links about us archives search home
SustainabiliTankSustainabilitank menu graphic
SustainabiliTank

 
 
Follow us on Twitter

People Without a UN Seat

 
Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York:
Inner City Press

 

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 18th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

From the IISD Reporting Services that help the UN manage its information flow to Conference participants.

Lima Climate Change Conference – December 2014
1-12 December 2014 | Lima, Peru

 www.iisd.ca/climate/cop20/

The Lima Climate Change Conference convened from 1-14 December 2014, in Lima, Peru. It included the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 20) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 10th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 10). Three subsidiary bodies (SBs) also met: the 41st sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 41) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 41), and the seventh part of the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP 2-7).

The Lima Climate Change Conference brought together over 11,000 participants, including approximately 6,300 government officials, 4,000 representatives from UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental organizations and civil society organizations, and 900 members of the media.

Negotiations in Lima focused on outcomes under the ADP necessary to advance towards an agreement in Paris at COP 21 in 2015, including elaboration of the information, and process, required for submission of intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) as early as possible in 2015 and progress on elements of a draft negotiating text. Following lengthy negotiations on a draft decision for advancing the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, COP 20 adopted the ‘Lima Call for Climate Action,’ which sets in motion the negotiations in the coming year towards a 2015 agreement, the process for submitting and reviewing INDCs, and enhancing pre-2020 ambition.

Parties also adopted 19 decisions, 17 under the COP and two under the CMP that, inter alia: help operationalize the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage; establish the Lima work programme on gender; and adopt the Lima Declaration on Education and Awareness Raising. The Lima Climate Change Conference was able to lay the groundwork for Paris next year, by capturing progress made in elaborating the elements of a draft negotiating text for the 2015 agreement and adopting a decision on INDCs, including their scope, upfront information, and steps to be taken by the Secretariat after their submission.

The Summary and Analysis of this meeting is now available in PDF format

at  www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12619… and in HTML format at
 www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12619e.html

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

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE LIMA CLIMATE CONFERENCE

“Brick by brick my citizens, brick by brick.”
– Attributed to Roman Emperor Hadrian

Arriving in Peru, delegates were welcomed by a decidedly positive spirit. As COP 20/CMP 10 President Manuel Pulgar-Vidal observed in his opening speech, prior to the Lima Conference, the world had received a number of “good signals” from the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit, the initial resource mobilization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), “historic” announcements by several major greenhouse gas emitting countries, including the EU, the US and China, as well as momentum generated from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. This spirit of “unprecedented optimism and achievement,” as described by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, was expected to help advance work on a number of key deliverables intended to provide what ADP Co-Chair Kishan Kumarsingh referred to as a “solid foundation” upon which to build a new agreement to be adopted in Paris.

In October, in an address to the ADP, Pulgar-Vidal indicated the outcomes he expected in Lima, including: a clear, structured and substantive text on the elements of the new agreement; defining the information to be submitted in 2015 as part of parties’ intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs); and a concrete plan for the pre-2020 period, including actions to ensure compliance with existing obligations, and the implementation of policy options with the greatest mitigation potential. He also emphasized the importance of confidence and trust in the process, as well as among parties. As many have learned from previous climate change meetings, no foundation for the future can be built without confidence and trust.

This brief analysis will assess to what extent these outcomes expected from Lima have been delivered, the implications of the ‘Lima Call for Climate Action’ for the negotiations towards the new climate agreement, and whether the Lima Conference succeeded in laying a solid foundation for constructing an ambitious global climate agreement in Paris, under which each country is able to find a “room.”

LAYING BRICKS

A fervent facilitator and an invisible enabler, the Peruvian Presidency spared no effort in ensuring that time during the Lima Conference was managed effectively. With most formal negotiating sessions scarcely going over the 6:00 pm mark and the Subsidiary Bodies concluding their work unprecedentedly early, delegates were able to roll up their sleeves and get down to work on the building blocks for the new agreement, the draft decision text on INDCs, and enhanced pre-2020 climate action.

Over six days, parties exchanged views on the Co-Chairs’ non-paper containing the elements for a draft negotiating text and made various proposals, which were all reflected in a revised document published on the UNFCCC website early in the morning on Monday, 8 December, by which time the text had swollen from 23 to 33 pages. Some worried that a proliferation of options, while indicating that the negotiating process is clearly party-driven, did not add to the draft negotiating text’s clarity and structure, and could complicate future work.

In the end, delegates agreed to annex this text to the COP decision on further advancing the Durban Platform with a disclaimer contained in a footnote stating that the elements for a draft negotiating text reflect “work in progress” and “neither indicate convergence on the proposals presented, nor do they preclude new proposals from emerging in the course of negotiations in 2015.” This disclaimer addressed concerns raised by many developing countries that annexing the elements text to the COP decision might preempt the legal form, structure or content of the Paris agreement and were therefore against “formalizing” any language that could potentially exclude some options from consideration in 2015, while locking in others. Limited substantive progress on the elements will no doubt put pressure on ADP negotiators meeting in Geneva in February 2015, which is expected to deliver a draft negotiating text for parties’ consideration later in the year.

MOVING WALLS IN A “DIVIDED” HOUSE

Discussions on elements for a draft negotiating text and on the draft decision advancing the Durban Platform were both underpinned by a number of broad political issues. These included differentiation, the role of the Convention and its principles and provisions in the future agreement, and the issue of legal parity between mitigation and adaptation, on the one hand, and mitigation and financial and other means of support, on the other. Many delegates pointed out that on those issues the ADP had a distinctly “divided house”?to the point that some felt trust among parties dissipating.

The question of how differentiation will be reflected in the Paris agreement permeated the ADP negotiations. For example, most developing countries, in particular the LMDCs, maintained that there should be differentiation, both in the 2015 agreement and the INDCs, in accordance with parties’ obligations under the Convention, and reflecting the principles of CBDR and equity. On the other side, the US advocated differentiation in accordance with CBDR and respective capabilities in line with varying national circumstances. The LMDCs also strongly opposed the formulation “parties in a position to do so” in relation to providing support to developing countries for the preparation and implementation of their INDCs, and to providing additional resources to the GCF, the GEF, the Technology Mechanism and the Adaptation Fund, arguing that such language disrupted Convention-based bifurcation, effectively dismantling the wall between Annex I and non-Annex I parties.

A related issue, namely that of legal parity between different components of the 2015 agreement, was also the subject of heated debate. Developing countries repeatedly cautioned against a “mitigation-centric” approach to INDCs, and urged for a balanced reflection of adaptation and means of implementation, with provision of finance taking the center stage. Of particular importance to AOSIS and the LDCs was that loss and damage be reflected as a separate element of the future agreement not only in the elements text, but also in the decision on the ADP.

Parties’ inability to reach consensus led to the adoption of a three-pronged approach, including continued negotiations under the ADP, ministerial consultations, and consultations by the COP President. After the Presidency’s consultations with negotiating groups that continued late into Saturday night?many hours after the Conference was supposed to conclude at 6:00 pm on Friday, the ‘Lima Call for Climate Action’ was concluded. This outcome document, arguably, shifts the wall of differentiation. Although the work of the ADP “shall be under the Convention and guided by its principles” and the new agreement “shall address in a balanced manner” not only mitigation, but also adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, capacity building, and transparency of action and support, the ADP’s commitment to reaching an ambitious agreement in 2015 is nevertheless described as reflecting CBDR and respective capabilities “in light of different national circumstances.” This formulation appears to open the door to a subjective interpretation of differentiation. Some also wondered if it modifies the interpretation of CBDR as reflecting historical responsibility, even if it avoids using the controversial terms “dynamic” or “evolving.” On the issue of parity, however, the final text provides some assurances to developing countries by giving adaptation a more prominent role in the future agreement and parties’ INDCs, as well as, and in relation to, provision of support.

The Lima Call for Climate Action also refers to the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage in the preamble. Following the adoption of the decision by the COP, Tuvalu, for the LDCs, made a statement requesting that it be recorded in the report of the meeting. He stressed that the preambular text on the Warsaw International Mechanism, in conjunction with “inter alia” in the operative paragraph listing INDCs components, is, in the LDCs’ understanding, a “clear intention” that the new agreement will “properly, effectively and progressively” address loss and damage. While legally redundant, such declarations reaffirm parties’ positions and interpretations of agreed text, maintaining their relevance and visibility.

During the negotiations, an additional concern expressed by developing countries, similar to the one raised in relation to the elements text, was that a COP 20 decision on advancing the Durban Platform could be prejudicial to the outcome in Paris. In this regard, the Lima Call for Climate Action explicitly states that the INDCs-related arrangements specified in it “are without prejudice to the legal nature and content” of parties’ INDCs, or to the content of the future agreement.

TEARING DOWN THE WALL?

COP 20 was generally expected to help strengthen INDCs as a core component of the new agreement by clarifying their scope and specifying information required to facilitate their clarity, transparency and understanding. However, parties were also divided on their expectations for the text on INDCs, relating to information-related requirements, scope and communication. While the Lima Conference fulfilled these expectations to some extent, many parties and observers felt the decision has important shortcomings.

The Lima Call for Climate Action succeeds in delivering on a mandate from Warsaw to identify the “information that parties will provide when putting forward their contributions,” by referring to quantifiable information, time frames, coverage, methodological assumptions, and a subjective evaluation of fairness and ambitiousness. However, by stating that INDCs “may include, as appropriate, inter alia,” these various aspects, the text fails to set a minimum level of common types of information to be communicated by all parties, thus significantly weakening the prospects of comparability across, and a meaningful aggregation of, contributions.

