognize a looming conflict that could devastate the oceans. In a speech to the General Assembly, he called for “an effective international regime over the seabed and the ocean floor beyond a clearly defined national jurisdiction.” The speech set in motion a process that spanned 15 years and saw the creation of the UN Seabed Committee, the signing of a treaty banning nuclear weapons on the seabed, the adoption of a declaration by the General Assembly that all resources of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction are the common heritage of mankind, and the convening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. These were some of the factors that led to the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, during which the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted.
UNCLOS: Opened for signature on 10 December 1982, in Montego Bay, Jamaica, at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS sets forth the rights and obligations of states regarding the use of the oceans, their resources, and the protection of the marine and coastal environment. UNCLOS entered into force on 16 November 1994, and is supplemented by the 1994 Deep Seabed Mining Agreement and the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of UNCLOS relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA).
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 54/33: On 24 November 1999, the General Assembly adopted resolution 54/33 on the results of the review undertaken by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development at its seventh session on the theme of “Oceans and seas.” In this resolution, the General Assembly established an open-ended informal consultative process to facilitate the annual review of developments in oceans affairs. The General Assembly decided that the Consultative Process would meet in New York and consider the Secretary-General’s annual report on oceans and the law of the sea, and suggest particular issues to be considered by the General Assembly, with an emphasis on identifying areas where intergovernmental and interagency coordination and cooperation should be enhanced. The resolution further established the framework within which meetings of the Consultative Process would be organized, and decided that the General Assembly would review the effectiveness and utility of the Consultative Process at its 57th session.
ICP-1 to 3: The first three meetings of the Consultative Process identified issues to be suggested and elements to be proposed to the General Assembly, and highlighted issues that could benefit from attention in its future work. The first meeting of the Consultative Process (30 May-2 June 2000) held discussion panels addressing fisheries, and the impacts of marine pollution and degradation. The second meeting (7-11 May 2001) focused on marine science and technology, and coordination and cooperation in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea. The third meeting (8-15 April 2002) held discussion panels on the protection and preservation of the marine environment, capacity building, regional cooperation and coordination, and integrated oceans management.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 57/141: On 12 December 2002, the 57th session of the General Assembly adopted resolution 57/141 on “Oceans and the law of the sea.” The General Assembly welcomed the previous work of the Consultative Process, extended it for an additional three years, and decided to review the Consultative Process’ effectiveness and utility at its 60th session.
ICP-4 and 5: The fourth meeting of the Consultative Process (2-6 June 2003) adopted recommendations on safety of navigation, the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems, and cooperation and coordination on oceans issues. The fifth meeting (7-11 June 2004) adopted recommendations on new sustainable uses of oceans, including the conservation and management of the biological diversity of the seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
ICP-6: The sixth meeting (6-10 June 2005) adopted recommendations on fisheries and their contribution to sustainable development, and considered the issue of marine debris.
ICP-7: The seventh meeting (12-16 June 2006) enhanced understanding of ecosystem-based management, and adopted recommendations on ecosystem approaches and oceans.
ICP-8: The eighth meeting (25-29 June 2007) discussed issues particularly related to marine genetic resources. Delegates were unable to agree on key language referring to the relevant legal regime for marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction and, as a result, no recommendations were adopted. However, a Co-Chairs’ summary report was forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration.
ICP-9: the ninth meeting (23-27 June 2008) adopted recommendations on the necessity of maritime security and safety in promoting the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development.
ICP-10: The tenth meeting (17-19 June 2009) produced a Co-Chairs’ summary report collating outcomes of its discussions on the implementation of the outcomes of the Consultative Process, including a review of achievements and shortcomings in its first nine years, which was forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration.
ICP-11 REPORT
On Monday, 21 June 2010, Thomas Stelzer, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, opened the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea and described the importance of capacity building in ocean affairs and sustainable development, including its ability to: enable states to effectively implement UNCLOS; strengthen capacities of developing countries to achieve Johannesburg Plan of Implementation commitments; develop the marine scientific and technological capacity of developing countries; and enable cooperation among stakeholders.
Co-Chair Amb. Paul Badji (Senegal) noted the “new footing” of ICP-11 as it follows ICP-10, where participants took stock of the Consultative Process’s work thus far. He hoped for a successful meeting and called on parties to sufficiently replenish the Trust Fund.
Co-Chair Amb. Don MacKay (New Zealand) underscored that capacity building is at the heart of all states’ abilities to benefit fully from UNCLOS and is fundamental for the full implementation of the Convention for both developing and developed states. He encouraged an interactive discussion.
Patricia O’Brien, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the UN Legal Counsel, noted: capacity building’s significance for helping states comply with UNCLOS; that outcomes of capacity-building activities lack a comprehensive needs assessment; and her hope that ICP-11 would create a common understanding of capacity-building needs, and identify opportunities and possible ways forward.
