Olympics Should Be About the Athletes.
Say Something  2/28/2010 – By Kevin Blackistone

Kevin Blackistone is a national columnist for FanHouse – an aol blog.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — In spring, the Olympic Village that was a temporary home to athletes will begin undergoing a conversion into an affordable housing community for at least 16,000 people, replete with child care centers, a school and green space.

The Olympic Oval in suburban Richmond that hosted speed skating will start to be renovated into a city recreation center, with two ice rinks, eight basketball courts, an indoor running track and an infield for more sports.

And in the tiny ski resort of Whistler, where the 2010 Olympic skiing and sliding events were held, Whistler Mayor Ken Melamed will look to follow through on his promise to erect a permanent memorial to Nodar Kumaritashvili, forever known as the Georgian luger who was killed on the eve of the opening of the Vancouver Winter Games.

Tragedy, unfortunately, will be as much a part of the legacy of the 2010 Winter Games as anything else. There can’t be any denying it, and there shouldn’t be.

What happened here to Kumaritashvili should be the starkest reminder to those who run our world’s biennial global games — Jacques Rogge and the International Olympic Committee — that it is the athlete who is the gathering’s most-precious resource and not the capital their exploits can mine.

All one had to do Sunday, as these Games closed, was witness the celebration clogging downtown Vancouver streets to realize there was no amount of money that could have produced as much happiness among Canadians as the gold-medal victory of their men’s hockey team over the United States.

The Olympic movement should not go forth to London in 2012 and Sochi in 2014 as it did in Vancouver, squashing the expression of those who’ve sacrificed so much to climb a stage so high and bright. It is time for the Games’ organizers to embrace those for whom they organize, like Vancouver did all of us who visited the past two weeks, rather than shun and shush them.

The Olympics are like any sports; most of us watch the Games to see what the athletes are going to do rather than to see what imprint on the competitions the officials are going to leave.

But the organizers of these Olympics that closed Sunday night refused to heed the warnings of the lugers, bobsledders and skeleton racers who upon finally getting a chance to train on the slide reported it was far more dangerous than it needed to be.

“It’s not the IOC pushing the boundaries,” Rogge said at a news conference before Sunday’s closing ceremony. “The boundaries are pushed mostly by the ambition of the athletes themselves, and we have at times to protect them from their own risk-taking.

VANCOUVER, BC – FEBRUARY 28: The Olympic flame burns in the cauldron during the Closing Ceremony of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics at BC Place on February 28, 2010 in Vancouver, Canada. (Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

Closing Ceremony Photos

VANCOUVER, BC – FEBRUARY 28: Flag bearers display the competing nations flags during the Closing Ceremony of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics at BC Place on February 28, 2010 in Vancouver, Canada. (Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

“We have a moral responsibility in making sure that the Games are as safe as possible. We will never be able to eliminate all risks, and athletes who are engaged in competition are taking these risks also, but they must be sure we have taken the measures to diminish the risks.”

By the time they took such steps at the slide, however, it was too late.

Rogge and his officers seemed more interested in lassoing the natural exuberance of the Games’ athletes rather than the irrational exuberance of architects who made the slide deadly instead of simply daring. For example, when Canada’s gold medal-winning women’s hockey team, which also beat its U.S. counterpart, celebrated on the ice with champagne, beer and cigars — just like men might do — Rogge’s office frowned and threatened to investigate what it perceived as tawdry behavior.

The Olympics need to get back to championing athletes rather than combating them, unless, of course, they are drug cheats. (One men’s and one women’s hockey player in Vancouver tested positive, but weren’t banned, for illegal substances found in common cold remedies. That was it on the drug front. The athletes looked to be living up to their fair-play responsibility.)

The IOC could steal one page from how to celebrate its athletes in the future from the Vancouver Organizing Committee, which, along with the family of a man now deceased named Terry Fox, created an award in Fox’s name. It was to highlight athletes who embodied Fox’s spirit. He lost a leg to cancer as a young man and set out to run across Canada in 1980 to raise funds for cancer research.

It is time for the Olympics to be returned to the athletes.

from:     sniakan at worldbank.org

date:    Thu, Feb 25, 2010
subject:    World Bank participates in the Africa Carbon Forum

Africa Carbon Forum – March 3-5, Nairobi, Kenya

The World Bank Group is pleased to support the Africa Carbon Forum taking place in Gigiri, right outside Nairobi on March 3-5. Bank staff will be participating in a number of plenary sessions as well as side events.
Furthermore, a press conference will be held on March 3, briefing media on the recently registered Humbo Assisted Natural Regeneration Project. The press conference will take place at 1pm in the UNEP Press Room (Lower Library) in Gigiri – that is the location of the UNEP headqarters near Nairobi. Transportation from downtown Nairobi will be provided.

The Humbo Assisted Natural Regeneration Project is located in Ethiopia and is Africa’s first large-scale forestry project under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It was recently registered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The project, developed by World Vision, brings both economic and social benefits to poor communities in Ethiopia as well as environmental benefits, cutting an estimated 880,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the next 30 years. The future sales of carbon credits will bring more than US$700,000 to the local communities over ten years.

At the press conference, the National Director of World Vision Ethiopia, Mrs. Tenagne Lemma, will present the project together with Ms. Ellysar Baroudy, the manager of the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund, which is purchasing a share of the carbon credits generated by this project.

For more information, please contact sniakan@worldbank.org by email.

For more information on the World Bank BioCarbon Fund, please see: http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Pa…

For more information on World Vision, please see: http://www.wvi.org/wvi/wviweb.nsf

For more information on and registration for the Africa Carbon Forum, please see their website: http://www.africacarbonforum.com/2009/en…. Registration is free.

_______________________________________________
Isabel Hagbrink
Senior Communications Officer
Carbon Finance Unit
Environment Department, The World Bank Group
1818 H Street, NW, Washington D.C. 20433

Tel : 202 458 0422 Fax : 202 522 7432
email :  ihagbrink at worldbank.org
Web : www.CarbonFinance.org (See attached file: Africa Carbon Forum Events Booklet external.pdf)

Poverty Predicts Quake Damage Better Than Richter Scale

Emily Schmall
 “It’s not as much the earthquake that kills, it’s the poverty that kills,” said Colin Stark, a geomorphologist and researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who is studying the aftermath of a 1999 earthquake in Taiwan to predict the probability of landslides in Haiti.

Sunday, Feb. 28, 2010, Kyodo News of Japan:

Six-party talks up to North: Bosworth.

U.S. special envoy to North Korea Stephen Bosworth said Saturday in Tokyo he hopes to see “fairly soon” the resumption of the stalled six-party talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear programs, but added whether that is realized depends on the North.

“Five of the six parties are prepared to move very quickly. And we would hope that the sixth, that is to say the DPRK, will also decide to move ahead very quickly,” Bosworth told reporters, referring to North Korea by its official name of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

But the U.S. point man for North Korea policy also said, “In the end, of course, the decision as to whether they are going to come back and when, it is up to the DPRK.”

While admitting that there is no agreement yet on when to resume the multilateral talks involving North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States, Bosworth said, “I hope that, in the not too distant future, but fairly soon, we will see a resumption of the talks.”

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

UN-North Korea talks hint at a peace treaty on the Korean Peninsula
Source: Global Times ,  February 21 2010
By Ronda Hauben also of www.taz.de/blogs/netizenblog

This June 25 marks the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the Korean War in 1950. Only an armistice and a temporary agreement, not a peace treaty, are in place to help prevent a renewed outbreak of hostilities.

A four-person delegation from the office of the UN Secretary-General which included B. Lynn Pascoe and Kim Won-soo recently returned to the UN after their visit to North Korea, between February 9 and 12, 2010.

This was the first delegation to establish official relations between North Korea and the UN Secretariat since Maurice Strong acted as an envoy of Kofi Annan to North Korea in 2004.

At the press conference at the UN, held on the return of the UN delegation, only minimal information was provided about the issues that North Korea raised.

In his brief presentation, Pascoe, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, mentioned some of the issues discussed, including a statement that there had been back-and-forth talks about a peace treaty.

Pascoe said, however, that he was not going to get into details. A little later in the press conference, a question was asked about what issues North Korea had brought up. Pascoe’s response included that North Korea did talk about a peace treaty and why they saw it as an important way to build trust.

Much of the press conference, focused on questions about North Korea returning to the Six-Party Talks.

A purpose of the UN secretariat trip was to convey messages from other parties of the Six-Party Talks to North Korea, and to convey the Secretary- General’s view that talks need to begin without preconditions.

At the end of WWII, Korea was artificially divided into two separate entities: the Republic of Korea in the south, or South Korea, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the north, or North Korea. This division was initially regarded as temporary. Instead, it was maintained and reinforced by various actions of the UN. Then during the Korean War, the United Nations flag and name were used.

North Korea sees the need for a peace treaty to help calm the tension that exists because currently there is only the temporary armistice agreement.

North Korea proposes that three parties to the armistice, the US (for the UN command), North Korea, and China (the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army) to negotiate for the peace treaty. It also proposes to include South Korea.

This is proposed as the means to build confidence among these four parties so as to be able to return to the Six- Party Talks with experience to make possible reaching an agreement on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The actual denuclearization will be a task that will involve both North Korea giving up its nuclear weapon capability and South Korea giving up the protection that the US offers it by including it under the US’s nuclear umbrella.

The press conference at the UN, however, didn’t discuss the issue of the peace treaty or the need to consider the denuclearization of both nations on the Korean Peninsula.

Instead, the majority of questions concerned whether North Korea would return to the Six-Party Talks.

North Korea has criticized the talks as not helpful to solving the disputes that continue to breed hostility in the region. Recent talks have focused on removing the nuclear capability of North Korea, rather than similarly considering North Korea’s claim that it needs its nuclear capability as a security measure as long as hostile actions continue by other members of the Six-Party process.

In previous talks between North Korea and the US, one of the negotiators explained the most difficult part of the negotiations was determining how to phrase the issue of the talks so that it recognized the interests of different parties to the controversy. He said that North Korea made the reasonable request that the issue be phrased in a way satisfactory to both North Korea and the US.

One would expect a similar problem will need to be solved to facilitate discussion among the parties to the Six-Party Talks, or to facilitate negotiations toward a peace treaty to end the Korean War.

After the press conference, Kim Won-soo, Deputy Chef de Cabinet of the UN, said the dispute over how to get back to negotiations could be seen as a difference over what sequencing was acceptable.

What order of actions would the parties agree to with regard to discussing a peace treaty, ending the UN sanctions, or returning to the Six-Party Talks process, could be considered an issue to be discussed, rather than phrasing the problem in terms favorable to one side or the other. This is the basis for further discussion and negotiation among North Korea and the other countries.

The UN is technically still at war with North Korea. These current developments raise the question of whether Ban Ki-moon is willing to use the good offices of his position as Secretary-General to offer what help he can to facilitate a peace treaty to end the Korean War.

Even this first step of an official visit by the four-member UN Secretariat delegation and the mere mention that the North Korea referred to the desire for a peace treaty can be seen as a step forward.

The Secretary-General is endeavoring to help solve the stalemate among the parties regarding the continuing tension on the Korean Peninsula.

————–
The author is an award-winning US journalist covering the United Nations.  netizenblog at gmail.com
 http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary…

————–

Global Times appears in English and originates from Beijing.

Contact the Global Times (GT) newspaper:
Add.  7/F Topnew Tower, 15 Guanghua Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, CHINA PC:100026
Tel.+86-10-52937565
Fax.+86-10-52937584
Email:  editor at globaltimes.com.cn

Uri Avnery

27.2.10

White Lie

THIS COMING Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Israel will consider an application by a group of Israeli citizens to compel the Interior Ministry to register them as belonging to the “Israeli nation”.

Odd? Indeed.

The Israeli Interior Ministry recognizes 126 nations, but not the Israeli nation. An Israeli citizen can be registered as belonging to the Assyrian, the Tatar or the Circassian nation. But the Israeli nation? Sorry, no such thing.
According to the official doctrine, the State of Israel cannot recognize an “Israeli” nation because it is the state of the “Jewish” nation. In other words, it belongs to the Jews of Brooklyn, Budapest and Buenos Aires, even though these consider themselves as belonging to the American, Hungarian or Argentine nations.
Messy? Indeed.

THIS MESS started 113 years ago, when the Viennese Journalist Theodor Herzl wrote his book “The State of the Jews”. (That’s the true translation. The generally used name “The Jewish State” is false and means something else.) For this purpose he had to perform an acrobatic exercise. One can say that he used a white lie.

Modern Zionism was born as a direct response to modern anti-Semitism. Not by accident, the term “Zionismus” came into being some 20 years after the term “Antisemitismus” was invented in Germany. They are twins.
In Europe and the Americas another modern term was flourishing: Nationalism. Peoples which had been living together for centuries under dynasties of Emperors and Kings wanted to belong to nation-states of their own. In Argentina, the USA, France and other countries, “national” revolutions took place. The idea infected almost all peoples, big, small and tiny, from Peru to Lithuania, from Colombia to Serbia. They felt a need to belong to the place and the people where they lived and died.

All these national movements were necessarily anti-Semitic, some more, some less, because the very existence of the Jewish Diaspora ran counter to their basic perceptions. A Diaspora without a homeland, dispersed over dozens of countries, could not be reconciled with the idea of a homeland-rooted nation seeking uniformity.
Herzl understood that the new reality was inherently dangerous for the Jews. In the beginning he cherished the idea of complete assimilation: all the Jews would be baptized and disappear in the new nations. As a professional writer for the theater, he even devised the scenario: all Viennese Jews would march together to St. Stephen’s cathedral and be baptized en masse.

When he realized that this scenario was a bit far-fetched, Herzl passed from the idea of individual assimilation to what may be called collective assimilation: if there is no place for the Jews in the new nations, then they should define themselves as a nation like all the others, rooted in a homeland of their own and living in a state of their own. This idea was called Zionism.

BUT THERE was a problem: a Jewish nation did not exist. The Jews were not a nation but a religious-ethnic community.

A nation exists on one level of human society, a religious-ethnic community on another. A “nation” is an entity living together in one country with a common political will. A “community” is a religious entity based on a common faith, which can live in different countries. A German, for example, can be Catholic or Protestant; a Catholic can be German or French.
These two types of entity have two different means of survival, much as different species in nature. When a lion is in danger, it fights, it attacks. For that purpose, nature has equipped it with teeth and claws. When a gazelle is in danger, it runs. Nature has given it quick legs. Every method is good, if it is effective. (If it were not effective, the species would not have survived to this day.)