A major area of divergence of views related to the scope of INDCs. This debate centered on the interpretation of the Warsaw decision, which states that INDCs should be aimed “at achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2.” Developed countries interpreted this as referring to mitigation being the only component of INDCs, while developing countries insisted on the need to include adaptation and means of implementation as well, with developing countries providing information on their means of implementation needs and developed countries providing information on their financial contributions, as a precondition of enhanced action by developing countries. As a compromise between these two views, the Lima Call for Climate Action invites parties to “consider including” an adaptation component in their INDCs, which reflects broad agreement that adaptation action requires strengthening alongside mitigation. Parties were also able to agree on recognizing the special circumstances of LDCs and SIDS by allowing them to present “strategies, plans and actions” for low-emission development. Meanwhile, all other countries are implicitly expected to do something more. This latter aspect is yet another example of built-in flexibility, which translates into a lack of a clear requirement for parties to prepare a strong, quantitative mitigation component in their INDCs. Furthermore, in relation to the scope of INDCs, parties were unable to agree on any language on finance or other means of implementation, which left developing countries disappointed. Issues related to finance, therefore, remain a fundamental area for further trust building in 2015.

Another issue on which parties disagreed was how INDCs would be communicated and what their possible ex ante consideration or review might look like. Many developing countries insisted that Lima should only focus on the process of communication. Some delegations, including the US, preferred a “consultative” process or period. Others, such as the EU and AOSIS, demanded a strong review that would assess the aggregate effect of INDCs against the latest climate science and what is deemed necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. Considered by some the weakest link of the Lima outcome, the decision text simply requests that the Secretariat publish the communicated INDCs on the UNFCCC website and prepare, by 1 November 2015, a synthesis report on their aggregate effect. This translates into an absence of any kind of ex ante review of individual contributions in 2015. Further, it also leaves parties with less than a month for possible upward adjustment prior to COP 21 in Paris in December 2015. Resulting from strong opposition by some, such as the LMDCs, to a review of their INDCs, this outcome left many disappointed. Some disenchanted observers, however, felt that, irrespective of its content, the decision would not have strong implications for global climate action, suggesting that the major factors driving the level of ambition of national contributions are in any event external to the UNFCCC process.

RAISING THE CEILING

With regard to enhancing pre-2020 ambition (ADP workstream 2), the technical expert meetings (TEMs) emerged as an area where countries could find a common cause. Relating to the key question of how to carry work forward under workstream 2 beyond Paris, there was broad agreement that the TEMs, which have created a technical and less political space for discussions around scaling up implementation and which allow for “bringing down the brick wall of the UNFCCC” by engaging non-state actors, would be the proper vehicle. The Lima outcome sets out a clear process for building on the TEMs’ experience by providing guidance on their purpose, organization and follow-up, and seeking to further engage key institutions and mechanisms under the Convention. Views still diverged, however, on how to ensure the implementation of the Bali Action Plan, in particular with regard to the provision of means of implementation to developing countries, and enhancing mitigation efforts by all parties under the Convention. As a result, the final text does not include a proposed ‘Accelerated Implementation Mechanism’ to assess progress made in these areas?an idea originating in the conviction of developing countries that developed countries’ leadership pre-2020, which currently remains insufficient, will be essential for both addressing climate change and ensuring a successful 2015 agreement.

Discussions under the COP on long-term finance, which developing countries wanted to result in further assurances?such as quantitative milestones?on scaling up of climate finance by developed countries to US$100 billion annually by 2020, and beyond, were also disappointing to developing countries. Yet, an undeniable success was the initial resource mobilization of the GCF, which reached its target of US$10 billion, collecting a total of US$10.2 billion in pledges by the end of the Lima Conference from both Annex I and non-Annex I countries. While developed countries considered it a show of commitment and something they should be recognized for, developing countries felt GCF capitalization, together with the first biennial ministerial dialogue on climate finance organized during the second week as well as biennial submissions by developed countries on scaling up climate finance, were still insufficient. Some suggested that before celebrating the GCF pledges, they would first need to see how and whether they would translate into resources for the Fund.

The first session of the multilateral assessment of developed countries’ mitigation targets, organized as part of SBI 41, reflected a similar divergence in views. Annex I countries celebrated the event for “going beyond simple reporting,” and increasing transparency and building trust, while some developing countries felt the process required further strengthening in the form of a clear “follow-up,” such as substantive conclusions for the SBI’s consideration. Notwithstanding these differences and given the positive “Lima Spirit” characterized by an open exchange of views and transparency that persisted throughout the conference, these developments may have succeeded in “raising the ceiling” of pre-2020 ambition, and thus rebuilding some of the confidence and trust for the tough year ahead.

ENABLING CONSTRUCTION

Many expected that momentum created by the political events of the previous months would contribute to an atmosphere of trust in Lima. These events included the GCF initial capitalization, the EU’s announcement of its 2030 mitigation target and, in particular, the bilateral announcements by the US and China, on their respective mitigation targets for 2025 and 2030, as well as by the US and India, on expanded cooperation on climate change, including on phasing down HFCs. However, it soon became evident that too little time had passed for these external political events and high-level signals of change to translate into cardinal shifts in negotiating positions. Yet, some found discernible indications of a more immediate impact. For example, how CBDR and respective capabilities are defined in the Lima Call for Climate Action decision “in light of different national circumstances,” is a near-verbatim citation from the November joint announcement by the US and China. It remains to be seen if the ADP session in February will see further shifts in negotiating positions when parties have had the time to reflect on these events.

In spite of parties arriving in Peru with different expectations and widely diverging views, at the end most felt that, in the words of the South African Minister of Environmental Affairs Edna Molewa, the Lima Conference managed to strike a “delicate balance between very difficult issues” and laid “a solid foundation” for work towards Paris.

But did it really? The two key outcomes from Lima, the decision on Advancing the Durban Platform and its annex containing elements for a draft negotiating text, may have served to move the process forward and create a shared feeling of achievement and confidence in the process. However, given that key political issues, including differentiation and finance, remain unresolved, many parties are unwilling to declare the Lima outcome an absolute success.

The year of 2015 will be one that defines the true significance of the Lima Climate Conference. Many wonder if the positive “Lima Spirit” can continue in the run-up to Paris. But perhaps more importantly, the question may be if the Lima outcome can enable the construction in Paris of a “house” where all parties can coexist, while keeping in mind that in this process there is one party that does not negotiate?nature.

This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ©  enb at iisd.org, is written and edited by Beate Antonich, Rishikesh Bhandry, Elena Kosolapova, Ph.D., Mari Luomi, Ph.D., Anna Schulz, and Mihaela Secrieru. The Digital Editor is Kiara Worth. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMATE), the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2014 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Specific funding for coverage of this session has been provided by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the EC (DG-CLIMA). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA

———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) — United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022 USA

Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 – Plaxo public business card: kimogoree.myplaxo.com

Email:  kimo at iisd.org

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 18th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Launch of the ‘Open Geospatial Data for Energy Access’ Survey

from: Yann Loic Tanvez  ytanvez at worldbank.org

OPEN GEOSPATIAL DATA FOR ENERGY ACCESS

Phase 1 / Survey: Understanding the Practitioners’ Needs

Access the survey by clicking on the following link: goo.gl/forms/OY1bE5vFE6

Access to quality information and data is crucial for the need assessment, planning and monitoring of basic services delivery in developing countries. In the energy sector, and specifically in the context of providing energy access to currently un- or under-served populations, the use of ground level geospatial data for strategic planning at both national and project levels remains in an early stage. Yet, interest and uses have increased in recent years as public and private sector stakeholders intend to prioritize, rationalize and accelerate centralized and decentralized energy infrastructure-related investments.

The World Bank Group and the European Space Agency are joining forces in a pilot initiative capitalizing on existing ground level geospatial data and collecting missing information via satellite Earth Observation. Starting from the requirements of energy access practitioners, this collaboration seeks to identify relevant datasets, demonstrate their potential and formulate best practices for their use in energy access related projects.

The first phase of this pilot initiative is the following survey that aims to identify the various geospatial datasets required by the different stakeholders across the energy access value chain. The findings of this survey will be made available to the wider community through a short publication. Phase 2 will provide identified datasets on a demonstration basis in two selected countries, to assess their utility and test the project rationale in real-world investment scenarios.

We are grateful for your time in completing this survey. The information you provide below will inform the broader energy access agenda, as well as the World Bank Group team leading this initiative by ensuring it effectively responds to the data needs of the various energy access practitioners.

For any further information, or for discussing a deeper engagement with this initiative, please do not hesitate to contact M. Yann Tanvez at  ytanvez at worldbank.org.

This activity is part of the WBG initiative “Incubating Innovation for Rural Electrification”. Further information, knowledge resources, as well as recordings and materials from previous events are available on the initiative’s online collaborative platform. The platform is accessible at collaboration.worldbank.org/grou….

If you would like to join the energy-l at IISD Mailing Lists

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 17th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

The Sustainable Development 2015 programme has updated its interactive timeline of the key milestones of the three primary Post-2015 and Post-Rio+20 processes: The Expert Committee on a Sustainable Development Financing Strategy; the High Level Political Forum; and the Sustainable Development Goals. It outlines the key meetings and outputs from the previous and forthcoming activities which will define the UN’s universal development framework.

Click  www.sustainabledevelopment2015.or… to view the timeline

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 17th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Breaking News from CNN December 17, 2014:

President Barack Obama announced plans to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba and ease economic restrictions, a shift he called the end of an “outdated approach” that “for decades has failed to advance our interests.”

Speaking from his own country, Cuban President Raul Castro lauded the move: “This expression by President Barack Obama deserves the respect and recognition by all the people, and I want to thank and recognize support from the Vatican.”

and then: President Barack Obama announced plans to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba and ease economic restrictions, a shift he called the end of an “outdated approach” that “for decades has failed to advance our interests.”

Speaking from his own country, Cuban President Raul Castro lauded the move: “This expression by President Barack Obama deserves the respect and recognition by all the people, and I want to thank and recognize support from the Vatican.”

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was harshly critical of the move: “By conceding to the oppressors, this President and this administration have let the people of Cuba down.”

KUDOS FROM ALL OVER LATIN AMERICA THAT LONG AGO HAS ESTABLISHED RELATIONS WITH CUBA.
FROM OUR ANGLE – BACK TO THE 1970s WE ARGUED THE US CAN LEARN FROM CUBA ABOUT HOW TO DECREASE DEPENDENCE ON OIL IMPORTS.
THIS AFTER LEARNING IN !978 ABOUT THEIR USE OF BIOMASS AT A UNIDO MEETING IN VIENNA, AND THEN OUR ATTEMPT TO INVITE THEM TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AT The first InterAmerican Conference on Renewable Sources of Energy, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 25-29, 1979 that I had the honor to organize for the Cordell Hull Foundation for International Education BUT WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT WAS NOT READY TO ALLOW VISAS FOR THE CUBAN SCIENTISTS. I made sure nevertheless that the conference knows that when you have no trees to cut down you can make paper from sugarcane bagasse.