Co-Chair MacKay introduced the meeting’s agenda (A/AC.259/L.11), which was adopted without amendment.
DISCUSSION PANEL on capacity building on ocean affairs and the law of the sea, including marine science
The discussion panel on capacity building on ocean affairs and the law of the sea, including marine science, took place on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The panel was organized in four segments that covered: assessing capacity-building needs; an overview of capacity-building initiatives and activities; challenges for achieving effective capacity building; and new approaches, best practices, and opportunities for improved capacity building. Discussion also addressed the transfer of marine technology.
ASSESSING THE NEED FOR CAPACITY BUILDING IN OCEAN AFFAIRS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA, INCLUDING MARINE SCIENCE: On Monday afternoon, Phillip Saunders, Dalhousie University, reviewed the legal history of capacity building in the law of the sea, noting that it was inherent and justified in the “grand bargain” of UNCLOS as it was vital for, inter alia, effectively implementing the Convention and equitably sharing ocean benefits. He noted progress in capacity building as demonstrated by the Secretary-General’s report (A/65/69), and closed by emphasizing the continuing importance of dedicated financing arrangements and “soft” capacity assistance.
Åsmund Bjordal, Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, said the four pillars of sustainable fisheries management are: science, fisheries legislation, control of fishing activities, and violation sanctions. He then discussed Norway’s Nansen Programme on strengthening the knowledge base for, and implementing an ecosystem approach to, marine fisheries in developing countries.
Su’a N. F. Tanielu, Director-General, Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, presented the Pacific small island developing states’ (SIDS) perspective on capacity building, stressing the substantial tuna catches by distant water fleets within Pacific SIDS’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs), and underscored the need for further capacity and resources in the region. He said the Part VII Fund of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) helps build capacity to conserve, manage and develop fisheries and facilitates participation in high seas fisheries.
On Tuesday morning, Germain Michel Ranjoanina, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Madagascar, discussed the process of reworking Madagascar’s maritime code, noting that an assessment of its chapters revealed a gap between legislation and implementation possibly due to a lack of: technical and financial resources; coordination of activities on the high seas; political will; and sufficient knowledge of existing legal instruments.
Fabiola Jiménez Morán Sotomayor, Mexican Foreign Relations Secretariat, presented for Galo Carrera, Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), and Rebeca Navarro, PEMEX, on capacity building for the implementation of UNCLOS Article 76. She said delineating the outer limits of the continental shelf is technically complex and expensive for developing and least developed countries, and underscored that training courses, advice by the CLCS and assistance to states through the CLCS Trust Fund have been undertaken, but still need to be expanded.
Peter Gilruth, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said UNEP uses science to address critical ocean challenges, and reviewed capacity-building lessons from UNEP activities, including: the Regional Seas Programme’s work building capacity for ecosystem based management, climate change adaptation and marine spatial planning; and the Online Access to Research in the Environment programme, which gives developing countries access to environmental science research.
In the ensuing discussions, delegates addressed, inter alia:
the poor quality of certain fisheries statistics;
comparing countries’ implementation of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries as a capacity-building exercise;
the mechanisms donors use to identify needs for capacity building programmes and partnerships, and the importance of tailoring programmes to country needs;
raising contributions to the Part VII Fund of the UNFSA;
improving access of developing-country fisheries to catches in their EEZs and the high seas by building domestic fishing capacity;
capacity building needed to help developing countries establish jurisdictional limits;
barriers science-based decision-making can create for smaller countries;
the implications of international and national intellectual property law for technology transfer;
the enforcement of flag state provisions adopted by some regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs);
calls for a database to compile capacity-building assistance programmes and needs; and
challenges of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, sustainable fisheries management and lack of capacity to monitor EEZs.
OVERVIEW OF CAPACITY-BUILDING ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES IN OCEAN AFFAIRS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA, INCLUDING MARINE SCIENCE AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY: On Tuesday, Juan Carlos Martín Fragueiro, Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs, Spain, discussed Spain’s strategy for cooperation and coordination in ocean affairs. Fragueiro said future strategies will focus on, inter alia, the co-responsibilities of developing countries and collaborations to better use scarce economic resources.
Mitsuyuki Unno, The Nippon Foundation, presented on the Foundation’s programmes on marine affairs capacity building. He noted that through collaborative partnerships the Foundation has promoted connections across disciplines and organizations, and highlighted the importance of the UN-Nippon Foundation Fellowship Programme, which has awarded 60 fellowships to individuals from 43 states.
Serguei Tarassenko, Director, UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), reviewed DOALOS’s capacity-building activities including: the administration of trust funds, such as the CLCS Trust Fund; fellowship programmes, such as the Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe Memorial Fellowship on the Law of the Sea that helps fellows gain deeper knowledge of UNCLOS; and training activities.