When a nation is in danger, it stands and fights. When a religious community is in danger, it moves elsewhere. The Jews, more than any others, have perfected the art of escape. Even after the horrors of the Holocaust, the Jewish Diaspora has survived and now, two generations later, it is again flourishing.

IN ORDER to invent a Jewish nation, Herzl had to ignore this difference. He pretended that the Jewish ethnic-religious community was also a Jewish nation. In other words: contrary to all other peoples, the Jews were both a nation and a religious community; as far as Jews were concerned, the two were the same. The nation was a religion, the religion was a nation.

This was the “white lie”. There was no other way: without it, Zionism could not have come into being. The new movement took the Star of David from the synagogue, the candlestick from the Temple, the blue-and-white flag from the prayer shawl. The holy land became a homeland. Zionism filled the religious symbols with secular, national content.
The first to detect the falsification were the Orthodox Rabbis. Almost all of them damned Herzl and his Zionism in no uncertain terms. The most extreme was the Rabbi of Lubavitch, who accused Herzl of destroying Judaism. The Jews, he wrote, are united by their adherence to God’s commandments. Doctor Herzl wants to supplant this God-given bond with secular nationalism.

When Herzl originated the Zionist idea, he did not intend to found the “State of the Jews” in Palestine, but in Argentina. Even when writing his book, he devoted to the country only a few lines, under the headline “Palestine or Argentina?” However, the movement he created compelled him to divert his endeavors to the Land of Israel, and so the state came into being here.
When the State of Israel was founded and the Zionist dream realized, there was no further need for the “white lie”. After the building was finished, the scaffolding should have been removed. A real Israeli nation had come into being, there was no further need for an imaginary one.

THESE DAYS Israel’s largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, is running a TV ad showing selected past issues. The day the State of Israel was founded, the giant headline announced: “Hebrew State!”

“Hebrew”, not “Jewish”. And not by accident: at that time, the term “Jewish state” sounded decidedly strange. In the preceding years, people in this country had got used to making a clear distinction between “Jewish” and “Hebrew”, between matters that belonged to the Diaspora and those belonging to this country: Jewish Diaspora, Jewish language (Yiddish), Jewish Stetl, Jewish religion, Jewish tradition – but Hebrew language, Hebrew agriculture, Hebrew industries, Hebrew underground organizations, Hebrew policemen.

If so, why do the words “Jewish state” appear in our Declaration of Independence? There was a simple reason for that: the UN had adopted a resolution to partition the country between an “Arab state” and a “Jewish state”. That was the legal basis of the new state. The declaration, which was drafted in haste, said therefore that we were establishing “the Jewish state (according to the UN resolution), namely the State of Israel”.

The building was finished, but the scaffolding was not taken down. On the contrary: it became the most important part of the building and dominates its facade.

LIKE MOST of us at the time, David Ben-Gurion believed that Zionism had supplanted religion and that religion had become redundant. He was quite sure that it would shrivel and disappear by itself in the new secular state. He decided that we could afford to dispense with the military service of Yeshiva bochers (Talmud school students), believing that their number would dwindle from a few hundred to almost none. The same thought caused him to allow religious schools to continue in existence. Like Herzl, who promised to “keep our Rabbis in the synagogues and our army officers in the barracks”, Ben-Gurion was certain that the state would be entirely secular.

When Herzl wrote of the “state of the Jews” he did not dream that the Jewish Diaspora would continue to exist. In his view, only the citizens of the new state would henceforth be called “Jews”, all other Jews in the world would assimilate in their various nations and disappear from view.

BUT THE “white lie” of Herzl had results he did not dream of, as did the compromises of Ben-Gurion. Religion did not wither away in Israel, but on the contrary: it is gaining control of the state. The government of Israel does not speak of the nation-state of the Israelis who live here, but of the “nation-state of the Jews” – a state that belongs to the Jews all over the world, most of whom belong to other nations.

The religious schools are eating up the general education system and are going to overpower it, if we don’t become aware of the danger and assert our Israeli essence. Voting rights are about to be accorded to Israelis residing abroad, and this is a step towards giving the vote to all Jews around the world. And, most important: the ugly weeds growing in the national-religious field – the fanatical settlers – are pushing the state in a direction that may lead to its destruction.

TO SAFEGUARD the future of Israel one has to start by removing the scaffolding from the building. In other words: burying the “white lie” of religion-equals-nation. The Israeli nation has to be recognized as the basis of the state.
If this principle is accepted, what will the future shape of Israel – within the Green Line – be like?
There are two possible models, and many variations between them.

Model A: the multi-national one. Almost all the citizens of Israel belong to one of two nations: the majority belongs to the Hebrew nation and a minority to the Palestinian-Arab nation. Each nation will enjoy autonomy in certain areas, such as culture, education and religion. Autonomy will not be territorial, but cultural (as Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky proposed a hundred years ago for Czarist Russia). All will be united by Israeli citizenship and loyalty to the state. The inbuilt discrimination of the Arab minority will become a thing of the past, as well as the “demographic demon”.

Model B: the American one. The American nation is composed of all US citizens, and all US citizens constitute the American nation. An immigrant from Jamaica who acquires US citizenship automatically becomes a member of the American nation, an heir to George Washington and Abe Lincoln. All learn at school the same core program and the same history.

Which of the two models is preferable? In my view, Model B is much better. But it would depend on a dialogue between the Hebrew majority and the Arab minority. In the end, the Arab citizens will have to decide whether they prefer the status of equal partners in a general Israeli nation, or the status of a recognized, autonomous national minority in a state that acknowledges and cherishes their separate culture, side by side with the culture of the majority.

In four days, the Supreme Court will decide whether it is prepared to take the first step in this historic march.

Green Reconstruction: UNIFIL Plants Trees in Southern Lebanon

The 2006 Lebanon War caused massive ecological damages, especially in the country’s Southern region: more than one thousand hectare of forests and olive groves have been destroyed by bomb explosions and bush fires—according to a study published in May 2007 by the Association for Forests, Development and Conservation (AFDC). The economic losses of this destruction hit especially farmers and the rural population in South Lebanon.

In January 2010, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) started an extensive reforestation project in the region around the village Sh’huur. Within about three months, the international troops want to plant 2 300 trees. The project is headed by the “Green Sh’huur” Committee, a local initiative consisting of community residents and their mayor. About 4 000 trees have already been planted by the initiative. At the end of the project the number is supposed to reach a total of 10 452 trees—a symbolic number that represents the total surface area of Lebanon (10 452 km2). UNIFIL also maintains two other reforestation projects in the Southern Lebanese towns of Khiam and Rachaya al-Foukhar.

The projects have several objectives: they prevent further loss of biodiversity in the region, provide natural spaces for recreation and leisure, and foster the economic development in the region by increasing its attractiveness for tourists. Another central objective of the initiative is to strengthen local people’s awareness for environmental issues.

UNIFIL has been based in Lebanon since 1978. It guarantees that there are no illegal weapons between the Litani River and the Blue Line, a zone that separates Lebanese and Israeli armed forces. Engaging Blue Helmets in reforestation projects is nothing unusual: they have already planted more than 30 000 saplings around the world, among others in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Georgia, and Timor-Leste. (Kerstin Fritzsche)

For more information, please visit: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Ne…

—————–

But we have a problem with the above since back in 2006, when I was asking Mr. Ahmad Fawzi  who took over the Spokesperson’s job at the UN in order to give his one-sided view to the UN accredited Press of what was happening in the Israel-Lebanon and its Hezbollah war.

While the damage in Lebanon was caused by warfare, the damage on the Israeli side was caused by indiscriminate shelling with the unsophisticated rockets that had really no targets. In the process old growth forests in the Galilee were seriously damaged. I was asking as a point of information, to hear from him also on these damages, but he had no interest to hear such questions that went against his grain. Could not the UNIFIL officers realize now that impartiality calls for them doing reforestation work on both sides of the border?

This posting is about four events on New York snowy day – Thursday February 25, 2010 and one previous event.

Yesterday, Thursday, started for me by walking in between the snow flakes along First Avenue, to a 10-12 am book launch and discussion called for by the UN University in the new -so-called northern temporary UN Headquarters building.

The topic was: “FAULT LINES OF INTERNATIONAL LEGITIMACY” which is also the title of a new book released by Cambridge University Press, New York www.caambridge.org, and edited by Hilary Charlesworth and Jean Coicaud.

Dr. Jean-Marc Coicaud is the Director of the UNU office at the UN Headquarters in New York City. He was also one of the three people of the panel, and was responsible for at least one quarter of the 400 page book. The other two members of the panel were also participants in the book itself – responsible each for a chapter in the book. They were:

Ian Johnstone, Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, who prior to joining Fletcher, served as a legal and political officer at the United Nations at the time of UNSG Kofi Annan, including five years in the Office of the Secretary-General, one in the Department of Peace-keeping Operations, and one in the Office of Legal Affairs. He wrote the chapter – “Legal Deliberation and Argumentation in International Decision Making.” (30 p)

Vasuki Nessiah, Professor in International Relations and Gender Studies at Brown University. Before that she was Senior Associate and Head of Gender Program at the International Center for Transition Justice and with SIPA at Columbia University. She wrote the chapter – “From Berlin to Bonn to Baghdad: A Space for Infinitive Justice.” (30 p)

The introductory remarks by Dr. Coicaud made it clear that the topic is about the relation between power and principles. Since the establishment of the League of Nations and later the UN we started to outline what is International Law and what it should do. Further – the basic question is international security and at the UN this is embodied in the Security Council.

When the mike was passed to Prof. Johnstone it became clear that from a legal thinking point of view – a main stage in order to have justice is the stage of presenting arguments by both sides. This is the way in a deliberative democracy and what most lawyers would say that neither Iraq, nor Kosovo, evolved at the UNSC in such a way that the outside intervention was a legal act. But he also said that the theory of deliberative democracy says that voting alone cannot be the decision maker. The UN has to operate by consensus, but the Security Council takes up voting when there is no consensus – but then not all votes are equal. Also, the participants in a democratic deliberative debate are supposed to have similar backgrounds and share values, history … but at the UN they do not even share a language. We have a four teared structure – the Permanent equal 5 united by their individual veto, then the added temporary 10, then the broader UN membership with their interests, eventually the even larger real broader level of the interested public opinion. The public opinion level creates that “Interpretive Community” that is supposed to be neither objective nor subjective but intersubjective including lawyers and experts. But then experts are just as good as the interests they pursue. Eventually a legal case is decided by precedents.

On Iraq, President Bush went to the UN to launch a very intensive deliberative exercise. The fact that the US shifted interpretation to terrorism shows that the interpretive community mattered.

To the matter of our posting here, I would like to emphasize that wherever we discussed the issues in the Q & A period of the UNU meeting we had to come back to Iraq. The demonstration of most of what the issues meant can be found in this case.

I for one raised the question of the legitimacy of the UN itself according to – if it adheres to its constitution – The UN Charter?

There it says clearly WE THE PEOPLES – NOT WE THE GOVERNMENTS ELECTED OR UNELECTED. Here we have thus a big shadow overhanging this UN community. I also mentioned that to redress this somewhat the UN under UNSG Kofi Annan established THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT but this is not adhered to. The problem that when Iraq invaded Kuwait this was a clear UN transgression against a neighboring government, but when Iraq gassed and killed its own people that was seen as OK it is an internal problem.

Prof. Johnstone said – yes, established in 1945 that was the language but clearly it is now governments and more and more investigations into what they do internally – but in the end the veto-power has it. Chapter 7 of the Charter can be interpreted that what a government does to its own people can disturb international peace. A comment from the floor came back to the issue saying that the Responsibility to Protect is at a very low bar level but the bar is set much higher for action.

———————–

My second event was 12:30 – 1:30 pm at the New York University Wagner School in the old Puck Building (295 Lafayette Street).

Part of the  Conflict Security and Development Series – Issues, Actors, and Approaches – co-hosted by NYU’s Center for Global Affairs, NYU’s Masters in Global Public Health Program, and the Office of International Programs at NYU Wagner.

The topic was: “PEACEBUILDING IN IRAQ – WHAT ROLES CAN UNIVERSITIES PLAY?“

Thomas Hill, Associate Research Scholar, Center for International Conflict Resolution, Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA).was the speaker.

The Announcement said: Among the most well-respected and stable institutions in Iraq, universities allow representatives of different communities to interact and peacefully contest the country’s future. The recent establishment of a master’s program in peace and conflict studies at one Iraqi public university, and the development of a center dedicated to peace and security studies at a private university suggest a growing acceptance of responsibility for a role in peacebuilding by Iraq’s academics. Drawing on experiences teaching in Iraq, this discussion focuses on both the possibilities for, and the limitation of, university-led peacebuilding efforts in Iraq and elsewhere.

This was terrific and honestly put everything else I will be covering in this posting to clear shame.

Dr. Hill was with the University of Dahuk on the Turkish border of Kurdistan. He pointed out that when talking peacebuilding in Iraq, today the only the university is the area where all Iraqis can come – irrelevant of the religion they have or do not have.

In other parts the neighborhood is mosque or church dominated – the university is free territory – perhaps even secular for those that wish it this way. He told us that when a new foreign teacher at the university was kidnapped for ransom by Muslims, Muslim students participated in raising the money to free him. That was something new in Iraq – and he was there last time November 2009.

The Iraqi head of that program told him that all what he wants is to educate a small number of leaders for the next generation. They take in just 4 students to the program per year and this is the second year of this particular program – similar programs sprout also at other Universities in Iraq. In some way, having a small number of students from various backgrounds forms an interactive community and this helps further the program – the Iraqi head of the program actually told him that had they accepted more students, groups could have formed and fights could have resulted – now they participate at each others events and learn also to do away with preconceptions on a personal basis.

Peace building he talks about is the social sciences meaning repair, strengthening, creating personal relationships. This leads to comprehensive conflict transformation – from an unpeaceful to a peaceful relationship. Conflict can be transformed into a constructive resolution. In this structure, obviously are according to John Paul Lederach  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_L…) who wrote about this in 2005, a high-level inspiration – Mid-level actors in this case the University Professors and Deans that educate the Grassroots Leaders. There is a CRITICAL MASS NOT OF NUMBERS OF PEOPLE BUT OF THE QUALITY OF THE PLATFORM. This happens with small groups of very dedicated people.

The Dahuk University itself is 16 years old. It is Kurdish in a Kurdish majority area. The Kurds are predominantly Sunni but religion is not a big issue. It was the politicians that manipulated the religion idea.