Louisiana, Cordell Hull Foundation for International Education
The Conference, 1980 – Science – 302 pages

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 16th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

With the World attention on the self-appointed Islamic cleric of Sydney, Australia, we thought to bring to our readers’ attention
a blog that keeps sending us news about the advance of Jihadism within Western Societies - www.islamist-watch.org
 www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2014/…

“Islamist Campaign Donors Overwhelmingly Back Democrats.” PJ Media October 31, 2014

“Ben Affleck: Portrait of Islam’s Clueless Apologetics.” PJ Media October 6, 2014

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 15th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

For the link to the BBC reporting from Lima – including all the added material – please see – “Deal reached at UN climate talks.” www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-enviro…

Peru’s environment minister, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who chaired the summit, told reporters: “As a text it’s not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties.”

Miguel Arias Canete, EU Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, said the EU had wanted a more ambitious outcome but he still believed that “we are on track to agree a global deal” at a summit in Paris, France, next year.

“We’ve got what we wanted,” Indian environment minister Prakash Javedekar told reporters, saying the document preserved the notion that richer nations had to lead the way in making cuts in emissions.

It also restored a promise to poorer countries that a “loss and damage” scheme would be established to help them cope with the financial implications of rising temperatures.

However, it weakened language on national pledges, saying countries “may” instead of “shall” include quantifiable information showing how they intend to meet their emissions targets.

The agreed document calls for:

– An “ambitious agreement” in 2015 that reflects “differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” of each nation

– Developed countries to provide financial support to “vulnerable” developing nations

– National pledges to be submitted by the first quarter of 2015 by those states “ready to do so”

– Countries to set targets that go beyond their “current undertaking”

– The UN climate change body to report back on the national pledges in November 2015

None of the 194 countries attending the talks walked away with everything they wanted, but everybody got something.

As well as pledges and finance, the agreement points towards a new classification of nations. Rather than just being divided into rich and poor, the text attempts to reflects the more complex world of today, where the bulk of emissions originate in developing countries.

While progress in Lima was limited, and many decisions were simply postponed, the fact that 194 nations assented to this document means there is still momentum for a deal in Paris.

And yes – we at SustainabiliTank add – not being an agreed treaty it does not require ratification – and so it is not exposed to a recalcitrant US Senate that would have blocked anything that comes its way. That was the Obama genius and Al Gore failure.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 10th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


With Compromises, a Global Accord to Fight Climate Change Is in Sight.

By CORAL DAVENPORT, The New York Times World, December 9, 2014

LIMA, Peru — Diplomats from 196 countries are closing in on the framework of a potentially historic deal that would for the first time commit every nation in the world to cutting its planet-warming fossil fuel emissions — but would still not be enough to stop the early impacts of global warming.

The draft, now circulating among negotiators at a global climate summit meeting here, represents a fundamental breakthrough in the impasse that has plagued the United Nations for two decades as it has tried to forge a new treaty to counter global warming.

But the key to the political success of the draft — and its main shortcoming, negotiators concede — is that it does not bind nations to a single, global benchmark for emissions reductions.

Instead, the draft puts forward lower, more achievable, policy goals. Under the terms of the draft, every country will publicly commit to enacting its own plans to reduce emissions — with governments choosing their own targets, guided by their domestic politics, rather than by the amounts that scientists say are necessary.

The idea is to reach a global deal to be signed by world leaders in Paris next year, incorporating 196 separate emissions pledges.

“It’s a breakthrough, because it gives meaning to the idea that every country will make cuts,” said Yvo de Boer, the former executive secretary of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.


“But the great hopes for the process are also gone,” he added. “Many people are resigned,” he said, to the likelihood that even a historic new deal would not reduce greenhouse gas levels enough to keep the planet’s atmospheric temperature from rising 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

That is the point at which, scientists say, it will become impossible to avoid the dangerous and costly early effects of climate change — such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, extreme drought, food shortages and more violent storms.

The Lima draft represents the input of all the negotiating countries, though there are still several major hurdles to work out. But even then, experts say, at best the new deal might be enough only to curb global warming by about half as much as scientists say is necessary.

Until recently, the United States and China, the world’s two largest greenhouse gas polluters, have been at the center of the impasse over a climate deal.

Until this year, the United States had never arrived at the United Nations’ annual climate negotiations with a domestic policy to cut its own carbon emissions. Instead, it merely demanded that other nations cut their use of coal and gasoline, while promising that it would do so in the future.

China, meanwhile, was the lead voice among nations demanding that developing economies should not be required to commit to any cuts.

But in November, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced plans to reduce emissions, helping inject new life into the global climate talks.

Negotiators here call the joint announcement between China and the United States the catalyst for the new draft, which, if approved at the climate summit meeting this week, would set the stage for a final deal to be signed by world leaders next year in Paris.

In the United Nations’ first effort to enact a climate change treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the legally binding language of the agreement prescribed that the world’s largest economies make ambitious, specific emissions cuts — but it exempted developing nations. The United States Senate refused to ratify the treaty, effectively leaving it a failure.

The Lima draft does not include Kyoto-style, top-down mandates that countries cut emissions by specific levels. Instead, it includes provisions requiring that all nations, rich and poor, commit to policies to mitigate their emissions. Countries that sign on to the deal will commit to announcing, by March, detailed, hard-numbers plans laying out how they will cut emissions after 2020.

The draft that emerges this week “will look like a game of Mad Libs,” said one negotiator who was not authorized to speak publicly. Over the coming months, as countries put forth their emissions reduction pledges, the details of the final deal will be filled in.

It is expected that many countries will miss that March deadline. Officials from India and other countries have said that they are unlikely to present a plan before June.

In order to ensure that all countries are included in the deal, late announcers will get a pass. The point, United Nations officials say, is to ensure that the information exists to finalize a Paris deal by December 2015.

Negotiators concede that the “each according to their abilities” approach is less than perfect — but that it represents what is achievable.

“The reality of it is that nobody was able to come up with a different way of going about it that would actually get countries to participate and be in the agreement,” said Todd D. Stern, the lead American climate change negotiator. “You could write a paper, in theory, assigning a certain amount of emissions cuts to every country. That would get the reduction you need. But you wouldn’t get an agreement. We live in the real world. It’s not going to be perfect.”

And there are still many hurdles ahead.

While many major developing economies are now expected to follow China’s lead in preparing emissions plans, some countries remain wild cards. This year, the government of Australia repealed a landmark climate change law that taxed carbon pollution. Since then, its emissions have soared.

“Australia is left without any viable policy to cut emissions,” said Senator Christine Milne, the leader of the Australian opposition Green Party. “It’s going to drag its heels.”

Money, as always, is a sticking point.

The increasing likelihood that the planet’s atmosphere will warm past the 3.6 degree threshold, with or without a deal in Paris, is driving demands by vulnerable nations — particularly island states and African countries — that the industrialized world open up its wallet to pay for the damage incurred by its fossil fuel consumption. Under the terms of a 2009 climate change accord reached in Copenhagen, rich countries have agreed to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to the ravages of climate change. But a report this month by the United Nations Environmental Program estimates that the cost to poor countries of adapting to climate change could rise to as high as $300 billion annually — and vulnerable countries are stepping up their demands that more money be included in any final deal. Many vulnerable and developing countries insist that each country’s national pledge include not just a plan to cut emissions, but also money for adaptation.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

“The financing question will be one of the deepest divides,” said Jennifer Morgan, an expert in climate change negotiations with the World Resources Institute, a research organization.

Another element to be hashed out by negotiators will be devising an international number-crunching system to monitor, verify and compare countries’ pledged emissions cuts.

China has always balked at any outside monitoring of its major economic sectors, and is pushing back on proposals for rigorous outside scrutiny.

Hong Lei, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that his country “always supports increasing transparency” but that the new reporting system should reflect “the reality that developing countries’ basic capacities in areas like national statistics and assessment are still insufficient.” He added that “developed countries should provide appropriate support to developing countries.”

The United States has urged that a final deal not take the form of a legally binding treaty requiring Senate ratification, hoping to avoid a repeat of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol experience.

But many countries continue to press for a legally binding deal.

French officials have already given the yet-to-be-signed deal a working title: the “Paris Alliance.”

The name, they say, is meant to signify that many different economies are working together, rather than complying with a single, top-down mandate.

————————————————-

Edward Wong contributed reporting from Beijing.

Related Coverage:
Smog obscures the skyline in Shenyang, Liaoning Province. Populist anger over toxic smog has convinced some Chinese leaders that industrial coal consumption must be curbed.
At Climate Meeting, China Balks at Verifying Cuts in Carbon EmissionsDEC. 9, 2014
Burning debris from Typhoon Hagupit in the Philippines. At a United Nations summit meeting, officials from the nation, which scientists say is among the most vulnerable to climate change, are pressing every nation to reduce their use of fossil fuels.
Philippines Pushes Developing Countries to Cut Their Emissions DEC. 8, 2014
Investors Recruited to Restore Farmland in Latin AmericaDEC. 7, 2014
World Briefing: Secretary General Expresses Optimism About Climate MeetingDEC. 4, 2014
A child walking near her home with a coal-fired power plant in the background in Beijing, China.
Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate TalksNOV. 30, 2014
Global Warming Concerns GrowSEPT. 22, 2014

————————————————–
A version of this article appears in print on December 10, 2014, on page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: With Compromises, a Global Accord to Fight Climate Change Is in Sight.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 9th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

The IASS Event at the Lima, Peru, COP of the UNFCCC on “Renewable Resources in an era of climate change”.

A discussion on the opportunities and challenges of renewable resources for energy and industrial purposes for climate change mitigation.