Haiwen Zhang, China Institute for Marine Affairs, discussed China’s capacity-building activities with an emphasis on South-South Cooperation and improved information exchange, and provided an overview of the marine management structure. To improve capacity building, she highlighted the need for: more knowledge of oceans and marine management; relevant technologies, equipment and instrumentation; and improved human and financial resources.
Ehrlich Desa, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization/Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO/IOC), presented on the development of capacity of member states in ocean sciences and observation. He highlighted that capacity development of IOC member states is a cross-cutting issue with the long-term objective of improving ocean governance through good science and its interface with decision makers. Desa recommended that science-based oceans governance should, inter alia: address national priorities, empower national institutes, and involve civil society.
Nii Odunton, Secretary-General, International Seabed Authority (ISA), presented on ISA’s Endowment Fund, which supports the participation of scientists from developing countries in marine scientific research programmes, activities, and relevant initiatives and seminars.
Marcel Kroese, International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network for Fisheries-related Activities (IMCS Network), stressed the economic, social, and ecological impacts of IUU fishing. He said the Network is a voluntary initiative that provides an efficient, non-bureaucratic mechanism for cooperation on IUU fishing, such as providing analytic support to identify vessels involved in IUU fishing.
In the ensuing discussion, delegates addressed, inter alia:
how to match training given by developed states to the specific realities of developing states;
application procedures for fellowships and the proportion of past fellows that have been government officials;
access requirements for the Part VII Fund of UNFSA;
means of collaboration with developing countries to determine capacity-building needs;
the appropriate role of science in decision-making;
building institutional capacity versus training individual experts;
the definition of IUU and how the IMCS Network facilitates information sharing and optimizes monitoring efforts; and
CHALLENGES FOR ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE CAPACITY BUILDING IN OCEAN AFFAIRS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA, INCLUDING MARINE SCIENCE AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY: On Wednesday morning, Cristelle Pratt, South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, presented on research, development and management of non-living resources in the Pacific islands, noted the region’s need for, inter alia, institutions, marine experts and scientists, and research vessels, and proposed applying lessons from cooperation on fisheries to governance of non-living resources.
Alfa Lebgaza, Ministry of Public Works and Transport, Togo, described Togo’s implementation of UNCLOS and challenges to plans for further implementation, and highlighted a need for marine research centers.
Kazuhiro Kitazawa, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology Center (JAMSTEC), presented on: the importance of capacity building for marine science and implementation of UNCLOS; addressing gaps in scientific knowledge and technology; and solving the problem of technology transfer through UNESCO/IOC criteria.
On Wednesday afternoon, Andrew Hudson, UN Development Programme, discussed challenges from the International Waters portfolio of projects, highlighting challenges related to: policy, institutional and legal frameworks; financing; communication and advocacy; training and capacity tools; and the future.
Tumi T?masson, UN University-Fisheries Training Programme (UNU-FTP), noted extensive changes in the fisheries sector, and described the experiences of UNU-FTP, which has trained 205 fellows from 40 countries. He stressed the need to, inter alia, build individual and collective capacity in development cooperation and effectively translate science into management actions.
In the discussion that followed, delegates addressed, inter alia:
the relationship between SIDS and the private sector in deep seabed mining;
the UNESCO/IOC guidelines;
patent issues;
the ecosystem approach;
existing capacity building;
policy research and education projects; and
the work of UN-Nippon Foundation Fellowship Programme advisor François Bailet.
NEW APPROACHES, BEST PRACTICES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED CAPACITY BUILDING IN OCEAN AFFAIRS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA: On Wednesday afternoon, Raphael Lotilla, Executive Director, Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), presented on PEMSEA’s regional capacity-building programmes and development of tools, emphasizing the importance of partnerships among country and non-country parties.
Imèn Meliane, The Nature Conservancy, highlighted the importance of capacity building to NGO activities, such as training and improving the science base of decision-making, said web-based peer-to-peer exchanges are effective tools, and noted the importance of helping organizations gain abilities in, inter alia, financial management and proposal writing.
Narmoko Prasmadji, Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI), discussed the marine biodiversity of the coral triangle region, sometimes termed the “Amazon of the Seas,” the threats it faces, and CTI’s work to improve and strengthen the knowledge base for protecting resources in the region.
In the ensuing discussion, which continued on Thursday morning, delegates addressed, inter alia:
funding of marine protected areas (MPAs);
a rights-based approach to fisheries;
involvement of landlocked countries in ocean issues;
the lack of a global inventory of capacity-building needs;
suggestions for a DOALOS clearinghouse to match capacity-building partners; and
the need for capacity building on intellectual property.
GENERAL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON CAPACITY BUILDING IN OCEAN AFFAIRS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA, INCLUDING MARINE SCIENCE
On Monday morning, Co-Chair Badji introduced the agenda item and opened the floor for a general exchange of views, which was also addressed in plenary on Thursday and Friday.