There is an Iraqi Peace Foundation – academics, civil society, activists and the Foundation head is from Baghdad – a Professor of Urban Planing – Dr. Kamal. He is a returnee who came from Canada. Iraq had Universities already 1300 years ago, Medicine and Engineering are the most seeked subjects. Students submit to an exam and the administrators of that exam would decide what they had to study. People could not control their own life but wanted to study – so they would accept their fate and study what was handed down to them. But the students wanted to take control of their life and their community. They are the society’s depository of knowledge and can be next generation that will carry Iraq to its future. This one University program’s contribution of 4 leaders per year is thus not negligible.

There are 18 governments in Iraq – the Iraq Peace Foundation has established relations with all of them. The central system does not yet support financially this program but they ought – because it is Iraq’s future. Indeed, until very recently, Iraq was a mixed society and, as said, it had a highly educated group of people that lived in harmony and it was not unknown for them to intermarry.

Professor Vera Jelinek, the Divisional Dean and Clinical Associate Professor, Center for Global Affairs, School of Continuing and Professional Studies (SCPS) at NYU, who was in the audience, asked how to transfer these experiences to other peace-building areas like Kosovo, Bosnia …

The answer was that if you get a society that values higher education it could work. YOU MUST HAVE A HISTORY OF HIGHER EDUCATION he said. In Afghanistan there is no intellectual capital like Baghdad. Afghanistan may not be the place for it. Iraq – the paradox is that in its diversity is its strength. You can have in Iraq politi conversations between people that have been in government and those that will be. Dahuk University will contravene the first Peace-Making country-wide conference in Iraq. Baghdad University is very respected – it is the biggest and has convening capacity. Things will pick up in Baghdad.

Here I decided to ask if with all this introspection, if the Iraqi students will not end up forgetting that there are also other problems in the world?

I was amazed at the gusher of comments I got from the speaker who explained that he wished US students had so much global awareness as the Iraqi students. Clearly, they read all sorts of sources and are well rounded of what goes on in the world.

AHA I said, my follow up question is thus – why do they not rally with the understanding that they were manipulated and try to better their future with that knowledge? To this the answer was less satisfying because the reality is that they have been manipulated to the point that it is easier to comply and fight against each other – and it will be only with the change of leadership to people educated according to the lines we just listened to – that such change will indeed occur.

Another question came from an Arab gentleman who identified himself as belonging to the UN and involved with consortia of universities. I tried later to exchange cards with him but he had no card – told me of the great new plans that the UN Department of Public Information (UN DPI) is establishing with Universities and thought he had to explain to me what that department does. I flatly told him that I wish they keep out of this as they are not known for doing the right things. Besides – there is a UN University to handle contacts with academia – as academia is not the kind of place to swallow UN self serving propaganda. He did not seem happy and I wonder if he was really from the UN.

——————

My third event was 4-6 pm organized by Professor John Rajchman, an Adjunct Professor and Director of Modern Art M.A. Programs in the Department of Art History and Archaeology at Columbia University.

He invited to his class  Dr. Wang Hui, Professor of Chinese  Language, Literature and History, Tsinghua University, Beijing, who among his many publications is included also the 2010 Verso, Brooklyn, NY,  release titled: “THE END OF THE REVOLUTION: China and The Limits Of Modernity.” Professor Rajchman just thought that his art history students ought to understand the interconnect between old established culture and political upheavals with a view of how far this could be feasable for a culture like China. That is an interesting Professor at a good University!

Wang Hui research focuses on contemporary Chinese literature and thinking. He was the executive editor (with Huang Ping) of the influential magazine Dushu (??, Reading) from May 1996 to July 2007. The US magazine Foreign Policy named him as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world in May 2008.

Wang Hui has his particular Chinese intellectual of our days view of globalization, neoliberalism, and finds the economic miracle of China these days as a deficient remedy for failures of socialism. I think it fortunate that I came to Columbia right after having hears the presentation, by the way also of someone from Columbia, on the promise of the Iraqi academia. Again – just in passing – let me again tell the UN DPI – the UN disinformation service – hands off please of Academia – this is just not your field of competence.

Wang Hui is worried that the later growth can be seen as legitimization of the early heavy-handed transformation of the Chinese farmer. Even now the basic issue is agriculture he said. In fact, it was the 1911 revolution that allowed for the precondition for the agriculture change. It also introduced new education system and in the economy.

The 80’s democratization ended with a democratic crisis and the traditional capitalization and international economics created a fiscalization of democracy.

In the 1980’s the idea was to separate the party from the State – but in Chinese tradition the Party represents the Will of the people. Will there be a democratization of the Party? People return now to sentimentalism towards Mao. The web is an issue for the population. They see in it a technological control – not just political. People are wary of China Americanization. They prefer an accent on developing nations. Now the involvement in Africa.

I tried to find out what he thinks of a G2 idea with mutual interest in developing a gren economy. His idea is that the population will be worried and are affraid of too close cooperation.

for more about Professor Wang Hui:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/world/…

—————–

My fourth event for the day – 6-8 pm – was supposed to be at the SIPA Center for International Conflict Resolution at Columbia University – the conversation of Mr. Alvaro de Soto with Sir Brian Urquhart. An actual throw-back to what the UN was meant to become at its creation in 1945.

Sir Brian was a British intelligence officer in WWII who was sent by the UK to assist in creation. He has been involved with every UN Secretary General since and was the organizer of the first UN Peacekeeping force. As UnderSecretary-General he was involved in the Middle East and Cyprus – clear British interests in those years.

Alvaro de Soto, from Peru, In 1982 he joined the United Nations staff as a special adviser to Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (1982-1991) – also a Peruvian. Alvaro de Soto continued to hold positions at the UN, mainly in Peasekeeping, till 2007.

I was prepared with questions, but the event got canceled because of the weather – very befitting the UN that is normally a fair weather institution.

—————–

That brings me to the last event that I would like to mention in this article. This was the Wedneday, February 17, 2010 UN University hosting of the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the UN, Ambassador Dr. T. Hamid Al-Bayati.

The topic was “IRAQ AND THE UN: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE.”

This was clearly something new – an Ambassador making himself available for questioning to a forum at the UN that is not controlled by the UN Department of Public Information – kudos to the Ambassador.

The Ambassador explained the history of military takeovers 1968, a second coup of 1968 by the Baath Party bringing to power the Saddam regime and then the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the eventual undoing of the regime in 2003.

On the legal side – the first constitution was of 1950 and then the start of the new constitution of 2005. Elections is now the norm and next election will be in April 2010. He stressed the peaceful history in Iraq in past years, and delved even into the place Jews used to have in Iraqi society – and that is as far as we know quite accurate for past years. Will there be a return to more peaceful days after the experiences of more recent times?

He enlarged on security and transparency issues for the elections. He also explained that also Iraqis outside the country will be able to vote. This last item caused me to raise the question on how will they know that indeed Iraqis will vote in the outside-the-country voting? He answered that food ration tickets are base for the lists – but we know from the experience with the Palestinians that people are born but never die and others take over such cards as highly praised commodities. There will clearly be inflated voting that will skew the results. Further, as he said that Iraqis came back from neighboring countries, again, that will be another source of inroads by non-Iraqis. Whatever, it was – this meeting was quite enlightening because of the exchanges – something that even the press enjoyed more here then in the Briefing Room. I wish that event were after what I learned from the other first three events I mentioned above, so I could follow up with questions, but I feel confident that the Ambassador will answer directly a well structured question even now and that get-to=know you event at UNU was just clearly an asset.

from:   CPA <ipa@wmo.int>
date    Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:26 AM
subject    High-Level Task Force for Climate Services Starts Work at WMO

The first meeting of the High-Level Taskforce for climate services selected Jan Egeland of Norway and Mahmoud Abu-Zeid of Egypt as co-chairs.  The High Level Taskforce of independent advisers, which the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Michel Jarraud, was requested by a decision of the World Climate Conference-3 to establish a Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS), is meeting on 25-26 February, at the WMO Headquarters in Geneva.

Please find attached the press release “High-Level Task Force for Climate Services Starts Work at WMO”.

More information: www.wmo.int

Best regards,

Communications and Public Affairs
Tel: + 41 22 730 83 14
Fax: + 41 22 730 80 27

——————————-

Jan Egeland is an excellent choice – we know him from the UN where he had many past involvements and we know for shure that he was one of those that when in Sudan on efforts regarding Darfur, was ready to look at climate change impact on the evolving atrocities.   was the United Nations Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator from June 2003 to December 2006 under UN  Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He traveled extensively, drawing attention to humanitarian emergencies.

In UN fashion – he was balanced out with a representative of the Arab world who has a background in water engineering – so at least there will be a link of climate change and growing water shortage in arid and semi-arid lands. Abu-Zeid is Egyptian Water Minister active on global water problems and has Saudi Arabian support.

http://engineering.ucdavis.edu/pages/about/profiles/abu-zeid.html

UNEP NEWS

World Environment Ministers Signal Resolve to Realize Sustainable Development.

Accelerating a Green Economy to Cooperative Action to Protect Human Health and Combat Climate Change Gets Support at Bali Meeting.

11 th Special Session of the UN Environment Programme’s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum

Bali, 26 February 2010 – In the first landmark Declaration issued by ministers of the environment in a decade, Governments pledged to step up the global response to the major environmental and sustainability challenges of this generation.

The wide-ranging Nusa Dua Declaration, agreed today in the closing session of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, underlines the vital importance of biodiversity, the urgent need to combat climate change and work towards a good outcome in Mexico later in the year and the key opportunities from accelerating a transition to a low-carbon resource-efficient Green Economy.

The statement also highlights the need to improve the overall management of the global environment, accepting that that “governance architecture” has in many ways become too complex and fragmented.

An important step forward was made earlier in the week in the areas of chemicals, hazardous wastes and human health. Governments agreed at an Extraordinary Meeting to have more cooperative action by the three relevant treaties–the Basel , Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions — as a first step to boosting their delivery within countries.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director, said: “The ministers responsible for the environment, meeting just over a month after the climate change conference in Copenhagen , have spoken with a clear, united and unequivocal voice.”

“Faced with the continued erosion of the natural environment, the persistent and emerging challenges of chemical pollution and wastes and the overarching challenge of issues such as climate change, the status quo is not an option and change is urgently needed”, he added.

“This change starts with recognition that the way we are managing the environmental dimension of sustainable development is currently too complex and fragmented. Change is needed here and the ministers signaled their determination to realize this through a political process”, said Mr. Steiner.

“But the ministers also recognized that action towards a Green Economy –one able to meet multiple challenges and seize multiple opportunities– is taking route in economies across the globe. Accelerating this is a key element of the Nusa Dua Declaration and one that can direct future action towards realizing the kinds of transitions needed on a planet of 6 billion people, rising to 9 billion by 2050”, he added.

The Declaration, the first by world environment ministers since they met in Malmö , Sweden in 2000, will be transmitted to the UN General Assembly later this year.

There Governments will begin preparations for a landmark conference in Brazil , known as ” Rio plus 20″.

“Rio plus 20″ comes two decades after the first Rio Earth Summit, which gave birth to many of the key treaties, ranging from climate change to biodiversity, which to date   have defined the international response to environmental challenges.

Green Economy
Case studies, illuminating the multiple benefits of a Green Economy, were presented to delegates in advance of a landmark Green Economy report to be released later this year.

Uganda
The area of land under organic agriculture has risen from 185,000 hectares in 2004 to close to 300,000 hectares in 2008, with a 360 per cent rise in the number of farmers engaged in the sector – from 45,000 certified farmers to 207,000.
Certified organic exports have risen from US$3.7 million in 2003-2004 to US$22.8 million in 2007-2008.

The country is also contributing to combating climate change. C02 emissions per hectare are up to 68 per cent less than on conventionally farmed land, with studies indicating that organic fields sequester 3-8 tonnes more carbon per hectare.

China
More than 10 per cent of Chinese households rely on the sun to heat their water, with more than 40 million solar water-heating systems in place.
The renewable energy sector as a whole generates output worth US$17 billion and employs 1 million workers, of which 600,000 are employed in solar thermal panel making and installing products, such as solar water heaters.

The warm water from solar water heaters is also reducing rheumatoid arthritis among women as they now have hot water for laundry and dishwashing done by hand instead of only cold water.

Brazil
The city of Curitiba has, through sustainable urban planning and transport, cut per capita loss from severe congestion. It is about 6.7 and 11 times less than per capita losses in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo .
In 2002, Curitiba ’s annual fuel losses from severe traffic congestion equaled R$1.98 million (US$930,000). On per capita terms, this loss is about 13 times and 4.3 times less than those in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro .

Curitiba ’s fuel usage is also 30 per cent lower than in Brazil ’s other major cities.
Other Highlights of the UNEP GC/GMEF

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The delegates were addressed by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC which is co- hosted by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Ministers reaffirmed the central importance of the IPCC and the importance of sound science upon which to base a response to climate change.

However, as a result of recent criticism of the IPCC and some key errors in the body’s Fourth Assessment Report, several Governments called for an independent review of the IPCC.

Full details of the review and its scope will be announced next week with the report to be presented to the IPCC Plenary taking place in the Republic of Korea in October.

Several key decisions were adopted, including ones on oceans put forward by the Government of Indonesia and strengthening the environment via the Environment Management Group which UNEP hosts.

Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
Many experts believe a science panel or platform for biodiversity and ecosystems is needed to assist Governments in combating the erosion of plants and animals and ecosystems such as forests, freshwaters and soils.

Governments agreed to a final meeting in June 2010, halfway through the UN’s International Year of Biodiversity, to decide whether to establish such a body.

Haiti
Delegates also backed UNEP’s support to Haiti in the wake of the devastating earthquake of 12 January 2010 and called on the organization to assist the UN country team to incorporate environmental issues in the rehabilitation and reconstruction and restoration phases.

Gaza – { without Arab world politics there is no meeting at a  UN enclave . }
Delegates asked UNEP to assist in implementing recommendations from its environmental assessment of the Gaza Strip compiled following the escalation of hostilities in December 2008 through to January 2009.
The assessment covers issues such as solid waste management, pollution and the acute decline of Gaza ’s underground water supplies.