Suzana Kahn Ribeiro (Secretary of State for Climate Change Secretariat of Brazil), Amit Kumar (Director, Energy, Environment Technology Development Division, The Energy and Resources Institute), Youba Sokona (Special Advisor on Sustainable Development, The South Centre) and Lili Fuhr (Heinrich Böll Foundation) will kick off the debate.

With the participation of Valerie Kapos (Head of Programme, Climate Change & Biodiversity, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre) and Elizabeth Press (Deputy Director, Innovation and Technology Centre, International Renewable Energy Agency) who will provide further insights into the debate.

The event will take place on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 from 2 to 5:30 pm at the Hotel Casa Andina Private Collection Miraflores, Av. La Paz 463, Miraflores, Lima. The programme will be followed by a reception.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 5th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Columbia University, Center for Climate Change Law
Lima Report: Thursday, December 4, 2014 & Friday, December 5, 2014

Posted on December 5th, 2014 by Jennifer Klein
 blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatecha…

Jennifer M. Klein, Esq., Associate Director & Fellow
Meredith Wilensky, Esq., 2013-2014 Associate Director & Fellow

During the past two days, negotiators have continued to work their way through draft text. When observing negotiations, it quickly becomes clear that the COP has its own distinct vernacular, with commonplace terms taking on new meaning. Here, we define a few of the most prevalent terms demonstrating key issues underlying the negotiations.

Adequacy – This term refers to the ability of any agreement to achieve the COP’s ultimate objective to stabilize atmospheric GHG levels so as to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Parties have repeatedly noted that for the 2015 agreement to be “adequate,” countries’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions must reduce GHG emissions enough to stay within the global carbon budget. Dr. Pachauri emphasized during the opening session on Monday that, according to the IPCCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, we have already used 65% of this budget.

Ambition – This term refers to the collective will of the Parties to cut global GHG emissions enough to achieve adequacy. Throughout the Lima negotiations and side events, parties have worked to raise ambition for the 2015 agreement by highlighting the need to commit to deeper emissions cuts.

Carbon Neutral
– The goal of reaching net zero GHG emissions is referred to as “carbon neutrality.” Even though the term only refers to carbon, the concept applies to all GHGs. Most people following the climate change negotiations are familiar with the concept (the phrase was the New Oxford American Dictionary’s Word Of The Year for 2006). However, climate neutrality has become a virtual mantra at the Lima talks following the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report’s finding that we must lower emissions to near-zero by the end of this century to have a good chance of meeting the 2°C goal.

Differentiation
– In the UNFCCC, the Parties commit to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This equity-based principle acknowledges that countries’ responsibility to combat climate change differs both by their historical GHG contributions and by their current capacity to tackle climate change. In negotiations, a number of developing countries challenged the lack of differentiation in proposed texts, raising concerns that treating all Parties similarly would place undue burden on developing nations.

Political Parity
– The ADP draft decision includes this term in an attempt to express the need to balance mitigation and adaptation efforts. However, this term has not been used in any previous UNFCCC texts, and in the afternoon session yesterday, delegates repeatedly expressed confusion about its meaning. In short, a clear definition of this term is yet to be determined.

We find this specially interesting because we believe that in order to come up with a product that will be approved at the Paris Summit in 2015, the whole concept of a Diplomatic Agreement will eventually turn to be in effect an UMBRELLA agreement that incorporates unilateral and bi-lateral declarations of the UN Member States, rather then a Consensus Declaration that was unattainable during these wasted decades of conference hoping.
- See more at: blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatecha…

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 5th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

From: Lotta Tahtinen <tahtinen@un.org>
Date: Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:27 PM
Subject: Members of the Post-2015 Steering Committee (for time period between December 2014-January 2015)

Dear All,

We are pleased to inform you that the list of selected members of the Steering Committee for the 16 January post-2015 preparatory forum for major groups and other civil society stakeholders has been posted on the following website: sustainabledevelopment.un.org/maj…

This 16-member Steering Committee will collaborate on the preparations for the 16 January preparatory forum, as well as civil society engagement in the first post-2015 negotiating session (19-21 January), in accordance with the modalities yet to be determined by Member States.

Those the UN system selected have very close relations with the UN system – obviously.
They come from International Chamber of Commerce related institutions and contain the obligatory Arab interests.
By the individuals’ names they are:

The Steering Committee members are:

Name Civil Society Organization

Anne-Sophie Stevance INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE
Camilla Croso Global Campaign for Education (GCE)
Dr. Emad Adly Arab Network for Environment & Development (RAED)
Dyborn Charlie Chibonga World Farmers’ Organisation
Elina Doszhanova Social-Ecological Fund NGF
Louise Kantrow International Chamber of Commerce
Maruxa Cardama ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability
Matthew Simonds International Trade Union Confederation
Mwangi Waituru VSO Jitolee
Naiara Costa Beyond 2015
Orsolya Bartha, Dr. International Disability Alliance
Roseline Kihumba HelpAge International
Shantal Munro-Knight Caribbean Policy Development Centre
Tahere Talaina Siisiialafia Pacific Youth Council
Wael Hmiadan Climate Action Network
Wardarina APWLD/RCEM

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

The original mailing requesting those interested to put forward their names was:

From: Lotta Tahtinen/NY/UNO
To: Lotta Tahtinen/NY/UNO@UNHQ,
Date: 21/11/2014 05:59 PM
Subject: Call for applications to Post-2015 Steering Committee (for time period between December 2014-January 2015)

Dear all,

As stated in the letter circulated earlier this week by the Co-Chairs of the post-2015 development agenda process, the first negotiating session on the post-2015 development agenda will take place from 19-21 January 2015 in New York.

To support Major Groups and other civil society stakeholders to effectively engage in the post-2015 negotiations, a preparatory forum will be convened by DESA-DSD and UN-NGLS on Friday, 16 January 2015, in New York.

We are now setting up a Steering Committee to ensure broad and inclusive participation of stakeholders in this preparatory forum, as well as in the first negotiating session on the post-2015 development agenda (in accordance with the relevant modalities that are yet to be determined). Applications to the Steering Committee will be accepted between 21 – 30 November 2014.

To learn more about the Steering Committee and the Call for Applications, please see attached.

[attachment "Preparatory Forum - Steering Committee Call for Applications -21 Nov.pdf" deleted by Lotta Tahtinen/NY/UNO] [attachment "ToR steering committee_21 Nov.pdf" deleted by Lotta Tahtinen/NY/UNO]

Thank you and best regards,
Lotta Tahtinen

Lotta Tahtinen
Major Groups Programme Coordinator
Office of the Director
Division for Sustainable Development/DESA
United Nations, S-2619
E-mail:  tahtinen at un.org
Tel: +1 (917) 367-2212


Jeffery Huffines
NGO Major Group Organizing Partner
CIVICUS UN Representative (NY)
Cell: +1 646-707-1060
Email:  jeffery.huffines at civicus.org
Skype: jefferyvhuffines

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa
  Permalink | | Email This Article Email This Article
Posted in Archives, Future Events, Futurism, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 5th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


Death of an American ‘Infidel’ in Abu Dhabi

by Phyllis Chesler
Breitbart, December 4, 2014

The point of such terrorist intimidation … [is] to make life unlivable, unbearable, so that the infidel will either convert to jihadist Islamism or leave Muslim lands.

Ibolya Ryan, an American schoolteacher and mother of two, was stabbed to death in Abu Dhabi on December 1.

On December 1st, a figure in a black burqa, armed with an eight-inch knife, entered the upscale Boutik shopping mall located in Reem Island, the neighborhood where most of Abu Dhabi’s 40,000 expatriates live.

The black burqa’ed figure waited for more than an hour in a woman’s toilet—then stabbed the first white blonde infidel American woman who came in to use the facilities six times until she was dead. Then, with the possible help of two other women, the mysterious black burqa’ed figure either smoothly and calmly walked away, or did so in a frenzied fashion (there are conflicting eye witness reports about this). In any event, the killer entered an elevator and disappeared.

The victim’s name was Ibolya Ryan. She was a Hungarian-born and Romanian-raised kindergarten teacher and the divorced mother of two 11 year-old twin boys, Adam and Aiden. Her former husband lives in Colorado. Ryan had described herself in an online profile for a teacher-recruiting company as “Romanian born” and someone who has worked “in four countries over the last 15 years.” Ryan wanted to “experience the Arab world…their culture and daily life.”

Tragically, she has done just that. At a time of fierce Islamic fundamentalist jihad, Ibolya, a civilian, may have been targeted by jihadists. In the wake of an anonymous posting on a jihadist site that encouraged attacks on American teachers in the Middle East, the U.S. embassy in Abu Dhabi, UAE posted an October 29 security warning for U.S. citizens, especially “teachers at international schools.” This included the following:

Avoid crowds or large gatherings when traveling in public; Identify safe areas (for example police stations, hospitals) in your area and how to get to them quickly; Tell co-workers or neighbors where you are going and when you intend to return; Minimize your profile while in public; Always carry a cellphone…; Be prepared to postpone or cancel activities for personal safety concerns.

In other words: Live vigilantly, live fearfully, live indoors as much as possible and have as little contact with strangers, especially with Arab Muslim strangers, as possible.

This is no way to live. But that is the point of such terrorist intimidation– namely, to make life unlivable, unbearable, so that the infidel will either convert to jihadist Islamism or leave Muslim lands.

On the other hand, the UAE is a strong ally of the United States. Every state in the United States exports to the UAE and more than 1000 American firms have an on-the-ground presence. Strategic American and UAE alliances exist in terms of oil, medical, and military equipment and personnel—but most important, perhaps, is the fact that the UAE “was the first country to support the United States at the advent of Desert Storm; the only Arab country to participate with the US in five coalition actions over the last 20 years: Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Bosnia-Kosovo, and the First Gulf War.”

More importantly, the UAE supports and enforces UN sanctions to contain Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities and, since mid-September of this year, “the UAE has flown dozens of missions against ISIL targets.”

The murder of Ibolya Ryan might also have been a targeted message to the governments of both the UAE and the United States, one that hoped to destroy their relationship in terms of the ongoing joint fight against the most barbaric forms of Islamic fundamentalism.