Yemen, for the Group of 77 and China (G-77/China), urged in-depth discussions at ICP-11 that reflect the perspectives of developing countries, particularly on the need for capacity building in respect to Article 76 of UNCLOS on the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf. Australia, for the Pacific Islands Forum, supported by Palau, said targeted national capacity building is vital for SIDS. He called for strengthened capacity to implement monitoring, control, and surveillance to combat IUU fishing.
Underlining the finances committed by developed countries at the fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, Spain, for the European Union (EU), pointed to many existing sources for guidance on capacity building, such as the seven programme areas for capacity building identified in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. Australia explained that it assists its neighbors with capacity building by helping, inter alia, with science for delineating the outer limits of the continental shelf. Palau stressed that science-based decision making requires open access to information, such as from the RFMOs. Chile stressed that capacity building needs to include human, financial, institutional and other dimensions if it is to advance sustainable development.
Trinidad and Tobago, supporting the G-77/China, said that even though its ocean legislation involves surveillance, the region remains vulnerable to IUU from developed-country fleets. Mexico said Part XIV of UNCLOS, on development and transfer of marine technology, and the UN General Assembly resolutions 64/71 and 64/72, provide guidance on capacity building, and introduced topics for consideration, including training for energy development in marine areas.
Norway emphasized that her country’s marine policy focuses on an integrated ecosystem-based approach, and that a cross-sectoral approach is key to achieving this. Japan highlighted her country’s capacity-building programmes in the area of marine science, including those of the JAMSTEC. India said since capacity building varies widely across regions, opportunities in this area need to be identified based on existing capacity-building arrangements. China said financial, scientific and human resources are the foundation of capacity building.
New Zealand highlighted its capacity-building assistance in the South Pacific region. Argentina underscored the importance of South-South cooperation as an innovative tool for enhancing capacity building. Malaysia expressed support for UN programmes on capacity building, including the UNESCO/IOC programmes on enhanced cooperation and transfer of technologies. The US said capacity building is essential for the implementation of UNCLOS, but noted limited information on capacity building and on the specific needs of developing countries.
On Thursday afternoon, Iceland suggested further discussions on analysis of reliable fisheries information and better means to monitor the status of stocks. On assessing the need for capacity building, Mauritania urged cooperation among Northwest African countries to promote coastline protection. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean addressed challenges faced in the Mediterranean Sea regarding free access to the high seas, busy shipping routes, overfishing and land-based sources of pollution. South Africa called for capacity building on, inter alia, effects of climate change on the oceans, MPAs, and IUU fishing.
Thailand said capacity building should be improved through coordination between the international, regional and national levels, especially in areas such as implementation of the ecosystem-based approach. IUCN reviewed complementary international processes for improving the knowledge base of ocean management, including the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative. The International Hydrographic Organization stressed its work as essential for maritime trade and reviewed its phased approach for helping countries meet the requirements set by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. The Natural Resources Defense Council stressed the deleterious effects of marine pollution, particularly ocean noise.
The International Container Bureau said its work increases the scope, efficiency and safety of trade, but that awareness raising and better compliance are still needed on container registration requirements. Indonesia supported calls for a database to match capacity-building programmes with countries’ needs and said long-standing barriers must be overcome, such as technology transfer.
On Friday morning, the Solomon Islands, for the Pacific Island States, underscored that capacity building is a cross cutting issue, as identified in the Mauritius Strategy for the Implementation (MSI) of the Barbados Plan of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS. She said outcomes from ICP-11 should inform the MSI+5 High Level Review in September 2010, and called for tangible outcomes, such as technology transfer, not just training, to ensure local experts have access to marine research equipment and to reduce “brain drain.” Nigeria expressed the urgent need for capacity building and technology transfer, with priority given to least developed countries, SIDS and coastal states in Africa to help implement UNCLOS and ensure access to benefits from the sustainable use of oceans.
Venezuela reaffirmed the importance it attaches to the Consultative Process, highlighted the need to bear in mind the financial constraints of developing countries, and called on the international community and UN to extend its cooperation in this regard, especially related to capacity building and technology transfer.
INTER-AGENCY COOPERATION AND COORDINATION
On Thursday morning, Andrew Hudson, UN-Oceans, provided an update of UN-Oceans members’ activities, including: progress on the use of biogeographic classification systems and criteria for identifying marine areas beyond national jurisdiction in need of protection in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity Decision IX/20; Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) work on coastal pollution, microplastic, biomagnifications and top-predators; the need for further financial assistance to the UN-Atlas; and relocation of the UN-Oceans website to the FAO domain.
ISSUES THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM ATTENTION IN FUTURE WORK OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON OCEAN AFFAIRS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA
On Thursday morning, delegates were invited to suggest topics for the next ICP session based on the streamlined list of issues that could benefit from attention in future work of the UN General Assembly, prepared by the Co-Chairs, or to propose other topics.