——————————————–
For the full list of decisions and the full text of the Nusa Dua Declaration please go to http://www.unep.org/gc/gcss-xi/

For more information, please contact:
Nick Nuttall, Spokesperson/ Head of Media, Office of the Executive Director, UNEP, Tel: +254-733-632-755, E-mail:  nick.nuttall at unep.org

Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Global Warming issues, Nairobi, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, UN Commission on Sustainable Development

Discuss this article

 http://www.coha.org/the-yanomami-malaria…

The Yanomami: Malaria, Genocide and Policy Prospects.
by By Council On Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) Research Fellow Jared Ritvo

• A Black Mark for Brazil
• The situation couldn’t be more urgent
The Yanomami of the Brazilian Amazon have been decimated in the last 20 years by an incursion of prospect-miners (garimpeiros) who brought diseases (especially malaria) and other maladies to their hitherto relatively isolated communities.  Here we follow the history of the garimpeiros incursion  examining the current  trying situation and make urgent policy suggestions.
Background on the Yanomami Way of Life:
The Yanomami live in an area of approximately 192,000 km² spanning both sides of the Brazil-Venezuela border.  Their land varies in ecological biomes from lowland tropical rainforest in both the Orinoco and Amazon River drainages to mountainous highlands.  The Yanomami numbered approximately 29,000 in 2005 with about 14,000 living within Brazil. They are dispersed throughout this region and live at low population densities.
This research essay primarily concerns the Yanomami who live on the Brazilian side of the border who are being seen as the most affected by both garimpagem (prospecting) intruding on their native lands and malaria epidemics.
Likewise, this situation, is even being termed as a genocide due to the inexcusable behavior of a number of Brazilian government officials who both lent support to the garimpeiros and knowingly adjusted to the spread of disease in order to wreak havoc on the Yanomami people (particularly due to the exposure of the tribe to malaria, against which they did not have immunity).  During the height of the gold rush from 1987 to 1999, it is estimated that the malaria epidemic, combined with the armed battles against garimpeiros, shockingly led to the loss of thirteen percent of the Yanomami population living in the region.
This modern gold rush on Yanomami lands began in the mid-1970s when the Brazilian military dictatorship assessed and identified the value of mineral deposits (including gold) on Yanomami lands under the mapping project Radambrasil.  At the same time, between 1970 and 1980 the international price of gold increased seventeen-fold.  In 1980, an estimated 5,000 garimpeiros moved onto the Yanomami lands at Furo de Santa Rosa.  Garimpeiros generally were destitute men, as a result of protracted urban unemployment, or were landless rural workers. At Furo de Santa Rosa, garimpeiros quickly outnumbered the local Yanomami population of the Shiriana subgroup, twenty-five to one.  According to University of Brasília Anthropologist, Dr. Alcida Ramos, less than six months after the arrival of garimpeiros, the Shiriana began contracting malaria.  There were some deaths and anemia became widespread.
Garimpeiros used the town of Furo de Santa Rosa as the starting point from which they journeyed out onto the tributaries of the Uraricoera River, approaching a National Foundation for the Indian (FUNAI) outpost located at Ericó  Notably, the garimpagem sites were, and are still, almost always accessed by small aircraft using remote jungle airstrips. Without airstrips, garimpagem would not have been feasible due to the lack of other transportation means in the forested Yanomami lands.
In 1986 the Polícia Federal drove most of the garimpeiros out of the region.  Simultaneously, the military began a secret operation in the Northern Brazil’s Northern Amazon called Calha Norte. This intiative has been described by scholars as a covert plan of the military to move settlers into the region to thwart a feared foreign influence.  Under the plan, the Air Force would widen a landing strip at a site called Paapiú without declaring the purpose.  They then would evict the local Yanomami and declare Paapiú a national security area.   However, after this was done, the Air Force did nothing further at the site. The ploy should be understood as a pro-garimpagem (or at least pro-settlement) act due to the absence of any other explanation as to why the Air Force would have built this airstrip in the first place.  This interpretation of the purpose of this act is in accordance with previous findings that Calha Norte was a clandestine operation to settle the region.
This Air Force-improved landing strip at Paapiú soon proved a catalyst for a gold rush.  By August 1987, thousands of garimpeiros had arrived at the airstrip.   From that location, according to Dr. Ramos, they were able to access most of the Yanomami territory.
While the military and FUNAI permitted garimpeiro’s entrance to Yanomami territory, they simultaneously forced the eviction of all medical personnel, anthropologists, other researchers, missionaries and NGO workers.  Dr. Ramos states that for the two years following the expulsion of humanitarians aid-worker contingentsm.the Yanomami became infected with malaria at far higher rates than normal and were increasingly subject to other perils as a result of the incursion of garimpeiros, yet received no assistance.
In December 1987, shortly after the eviction, the President of FUNAI and the Governor of the State of Roraima proclaimed that the “reserves of gold mining” on Yanomami lands could now be legally extracted.
By December 1987, garimpeiros numbered more than 5,000 near Paapiú.  An atmosphere of “gold fever” spread in the Northern Brazilian Amazon, particularly in the capital of Roraima, Boa Vista.  A large portion of Boa Vista residents, including most small farmers and many professionals, left their jobs to head for the placers on Yanomami lands.  By January 1988, garimpeiros numbered approximately 10,000.  By 1989, they numbered 20,000 to 40,000.
The cumulative effect of this incursion is the estimation that from 1987 to early 1999—the height of the gold rush—thirteen percent of the Yanomami residents in the region died due to environmental impact and malaria.  During these years, the pernicious gold rush overwhelmed the Yanomami in the state of Roraima with garimpeiros eventually outnumbering the indigenous population nearly six-fold.
FUNASA’s Model for Delivering Health Care to the Indigenous: Successes and Failures
In order to understand the current successes and failures of the administration of health care to the Yanomami, an examination of the National Health Foundation’s (FUNASA’s) health care delivery model is necessary.  FUNASA first implemented its present model for administering health care to the indigenous people in 1999 with the Lei Arouca.
This model is designed around the Sanitary Indigenous District (DSEI), the organizational structure for the administration of health services. The Yanomami have their own designated Sanitary Indigenous District, which includes Yanomami lands in both the states of Roraima and Amazonas.  The Lei Arouca states that local leaders, anthropologists, indigenous groups, government entities, NGOs and others were consulted in the formation of these districts.
The DSEI is organized around an Indian Health Office in a regional urban center adjacent to the indigenous area.  The Indian Health Office maintains common hospital resources.  The Pole Base is the head office inside the indigenous area and has basic health equipment.  Finally, there are many health posts, which branch out all around the DSEI.  Health posts have very limited infrastructure and are designed to attend to common diseases such as malaria and diarrhea.
The human resources structure for personnel who deliver healthcare in the field in Lei Arouca contains both the Multidisciplinary Teams for Indigenous Health (EMSIs) and the Indigenous Health Agent (AIS).  Relevant to malaria care, the EMSIs consist of doctors, nurses, nurse technicians and lab professionals who work primarily in the Pole Bases. The AISs, accordingly, do the majority of their work in native villages.  FUNASA states that in the past ten years it has done extensive work in training indigenous health agents, and that it has selected them based on specific criteria, including community recommendations.
From the 2009 publication presenting Lei Arouca’s structure, DSEIs appear self-sufficient, or in other words, one would assume that they have contracts with all the personnel who are directly employees of FUNASA.  However, this has not been the case in the Yanomami DSEI.  FUNASA sub-contracted other organizations to deliver health care in the Yanomami DSEI.  These organizations have had varied success with treating malaria epidemics.
The NGO Urihi, sub-contracted from 2000 to 2004, states that it had great success in mitigating malaria among the Yanomami population of Brazil.  Accordingly, malaria cases in the Yanomami DSEI fell almost ninety-nine percent.  However, in 2004 Urihi opted to end its contract due to increased restrictions by FUNASA. This change stipulated in 2004 that contracted organizations (such as Urihi) would simply be personnel providers and all staff would effectively work under FUNASA’s guidelines.  Prior to these restrictions Urihi was more autonomous.   A professional researcher on the Yanomami, Francois Michel Le-Tourneau, confirmed that Urihi was effective in providing excellent care with great monitoring and treatment of anyone in various locations who presented a case of malaria.
Following the termination of the relationship between FUNASA and Urihi, FUNASA subcontracted The University of Brasília Foundation (FUB).  Unfortunately for the Yanomami people, the FUB was not nearly as effective at administering health care despite increased funding.  Corruption rumors circulated in the press regarding FUB’s healthcare management and consequently the public ministry forced FUNASA to abandon the FUB contract.
Consideration of Genocide:
An essential question surrounding the Gold Rush on Yanomami lands, and its related problems, such as the malaria epidemic and environmental degradation is: what, if any, policy or action on the part of individuals or groups can be interpreted as genocide?  If indeed there are potential criminal cases, the parties involved should be indentified and investigated.  Additionally, if consideration of genocide were to resurface with indictments and international news media attention, it would have a profound effect on a future Brazilian government policy for the Terra Indigena Yanomami.  Under these conditions one could expect a new political presence in Brasília to end the current negligence of its politically damaging inadequate delivery of health care to the Yanomami; moreover, better resources for health care would reach the Yanomami and probably, if the new development has the political play to do it, one could witness the eviction of currently resident garimpeiros.
In her book on the Yanomami, Dr. Linda Rabben generally characterizes the two-year period during which would-be aid givers were expelled from Yanomami lands, starting in 1987 by a FUNAI request to the Federal Police to do so.  It was an incredibly suspicious action to expel groups, which were not directly involved in garimpagem activities from the Yanomami lands, and the following will argue that some individuals should be investigated for having committed genocide.
In 1988, after FUNAI made the initial motion to evict would-be aid givers, FUNAI President Romero Jucá made public statements denying that the Yanomami were dying en masse from malaria epidemics.  Only a few months after these statements, Brazilian President José Sarney appointed Jucá governor of the state of Roraima, a newly created political division.  President Sarney by then already had been petitioned by six Brazilian senators to stop what media and NGOs were already calling “the genocide of the Yanomami.”
At that time, genocide protestors already sought demarcation of Yanomami lands to develop a legal basis to expel garimpeiros.  Counter to the Yanomami’s interests, however, FUNAI proposed a delineation of 19 “islands” which they could populate, reversing their former proposal for a 9.4 million hectare continuous Yanomami reserve. Dr. Rabben believes it appears FUNAI acted against the Yanomami’s interests and, deliberately supported garimpeiros by, in effect, banning foreign and domestic aid providers from having a physical presence on Yanomami land.
This gerrymandering-like attempt to restructure the Yanomami’s land reserves to accommodate garimpeiros was put into action when President Sarney ratified the “19-island” scheme. Sarney then further bolstered garimpeiros’ ambitions with decrees that created two national forests within Yanomami lands and prohibited entrance of any “third party” without prior authorization from the Brazilian National Government’s Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA) or FUNAI.
Considering genocide, many environmentalists fervently believe that Sarney should be indicted. He acted counter to the sheer preservation of the Yanomami.  Dr. Rabben notes that Sarney, under international and national pressure to do so, initially signed a decree to expel garimpeiros from the Yanomami lands, but then signed another decree effectively reversing the first.  This second decree was the creation of two reserves for garimpeiros within the Yanomami indigenous lands.  These reserves were publicly defended by Sarney’s Minister of Justice with the dubious assertion that they were meant to prevent the spread of epidemics to other parts of the country.  The federal attorney general responded by drafting impeachment charges against the president for attempting to foil plans to expel garimpeiros.  Sarney left office in 1990 with impeachment accusations still pending.
The international legal definition of genocide provides a compelling legal basis for indicting FUNAI employees (including Jucá), President Sarney, members of the Federal Police or others.  According to Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, genocide must contain both “mental” and “physical elements”.  The mental element is “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group.”  The physical element contains five distinctive acts, three of which are relevant to this case: “(a) killing members of the group, (b) causing bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group the conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”   Acts punishable and relevant to the case are: “(a) genocide, (b) conspiracy to commit genocide, (c) attempt to commit genocide and (e) complicity in genocide.”
Regarding the mental element, a general anti-indigenous culture can be found in the history of this case among FUNAI officials, President Sarney and, of course, among miners and mining interests in Boa Vista, Roraima.  Indeed, it may not be difficult to prove that in many specific instances there was intent to destroy this ethnic group.  Because President Sarney and others knowingly and repeatedly made decisions that they knew would expose the Yanomami to malaria epidemics and thus a potentially life-threatening illness, a thorough legal investigation of the aforementioned parties would appear to be necessary.
Regarding the physical element, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide definition“(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” This is most applicable to the decision by FUNAI to expel all would-be aid givers from the Yanomami lands.  President Romero Jucá’s actions as the head of FUNAI should be investigated for genocide based on the application of these terms, as should those of other FUNAI employees’ actions, due to overwhelming evidence that suggests the organization was deliberately placing the Yanomami under such prejudicial conditions.  Their delinquencies are, of course, even more egregious because FUNAI’s raison d’être is supposedly to protect the indigenous.
Policy Suggestions:
The problems identified in reviewing the historical record of this case include: (1) instances of anti-indigenous sentiment in government bodies dealing with the Yanomami, (2) negligence of the Yanomami’s interests and needs, and (3) and the high probability of corruption.  These bureaucratic failures occurred in state and the national government, in FUNAI, FUNASA and in the organizations FUNASA contracted ostensibly to offer the delivery of health care in the field.
Simultaneously, according to interviews with anthropologists who work in the region, as well as reports filed from Urihi, since 2004 malaria has been increasing among the Yanomami.  To stop this recurring outbreak and avoid repeating past mistakes, the government and all parties involved must pursue policies in which the delivery of health care truly focuses on the best interests of the Yanomami and does not misappropriate or fail to provide funds and resources intended for them (as the Yanomami cite in their Manifesto Sobre a Saúde Indígena).   Moreover, it is essential the Yanomami be involved as much as possible in the process of administering their own health care system.  Realistically, the best way to accomplish this is to have Yanomami advocacy organizations, such as Hutukara (the Yanomami-formed organization to advocate their needs) and the District Health Councils, to meet regularly with DSEI administrators.  These organizations should establish a routine procedure for registering formal complaints and suggestions about improving the administration of Yanomami health care.
Suggestions on Improving the Quality of and Access to Health Care to Address Malaria:
Following the grievances and requests made by the Yanomami people, the Brazilian federal government recently created a new body to specifically oversee indigenous health care  under the aegis of the Ministry of Health.  Based on the document Boletim 92 by Commissão Pro-Yanomami, the new government body will structure their health care hierarchy much like FUNASA under Lei Arouca.
Groups such as the Commissão Pro-Yanomami, which was the original NGO formed to address Yanomami needs, and now Hutukara, are examples of organizations on-site in Boa Vista which should have input in any new policy.  Many recommendations for oversight are put forth in their Manifesto Sobre a Saúde Indígena. An overview of the recommendations follows:
(1)    District Health Councils approve of decisions regarding the hiring of candidates for head of the Sanitary Indigenous District.
(2)    District Health Councils approve of any organizations contracted to provide the Yanomami health care in the field.  (Past examples of contracted organizations include: Urihi and FUB.)
(3)    Indigenous Health Agents should have demonstrated their capacity and have at least a high school education with a preference given to persons trained in indigenous human resources, in an effort to decrease negligence and corruption
Recently, under the restructuring that created a new indigenous health sub-section under the ministry of health, a career track was created with a specific training course for persons to be educated in indigenous health.  Indeed this is a positive development because persons delivering health care to the indigenous should be trained in doing so, and should be concerned about their unique needs. This is incorporated in the design of the new indigenous health organization that will replace Lei Arouca.
Another goal for the new policy concerning the Yanomami is that FUNAI and the Polícia Federal should block the illegal entrance of garimpeiros onto the Terra Indigena Yanomami and evict those mining there illegally.  This should be done because garimpeiros environmentally degrade Yanomami land as well as increase the spread of malaria to the Yanomami.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that we will see an increase in this type of enforcement in the future.  This is because the Terra Indigena Yanomami is vast, the agencies responsible for this enforcement (the Polícia Federal and FUNAI) are too understaffed and underfunded, and there is at present little political capital in Brasília to effectively pursue this policy goal.   The only way the Brazilian government would finally evict the garimpeiros and make a wholehearted attempt to keep them out is if investigations are begun and lead to individuals being indicted for committing genocide during the period 1987 to 1990.  This legal attention to the issue would create a desire on the part of the Brazilian government, and from the Brazilian populace in general, to demonstrate to the international community that the perilous situation of the Yanomami is being handled carefully and with responsibility.  Likewise this would inevitably lead to the Yanomami receiving better health care.
In general, although evicting garimpeiros is important, addressing health care is a better option for obstructing the spread of malaria.  There are a number of reasons for this, the foremost one being it is the most feasible solution for malaria epidemics as the disease has already been sufficiently introduced by garimpeiros in the Yanomami lands. Evicting garimpeiros now would not be effective at preventing the spread of malaria epidemics (further research is required to make this determination with any authority).  Also, if the Brazilian government evicts garimpeiros they may simply return, and policing their reentrance into a massive piece of land is quite difficult.  One of the best ways to inhibit garimpeiros’ access to Yanomami lands could be restricting access to airstrips in the region, but this solution also falls prey to issues of patrolling a huge swath of land in light of understaffing on the part of the Brazilian government.   One thing is for certain: past history shows that nothing will happen automatically, and enormous willpower on the government’s part is required if the problem is to seriously be addressed.