Jihadists wish to intimidate Americans abroad in Muslim countries so that they move back to America. But jihadists also wish to punish any individual Muslim or Muslim country for daring to work with infidels against Islamic fundamentalists. How this intimidation is handled, both by individuals and by governments, is bound to affect the course of the war between civilization and barbarism.

Phyllis Chesler, an emerita professor of psychology and women’s studies and the author of fifteen books, is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 4th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


On Friday, November 21, 2014 the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in New York hosted a Seminar on “Climate Change: Impacts and Prospects for Blue Economy” with the participation of the Permanent Mission of Solomon Islands to the United Nations, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Palau to the United Nations and the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS).

The event took place at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in New York
1 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017 (between Madison & 5th Avenues)

The Event was covered by Ms. Irith Jawetz who sent in the following report:

Mr. Alex Fan, Deputy Director-General, Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in New York welcomed the participants in his opening remarks. The office has the Taipei name rather then Taiwan in order to irritate less the New York China delegation. We find this ridiculous considering the amount of work Taiwan does in order to support the UN.


The Introduction of Keynote Speakers was the lot of Dr. Alistair Edgar, Executive Director Academic Council on the UN
System (ACUNS).

The first speaker was Ms. Lisa Speer, Director, International Oceans Program, Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) on “Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem”. According to her bio, her expertise is in the area of management and conservation of bio diversity, fisheries, and ecosystems of the high seas and the Arctic marine environment.

Ms. Speer served on the National Academy of Sciences’(NAS) Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology from 2001 to 2007 and has also served on NAS Committees on the Arctic and marine environmental monitoring. She has served on U.S. delegations to many high seas fisheries negotiations and testified before Congress and the United Nations on a variety of high seas and Arctic management topics. She received her master’s degree from Yale University and her bachelor’s degree from Mount Holyoke College.

Her expertise is on Marine bio diversity, high seas conservation, marine fisheries, arctic marine conservation.
Ms. Speer stressed in her talk how Ocean Acidification is the evil twin of Climate Change, they have a common cause but different impact on the environment. Ocean Acidification impacts species in the oean as it reduces calcification, reduces respiratory efficiency, impairs sensory ability and enhances photosynthesis. The most sensitive species are mollusks, corals and shellfish.
What needs to be done? Reduce over fishing, reduce pollution, reduce CO2 levels, protect bio diversity, create large parks and create large marine protected area.

The second speaker was Dr. Kwang-Tsao Shao, Research Fellow and Executive Officer, Biodiversity Research Center, Academia Sinica, Republic of China (Taiwan). The title of his presentation was: “
“Taiwan’s Adaptation Strategy to the Impact of Climate Change on Its Marine Ecology”
Dr. Shao has a extensive resume.

He is Senior Research Fellow & the Executive Officer of Systematics and Biodiversity Information Division, Biodiversity Research Center,Academia Sinica (BRCAS) since 2008 and adjunct Professorat Institute of Marine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University (IMB?NTOU) since 2003. He received his B.S. from Department of Zoology, National Taiwan University (NTU) in 1972 and a M.S. from Institute of Oceanography,NTU in 1976, and Ph.D. from Department of Ecology andEvolution, SUNY at Stony Brook in 1983. After graduation,he returned to Academia Sinica Associate Research Fellow and then promoted to Research Fellow in 1988.From 1991 to 1994, Dr. Shao was the 1st Director of Institute of Marine Biology, NationalTaiwan Ocean University. Between 1996 and 2002, he served as the Director of Institute ofZoology, Academia Sinica; and in 2004, he established the BRCAS and served as the ActingDirector from 2004 to 2008. He devoted himself to fish taxonomy, ecology and evolutionstudies since 1978. So far, he has published hundreds of papers, technical reports, books andencyclopedia on fishes and marine ecology. He also described more than 40 new species and1000 new records of Taiwanese fishes. He organized the 7th Indo?Pacific Fish Conference in2005 and the 2nd International Barcode of Life Conference in 2007. In addition, he coordinated many team projects such as the 1st LOICZ project at Chi?Ku lagoon, and the 1st]marine LTER in Kenting coral reefs etc.

Besides his research effort, Dr. Shao is dedicated to the work of many academic services and public awareness for marine conservation and sustainable fisheries in this country. Hewas elected the Presidents of Biological Society of China, Taiwan Ichthyological Society,Taiwan Cetacean Society, etc. In the area of international collaboration, Dr. Shao has for many years been the Executive Secretary of National Committee for IUBS, CODATA,DIVERSITAS and GBIF. He is now the pivotal person of the Taiwan delegation to GBIF and is incharge of the integration of biodiversity information in Taiwan which includes establishing the national portals of Catalog of Life in Taiwan (TaiCOL), Cryobanking and Barcode of Life in Taiwan (TaiBOL), Encyclopedia of Life in Taiwan (TaiEOL), Taiwan Biodiversity Information Facility (TaiBIF), and Taiwan Fish Database. Currently, he is the member of NationalSustainability Committee, Executive Yuan.

Dr. Shao said that the major impacts of climate change on the marine ecosystem include ocean acidification, rising water temperatures, rising sea level, more severe typhoons and changing ocean currents, and stressed that Taiwan has in effect a newly “Executive Yuan Biodiversity Promotion Plan” for marine ecosystem to reduce Climate Change. The measures which are being taken are promoting Eco Tourism, conducting Marine Conservation Education programs, passing Environmental Education laws. which means that even Government officials and the the President himself, are required to take a course on the Environment, Beach cleaning by groups of citizens, involving the many NGOs active in Taiwan, suspension of large scale coastal development programs, forbidding building large Resort hotels near the shorelines, high penalty for illegal discharge of polluted waters, etc. In taking all those actions., Taiwan can become healthier and have a better resilience to resist the impact of Climate Change.

After a short coffee break the program went on with a panel discussion.
The Moderator was Dr. Alistair Edgar, Executive Director, ACUNS and the panelists were:

H.E. Ambassador Collin Beck,
Permanent Representative of Solomon Islands to the United Nations

H.E. Ambassador Caleb Otto,
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Palau to the United Nations

Ms. Irene Boland Nielson,
Climate Change Coordinator, Clean Air and Sustainability Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 2

Mr. Douglas Pabst,
Chief, Dredging, Sediments, and Oceans Section and Sandy Recovery Green Team, Clean Water Division, USEPA Region 2.

Ambassador Collin Beck, Mission of Solomon Islands to the UN stressed the problems of Climate Change especially for the small islands. The role of the 2015 Development Agenda on combating Climate Change will be important in keeping the plant blue. The rising of the sea levels are a major threat his region and now is our chance to fix it. He said that if Climate Change was a bank it would have been bailed out long time ago.

Ambassador BecK also mentioned a few programs for Post 2015 Developing agenda such as negotiations to start next year, the UN Secretary General’s Synthesis Report due December 2014, Financing for Development meeting, July 2015 in Ethiopua, the Climate Change agrement to be adopted in 2015. However, even those programs, in his opinion, are moving too slow.

Ambassador Dr. Caleb Otto, Mission of the Republic of Palau to the UN started to say that the only hope for a solution would be going from a healthy ocean ro a healthy nation. At the 1995 Yanuca Declaration in Fiji the vision for a healthy nation was put forward in a few points:

1) Children are nourished by body, mind and soul;

2) Environment to lead to leisure;

3) People should work and age with disgrace:

4) Ecology can balance pride:

5) Ocean have to be protected and sustained.

The threat to the oceans affects all of us and so do the health benefits by preserving the oceans, i.e.

1) Life sustance – oceans supplies 1/2 of thw CO2 needed for breezing:

20 Oceans give us food security

43) Oceans boost the economy

4) Oceans are important for the pharmaceutical companies: and last but not leat – oceans provide us with “Learning & leisure”.

We have to take ownership of our ocean space by inspiring leadership and collaboration and The Republic of Palau is very acitve if its efforts to save ocean health. Palau is a vital particiant of UNFCC, it has established shark sanctuary, Marine ancruary and other programs.

Ms.Irene Boland Nielsen, Claimate Change Coordinator, Clean Air and Sustainability Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 was the next speaker.

Irene Nielson is the Climate Change Coordinator for the New York City office of the Environmental Protection Agency. She joined EPA as a Presidential Management Fellow and has worked on a range of projects, including the Agency’s Strategic Plan, a memorandum of agreement with Department of Defense for a sustainable Guam, and more recently, on climate change. In 2007, Irene published a children’s book, Wind the World Over, about the history of wind power in China, Persia, Europe and the U.S. Currently, she co-chairs the EPA Region 2 Climate Change Workgroup and works to promote sustainability in communities. Irene is an Assistant Adjunct Lecturer at Columbia University, and weekend cyclist where she lives in Brooklyn. – See more at: ioby.org/about/people/irene-niels….

She described the close cooperation between the United States and Taiwan on Climate Change. EPA works with Taiwan’s environmental leaders for the last 20 years. There are a few programs which established the US Taiwan Sustainable School Green Flag. Jian is one elementary school which has a Student Government dedicated to the environment.

She then went on to outline some of President Obama’s plans on US Climate Change, and among others mentioned Reduce carbon pollution in Power plants, cutting energy in homes and businesses and reducing mthane use.

For more of the EPA’s plan on Climate Change please check out www.epa.gov/climatechange/

For the President’s plan on combating Climate Change pleae check  www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

The last speaker was Mr. Douglas Pabst, Chief, Dredging, Sediments, and Oceans Section and Sandy Recovery Green Team, Clean Water Division, USEPA Region 2.

He mentioned thar the National Ocean policy Implementation Plan 2010 released on April 13, 2014 encourages regions to identify and address ocean priorities, utilize coastal and marine special planning. This has to b a global cooperation, we have to work together sine there are no winners or losers in that “game”. Ecosystem based management should be done rather than managing individual species and the interaction between Government, EPA, and NOAA are essential.

The Seminar highlghted the many problems facing the oceans and especially the islands which are affected by the oceans, the conclusion was the some progress has been done, but to quote Ambassador Collin Beck, the pace is much too slow.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on December 4th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


SECRETARY-GENERAL APPOINTS CRISTINA GALLACH OF SPAIN UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced today the appointment of Cristina Gallach of Spain as Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information. She succeeds Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal of Austria to whom the Secretary-General is grateful for his commitment and dedicated service to the Organization.