Yemen, for G-77/China, supported by Brazil, Argentina and the US, suggested examining progress on the implementation of the commitments on oceans made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, as this would provide a valuable contribution to the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) process.
Mexico proposed liability for damage to marine biological diversity and Part XII of UNCLOS on the protection of the marine environment, especially on pollution from seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction.
Spain, for the EU, proposed issues that have not yet been addressed by this forum, such as: different uses of oceans and associated threats; integrated management approaches of human activities, through an ecosystem-based approach; pollution minimization; and environmental impact assessment tools. Australia suggested integrated management approaches to address pollution, including land-based sources of pollution.
IUCN expressed interest in reviewing the role of prior environmental assessment in the conservation and management of oceans and human activities that affect the marine environment, as well as in the importance of ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change on oceans and coasts.
New Zealand pointed to the issue of marine pollution as a topic needing special attention. Argentina opposed the Consultative Process discussing issues addressed under different fora, notably climate change, and suggested means for the operationalization of Part XIV of UNCLOS for enhancing capacity in marine science. The US noted the importance of all topics in the streamlined list and looked forward to future discussions.
PROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF TOPICS AND PANELISTS SO AS TO FACILITATE THE WORK OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
On Thursday afternoon, Co-Chair MacKay introduced this agenda item, and summarized last year’s discussion on the topic (A/64/131), including, inter alia, the need for the process to: contribute to sustainable development in a transparent, informal and inclusive manner; prioritize the issues to be tackled and identify them early; disseminate background and concept papers with regard to the topic; and not preclude itself from discussing topics that are in other fora.
Yemen, for the G-77/China, suggested that the proposed themes for the following ICP meetings should be based on a concept paper, which would, inter alia: be consistent with UNCLOS and Agenda 21; avoid the creation of new institutions, as well as duplication and overlapping of negotiations occurring in other fora; and be based on the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development.
Mexico, supported by Mauritania and Togo, suggested the participation of panelists from all regions of the world. She also requested a more effective and expeditious mechanism for the participation of developing countries’ experts.
Chile concurred with the G-77/China, but also proposed the analysis of, inter alia: the implementation of international instruments in force; IUU fishing; conservation measures that can be adopted by states; and the responsibilities of flag states in all marine areas. Spain, for the EU, stressed that proposals for new topics should be submitted well in advance to improve the transparency of the process and be accompanied by background papers to support their proposals.
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission said ICP-11 has devoted much of its attention to fisheries, and noted that regional and local discussions have a better chance to promote sustainable fisheries.
A Co-Chairs’ summary of ICP-11’s discussions was prepared Thursday evening and distributed Friday morning. The report collated the week’s discussions on: an overview of, assessing needs for, challenges to, and new approaches, best practices and opportunities for improved capacity building in ocean affairs and the law of the sea, including marine science, as well as technology transfer; inter-agency cooperation and coordination; issues meriting attention in future work of the General Assembly; and the process for the selection of topics and panelists by the General Assembly for future meetings of the Consultative Process.
Co-Chair Badji said where possible, the Co-Chairs identified potential areas of “natural consensus” among delegates, but stressed that the report is intended as a reference document only and should not be construed as a verbatim record of the discussions. Still, he urged delegates to look for shortcomings, gaps and omissions to make it as comprehensive as possible. After a 30-minute suspension of the meeting to enable delegates to review the report, delegates discussed the report in blocks of paragraphs.
On capacity building in ocean affairs and the law of the sea, including marine science, and the process for the selection of topics and panelists by the General Assembly, delegates suggested changes to various paragraphs to correct factual problems and clarify support for and reservations about particular observations made during the week, when divergent opinions emerged.
On issues meriting future attention in work of the General Assembly, discussion focused on: topics omitted from the report, namely, preparations for the Rio+20 process, threats to oceans, and improved fisheries statistics; amendments to the existing list of topics; and the appropriateness of having the Consultative Process discuss topics covered by other fora, particularly climate change.
Following the discussion of suggested amendments and changes, the entire document was accepted as a whole, and Co-Chair Badji noted that it will be forwarded to the President of the General Assembly.
Serguei Tarassenko, Director, DOALOS, reminded delegates of the depleted status of the ICP Trust Fund, which supports developing-country experts to participate in the work of the Consultative Process, and the Hamilton Shirley Amerasinghe Fellowship, which helps candidates acquire specialized knowledge of UNCLOS and broaden its application. He urged replenishment.
CLOSING PLENARY
In closing, Co-Chair MacKay thanked colleagues for ICP-11’s discussions, noting that they were rich and worthwhile, said the week spotlighted the great amount of work taking place in relation to capacity building and the law of the sea, and hoped to see the meeting’s practical impact through improved capacity building, with a starting point being a collation of capacity-building efforts on the DOALOS website. He also hoped the summary of the discussion would be reflected in the UN General Assembly resolution on ICP-12’s topic and thanked UN-DOALOS Secretary Gabriele Goettsche-Wanli for her 23 years of service, saying she is moving on to a new position within the UN.