Climate Migration in Latin America: A Future “Flood of Refugees” to the North?
by COHA (Council on Hemispheric Affairs) Research Fellow Alexandra Deprez, February 22, 2010.

This COHA research piece synthesizes the current developments regarding environmentally-driven human migration –and more specifically, migration caused by the environmental manifestations of anthropogenic climate change– seeking to expose its potential harmful effects in Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean. Although this region has received less media attention and academic focus than Western Africa, South East Asia or the Pacific Islands, it certainly houses the climate and non-climate factors that could cause mass human displacement.
The first section introduces the concept of environmentally-induced migration, expounding upon the current state of the debate that surrounds it and the challenges it faces. This is followed by an examination of different climate processes and natural disasters as drivers of migration in Latin America. It also addresses non-climate factors such as poor governance, poverty, overpopulation, and unequal land distribution that can compound these migratory pressures.
The second section opens with a case study of Mexico, a country several reports have identified as a potential hotspot for environmentally-induced migration in Latin America, due to the confluence of climate and non-climate migration factors it houses. The relevance of this study is also increased due to Mexico’s position as the largest immigration feeder to the United States. The segment goes on to discuss larger developmental impacts of environmentally-induced migration in Latin America –such as the effects on regions of origin and destination, the health and security issues migrants face, and the debate between environment, migration and national security factors– before ending by speculating which potential actions the United States might eventually take to address what could be a looming problem.

PART 1: Environmentally Induced Migration in Latin America and Beyond;
Climate and Non Climate Drivers of Migration in Latin America
Typhoon Morakot, the unusually strong tropical storm that hit South East Asia in mid-August 2009, displacing more than 1.5 million people in China alone, is only one of the most recent natural disasters that raise questions about environmental change and its link to migration. This link has increasingly attracted attention over the past few years, in particular since 2007, when the 4th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report confirmed that human migration would be one of the most important consequences of anthropogenic climate change. The manifestations of environmental change derived from human activities notably include sea level rise (SLR), intensified drought or rainfall, and the increasing recurrence and strength of natural hazards such as hurricanes.1 Although estimates vary widely and their reliability are questioned by migration experts, the frequently quoted figure of 200 million environmental displacees by 2050 testifies to this phenomenon’s looming importance. The developmental charity, Christian Aid, has increased its figure of estimated victims to a catastrophic 1 billion by mid-century.2
Policy and non-profit actors’ increasing awareness of environmentally-induced migration coincides with recent scientific confirmations that not only is anthropogenic climate change bound to occur no matter what mitigation steps are taken, but moreover it will prove more drastic than previously predicted.3 A paradigm shift in the policy response to climate change –from an exclusive focus on its prevention to a greater importance given to adaptation strategies, which may, inevitably, include migration itself– is a necessary consequence to this state of affairs.
Despite the recent spike of interest in the past few years, human populations have long employed environmentally-induced migration as a coping strategy – with studies indicating that it was commonplace in ancient societies of Egypt and Mesopotamia.4 Although the frequently used term ‘environmental refugee’ was first coined more than three decades ago,5 international organizations and scholars have still not reached a consensus on how to define those populations who migrate by choice or necessity due to environmental modifications in their regions of origin. Divergent expressions such as “environmentally induced migrant,”6 “environmentally displaced person,”7 “climate refugee,”8 or “climate migrant”9 populate international migration reports and journal articles. Most definitions place particular emphasis on those environmental processes and events that may arise or are intensified due to anthropogenic climate change, while broader terms also tend to take into account environmental modifications such as earthquakes, which are less directly related to human activity. In his seminal 1985 definition, Professor Essam el Hinnawi includes case specific human events that may have an impact on the environment – such as large-scale development projects, industrial accidents, and conflicts. He describes environmental refugees as:
“Those people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural and/or triggered by people) that jeopardized their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life.”10
Although el Hinnawi’s definition would designate Haitian victims of the January 12, 2010 earthquake as potential environmental refugees, the Haiti case deserves to be addressed in literature exclusively devoted to it. This COHA research memorandum instead will adopt a narrower definition of environmentally induced migration, emphasizing those environmental events and processes which have been linked to anthropomorphic climate change, as well as natural and man-induced land degradation, which holds a particular historic importance in Latin America.
As manifested by the lack of a universal definition and the large variation between predictions, the debate over environmental change (and more particularly climate change) and migration is still at an embryonic phase, riddled with complexities, unknowns, and diverse actors that have yet to work in a more interdisciplinary, cooperative fashion.11 Predictions of extensive migration may have been publicized by environmental scientists like Norman Myers, with the intention of raising awareness and promoting action against climate change, as well as by human rights organizations that jumped at the opportunity to advocate protection for these potential new victims.12 However, these large-scale ominous predictions have also alarmed Western policymakers that a new “flood of refugees”13 would add to the migratory and asylum pressures their countries already face and have been seeking to manage and contain. Reports on different aspects of environmentally induced migration that have been prolifically produced over the past few years by international organisms such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), further demonstrate the heightened importance recently placed upon these issues.
Nonetheless, the recent hype surrounding climate migration may seem disproportionate to the limited amount of visible victims, particularly in light of the sometimes-sparse attention given to many other issues at the forefront of the international migration and refugee organisms’ agendas.14 Although the present number of individuals who fall directly into the category of ‘climate’ migrants or refugees15 might be dwarfed by the large number of international migrants, the UNHCR estimated that in 2002, 24 million individuals around the world were displaced due to natural disasters,16 a figure nearly double that of the current amount of refugees, estimated above 15 million.17 This fact attests to the veritable potential that anthropogenic climate change has in inducing large-scale population displacements, while the numerous legal, developmental and humanitarian consequences of these potential movements underscore the issue’s importance and the urgent attention which it merits.
But what are the implications for Latin America?
Specialists and scholars have determined that environmentally induced migration initially will take place in developing regions around the globe, with South-East Asia, West Africa and low-lying islands being particularly at risk.18 Even though the impact climate change may have on migration in Latin America is rarely mentioned and has yet to be exclusively studied in depth, this region bears a combination of factors that may converge to give rise to ‘hot spots’ for mass population movements. Indeed, not only is it host to a number of environmental processes and events that will most likely be intensified and accelerated due to anthropogenic climate change, but it also possesses conditions such as poverty and an unequal geographical distribution of the population that heighten their vulnerability to these effects, thus compounding the migratory potential.
Predictions of environmentally-induced migration concur that the majority of cases will occur within the same state or region. But, with such well-established migration channels between most Latin American countries and the United States, it is plausible that the manifestations of climate change may have an increasingly stronger impact on South-North human flows in the Western hemisphere. Developed nations such as the United States hold a responsibility vis-à-vis the anthropogenic climate change their industrial activities helped engender, as well as the economic conditions that may have contributed to perpetuate an unequal geographical distribution of the population in Latin America. However, the United States’ present migration policy does not give significant consideration to environmental factors, and this is clearly not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, this COHA memorandum seeks to raise awareness of an issue that Western policymakers –and particularly North American policymakers– might one day not have the luxury to continue to ignore.
The current state of the debate over environmentally induced migration
The first and basic point of contention in this debate is how to characterize those affected by environmental change: are they migrants or refugees? The expression ‘environmental refugees’ was first used in the 1970s as a way to depoliticize the displacement of populations within their own country –due, for example, to famines or droughts– prior to the introduction of the term Internally Displaced Person (IDP) in 1998.19 Today, some human rights organizations have reclaimed it as a way to point to the urgency of addressing the issue and providing aid to those mobilized by environmental change. However, it has encountered strong opposition from practically all other actors involved in the debate.
Roger Zetter, the director of the Refugee Studies Centre (RSC) at Oxford University, notes that the use of ‘refugee’ here is problematic, “not least for its conceptual inadequacy in interpreting the complex structural causes and consequences of flight.”20 It is also legally incorrect, as ‘environmental persecution’ – to term it that way – is not part of the 5 causes of persecution included in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Using the expression ‘environmental refugee’ may also strongly undermine the scale of the problem at hand as it only refers to those forced to leave their country, thus failing to include the numerous individuals affected by climate change who either have been displaced within their own country or who choose to migrate abroad.21 Western governments are certainly not keen to expand the UN’s definition, for fear that this would exponentially raise the number of asylum applicants to their countries, while refugee specialists oppose the inclusion of the environment as a cause of persecution, predicting it would place unnecessary stress on already strained resources devoted to those fleeing their countries from racial, religious, gender, membership of a particular social group, or political discrimination.22
Other terms have been proposed, but with little overall success, and the UN is still in the process of agreeing on a “phraseology to describe the phenomenon.”23 ‘Environmental migrant’ raises opposition due to its negative implication that those people who are moving are doing so solely out of their own will, while more conciliatory terms, such as ‘environmentally displaced person’ may be criticized by some for being too broad to be of any use. In particular, RSC’s report favored the tripartite definition proposed by Fabrice Renaud – an academic official at the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS) – composed of “environmentally motivated migrants,” “environmentally forced migrants,” and “environmental refugees.”24 What is certain is that no matter what designation is used, until it is given legal authority, individuals currently displaced by natural disasters and environmental degradation, as well as the future victims of ‘climate migration’ will continue to “fall through the cracks” of international protection and aid distribution.25
The second argument centers on the validity of environmentally-induced migration as a phenomenon. Some scholars have gone as far as to affirm that there is no such thing as environmentally-induced migration and that all migration is necessarily motivated by other reasons. Nonetheless, the description of human displacement presented by Stephen Castles – director of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford – as comprising “complex patterns of multiple causality, in which natural and environmental factors are closely linked to economic, social, and political ones,”26 seems to embody the emphasis that has been placed on multi-causality in this ongoing debate. Although there may be relatively limited instances in which environmental change can be seen as the only factor of human displacement – such as when people are forced to leave their homes due to a natural disaster – it is most certainly already influencing an ever larger number of migration cases, and has the potential to induce further unprecedented migration in decades to come.
However, determining the degree of environmental factors in migratory movements, and separating it from other factors, has proven challenging. This difficulty, as well as the lack of a formal definition of the phenomenon that would help delineate which causes would be permissibly included in data collection and future predictions, only hint at the problems inherent in undertaking these measuring processes. Another complication is the lack of reliable and current figures, which must be placed in context with the current situation of data collection in migratory flows at large. Unlike with the populations defined as refugees, for whom the UNHCR produces annual figures, precise data on the extent of international migration worldwide is much more complicated to compile.
According to Hiroyuki Tanaka, research assistant at the Washington DC-based Migration Policy Institute, “many industrialized economies don’t collect data on immigration, and those that do, collect data in different ways and apply different definitions for ‘immigrant.’ Reliable comparative data is very hard to come across, given the limited government data we have access to.”27 The fact that up to 50 percent of migration may be irregular (term preferred to ‘illegal’ by migration specialists) further complicates measurement intents.28 Internal displacements of populations remain even less documented, as many countries either do not want to publish these figures or simply lack the capacity to collect them.29
Additional difficulties have also been encountered by attempts to predict the future impact of climate change on migration. The areas – and consequently the populations – at risk vary widely depending on which climate models are used, and there is great uncertainty as to which model will most accurately represent future reality.30 There has also been a tendency to directly equate the number of those populations who will be affected to those who will migrate; this clearly does not take into account the extensive amount of other adaptive measures those populations may instead choose to take.31 However, despite widely varying in number, recent predictions seem to concur that future environmentally induced migration will primarily take place internally, in developing countries, and be mostly temporal in nature.
Better collection of data and the increased accuracy of future predictions are very important to appropriately address environmentally induced migration. This has been rightfully sensed by agencies such as the IOM, who in 2008 released a 100-page report on ways to improve those methodologies currently used.32 However, over the past few years there has been a general shift from a focus on global numerical predictions toward a more empirically based approach. This approach notably emphasizes the analysis, mapping, and monitoring of migration ‘hotspots,’ located at areas of convergence between environmental and non-environmental migration drivers. Although still approximate at best, the RSC states that, “a focused mapping program, which could be conducted by national agencies, is the key to more accurate prediction of the nature, scale and time-scale of environmentally-induced migration crises in the making, and how these might be mitigated.”33