Ms. Gallach brings to the position a wealth of experience in communication, information, public diplomacy, international affairs and security policy, combined with transformational leadership and hands-on management expertise. She is also an experienced newspaper, radio and television journalist.

Ms. Gallach is currently Head of the Public Relations Unit in the Council of the European Union, Directorate General for Information and Communication, Brussels since July 2010. Prior to that appointment, she was Spokesperson of the Spanish Government for the European Union rotating Presidency (2010), Spokesperson and Chief Media Advisor of the European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Brussels (1999-2009) and Deputy Spokesperson of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Chief Media advisor for the Secretary General, Brussels (1996-1999). She spent over 15 years as a journalist, during which time she held the positions of Senior Correspondent of the Spanish News Agency (EFE) in Brussels (1993-1996) and in Moscow (1990-1992), Correspondent with El Periodico, Barcelona (1986-1990), US Correspondent for Avui (1984-1986) and Reporter with TVE Barcelona (1983-1984).

Ms. Gallach holds a Masters degree in International Affairs from Columbia University, New York and a degree in Communication and Journalism from the Universidad Autonoma, Barcelona.

Born in 1960 in Barcelona, she is married with two children.

New York, 4 December 2014

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 25th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

FROM THE WORLD FUTURE COUNCIL
November 25, 2014

Dr. Auma Obama joins World Future Council.

Auma Obama was warmly welcomed by WFC board members Alexandra Wandel and Stefan Keinert and WFC Director of Climate and Energy Stefan Schurig.

Hamburg, 25 November 2014 – Dr. Auma Obama has been appointed Councillor of the World Future Council. The organisation works with decision-makers worldwide to implement policy solutions that secure the rights of future generations. At an official meeting with WFC board members Alexandra Wandel and Stefan Keinert, the older sister of US president Barack Obama signed the acceptance statement, declaring “I am honoured to become a part of your organisation. I cannot wait to meet my fellow Council members and to support the work on the rights of women and children, particularly in Africa.”

Auma joins the ranks of Councillors from a vast variety of countries and backgrounds, including Dr. Frances Moore Lappé, Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE and Dr. David Krieger.

Jakob von Uexkull, founder of the World Future Council and the Alternative Nobel Prize, is thrilled to welcome the Kenyan literary and social scientist to the organisation. “Although the World Future Council was only established eight years ago and has always operated on a relatively small budget, we have been able to achieve a lot. With our support, several countries have introduced policies and laws that protect the environment and secure more equitable societies. Our unique approach and achievements so far convinced Dr. Auma Obama to join our efforts to make the world a better place, despite her many other commitments.”

Born and raised in Kenya, Auma Obama completed her doctorate at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. She is the initiator and CEO of the Sauti Kuu Foundation, which works to self-empower children and adolescents from underprivileged backgrounds in Kenya. A world sought-after speaker on sustainability issues, Auma Obama is also a board member of the Jacobs Foundation, which funds research and development programmes in the field of child and youth development.

—————————————-
World Future Council: The World Future Council brings the interests of future generations to the centre of policy-making. Its 50 eminent members from around the globe have already successfully promoted change. The Council addresses challenges to our common future and provides decision makers with effective policy solutions. The World Future Council is registered as a charitable foundation in Hamburg, Germany. For more information, visit www.worldfuturecouncil.org

Media contact:
World Future Council
Alexandra Schiffmann
Tel.: +49 40 30 70 914-19
 alexandra.schiffmann at worldfuturecounc…
  Permalink | | Email This Article Email This Article
Posted in Africa, Archives, Real World's News, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 21st, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

The following was reported by Ms. Irith Jawetz who took part at the Presentation the UN made accessible also to outsiders.

“United Nations’ roles on Human Rights, Peace and Security”

Dr. Ivan Simonovic is UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights. On Tuesday, November 18th, 2014, he made at the UN an informative presentation on the subject: “United Nations’ Role on Human Rights, Peace and Security”


Mr. Ivan Simonovic assumed his functions as Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights on 17 July 2010 – head of the New York Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) upon a UNSG Ban Ki-moon appointment of May 3, 2014.

A Croatian Diplomat, he was born May 2, 1959 in Zagreb. He is politician and law scholar. In October 2008 he was appointed Justice Minister of Croatia.

Dr. Šimonovic graduated from the University of Zagreb Law School in 1982. He got his doctoral degree in 1990, at the age of 31. Šimonovic joined Croatian diplomacy after the break-up of Yugoslavia. He was an assistant to Foreign Minister Mate Granic during the 1990s, although he never joined the ruling party, the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ).

In 1997, Croatian President Franjo Tujman named him ambassador to the United Nations. Šimonovic served there until 2002. While serving there, Šimonovic presided over the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

In 2002 he became Deputy Foreign Minister in Ivica Rajan government. Again, he didn’t join the ruling party,SDP. However, when HDZ swung back to power in 2003, Šimonovic was not offered a job in the new government.

In 2004, Šimonovic switched to academia and became professor at the University of Zagreb Law School, where he teaches general theory of law and state and international relations.

Dr. Šimonovic was appointed Minister of Justice-designate of Croatia by PM Ivo Sanader on October 6, 2008. His predecessor, Ana Lovrin, had resigned the same day following a series of unsolved assaults and murders linked to Croatian organized crime that culminated with the murder of Ivana Hodak, daughter of a prominent Croatian lawyer Zvonimir Hodak. However, Ivana Hodak was later found to have been murdered as part of a retaliation of a homeless man to Zvonimir Hodak.

In May 2010 then Šimonovic was appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights.
————————–

Turning to the November 2014 lecture at the UN – Dr. Simonovic has just returned from Iraq and is on his way to Ukraine.

He started his lecture by quoting Secretary General Kofi Annan who said: “There is no peace without development, no development without peace and neither without Human Rights”.


Development is one of the key factors for human rights, people in less developed countries are more likely to rebel and if there are conflicts at home, they affect human rights. Syria and Ukraine are the latest examples how a disastrous economy can lead to human rights violations. This situation also spills to the neighboring countries affected such as Jordan and Lebanon, who have to absorb the many refugees and support them. On the other hand, lack of human rights also affects development. Discrimination of minorities, religious groups, gender leads to no access to social services, lack of jobs, and brings upon it corruption. Some people get privileges that other do not, this brings dissatisfaction, instability and fewer developed countries are eager to invest in such a society.


Even worse than economic problems are the violation of human rights during a conflict with elements such as starvation, executions, killings and rape to name a few.
The solution is accountability not retaliation and Criminals need to be brought to Justice.
How can this be achieved?


The United Nations has 800 people posted at the UN in various capacities, including peacekeeping forces, and 500 people posted in National Headquarters as representatives and advisers. They have to report to the Secretary General and General Assembly.
The UN has also established an “Intervention Brigade” which can act fast in some situations, as it happened in South Sudan when they managed to push back the rebels. The UN has come a long way since the times when so many innocent people were killed during the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Dr. Simonovic told a personal story how he saw people being killed outside the UN compound who were not allowed to enter that compound and seek shelter. In South Sudan, years later, this policy was changed. It was an “Open Gate Policy”, people could find shelter inside the UN compound and were saved. Of course this brought with it many logistic problems such as providing food, water, sanitary equipment, etc. but it was done nevertheless.

The secretary General has approached the subject of Human Rights, Peace and Security by making sure that all security forces have to be checked through very strict background checks. Not having a criminal record is not enough anymore.

Each person that is applying for a job is not allowed to have committed even the slightest violation of Human rights on his or her records. The same applies to personnel outside the UN in the countries themselves. It would be very embarassing for a country to recommend a person and then be found out by the UN independent background check that he or she had a human rights violation on their records.

The motto of the UN is Human Rights Up Front!
Human Rights violations can be used as a first warning to Genocide and war atrocities. The task of the advisers is to detect human rights violations and bring them to the attention of the Secretary General and General Assembly immediately.

Dr. Simonovic admitted that in Sri Lanka the UN has failed – something that at the UN was known a long time ago thanks to the insistent questioning from one single investigative journalist active at the UN – Mr. Matthew Lee. The UN did not act fast enough said now Dr. Simonovic, but Mr. Lee was not satisfied with this answer – he would like to see a full investigation of this case.

Dr. Simonovic said that the UN has women on their peacekeeping forces and they are basically better mediators than men. Women are more sensitive than men, more focused healing than on revenge, he said.

In conclusion Dr. Simonovic admitted that the system is not perfect, it is much better than it was, but there is a lot still to be done. Human Rights violations should not be tolerated and the United Nations is making the utmost efforts to combat this task.

While above was being discussed at the UN, on Thursday, US President Barack Obama, in an historic move has broken the US taboo of dealing with the illegal immigration issue, by acknowledging that trying peacefully to better one’s life is a basic human right – so that the UN official might find it easier now to do the right things at the UN as well.

According to NPR news, after six years of often bitter back-and-forth with congressional Republicans over the issue of immigration, President Obama announced he has decided to go it alone by temporarily shielding up to 5 million immigrants from being deported.

In a prime-time speech to the country on Thursday, President Obama said that he would defer the deportation of the parents of children who are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, and that he also would expand that protection to more “DREAMers,” or children who entered the country illegally with their parents. Those two groups also will be allowed to work in the United States legally, after passing a background check and paying a fee.

In a very compassionate speech, President Obama said:

“scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too.

“My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too. And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal – that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 16th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

No misunderstanding please – we lost our interest in the Kyoto protocol. It was born without a serious plan – with the knowledge that the US Senate will never accept it and it gave respite to China so nobody else saw any sense in it.

Now things have changed – Presidents Obama and Xi made a reasonable first step pact and everyone can fall in line by making their own country commitments and even pouring $10 Billion into a global cash fund to be established before the year’s end.

In this spirit we see the following:

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

G20 Issue Strong Statement in Support of UN Climate Negotiations

Bonn, 16 November 2014?Japan today announced a pledge of $1.5 billion to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) ahead of next week’s pledging conference in Berlin.