Co-Chair Badji noted that the Co-Chairs’ summary of discussions can serve as a reference document when it comes to everything pertaining to capacity building dealing with oceans and the law of the sea, urged replenishment of the trust funds, and thanked all participants, wishing them safe travels. He closed the meeting at 4:29 pm.
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF ICP-11
The eleventh meeting of the Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (Consultative Process or ICP-11) occurred amidst the charged atmosphere of the 2010 World Cup and the somber realizations of the environmental, economic and social costs of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While the former merely provided delegates from developed and developing countries a common topic of conversation between and sometimes during meetings, the latter raised the salience of ICP-11’s focus on “capacity building as it relates to ocean affairs and the law of the sea.”
That ICP-11 had capacity building as the topic of discussion reflects developments over the last few years. Developing countries increasingly voiced the need to be heard in the Consultative Process and therefore requested a review of ICP’s mandate in 2009, saying it had veered from advancing sustainable development, as evidenced by ICP topics such as Maritime Safety and Security. As a result, ICP-11’s topic of capacity building was seen as a developing-country focused topic. Despite interest among some developed countries in the topic of climate change, it was agreed during the 64th session of UN General Assembly that ICP-11 would tackle capacity building, a subject broad enough to include discussions on climate change. Yet surprisingly, climate change was dropped from the agenda during the preparatory meeting in March.
Given this ongoing disagreement, there was anticipation that the World Cup’s intensity would permeate the week’s discussions, particularly when topics for future consideration were considered. Yet a calm atmosphere pervaded the meeting, with delegates keenly agreeing on the importance of strengthening capacity building. While some tug of war occurred between developing and developed countries over the need for more assistance balanced against the constraints of the global economic crisis, most delegates left the meeting as calm as they entered. While this could represent success, it could also mean a lack of interest in the ICP.
This brief analysis of ICP-11 highlights successes, challenges and possible ways forward for the Informal Consultative Process.
PLAYING AS A TEAM
It was clear from the beginning of the meeting that there was consensus on the importance of capacity building and transfer of marine technology, especially in developing countries that are struggling to control, manage and benefit from their maritime zones. Capacity building is especially needed in relation to fisheries, delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf and deep seabed mining. The agreement on the serious need to address capacity-building shortfalls and willingness to act was tempered by concerns over the strained global economy, and in turn, ICP’s depleted funds. To overcome these financial constraints, delegates realized that the gaps in capacity building would need to be identified, prioritized and then solved by optimizing the use of existing programmes. Consensus emerged on having DOALOS host on its website a unified clearing-house mechanism on capacity-building activities and needs as a first step towards connecting donors with beneficiaries.
Delegates also discussed challenges associated with the transfer of marine technology. Some noted that Part XIV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), on the development and transfer of marine technology, constitutes “one of the major implementation gaps of the Convention,” pointing to the lack of concrete transfers to assist developing countries in benefiting from their marine resources. The UNESCO/IOC Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, which state that IOC should collaboratively develop a clearing-house mechanism for the transfer of marine technology to facilitate effective scientific, technical and financial cooperation, were identified as a potential solution. Even though this clearing-house does not yet exist, an application process is in place to facilitate marine technology transfer. One participant noted the “perfect complement” this would be to DOALOS’ pending database.
Another success occurred on a procedural note. Past ICPs have featured debate about the selection of topics and panelists with concern over limited lead time and balanced representation of experts. Responding to this, delegates expressed support for more transparent criteria for the selection of topics, and agreed that the proposed topics should be accompanied by a concept paper made available at least one week prior to the meeting. This has the potential to bolster the process by making the topic clearer, focusing discussion, and fostering trust among participants.
MISSED SHOTS
Despite the Co-Chairs’ attention to detail and expert facilitation backed by an effective Secretariat and attentive delegates, the proceedings were still described by some as “very boring.” This was due partly to the ease with which agreement was reached on the need for capacity building, and partly to the absence of climate change as a topic under the umbrella of capacity building, and was clearly exacerbated by the exciting distraction of the World Cup. The presentations were useful, but some noted that they could have been scheduled for fewer days and focused more on ways forward, with particular attention to mechanisms that assess and act on the capacity-building needs of developing countries.
More focus was also expected on topics such as: capacity building with regard to the delineation of the outer limit of the continental shelf, due to the highly complex and technical nature of Article 76 of UNCLOS; and means to overcome obstacles related to property rights and patents in the context of transfer of technology.
Finally, the format and meaning of the Co-Chairs’ summary of discussions limited the closing day’s deliberations. Prior to ICP-10, specific elements negotiated and agreed by consensus were forwarded to the UN General Assembly. This process changed last year when delegates feared that the Consultative Process was becoming a negotiating forum and wanted to avoid duplication of the UN General Assembly’s negotiations. But reactions to the new approach were mixed. For some delegates, a report that reflects five days of discussions does not advance the process, and one delegate expressed reservations about the future value of the ICP if this approach continues.