Climate processes and natural disasters as drivers of migration in Latin America: drought, sea level rise, melting glaciers and hurricanes
Anthropogenic climate change will in part predictably manifest itself discretely, through an intensification of environmental processes such as drought, sea level rise and the melting of glaciers. Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean, are not spared from any of these natural phenomena. Climate change will modify rain patterns geographically and temporally, inducing a shift in the start of rainy seasons as well as an increase of precipitation in some temperate areas, and a decrease in other regions, particularly in the tropics. This decline in rainfall may produce an intensification of aridity and a more recurrent drought with a capacity to negatively impact crop yields.34
The exact impact of severe drought on migration has not yet been satisfactorily determined. Sabine Perch-Nielsen, Michèle Bättig and Dieter Imboden, who undertook an in-depth analysis of the link between different climate processes and human displacement, explain that drought is the “most complex and least understood natural hazard,” and that there are a number of adaptive measures households might take before recurring to migration.35
Notwithstanding, new research suggests that the likelihood of migration as an adaptive measure is higher in response to certain selective environmental phenomena, such as droughts. In 2005, the UN’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that the third of the global population that lives in areas already suffering from aridity is most vulnerable to the effects of increased drought.36 Indeed, empirical examples indicate that out-migration is already occurring in some regions affected by it. Northern Mexico, where 60 percent of arid or semi-arid land suffers from erosion, has over the past few decades seen a decrease in precipitation that has been projected to steadily worsen.37 The United Nations University’s (UNU) influential June 2009 report Control, Adapt or Flee: How to Face Environmental Migration stated, “based on Mexican Government’s data, approximately 900,000 people left arid and semi-arid areas every year [since the mid 1990s] in part because of their inability to make a living from the land due to excessively dry conditions and soil erosion.”38 Another salient example of the effect of drought on migration in Latin America may be found in Northeastern Brazil. In this primarily agricultural region, spikes in out-migration to the country’s southern regions have been observed following decreases in crop yields during years that suffered from severe droughts.39
Another environmental process that will be intensified by anthropogenic climate change is sea level rise (SLR); differing streams of predictions have posited a change of 50 cm to 1.5 meters by the end of the 21st century. It has been widely assumed to be the ‘climate-process’ with the strongest and most direct push effect on migration. In their Climatic Change article, Perch-Nielsen, Bättig, and Imboden agreed that although the current amount of information available is insufficient to reach a fairly accurate prediction, “the potential extent of migration due to sea level rise is large.”40 Even though the greatest impact is sure to be felt in the very densely populated coasts of South East Asia, media coverage has been almost exclusively been placed upon the fate of low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean. One such island is Tuvalu, where, due to fears of SLR, almost 30 percent of the population has already migrated to New Zealand.41
Although drawing practically no press coverage, several Caribbean islands are also at risk of being partially or completely submerged.42 In absolute terms, the number of potential victims of SLR in the Caribbean may pale in comparison to that in South East Asia. However, as more than 50 percent of the islands’ inhabitants live less than 1.5 km inland from the coast, the relative impact of SLR on the Caribbean population has the potential to be strongly felt.43 But specific predictions researching the future of the SLR in this region – as well as on most of the coastlines of Latin America – and its impact on migration up to now are sparse. The European Commission’s Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios (EACH-FOR) Project, which has started to map the regions most likely to be affected, has currently undertaken only one case study in the this region – on the island of Hispaniola – with an exclusive focus on deforestation.44
The melting of glaciers is a third process that has been taking place since the industrial revolution, and due to the ever increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it will continue to occur at an accelerated pace. In South America, this translates into concerns about how the Andes Mountain range may now be seeing a reduction of water availability for agricultural and personal consumption, as well as an increased risk of fires during the dry season,45 and a change in rain patterns, all of which could provoke greater flooding during the rainy season.46
The Argentine EACH-FOR case study, which partially focuses on the pre-Andean regions of Patagonia and Cuyo, remarked that while a few years ago the two regions were still the sites of incoming migration, they now started to experience emigration flows linked to justified environmental fears.47 Reduction of water availability is of particular relevance and concern in this region, as it may place even greater economic pressures on the poorer sectors of society, who already have been strongly affected by the wave of provocative water privatizations which have swept over the continent during the past twenty years.48 In short, these economic pressures are likely to translate into stronger migratory impulses.
Climate change is also being manifested through the intensification and increased recurrence of certain natural hazards. Natural disasters – those natural acts of devastation that have intersected infrastructure and human settlements – reportedly have been on the rise over the past decades.49 From 1980 to 2000, inhabitants of developing countries accounted for more than 95 percent of all of those who lost their houses in natural disasters.50 The extremely disproportionate impact that these events have had on the world’s developing regions may be explained by the much higher vulnerability they face in comparison to Western nations. Not only are the tropics –where most of the developing regions are located – at higher risk of experiencing natural hazards, but a combination of political, economic and social factors lower their populations’ resiliency and capacity to respond effectively to these disasters.
Although examples of lack of risk preparation and disaster response can be found in industrialized nations (Hurricane Katrina comes most quickly to mind), these characteristics are significantly more common and recurrent in developing countries. Undeniably, an environmental event of the same scale will have a higher humanitarian cost – and consequently a potential damaging migratory impact – in the latter. The situation of disaster prevention and relief in Central America, where hundreds of thousands of people are periodically left homeless during the hurricane season, may serve as an illustration of the normally low capacity of response present in areas of Latin America. Costa Rica’s disaster response plan, which offered an only somewhat acceptable response to the magnitude 7.0 earthquake that hit its Central Valley in January 2009, is indeed considered the best in the region.51 Unacceptable delays and insufficient responses, such as those given by ex-president Manuel Zelaya when he declared a state of emergency three weeks after Honduras was shaken by a 7.1 earthquake in June 2009, are much more common in the isthmus. Of course, these examples are now slighted by the incomparable catastrophe the poorest country in the Western hemisphere has been suffering following the magnitude 7.0 earthquake that struck Haiti’s capital on January 12, 2010, incurring a death toll of over 200,00052 and the damage or destruction of almost 300,000 residences and commercial buildings.53
An article published in the August 2009 issue of the scientific journal Nature strongly supported the theory that as the oceans’ temperature continues to rise due to climate change, tropical storms will become increasingly recurrent and potent.54 This trend was particularly noted in the Caribbean basin, the region most strongly affected by hurricanes in the Western hemisphere. Studies of the region’s past hurricanes and their responses, particularly in Mexico, indicate that the vast majority of the populations who suffered from the events – and thus those who might have been displaced – intended to remain in their homeland or to return as soon as possible. Although predictions posit that migration will continue to be mostly temporal and internal, it is reasonable to presume that as hurricanes hit the Caribbean with more frequency and strength, households that have repeatedly suffered from these events may increasingly consider permanent or international migration as an adaptation strategy.55 The latter option may be facilitated by the existence of strong migration ties and networks between Latin American countries and the U.S.
Non-climate drivers and the question of unequal land distribution in Latin America
The largest amount of climate migration is most likely to be concentrated in areas where ‘non-environmental’ factors – such as poor governance, political persecution, population pressures, and poverty – are already present and exercise migratory pressures on the local populations. The authors of the RSC’s report assimilate the conjunction of poor governance or political persecution and environmental migration to Amartya Sen’s famous adage that famines are not bound to occur in a democracy.56 Similarly, environmental changes should not induce mass migrations in a country that has an accountable and responsive government.
At the interface of climate and non-climate drivers, UNU’s June 2009 report In Search of Shelter asserts that the loss of ‘ecosystem services’ such as arable soil, clean air, and water, will be the principal cause of mass environmental migration.57 Specialists argue that as climate change – in conjunction with unsustainable human usages and population pressures – starts to overwhelm an ecosystem, it will progressively become less capable to provide ‘its services.’58 Those populations mostly dependent on these ‘services’ for their livelihood – such as farmers, who could suffer from reductions in crop yield s– will be harshly affected by these changes, making them more likely to choose migration or be obligated to resort to it as an ultimate adaptive option.59
General economic pressures, as well as a lack of natural hazard risk assessments and zoning laws, may push those less fortunate populations onto marginal areas, as happened in the case of Typhoon Marakot, and its particularly strong effect on Taiwan’s rural poor. Incidentally, these marginal lands may be at greater risk of suffering from natural hazards as floods or mudslides. But, in a region such as Latin America where, in addition to current economic forces, historical factors have also fatefully contributed to these displacements, it becomes necessary to analyze and include the population’s geographical distribution in this region’s future debate of environmentally-prompted – and more specifically – climate migration.
In his article Roots of Flight: Environmental Refugees in Latin America, York University Professor Andil Gosine explains the processes that forced indigenous populations and small farmers from the rich arable valleys onto marginal arid or mountainous lands, often putting such areas at greater risk of suffering from climate processes or events.60 The arrival of European ‘Conquistadores’ to Latin America marked the installation of a very unequal land tenure system, visible to this day in countries such as Nicaragua, where in 2003 less than 25 percent of the rural population owned almost 85 percent of the country’s land.61 The capitalist systems established in many Latin American countries in the 19th century, exerted economic pressures on the region to produce monocultures for export. According to Gosine, this trend, that was further emphasized by the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) infamous Structural Adjustment Plans of the 1960s – which strongly supported the production of cash crops – has served to perpetuate until the present day an unequal geographical distribution of the population.62
Relegated to less productive lands, small farmers in Latin America face undeniable economic hardships as their produce customarily has to compete against strongly subsidized American and European agricultural goods. The migratory pressures already in place due to these hardships will most likely be cemented by climate change, and the inequality in land distribution only further underscores the disproportionate influence it is bound to have on the poorer sectors of Latin American society.

———————
 http://www.coha.org/climate-migration-in…

Climate Migration in Latin America: A Future ‘Flood of Refugees’ to the North? Part 2
by COHA Research Fellow Alexandra Deprez

The second segment of this research piece identifies Mexico as an environmentally induced migration ‘hotspot,’ discusses development impacts in Latin America, and speculates on potential responses from Washington.
‘Hotspot’ case study: Mexico

Our Recent articles were:

From Campaign for America’s Future – Your Progressive Breakfast: Pressure on EPA To Suspend Climate Action. (February 24th, 2010)

An analysis of the Copenhagen pledges by the 60 Developed and Developing Countries, when analyzed by 9 different leading policy and science institutions were found very short of the needed goals of GHG emissions reduction by 2050. (February 24th, 2010)

On Climate Change – Sinners (Annex 1) and Sinned (the rest) is a division that proved it leads nowhere. Professor Jagdish Bhagawati suggests a Stock & Flow methodology that allows the funding of new technology and passing the know how as a way to have an impact on the future. William Antholis of Brookings is working on similar ideas. (February 24th, 2010)

These articles dealt with post-Copenhagen policy realities and our main preoccupation now -  how do we follow up. Also the question of the July 1, 2010 vacancy in the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC office in Bonn. Have we reached the end of an era and do we understand how to open the door for next era in climate negotiations?

The UN Think-Tank at the UN University office in New York promised us several weeks ago an event with Dr. William J. Antholis, Managing Director at the Washington DC Brookings Institution. The event was postponed and it finally came about on February 23. 2010 3:00-5:00 pm and as you see from above three postings, and from our following posting – the speaker has lost quite a bit of his thunder because of the fact that above articles in the press estimate the situation very closely to his opinions – and had he presented them two weeks earlier – he clearly would have been first. Nevertheless, today, I can say that a new positive consensus is being established despite the attacks in Washington DC from the American Red-Right. The Brookings Institution knows the Washington establishment and has now close links to the Administration – so the brain picking we love to do is now:  how does Dr. William Antholis see the practical way of tackling the subject so it overcomes the real man-made hurdles that are being set up by paid lobbyists that swarm to the US capital?

In Washington, when one looks at how difficult it seems to come up with a Health-Care bill, Dr. Antholis says that under the UNFCCC rules, coming up with a consensus on climate will be 192 times more difficult then that. But he is here to praise the UN, not bury it – so, let us say that without the UN we would not even be where we are today. We must look at the flows of the system the way it was designed. All agree that a global agreement is necessary but do not agree on what has to happen – there is no common view on what the treaty has to have. Like in Washington, everyone wants to be a free rider and any major free rider on a common effort undermines the common effort.

The UN system asks for unanimity as a surrogate for the process – so the 60 % of US Senate votes is easy compared to this. Also, the division between Annex I and Annex B is a hindrance. The ritual of the yearly meeting of the UNFCCC has nevertheless served a purpose – it publicized the problem.

What Dr. Antholis suggested is that now we start a system with the countries that really matter on the issue – the greatest emitters. We also realize that regulation is best executed on the National level – so we have to deal with the Nation States – that brings back the system to the need that all Nations of the UN do something within their own borders.

He also says we should learn from the way the GATT was created with a system that allows countries to join as they were able to do it. There is a commitment – then one looks for when they develop the capacity to implement it. This is a far cry from what the UNFCCC has now. Under GATT – the US Europe, and Japan can develop the commitment and trade among themselves – others should eventually be part of that system! This approach could work with what exists already under the KP  What is needed is a Carbon Tax on the border of countries that have not done enough! Simple and useful! Start with the Four biggest entities (he called it countries) – there is 50% of the population and 60% of emissions, 2/3 of global nuclear power – these are:  China, US, EU, India. Then figure on bringing in Russia and Japan. Russia has 20% of world’s forests that account for two years og global emissions worth. Then Brazil that actually stepped up as a leader with largest forest. South Africa is a player – so are the SIDS.

What Dr. Antholis described has similarity to what Professor Jagdish Bhagawati suggests as a  Stock & Flow methodology that starts with working first with the greatest emitters who could then start working with the greatest forest wardens. They could find ways to make their dealings to best mutual benefits – but this is done via work within the National territory and in cooperation between the Nations that cooperate. We do not think that this is a blow to multilateralism – it is rather the recognition that there must be a clear limit to obstruction from countries that are not among the major concerns when it comes to the harmful emissions release to the atmosphere.

When question were allowed from the participants, it became clear that all UN points of view were present in the room.

We heard about historical guilt and we heard about the Solar Cookers that can help people in poor rural areas in the developing countries – both positions forget that while we scratch for our past sins, the major transgressions go on just now before our nose.