The pledge, announced on the margins of the G20 Summit taking place in Brisbane, Australia, comes in the wake of a $3 billion pledge by the United States.

Total pledges to date for the GCF, the financial instrument designed to assist developing countries achieve their mitigation and adaptation ambitions, stand at around $7.5 billion putting the aim of $10 billion by the next UN climate convention conference in sight.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said: “I welcome the government of Japan’s pledge which has, along with other announcements over the past few days triggered a positive atmosphere around the upcoming pledging meeting in Berlin and in advance of the UN climate convention conference in Lima in a few weeks’ time”.

Ms Figueres also welcomed today’s statement by the G20 Heads of State which included a strong and supportive section on climate action.

The statement said: “We support strong and effective action to address climate change. Consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its agreed outcomes, our actions will support sustainable development, economic growth, and certainty for business and investment. We will work together to adopt successfully a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in 2015”.

“We encourage parties that are ready to communicate their intended nationally determined contributions well in advance of COP21 (by the first quarter of 2015 for those parties ready to do so). We reaffirm our support for mobilizing finance for adaptation and mitigation, such as the Green Climate Fund”, it added.

For more information, please contact:

Nick Nuttall, UNFCCC Spokesperson: +49 228 815 1400 (phone), +49 152 0168 4831 (mobile) nnuttall(at)unfccc.int
John Hay, Communications Officer: +49 228 815 1404 (phone), +49 172 258 6944 (mobile) jhay(at)unfccc.int

Yes, UNFCCC feels compelled to mention still the Kyoto Protocol it helped create, but just diregard this part please – we left it out from their release.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 12th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Reprted from New York by Irith Jawetz, November 12, 2014


The United Nations Department of Public Information has opened UN doors to people interested in a panel discussion: “United Nations War Crimes Commission Records: Past, Present and Future” which took place on Tuesday, 11 November 2014,
at United Nations Headquarters, New York City.

The moderator was Ms. Edith M. LEDERER, United Nations Correspondent for the Associated Press. According to her Bio Edith M. Lederer has worked for AP on every continent except Antarctica covering wars, famines, nuclear issues and political upheavals. She was assigned full-time to the AP staff reporting the Vietnam War, and also covered the 1973 Middle East war, the war in Afghanistan, the first Gulf War, the conflict in Northern Ireland, the end of the war in Bosnia, the civil war in Somalia, and the aftermath of the genocide in Rwanda. She was also AP’s first female bureau chief overseas, based in Lima, Peru. In addition to wars, she helped cover the downfall of communism and the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the Romanian revolution.

While based in London from 1982-98, Lederer also wrote about military and international security issues and global problems ranging from population growth to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Since 1998, she has been AP’s chief correspondent at the United Nations, reporting on the diplomatic side of conflicts in Libya, Syria,Iraq, Darfur, Kosovo, Congo and Sierra Leone and major global issues from the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea to climate change, combating poverty and women’s rights.

She is the recipient of numerous awards including the International Women’s Media Foundation’s Lifetime Achievement Award and is a co-author of “War Torn,” a book by nine women who covered the Vietnam War.

Opening remarks were given by:

Ms. Hua JIANG, Officer-in-Charge, Department of Public Information
H.E. Mr. Asoke Kumar MUKERJI, Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations

Both discussed the background and the importance of the event by saying that the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC) was operational between 1943 and 1948 and played a vital role in preparing the ground for the war crimes trials that followed the Second World War. The evidence was submitted by 17 member nations for evaluation so that war criminals could be arrested and prosecuted. The archive also contains records of trials carried out in various Member States and presented to the Commission, including national military tribunals and the Military Tribunal of the Far East (Tokyo Trials).

I would like to note that 1943 – the start of UNWCC preempts by two years the UN Charter and that the 17 member States of the original commission obviously all belonged to the circle of winners in WWII. Today, with the more general make upof the UN, when rogue Nations continue to be part of the UN, efficiency as described above has lost its edge.

The panelists included:

Mr. Adama DIENG, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide
Ms. Bridget SISK, Chief, United Nations Archives and Records Management Section
Mr. Patrick J. TREANOR, Former member of the Office of Special Investigations, the United States Department of Justice
Mr. Dan PLESCH, Director, The Center for Diplomatic Studies and Diplomacy, SOAS, University of London
Mr. Henry MAYER, Senior Adviser on Archives, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The panel brought up the content of these archival documents, their impact on the development of international law and the International Criminal Court, as well as their potential use by and value to students and academics. A full copy of the records of the Commission was provided to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in July of this year; they were not freely open to the public earlier. The event at the UN, was organized by The Holocaust Museum and the United Nations Outreach Program.

Mr. Dieng kept stressing the importance of the Commission as a lesson to future generations dealing with war crimes. He said time and again “Enough is Enough”, criminals must be brought to Justice. We have to learn from the past in order to better our future. Failure to hold war criminals accountable for their acts will ultimately bring down Society.

Mr. Treanor was investigating mainly Nazi war criminals while working for the US Department of Justice, and was involved in the case of former Secretary General of the UN Kurt Waldheim. He worked on dozens of cases but admitted that many war crimes were committed by local people and because of lack of information on those people it was not possible to bring them to Justice. Even in the Nazi German records names of officers who committed crimes were not fully revealed, sometimes only first name, no date of birth provided, which made the task very difficult, almost impossible.

Mr. Mayer, who is Senior Advisor of Archives at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC was grateful that the information is now available to the public at the Museum. He said that descendents of Holocaust victims will be able to access those documents. He said that not only Jews were persecuted during the Holocaust, there were many other groups such as gays, handicapped, political, and even Esperanto scholars. The last was acknowledged by a representative of an Esperanto organization in the audience who thanked Mr. Mayer for finally acknowledging this fact.

To summarize, the debate was mostly about the past, about events which happened more than 70 years ago. It is unclear and the question was asked, why those archives, which were established as early as 1943, while the UN itself officially dates to 1945, were closed to the public until this year. Mr. Meyer answered it is probably due to “beurocratic enertia”.

The meeting was about the Holocaust but during the Q & A session the attention moved to today’s ongoing war crimes. Most remarks were about war crimes committed nowadays in Darfur, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and many other countries. Since many countries do not allow outside observers, it is very difficult to collect the necessary information but Mr. Treanor and Mr. Dieng both admitted that it is possible. It is not easy, but there are ways to get information and Mr. Dieng stressed again that criminals must be brought to justice.

Mr. Mathew Lee from Inner City Press asked about crimes committed in Sri Lanka. He has been working on that subject for a long time now. He mentioned that the UN did not rate yet a true WCC for Sri Lanka and that there was a political cover up for those crimes and no real UN investigation. He could not get a substantial answer to his question from the panel.

This leads to a call for the need to have WCCs outside the UN as obviously the original Holocaust collecting information was done by 17 countries of allies fighting NAZI Germany while today’s UN is an amalgam that includes too many countries who are not interested in pursuing that subject.

For more information on the Holocaust and the United Nations Outreach Program that pursues this topic, please visit www.un.org or email  holocaustremembrance at un.org but most important – please also view internet info that does not come from UN sources alone in light of diminished freedoms that come with the larger membership that more then tripled since 1945.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 7th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


“Ending Impunity: Upholding the Rule of Law”
By Irith Jawetz – reporting from a meeting held at the UN and open to outsiders (This in itself being an improvement of UN openess and transparency.

Monday, 3 November 2014 – at the ECOSOC Chamber, United Nations Headquarters, New York – The Permanent Missions to the United Nations, of Argentina, Austria, Costa Rica, France, Greece and Tunisia and UNESCO, hosted a High-Level and Interactive Panel Discussion on the subject: “Ending Impunity: Upholding the Rule of Law.”

This event was aimed at the occasion of the 1st International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists. It is in recognition of such far-reaching consequences of impunity, especially of crimes against journalists, that the UN has declared November 2 as the International Day to End Impunity for crimes against journalists (IDEI). This is a major opportunity at the UN to intensify action by international organizations, governments and media to give heightened attention to strengthening the safety of journalists, and to voice the need to bring their killers to justice.



The main theme, stressed throughout the event, was that the rule of law is fundamental to the stability and smooth functioning of society and people will have confidence in the democratic process only if the rule of law is respected.

UNESCO has been commissioned by the UN General Assembly through Resolution A/RES/68/163 to coordinate the UN Plan of Action on the safety of journalists and the issue of impunity, as well as to facilitate the implementation of this new International Day in collaboration with governments.

UNESCO is also convening the 3rd UN Inter-Agency Meeting on the Safety of journalists and The Issue of Impunity on November 4 2014 in Strasbourg, France, and a Seminar and Inter-Regional Dialogue on the Protection of Journalists is being co-organized by UNESCO, the Council of Europe, and the Centre for Freedom of the Media, and the European Lawyers’ Union on November 3, 2014 at the European Courts of Human Rights.

The event was chaired by Mr. George Papagiannis, External Relations & Information officer at the New York Liaison office of UNESCO.

The Panelists were:

Ambassador Michel Spinellis, Permanent Representative of Greece to the United Nations.

Mr Getachew Engida, Deputy Director-General of UNESCO.

Mr Joel Simon, Executive Director, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Dr Agnes Callamard, Director, Global Freedom of Expression & Information, Special Adviser to the President,
Columbia University

Ms Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, Foreign Correspondent, Al-Arabiya News Channel and MBC TV, also on the Board of Directors, International Women’s Media Foundation.


Mr. Papagiannis opened the discussion by mentioning how important this subject is considering that in 2014 alone 41 journalists were killed while doing their job. Secretary General Ban Ki moon, who is at present in Vienna, gave a short address via video stressing the fact that journalists must be protected at all costs and those who commit crimes against them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The panelists were basically in agreement that drastic measure must be taken to safeguard the lives of journalists. The UN must have a plan of action and coordinate it with the respective Governments. Addressing impunity for the killings of journalists is directly related to the Sustainable Development Goal proposals made by the UN Open Working Group, and especially the proposed Goal 16: “Promise peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build affective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”.

The most passionate addresses came from Mr. Joel Simon, Executive Director, Committee to protect Journalists (CPJ) and Ms. Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, Foreign correspondent, Al-Arabiya News Channel and MBCTV.