FORWARD PASS
Even in the surprisingly pacific exchanges over ICP’s future work, there remained a schism over how the Consultative Process should proceed vis-à-vis other multilateral fora. The G-77/China took the position that ICP should avoid duplication and overlap with current negotiations and particular debates taking place in specialized fora. Yet, as one delegate noted, all issues are discussed in other venues.
This debate raises questions about ICP’s purpose since the UN General Assembly resolutions on oceans and the law of the sea play a role in the evolution of the law of the sea. For example, marine biodiversity is addressed within the Convention on Biological Diversity, which makes specific reference to UNCLOS linking the two in a complementary way on marine conservation. Restricting ICP from covering issues raised in other fora weakens each convention individually by neglecting integration opportunities and exacerbating fragmentation of international law.
Within the ICP the issue remains controversial, especially concerning climate change. Some delegates opine that the topic of climate change should be dealt with exclusively by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A bridge to this impasse, suggested by some delegates, would be to discuss the effects of climate change on oceans and their resources, for example ocean warming and acidification, and leaving governance to UNFCCC.
This aside, there seemed to be support for ICP-12 to examine progress on the implementation of the commitments on oceans made at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. As some delegates said, this would strengthen the Consultative Process and contribute to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). They also noted that ICP is the lone ocean process that feeds into the UN General Assembly, and that not seizing this opportunity risks sinking the ocean agenda at Rio+20. In other words, as noted by one delegate, the Rio+20 topic could provide an umbrella under which all ocean-related topics could be discussed, including the impacts of climate change on oceans.
GOAL?
Delegates left the UN on Friday, processing what they’d learned about capacity-building programmes, challenges and opportunities, and having agreed on the first steps for improving the matching of capacity-building needs with existing programmes. While the calm and speedy ending to the meeting represented an accomplishment, it remains to be seen how disagreements over the topics and the process for their selection, as well as the renewal of the ICP mandate, will be addressed by the 65th session of the UN General Assembly. The selection of the right topic may rescue this process and remind both developed and developing countries that the future of the oceans is at stake and that, as one delegate noted, “all of us have the same goal: the protection of the world’s oceans.”
“We can create a more sustainable, cleaner and safer world by making wiser energy choices”. Robert Alan
The professor was touring villages in Karnataka, gathering information for a program called Sustainable Transformation of Rural Areas. Soil and growing conditions were harsh in much of the area, and many of the villages were poor. In one such village, the professor and his team of research assistants stopped in a tea stall.
Naturally, the strangers drew attention in the small village. One villager struck up a conversation with the professor, and asked what the visitors were doing.
“We’re looking for ways to use science and engineering principles to solve real-life problems in villages like this one”, Professor Shrinivasa told the man.
The villager thought for a moment. “Well, we use oil from the Honge tree to light the lamps in our temples”, the man volunteered. “Maybe you could find some other use for that oil”.
Indeed he could. The professor, who is based at the Indian Institute of Science, found that the Honge tree (whose Latin name is Pongamia Pinnata) grew throughout the village, and oil could easily be extracted from the tree’s plentiful pods. He also recalled that many years ago Rudolf Diesel had used peanut oil when demonstrating his invention, the diesel engine. The professor told his colleagues, “Let’s try this oil in a diesel engine right here in the village”.
They got some oil, borrowed a small diesel engine, started it up and – boom! – the engine fired up, ran smoothly and kept running smoothly. Villagers immediately began using the local oil instead of spending money to buy diesel fuel.
That was a decade ago, and since then Professor Shrinivasa has traveled to relatively less fertile lands across India to promote the planting of Pongamia trees as a source of alternate fuel.
My wife Girija and I met Professor Shrinivasa recently, and found that he had lost no passion for his cause. He talked enthusiastically about the benefits of Pongamia-based bio-diesel. For one, it is grown in dry lands and hence does not lead to the food shortages sometimes caused when farmers grow corn or soya for bio-fuel instead of other crops for food. Second, in terms of emissions, bio-diesels are carbon neutral: the carbon dioxide absorbed by the trees is released when the fuel is burnt. Third, in terms of particles that cause pollution and respiratory diseases, bio-diesel emissions are less harmful than petrol and diesel.
The economics are compelling. A hectare of wasteland growing Pongamia trees can yield 10 tonnes of seeds worth around Rs. 40,000. Horticulture is far less labor intensive and hence can be done at relatively low costs, providing a good return to the farmers. The professor’s calculations show that India has adequate availability of wastelands that can be planted with enough Pongamia trees to meet the entire nation’s petrol and diesel requirements. But this calls for enormous political will and an ability to overcome the petroleum lobbies. As a lone champion, Professor Shrinivasa has yet to build the momentum to battle these forces – but continues on his path regardless.