Then came the suggestion that in effect, what he described was the end of phase one in the raising of the issue of Climate Change and even though skeptics of climate science abound, we know clearly that we did spew CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 200 years by burning fossil fuels – so whatever one says there is a need for action. That calls for a second phase – the implementation of an action program that is different from the search for an agreement between 192 States.

Dr. Antholis thinks that the new leader of this effort, that will replace outgoing UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer ought to be a politician apt to come up with agreements between the initial small group that will start the activities. He will learn from President Obama who will sell the needed program to the US public not as a climate change bill but as clean energy, energy security, job creation – something clearly good for you – today. This should work with everyone for his personal advantage. For the sake of continuing also through the UN system, it would be nice if the new person in Bonn would be a Brazilian politician, or as Dr. Antholis said an Indian – though it seems that China might go along easier with a Brazilian.

Then there are further avenues for one to travel – there are levels closer to the people – State and Local Governments like City Mayors.

If one goes through these lesser routes, for the global commitment – the UN could take on ultimately the job of the verifier.

He described the so called Copenhagen Accord rather as an Accordion making it clear that there will be now a continuously change in size of the instrument. Also let us remember the consultancy profession’s main rule – 80% of the solution lies in 20% of the problem – go thus for the 20% in order to reach towards the 80%. Will the UN be able to live up to such ideas?

———-

What about my question of who will be that new man or woman at the UN?

The only indication comes from Mr. Janos Pasztor from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s climate office at UN Headquarters. He said that the UNSG started to discus the issue immediately after Mr. de Boer’s phone call, with the members of the Board of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC. The new head will be chosen well before the July 1, date – but the UNSG wants to see it happen well soon. Until then he has confidence in Richard Kinley is the Deputy Executive Secretary of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Since joining the Climate Change Secretariat in 1993, Mr. Kinley has held a number of senior positions including as Coordinator;
Intergovernmental and Conference Affairs (2000 to 2006) and Coordinator; Resources, Management and Coordination (1996-2000), overseeing the secretariat’s teams dealing with intergovernmental process management, conference affairs, administration and budget, and national communications. He has been Secretary of the Conference of the Parties since 1996 and led the secretariat support for the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol (1995-1997). He was also the Officer-in-Charge of the secretariat from September 2005 to August 2006.

Prior to joining the climate change secretariat, Mr. Kinley was an official in the Government of Canada, working in the areas of
international environmental policy, northern environment and resource management, and international climate policy.
Richard Kinley is a national of Canada.

More Ambition Needed if Greenhouse Gases are to Peak in Time, Says New UNEP Report

Pledges Post Copenhagen Unlikely to Keep Temperatures Below 2 Degrees Celsius by Mid Century.

(UNEP Year Book Also Launched Today Outlines Growing Governance Challenge from Climate to Chemicals.)

Bali (Indonesia), 23 February 2010 – Countries will have to be far more ambitious in cutting greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to effectively curb a rise in global temperature at 2 degrees C or less.

This is the conclusion of a new greenhouse gas modeling study, based on the estimates of researchers at nine leading centres, compiled by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

The experts  suggest that annual global greenhouse gas emissions should not be larger than 40 to 48.3 Gigatonnes (Gt) of equivalent C02 in 2020 and should peak sometime between 2015 and 2021.

They also estimate that between 2020 and 2050, global emissions need to fall by between 48 per cent and 72 per cent, indicating that an ambition to cut greenhouse gases by around three per cent a year over that 30 year period is also needed.

Such a path offers a ‘medium’ likelihood or at least a 50/50 chance of keeping a global temperature rise at below 2 degrees C, says the new report.

The new study, launched on the eve of UNEP’s Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum taking place in Bali, Indonesia, has analyzed the pledges of 60 developed and developing economies.

They have been recently submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) following the UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in December.

The nine modeling centres have now estimated how far these pledges go towards meeting a reasonable ‘peak’ in emissions depending on whether the high or the low intentions are met.

“The expected emissions for 2020 range between 48.8 to 51.2 GT of CO2 equivalent based on whether high or low pledges will be fulfilled,” says the report.

The report, as noted earlier, says that in order to meet the 2 degree C aim in 2050, emissions in 2020 need to be between 40 Gt and 48.3 Gt.

Thus even with the best intentions there is a gap of between 0.5 and 8.8Gt of CO2 equivalent per year, amounting to an average shortfall in emission cuts of 4.7 Gt.

If the low end of the emission reduction pledges are fulfilled, the gap is even bigger-2.9 Gt to 11.2 Gt of CO2 equivalent per year, with an average gap of 7.1 Gt says the report How Close Are We to the Two Degree Limit?

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: “There are clearly a great deal of assumptions underlying these figures, but they do provide an indication of where countries are and perhaps more importantly where they need to aim.”

“There clearly is ‘Gigatonne gap’ which may be a significant one according some of the modelers. This needs to be bridged and bridged quickly if the international community is to pro-actively manage emissions down in a way that makes economic sense,” he added.

“There are multiple reasons for countries to make a transition to a low carbon, resource efficient Green Economy of which climate change is a key one. But energy security, cuts in air pollution and diversifying energy sources are also important drivers,” said Mr Steiner.

“This week at the UNEP GC/GMEF we will also shine a light on the opportunities ranging from accelerating clean tech and renewable energy enterprises to the climate, social and economic benefits of investing in terrestrial and marine ecosystems,” he added.

Some of those multiple opportunities for action are showcased in the UNEP Year Book 2010 which is being presented to ministers responsible for the environment who are attending the meeting.

These include Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) which gained political support at the Copenhagen climate change meeting.

REDD, which involves supporting developing countries to conserve rather than clear tropical forests, could make an important contribution not only to combating climate change but also to overcoming poverty and to a successful UN International Year of Biodiversity.

.    The Year Book estimates that investing $22 billion to $29 billion in REDD could cut global deforestation by 25 per cent by 2015.

It also highlights a new and promising REDD project in Brazil, at the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve in Amazonas.

.    Here each family receives US$28 a month if the forest remains uncut, one potential way of tipping the economic balance in favour of conservation versus continued deforestation.

Renewables are also gaining momentum: although still very low compared to the huge potential of renewable energy, the global installed wind generation capacity has grown at the rate of 25 per cent per year over the past five years.

.    In China, for example installed capacity has nearly doubled every year since the end of 2004 – and the report notes that the wind energy potential under perfect conditions has been estimated at up to 72,000 GW, nearly five times total energy demand. Probably 20 per cent of this energy potential could be captured in the future, representing almost 15 000 GW.

Managing a response to climate change also echoes the challenge of International Environment Governance, a key theme at this week’s GC/GMEF.

—————————————

Governance also underpins the international response to other challenges highlighted in the UNEP Year Book 2010.

Harmful substances

Among the chemicals now causing the greatest concern worldwide are endocrine disrupters, which interfere with hormone systems and are linked to serious effects on reproductive health.

A growing number of scientists are concerned that spikes in cancer, reproductive abnormalities, infertility, and behavioural disorders are the result of exposure to these chemicals during the development of foetuses and children.

The Year Book also looks at the nitrogen cycle, which has been identified as one of three key areas where ‘planetary boundaries’ have been crossed.

Most of the world’s biodiversity hotspots receive nitrogen from air and water at levels known to alter ecosystems, and nitrogen is creating dead zones in coastal waters-areas where big drops in oxygen levels can occur.

Global nitrogen use in agriculture is projected to double to some 220 million tonnes a year by 2050 if present trends continue.

Reducing the world’s nitrogen use will require a profound transformation of agricultural practices. But this may be essential to keep ecosystems from becoming so saturated with nitrogen that they become terrestrial equivalents of the oceans dead zones.

Ecosystem management

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. Changes in biodiversity due to human activities have been more rapid in the past 50 years than at any other time in human history.

.    The latest IUCN Red List, 17,291 species out of 47,677 assessed are under threat: 21 per cent of all known mammals, 30 per cent of all known amphibians, 12 per cent of all known birds, 28 per cent of reptiles, 37 per cent of freshwater fishes, 70 per cent of plants, and 35 per cent of invertebrates.

The report emphasizes that ecosystem management, of which biodiversity is the building block, has an important role to play in mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change.

Managing ecosystems for resilience, and protecting biodiversity to support this resilience, is critical both to meet development objectives and to address the challenges of climate change.

Disasters and conflict

In 2009, progress was made towards understanding how climate change, environmental degradation, and mismanagement of natural resources increase vulnerability to both disasters and conflicts, also within the context of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

Equally how sustainable natural resource management may reduce vulnerability to disasters and conflict while supporting peacebuilding.

.    Forty per cent of intra-state armed conflicts have been shown to be directly linked to competition over natural resources.

Disasters and conflicts are linked to the environment in two important ways. First, environmental degradation often results in the loss of natural defences and environmental services, increasing communities’ vulnerability to environmental hazards and weakening their resilience.

Second, climate change is expected to exacerbate environmental degradation and increase disaster risks as storms, floods, and droughts become more frequent and more intense.

The year 2010 will see further work and research into this area, including new guidance on natural resource management, peacebuilding and ways to minimize conflict risks from natural resources while maximizing opportunities from economic development and livelihoods.

———————-

This paper was prepared by the Chief Scientist of UNEP with input from representatives of the following groups:

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (D. van Vuuren and M. den Elzen),

Ecofys (N. Höhne), Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, Germany (M. Meinshausen and J. Rogeli),

Climate Analytics (M. Schaeffer), UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development,

Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of Denmark (Jorgen Fenhann and John Christensen),

National Center for Atmospheric Research, United States (B. O’Neill),

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (K. Riahi),

Met Office Hadley Center, United Kingdom (J. Lowe),

Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics,

United Kingdom (C. Taylor, A. Bowen, N. Ranger.)

———————-

The UNEP Year Book 2010 is available online at www.unep.org

To order the Year Book 2010, visit www.earthprint.com

For more information on the 11th Special Session of the UNEP GC/GMEF, visit: www.unep.org

For More Information Please Contact:

Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, Nairobi, at tel: + 254-733-632755 or +41-79-596-5737, e-mail:  nick.nuttall at unep.org

Anne-France White, UNEP Information Officer, +254 (0)20 762 3088, or  anne-france.white at unep.org

————

Further Resources

How Close Are We to the Two Degree Limit?
XIth Special Session of the Governing Council
UNEP Year Book 2010

Mongolia is an unassuming country, sandwiched in between Russia and China and has sworn to stay nuclear free and made known it is no danger to anyone. This is Mongolia’s highest contribution to its region and it could be an example to North Korea when that State decides to attempt change. Mongolia can smooth the way to the six parties talks.

Mongolia is the 19th largest and the most sparsely populated independent country in the world, with a population of about three million people. It is also the world’s second-largest landlocked country after Kazakhstan. The country contains very little arable land, as much of its area is covered by steppes, with mountains to the north and west, and the Gobi Desert to the south. Approximately 30% of the population are nomadic or semi-nomadic. The predominant religion in Mongolia is Tibetan Buddhism, and the majority of the state’s citizens are of the Mongol ethnicity, though Kazakhs, Tuvans, and other minorities also live in the country, especially in the west. About 20% of the population live on less than US$1.25 per day. Global warming has had a serious impact on Mongolia and its land became even drier with very active further desertification; but Mongolia is rich in minerals and exporting minerals such as Coal, Uranium, Lithium, Copper, Molybdenum, Tin, Tungsten, Gold and oil provide it with cash flow. Companies and Financing from China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Russia, Canada are active in Mongolia.

In Mongolia during the 1920s, approximately one third of the male population were monks. By the beginning of the 20th century about 750 monasteries were functioning in Mongolia. The Stalinist purges in Mongolia beginning in 1937, affected the Republic as it left more than 30,000 people dead. Japanese imperialism became even more alarming after the invasion of neighboring Manchuria in 1931. The Soviet threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced China to recognize Outer Mongolia’s independence. So – the mutual distrust between China and the Soviets allowed for an independent Mongolia.

The introduction of perestroika and glasnost in the USSR by Mikhail Gorbachev strongly influenced Mongolian politics leading to the peaceful Democratic Revolution, and the introduction of a multi-party system and market economy. A new constitution was introduced in 1992, and the “People’s Republic” was dropped from the country’s name. The transition to market economy was often rocky, the early 1990s saw high inflation and food shortages. The first election wins for non-communist parties came in 1993 (presidential elections) and 1996 (parliamentary elections). So, Mongolia, an ex-communist country moved to a market economy.

The evolution of Mongolia is now of special interest to those that would like to see movement in efforts to solve the Korean peninsula schism. Mongolia could be an example for North Korea if it becomes interested in dropping its attachment to the former Soviet way of managing a country – and that is what brought a high level Mongolian group to The Korea Society in New York City, for breakfast, today, February 23, 2010.

The speaker was H.E. Damdin Tsogtbaatar, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Next to him sat the Mongolian Permanent Representative to the UN H.E. Enkhtsetseg Ochir. Also present was the Deputy Permanent Representative Sodnom Gankhuyag.

The presentation started with the geopolitics and the paradox that both neighbors – China and Russia – are conservative cultures but when changing they are revolutionary. Being enclosed in that sandwich, the Mongolian Foreign Policy has to be an open policy and with both neighbors nuclear  – it had to mean for Mongolia that it can only be free of nuclear weapons. From here he looked at the other two countries that started out in similar conditions like Mongolia – Cuba and North Korea. While Mongolia developed a democracy romanticism – this was not the case with the other two. In effect North Korea looked down at Mongolia and closed its embassy in 1999 and used the excuse that they do so because of economy conditions. Mongolia watched the South Korean Sunshine Policy towards North Korea and as regional Mongolian expats live in South Korea, and Mongolia’s interest to help stabilize the region in its own interest, they started to get more and more interested in what goes on on the Korean Peninsula and in Japan. For one thing – North Korea was interested in Petroleum. North Korea is isolated by its own choice – but someone must get interested in North Korea. In fact in the 1970’s North Korea was ahead of South Korea – more developed – but se now. During the Korean War – only the Russian and Mongolian Ambassadors were left in North Korea. Mongolia also helped by taking in the N. Korean orphans and returned them when hostilities stopped.

Mongolia does not think that the North Koreans are totally irrational, even though he told of some instances that you real wonder – one such was the idea of developing an ostrich farm in N. Korea. Mongolia initiated cultural exchanges that include also Japanese groups. The idea is that Mongolia can try to prepare the ground on which the meetings of the six parties could be restarted.