Mr. Simon stressed the need to bring to Justice the people responsible for killing, abusing, and torturing journalists. 90% of those criminals get away with it. If they would be brought to justice, the crimes may decline.Countries as well as organizations must be held accountable.

Ms. Bilbassy-Charters, who is also on the Board of Directors of International Women’s Media Foundation, addressed the issue from a personal point of view, as a foreign journalist who just got back from the Turkish-Syrian border, and who knows many journalists who were killed or were, or are still, in captivity. She said the journalists most affected are the local ones, and the freelance journalists who do not have a backing organization behind them. Most of the crimes against journalists now are happening in the Middle East. Before the Arab Spring the main problem was lack of freedom of speech in those countries. The so called Arab Spring made matters worse instead of better. Journalists, especially in Syria, are in danger, and 88% of them are local journalists who do not have any protection.

The consensus among the panelists, and the representatives of the countries supporting this event, was that drastic measures have to be taken to safeguard the journalists. They are not only bearers of news to the Public, they are fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, husband and wives, human beings who are just trying to do their job.

Ms. Bilbassi-Charters concluded with a saying from her favorite US President Thomas Jefferson: “Democracy is about informed choices”. Informed choices could only reach the people if the journalists have freedom of speech and are not subjected to impunity.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 2nd, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

U.N. Panel Warns of Dire Effects From Lack of Action Over Global Warming

By JUSTIN GILLIS, for the New York Times – November 2, 2014.

COPENHAGEN — The gathering risks of climate change are so profound they could stall or even reverse generations of progress against poverty and hunger if greenhouse gas emissions continue at a runaway pace, according to a major new United Nations report.

Despite rising efforts in many countries to tackle the problem, the overall global situation is growing more acute as developing countries join the West in burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said here on Sunday.

Failure to reduce emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, the mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year.
Continue reading the main story


“Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems,” the report declared.

In the starkest language it has ever used, the expert panel made clear how far society remains from having any serious policy to limit global warming.

Doing so would require finding a way to leave the vast majority of the world’s reserves of fossil fuels in the ground, or, alternatively, developing methods to capture and bury the emissions resulting from their use, the group said.

If governments are to meet their own stated goal of limiting the warming of the planet to no more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, above the pre-industrial level, they must restrict emissions from additional fossil-fuel burning to about 1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, the panel said.

At current growth rates, that budget is likely to be exhausted in something like 30 years. Yet energy companies have already booked coal and petroleum reserves equal to several times that amount, and they are spending some $600 billion a year to find more. Utilities and oil companies are still building coal-fired power plants and refineries, and governments are spending another $600 billion directly subsidizing the consumption of fossil fuels. Also, there has been no sign that national leaders are willing to discuss allocating the trillion-ton emissions budget among countries, an approach that would raise political and moral questions of fairness. On the contrary: They are moving toward a relatively weak agreement that would essentially let each country decide for itself how much effort to put into limiting global warming, and even that document would not take effect until 2020. {That is how the NYT evaluates the IPCC V Report.}

“If they choose not to talk about the carbon budget, they’re choosing not to address the problem of climate change,” said Myles R. Allen, a scientist at Oxford University in Britain who helped write the new report. “They might as well not bother to turn up for these meetings.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific body appointed by the world’s governments to advise them on the causes and effects of global warming, and potential solutions. The group was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore, for its efforts to call attention to the climate crisis.

The new report is a 175-page policy synopsis of a much longer series of reports that the panel has issued over the past year, culminating a five-year effort by the body to summarize a vast archive of published climate research.

It is the fifth such report from the group since 1990, each finding greater certainty that the climate is warming and that human activities are the primary cause.

“Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea-level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report said.

A core finding of the new report is that climate change is no longer a distant, future threat, but is being felt all over the world already.

“It’s here and now,” said Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the panel, in an interview. “It’s not something in the future.”

The group cited mass die-offs of forests, including those in the American West; the melting of land ice virtually everywhere in the world; an accelerating rise of the seas that is leading to increased coastal flooding; and heat waves that have devastated crops and killed tens of thousands of people.


The report contained the group’s most explicit warning yet about the food supply, saying that climate change had already become a small drag on overall global production, and could become a far larger one if emissions continued unchecked. The reported noted that in recent years the world’s food system had shown signs of instability, with sudden price increases leading to riots and, in a few cases, the collapse of governments.

A related finding is that climate change poses serious risks to basic human progress in areas such as alleviating poverty. Under the worst-case scenarios, factors like high food prices and intensified weather disasters would most likely leave poor people worse off. In fact, the report said, that has already happened to a degree.

In Washington, the Obama administration welcomed the new report, with the president’s science adviser, John P. Holdren, calling it “yet another wake-up call to the global community that we must act together swiftly and aggressively in order to stem climate change and avoid its worst impacts.”

The administration is pushing for new limits on emissions from American power plants, but faces stiff resistance in Congress and some states.

Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University and a principal author of the new report, said that a continuation of the political paralysis on emissions would leave society depending largely on luck.

If the level of greenhouse gases were to continue rising at a rapid pace over coming decades, severe effects could be headed off only if the climate turned out to be much less sensitive to those gases than most scientists think is likely, he said.

“We’ve seen many governments delay and delay and delay on implementing comprehensive emissions cuts,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “So the need for a lot of luck looms larger and larger. Personally, I think it’s a slim reed to lean on for the fate of the planet.”

——-

Related in Opinion: Panel’s Latest Warming Warning Misses Global Slumber Party on Energy Research November 2, 2014.

By contrast, the report found, less than $400 billion a year is being spent around the world to reduce emissions or otherwise cope with climate change. That sum is smaller than the revenue of a single American oil company, ExxonMobil.

The new report comes just a month before international delegates convene in Lima, Peru, in an effort to devise a new global treaty or other agreement to limit emissions, and it makes clear the urgency of their task.

Appearing at a news conference in Copenhagen Sunday morning to unveil the report, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, issued an urgent appeal for strong action in Lima: “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message,” Mr. Ban declared. “Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.”

——-

Further Related Coverage:
Times Topic: Global Warming & Climate Change
Greenland’­s immense ice sheet is melting as a result of climate change.
Panel’s Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to Come – MARCH 31, 2014
Gov. Rick Scott, like many in his party, sidesteps climate change by saying he is not a scientist.
Political Memo: Why Republicans Keep Telling Everyone They’re Not Scientists – October 30, 2014
Where in the United States might you find the most protection from future climate change?
Detroit, Miami, Norfolk and Seattle may weather global warming very differently.
Nature in the Balance: On a Warmer Planet, Which Cities Will Be Safest? September 22, 2014

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 24th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

A while ago I received the following e-mail:

New World Disorder
with Kofi Annan

Please join the Foreign Policy Association for an evening with H.E. Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations and Founder and Chair of the Kofi Annan Foundation, who will discuss “New World Disorder: Challenges for the UN in the 21st Century.”

Mr. Annan will be speaking as part of the Andrew Carnegie Distinguished Lecture on Conflict Prevention in Honor of David Hamburg.

When
Thursday
October 23, 2014
From 6:00pm to 8:00pm
Where
PwC
300 Madison Avenue
New York City

I answered with an e-mail to the FPA addressed to Mr. McDara King, but as the place seems to be run by inexperienced interns that do not acknowledge mail and as it turned out did not list me either I got no notice about what turned out to have been a need to change the venue because so many people showed interest in the event. The event was moved to the old building of the Bernard Baruch College and nobody bothered telling this to the 6 guards at PwC.

I report this in order to say that I missed half of UNSG Kofi Annan’s presentation – but do not want to waste time in my posting about the event because I picked up there his very recently released volume:

“WE THE PEOPLES: A UN for the 21st Century.” by KOFI ANNAN

which is a collection of material including some of his original speeches or articles and some of others he obviously considers very pertinent.

I post this as I highly recommend this volume to anyone interested in how the UN works – or does not.

I am sure I will peruse the book going to original articles that point at things happening these days that were predicted and were avoidable – but this organization of Governments, not being turned in time to be an organization of Peoples as the Charter suggested, is like a huge ship running into icebergs and hard to steer.

Kofi Annan was the seventh Secretary-General of the UN and served two terms – January 1, 1997 – December 31, 2006.

In 2001 Kofi Annan and the United Nations under his leadership were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace with the citation praising Annan’s leadership for “bringing new life to the organization.” Yes, looking at his record and his assembled material in the book it becomes obvious that even if much of what he tried he could not achieve, nevertheless, it is clear that it was not all a waste, and indeed he started to enlarge the scope of the UN by opening the door to Civil Society and by creating the Global Compact.

In the second half of his presentation above that I did hear – two innovation he promoted became clear points he prides himself with – but as he said – it is actually the R2P – THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT – that he was able to introduce to the UN – that becomes his personal achievement pride most important life achievement – that was tested in Kenya in 2008.

We believe that since the acceptance of the UN Charter in 1945, it was only the Addition of the Declaration of Human Rights, and Kofi Annan’s R2P that add up to the UN reality.

Looking at my notes from last night – I quote him “When the whole World has Changed You Can Not Have Static Institutions.”
This in regard to the need to give recognition to the importance of Latin America (Brazil), India, Africa (South Africa or Nigeria – and if they cannot agree – the unpretentious Gambia). They ought to get seats at the Security Council, The World Bank and The IMF.

He said that Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that you cannot have military solutions anymore.

President Eisenhower already told us not to lose sight of the UN as a means to achieve peace.

Dealing with Climate Change is absolutely essential for the future of mankind. Who could have predicted this i San Francisco in 1995, he said? No society can survive either without Sustainable Development and Human Rights. On the economy he said this is a story of subsidies – like in the case of gas (he meant gasoline and I assume diesel just the same) – these are subsidies for the middle class and the rich. This is not good for the environment, he said.

To a question about borders he answered by mentioning Syria and Somalia.

In the book, under the title NOT JUST A REGIONAL CONFLICT, I discovered that Kofi Annan’s last Address to the Security Council was about the Middle East and the Arab World and it looks like it was then a prediction of things to come.

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

###