The Connected Age requires us to look for viable alternatives in various aspects of our daily lives. It requires us the boldly embrace these new alternatives – as they emerge. It requires us to battle the vested interests and the entrenched beliefs of the industrial age with the vision of creating a more inclusive and sustainable world. And it requires us to step forward the way the professor has, and to support people like him who have stepped forward. Do share your own insights in this area.
Google News & The Race Down the Information Highway. In this week’s newsletter, we bring you an interview with two of our panellists – Josh Cohen, Senior Business Product Manager at Google News and Susan Pointer, Director of Public Policy & Government Relations for Southern and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Google. Cohen will be featuring on our “Found News? The New Platforms for Delivering Information”panel.
Susan Pointer, Google
We asked him and Pointer about Google News’ and Google’s role in the media as well as its commitment to freedom of information.
Here are a few of the highlights:
Cohen, on the perceived clash between Google News and newspaper publishers:
It’s a misunderstanding of how Google News works. We absolutely do not see publishers as competitors to what we’re trying to do. To the contrary, it’s very much a symbiotic relationship. We help people discover the information that all these sites produce… where they have the opportunity to monetise it.
…We absolutely honour and respect copyright. We never show, whether it’s on news or a web search, anything more than a snippet, the first sentence or in many cases the headline – and a link to the source itself.
————————————————
Pointer, on Google’s role in censorship:
We believe that more access to information is better than less access to information… Access to information is a good thing. Freedom to express oneself and exchange ideas and content is a good thing.
That obviously doesn’t come without limits.
———————————————–
What do you think?
Is Google a help or a hindrance to newspapers? Is it aiding or stifling freedom of expression? Read the rest of our feature here, and share your views through Twitter, Facebook and our comments page.
It’s not too late. Register before 1 July and you’ll save money on our registration fee, and get the best hotel rates and a free, signed copyof our commemorative 60 World Press Freedom Heroes book. Check out the benefits with our latest offer here.
Ways to Register
Give us a call and we will take care of your registration for you!
Phone: + 431 512 90 11
The UN may even do good things once in a while – but then its Department of Public Information hides them from the world at large by not opening its doors to the interested media. Those they invite are those that are not interested in publicizing suggestions that can work when the world is called to disengage from its addiction to oil.
The following is a positive in the UNDP cap but when we asked to be invited to participate in the following Press Conference we did not even get the honor of a reply. So much about the UN – but we promise nevertheless to honor our readers by covering the issues even if the UN DPI prefers we did not exist. As we are busy today with the New York Forum, we will approachMr.Olav Kjorven at a later date in order to cover at length the case of Nepal and other work under his leadership.
We told him in the past that his words will not get world distribution if presented only via the UN DPI chanel.
Now we post the information we received so our readers can have the appropriate links right away.
—————————
UNDP SAYS — Clean energy access in Nepal possible model for acceleration of progress towards MDGs:
Early investment in capacity development crucial to success.
As the 2010 MDG Summit approaches, UNDP’s on-the-ground experience in providing access to clean energy indicates a promising way of stepping-up progress towards achieving the MDGs. Currently, almost half of humanity —3 billion people— are energy poor. They live without access to modern energy for lighting, cooking, heating and mechanical power. For 250,000 people in remote rural communities in Nepal, this has changed.
What: Briefing at the UN DPI Briefing Room for which special DPI accreditation is required – on an effective energy programme that can help alleviate poverty and improve lives of poor communities around the world.
Who: Olav Kjorven, UNDP Director of Policy and UN Assistant Secretary-General
H.E. Mr. Gyan Chandra Acharya, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Nepal Mission to the UN
Kiran Man Singh, Project Manager, Rural Energy Development Programme
When: Tuesday, 22 June, 15.00 – 15.45
Where: Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium
Through a pioneering partnership between UNDP and the Government of Nepal, the installation of micro-hydro plants has given them access to clean energy, creating jobs and incomes, opportunities for women and girls and improved school enrollment, among other benefits. Fundamental to this success has been the early investment in capacity development —in other words, helping people in the national government and in the communities themselves develop the knowledge, skills, institutions and regulatory environment needed for the emergence of both local demand for energy services and a local supply.
Nepal is now expanding the programme to bring energy to tens of millions of people. Kenya and other countries are interested in applying the same strategy. The approach could help accelerate progress towards the MDG’s and achieve the universal access to modern energy services by 2030, as proposed by the Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change.
*** *** ****
Hard copies of the report “Capacity development for scaling up decentralized energy access programmes” will be made available at the briefing, and will also be available later today at http://www.undp.org/energy.
Media queries: Please contact Charles Dickson of UNDP’s Environment and Energy Group at charles.dickson@undp.org or 212-906-6041.
raffaella@ecoharmony.com
More than 1,000 spill lawsuits have been filed against Shell alone.