Mongolia does not believe that sanctions will work – they only punish the people who then clam up and there is no progress. That is when I noted that the two Mongolian men in the room both had purple ties, and I wandered if this is an effort not to look blue or red? Further – Acquiring nuclear technology is not the end – he said – see Kazakhstan and the Ukraine – they had nuclear and gave them up – eventually comes a government and changes of a sudden are possible.

North Korea – the transition of power is supposed to happen in 2012, but considering the health of the leader it could happen earlier. About money reform -That had an impact only on those that had money. It affected people in the cities – not the countryside.

John Delury, an Associate Director at the Asia Society Center on US-China Relations, said that when he spoke to North Koreans when asked why they do not evolve according to the China model, they answered that they are on the China track. See, China first got nuclear, then only formalized relations with the US after they became nuclear. Only then kicked in stage three that was economical.

The answer was – That it is so – Mao Tse-Tung got nuclear first, on account of Stalin. Mongolia does not want to be any-body’s model – “we avoid the word.”

Mongolia was able to put at one table North Korea and Japan but to bring together both Koreas is more difficult. First, with President Lee the Sunshine policy was ended, and a strong anti-North Korean approach was established. The feeling is that the South Koreans, like any democracy, became tired to wait. The situation is now such that both Koreas say – we know what to do – thanks – no – thanks.

Mongolia does no believe in treaties and going to court like lawyers when you deal with nuclear weapons. One can push the button and it is over – but then he said earlier that the belief is there that eventually people are rational – so what is it? Do we must be careful to avoid such situation by stopping a country like Iran from getting nuclear, in order to avoid later dilemmas? Anyway – Iran was not the Issue here but North Korea – so let us say that Mongolia can nevertheless provide an example to North Korea, even if not a model – that changing from threat to agreement could help economically. In effect the day before, the Mongolian envoy had an hour-long meeting with UNSG Ban Ki-moon.

In North Korea, UN Did Not Raise Press Freedom, Hires Staff from Gov’t Lists, UN’s “Comparative Advantage”?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 16 — How badly does the UN under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon want to be relevant in North Korea? His senior advisor Kim Won-soo and his Political Affairs chief Lynn Pascoe traveled to Pyongyang and did not even raise the issue of press freedom.

In response to questions from Inner City Press upon their return, Mr. Kim said that “things are moving forward,” while Mr. Pascoe claimed that the UN Development Program “hires its own employees now rather then take them through the government.” Video here, from Minute 12:52.

But Mr. Kim later clarified that UNDP staff will still be chosen from lists forwarded by the Kim Jong-Il government, only there will be “multiple” candidates. He acknowledged that the UN still has problems with “access and visas” but said there are at the “local level.” In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it all comes from the top: Kim Jong-Il, with whom the two did not even meet.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists has named North Korea as the most censored country on earth, and had called on Ban Ki-moon to speak out more forcefully on press freedom. Inner City Press asked Pascoe and Kim Won-soo about this. Pascoe said they hadn’t raised press freedom “per se.” Kim Won-soo, who was asked twice about press freedom, did not answer the question.

Most questions were about whether North Korea will rejoin the Six Party talks about its nuclear programs. That is up to the Six Parties, Pascoe and Kim Won-soo repeatedly said. The UN is a go between. For example, Pascoe said that his staffer Aleksandr Ilitchev is “going to Moscow tomorrow,” after along with Ban staff Lee Sang-Hwa being on the trip, presumably to brief on the Six Party talks.

On UNDP, Mr. Kim told Inner City Press, “You are right, UNDP’s program has been suspended for two and a half years. The Resident Coordinator [moved back] three months ago.” According to Mr. Kim, he’s had to focus on renovating the UN office and residence. “The building was empty, so we couldn’t see any safe there,” he said, referring to the safe in which counterfeit dollars were found, which UNDP never reported until a whistleblower raised it.

That whistleblower was something of an elephant in the briefing room on Tuesday, with Mr. Kim Won-soo assuring that all UN programs in North Korea will now be scrutinized. Ironically he mentioned a “geo-spacial” mapping project which was one of those that got the UNDP program into trouble two and a half years ago.

Background: Five months into Ban’s tenure atop the UN, in May 2007, he was angered by the leak to Inner City Press of a internal memo (“Korea Peninsula UN Policy and Strategy Submission to the Policy Committee”) proposing that the UN use its “comparative advantage” to make itself relevant on the North Korea issue.
Now, the competitive advantage is being used.

Back in 2007, Ban had been forced to order an audit of the UN Development Program’s North Korea practices, including funding project which it could neither visit nor oversee. UNDP’s program had been suspended.

The UN memo stated that “Unless [the suspension] is reversed, the UNDP program risks being terminated. Rather than being able to support the six-party talks process and international engagement with North Korea at this critical juncture, the UN will lose its unique comparative advantage in that area altogether.”

Recently, despite the continuing nuclear standoff and renewed firing across the border, as well as lack of movement on human rights, UNDP re-started its North Korea program. And now the Ban administration’s “comparative advantage” is back.

UN’s Ban, Mr. Kim and Lynn Pascoe, press freedom not in the picture.

After the February 16 briefing, Mr. Kim Won-soo stayed and answered further questions. He said there are 39 international staff from six UN agencies currently in North Korea. He said the programs there spend approximately $45 million a year; he pointed out that’s $2 a person. UNDP will come up with a five year plan by “sometime in March,” then seek approval from the UNDP board. Things are, he said, moving in the right direction. And on those who seek to leave the country? And on press freedom? Watch this site.

Footnote: this was Kim Won-soo’s first on the record briefing at the UN, following requests made based on the JoongAng Ilbo’s on the record quote about the trip attributed to Mr. Kim. Later, also on the record, Ban’s Associate Spokesperson Choi Soung-ah told Inner City Press that Mr. Kim “did not give an exclusive to JoongAng Ilbo.” But the UN never sought a retraction. Mr. Kim appeared on Tuesday, and Inner City Press asked him to return for another briefing about the Ban administration’s wider work. We’ll see.

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

A SPECIALIZED AGENCY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

___________________________________________

INVITATION TO THE MEDIA

WMO PRESS CONFERENCE
Date and time:          Friday 26 February, 11:45 am

Subject: First meeting of the High-Level Taskforce for the Global Framework for   Climate Services

Speakers:  Mr Michel Jarraud, WMO Secretary-General, with Members from the High-Level Taskforce

Venue: WMO Headquarters, Room B

7 bis, Avenue de la Paix, Geneva, Switzerland

BACKGROUND:
In September 2009, World Climate Conference-3 (WCC-3) decided to establish a Global Framework for Climate Services to “strengthen production, availability, delivery and application of science-based climate prediction and services”. Terms of reference were recently approved, and the composition of a High-Level Taskforce of independent advisers endorsed. On 25-26 February, the Taskforce will meet for the first time in Geneva, at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

HIGH-LEVEL TASKFORCE
Joaquim Chissano (Mozambique)
Jan Egeland (Norway)
Angus Friday (Grenada)
Eugenia Kalnay (Ms) (Argentina/USA)
Ricardo Lagos (Chile)
Julia Marton-Lefevre (Ms) (Hungary/France/USA)
Khotso Mokhele (South Africa)
Chiaki Mukai (Ms) (Japan)
Cristina Narbona Ruiz (Ms) (Spain)
Rajendra Singh Paroda (India)
Qin Dahe (China)
Emil Salim (Indonesia)
Mahmoud Abu-Zeid (Egypt)
Fiame Naomi Mata’afa (Ms) (Samoa)

For more information, including biographies: http://www.wmo.int/hlt-gfcs/index_en.htm…

————————

MEDIA ACCREDITATION

Journalists not accredited to the Palais des Nations, who wish to participate in the press conference, are encouraged to send a request to Gaëlle Sévenier, WMO Press Officer ( gsevenier at wmo.int) prior to 25 February 2010.

WMO is the United Nations’ authoritative voice on weather, climate and water

For more information please contact:  Communications and Public Affairs Office, WMO
Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele, Chief, Tel: +41 (0)22 730 83 15, E-mail:  cpa at wmo.int,
Ms Gaëlle Sévenier, Press Officer, Tel: +41 (0) 22 730 84 17, E-mail:  gsevenier at wmo.int

Internet website: http://www.wmo.int

From Eye on the UN
February 22, 2010
Contact:
 list at eyeontheun.org

What the IAEA Knew:  The U.N. agency charged with stopping nuclear proliferation enabled it.

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Forbes.com.

The most important thing gleaned from the report by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) circulated on Feb. 18, which states that Iran may indeed be bent on developing a nuclear bomb, is not new information about Iran. It is that for years the United Nations apparatus lied about what they knew and actively stood in the way of efforts to prevent the world’s most dangerous regime from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon.

The “confidential” report leaked to every news agency on the planet, is quoted as stating that on the basis of “extensive” and “credible” information the IAEA now has “concerns about the possible existence in Iran of … current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” and “concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”

While Obama administration officials have attempted to spin the first report of IAEA chief Yukiya Amano, who took over last December, as a U.N. achievement, the implications of the evident U.N. deceit cannot be overstated. After all, the organization has a choke hold on global imaginations. In 2005 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IAEA and its then Director General Mohammed ElBaradei “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes.” It is now clear that this occurred at the very same time that ElBaradei was engaged in what may well prove to be the most lethal cover-up in human history.

For almost a decade, the IAEA and its director general stalled for time on behalf of Iran, with reports feigning ignorance of Iranian designs while leaving an escape hatch should the IAEA’s disguise as a non-proliferation agency be blown. In February 2006 ElBaradei reported: “Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The process of drawing such a conclusion … is a time consuming process.”

In August 2006 ElBaradei reported: “the Agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations with a view to confirming the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.” In January 2007, in the midst of growing calls for sanctions, ElBaradei suggested a “time-out.” In July 2007 ElBaradei concocted a deliberately nebulous deal between the IAEA and Iran “on the modality for resolving the remaining outstanding issues.” In September 2007, with stiffer sanctions on the horizon, ElBaradei again called for a “time-out.” In January 2008 the IAEA reported: “ElBaradei has repeatedly noted that … the IAEA has not seen any diversion of material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”p>

And on and on the reports and the carefully timed interviews went. The organization charged with stopping nuclear proliferation enabled it. This latest “revelation” should, therefore, be a shot heard round the world. Or at the very least, in the halls of Congress, where every year at least 5 billion American taxpayer dollars are directed to the United Nations in cash or in kind.

Last week’s report did not see the light of day because the U.N. has turned over a significant new leaf. Rather, this is a desperate attempt by Amano to save the organization’s hide. It is an indication that Iran’s breakout as a nuclear power is so close at hand that the “watchdog” agency can no longer keep a lid on it.

The development does cast a new light, however, on ElBaradei’s assessment of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. Over the course of his presidency, Obama has repeatedly taken the heat off Iran: muting criticism over the stolen elections, minimizing response to human rights violations, sidelining the plight of Iran’s American hostages and treading water on sanctions for over a year. One particularly treacherous strategy has been to equate the urgency of nuclear disarmament–including by the United States–with nuclear non-proliferation. This inevitably delays progress on the latter. In the name of some perverse concept of fairness, the peril of a nuclear-armed United States and like-minded democracies is set off against the craving of non-democratic developing states to be equally armed. ElBaradei agreed with this strategy–as did the Nobel Committee.

Fellow honoree ElBaradei was therefore “absolutely delighted” at Obama’s award. Perceiving the Obama-ElBaradei approach to have been applauded once again, he told reporters: “I could not have thought of any other person today that is more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama … I think the [Nobel] committee understood fully, as they have done in 2005, that we really need to address the number one security threat we face in the world–which is to get rid of these inhumane weapons. And Obama has … managed to put nuclear disarmament on the top of the international agenda … That is something I think the committee, by giving him the prize today, has applauded and said ‘you are doing the right thing; keep doing what you are doing.’ Exactly the same message that they have sent to the IAEA in 2005 … and myself.”

Two Nobel Peace Prizes later, Iran is much closer to acquiring nuclear weapons and ElBaradei’s days as U.N. proliferator-in-chief may not quite be over. On Friday, Feb. 19, he returned to his native Egypt and declared his interest in replacing President Hosni Mubarak in next year’s elections. If he were to succeed, he will undoubtedly follow an Iranian bomb with a dash to achieve an Egyptian one, with the tried-and-true U.N. formula of non-discrimination and peace.
————————
For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time.

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL
Climate Change

Published: February 21, 2010, in print February 22, 2010

Yvo de Boer’s resignation on Thursday after nearly four tumultuous years as chief steward of the United Nations’ climate change negotiations has deepened a sense of pessimism about whether the world can ever get its act together on global warming. Mr. de Boer was plainly exhausted by endless bickering among nations and frustrated by the failure of December’s talks in Copenhagen to deliver the prize he had worked so hard for: a legally binding treaty committing nations to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

His resignation comes at a fragile moment in the campaign to combat climate change. The Senate is stalemated over a climate change bill. The disclosure of apparently trivial errors in the U.N.’s 2007 climate report has given Senate critics fresh ammunition. And without Mr. de Boer, the slim chances of forging a binding agreement at the next round of talks in December in Cancún, Mexico, seem slimmer still.

Yet his departure is hardly the death knell for international negotiations. It is not proof that such talks are of no value or that the U.N. negotiating framework in place since 1992 should be abandoned. Even Copenhagen, messy as it was, brought rich and poor nations closer together than they had been. And more than 90 countries representing 83 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases promised, at least notionally, to reduce their emissions.

But his resignation does remind us that the U.N. process is tiring, cumbersome and slow. It reinforces the notion that some parallel negotiating track will be necessary if the world is to have any hope of achieving the reductions scientists believe are necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change.

The Copenhagen pledges, even if all of them are met, will merely stabilize global emissions by 2020. What really matters is what happens after 2020, whether the world can achieve reductions of at least 50 percent by midcentury. That won’t happen without big cuts by big emitters like the United States, the European Union, China, India and Brazil.

Even before Copenhagen, global leaders were exploring parallel tracks. Former President George W. Bush brought together some of the big emitters, and President Obama has expanded on this idea with the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, a group of 17 countries that plans to meet regularly. The Group of 20 has put climate change high on its agenda, and bilateral efforts — technology exchanges between China and the United States, for instance — are under discussion.

The underlying thought is that the ultimate goal is a safe planet, and that absent a top-down global treaty, that goal is probably best achieved by aggressive, bottom-up national strategies to reduce emissions. Not that these are a sure thing; the United States, embarrassingly, has no national strategy. Until it gets one, it can hardly lecture anyone else. Nor will the world stand a ghost of a chance of bringing emissions under control.