50 Civil Society Representatives Selected for UN Climate Summit (including Beyond Copenhagen member CECOEDECON)

At the request of the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team, UN-NGLS issued an open call for nominations of civil society speakers and attendees for the 2014 UN Climate Summit, with a deadline of 15 August. UN-NGLS received 544 nominations, which can be viewed here (multiple submissions for the same person were consolidated into one entry). Between 16-25 August, UN-NGLS facilitated a civil society Selection and Drafting Committee to review all nominees. A list of the members of the Committee is available here.

The Committee short-listed 76 candidates for consideration by the Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team (CCST). From this list of 76 candidates, the CCST initially selected the following 4 speakers and 34 attendees for the Climate Summit:

Speaker for the opening ceremony:

Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner - College of the Marshall Islands and Jo-Jikum - Marshall Islands .
.
3 panellists for the Thematic Debate "Voices from the front lines of climate change" (organized by UNICEF, UN Women and UNFPA):

Alina Saba - Mugal Indigenous Women’s Upliftment Institute / Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development - Nepal

Christina Ora - Pacific Youth Council - Solomon Islands

Sylvia Atugonza Kapello - Riamiriam Civil Soceity Network Karamoja - Uganda .
.
34 attendees (in alphabetical order by first name):

Agnes Kinaka - Carterets Catholic Parish/Leitana Nehan Women’s Development Agency (LNWDA)/Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development - Papua New Guinea

Alexandra Vanessa D. Pierre - PLURIELLES - Haiti

Arthur Mychal Johnson - South Bronx Unite - USA

Assia Korichi - Friends of the Environment Association "Ahbab EL Biaa" - Algeria

Bianca Hakena Carwinn - Leitana Nehan Women’s Development Agency/ Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development - Papua New Guinea

Carlos Bernabe Chex Mux - Asociación Ak’ Tenamit - Guatemala

Caroline Usikpedo - Niger Delta Women’s movement for Peace and Development (NDWPD) - Nigeria

Catherine de Medici Jaffee - 350.org - USA

Daniel Temesgen Gelan - Pastoralist forum Ethiopia - Ethiopia

Diana Eurydyka Maciąga - Pracownia na rzecz Wszystkich Istot (Association Workshop for All Beings) - Poland

Emad Adly - Arab Network for Environment and Development (RAED) - Egypt

Erika Pires Ramos - RESAMA - South American Network for Environmental Migrations - Brazil

Fadoua Brour - Arab Youth Climate Movement & Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network - Morocco

Farah Kabir - ActionAid Bangladesh - Bangladesh

Gladys Lorena Terrazas Arnez - Network Peace Integration and Development - Bolivia

Jatani Sora Liban - Gayo Pastoral Development Initiative (GPDI) - Ethiopia

Kandi Lea Marie Mossett - Indigenous Environmental Network - USA / Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara tribal nation

Kanyinke Sena - Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) - Kenya

Kathryn Kay Leuch - Philippine Movement for Climate Justice Phillippines

Linda Onyenya Wamune - SolarAid - Kenya

Margaret Hiza - Indian Nations Conservation Alliance - USA / Crow Tribe

Maria Theresa Nera-Lauron - IBON International - Phillippines

Melissa Ann Daniels - Native Women’s Association of Canada - Canada / Athebasca Chipewa

Mohamed Adow Iman - Christian Aid - Kenya

Osver Jaime Polo Carrasco - Iniciativa Construyendo Puentes - Peru

Relinda Melania Sosa Perez - National Confederation of Women Organized for Life and Integrated Development (CONAMOVIDI) / GROOTS Peru - Peru

Saleemul Huq - International Institute for Environment and Development - Bangladesh

Sandra Leticia Guzman Luna - Grupo de Financiamiento Climático para América Latina y el Caribe (GFLAC) - Mexico

Sara Suwan - Heinrich Boell Foundation Palestine and Jordan - Palestine

Sharad Joshi - Centre for Community Economics and Development Consultants Society (CECOEDECON); Public Advocacy Initiatives for Rights and Values in India (PAIRVI) - India

Sheng Ying - Shanghai Tongji Urban Planning & Design Institute - China

Tshiwe Shiri - Zimbabwe chapter of the Rural Women’s Assembly (RWA) - Zimbabwe

Ursula Regina Rakova Tulele Peisa - Papua New Guinea

Xinxin Bi - China Association for NGO Cooperation - China

.
Later on, it became possible to extend invitations to the remaining 12 candidates of the 76 who indicated they did not require travel support:

Alix Anne Sophie Mazounie - Réseau Action Climat

Bridget Burns - Women’s Environment and Development Organization

Caroline Dodd - Plan International

Colombe Akiwacu - Miss Rwanda 2014 / Rwanda Youth Alliance for Climate Actions (RYACA)

Irene Marie Bedard Wilson - American Indian Enterprise and Business Council

Liane Iris Schalatek - Heinrich Boell Foundation North America

Meagan Fallone - Barefoot College

Ria Voorhaar - Climate Action Network

Sabine Minninger - Bread for the World

Selma Chirouf Saidia - GEN International

Sönke Kreft - Germanwatch

Vitumbiko Chinoko - ACT Alliance

Source: http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?article4492

Read More

Historic UN Climate Summit Opens New Chapter in Global Efforts to Tackle Climate Change

New York, 23 September – New commitments, new ideas, and new financing for significant actions to address the challenge of climate change dominated the announcements made by more than 100 Heads of State and Government and leaders from the private sector and civil society at the Climate Summit hosted Tuesday by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

World leaders reaffirmed the need to take urgent action to limit global temperature rise to less than two degrees Celsius. Acknowledging that the world was not on a pathway to reach that goal, they also committed to significantly ramp up climate action. Many speakers made it clear that taking action to reduce emissions could be achieved without damaging prospects for economic development and efforts to fight poverty.

Closing the Summit, the Secretary-General said, “I asked for bold announcements from Governments, business, finance and civil society in five key areas. The Summit delivered.”

“This Summit was not about talk. History is made by action. And now we have seen that the world is ready to act.”

At the Summit, heads of government, business and civil society announced actions in areas that would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience.

Government leaders also committed to reach an ambitious and universal climate agreement in Paris in 2015 and pledged to work under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to reach it.

And many countries announced climate goals, targets and initiatives, including announcements of contributions to the Green Climate Fund by both developing and developed nations.

Several European countries announced that they would pursue the target of 40 per cent greenhouse gas reductions over 1990 levels. The United States announced an initiative to bolster resilience efforts and China announced that will reduce carbon intensity, increase the share of non-fossil fuels and raise the forest stock, and see its total total carbon dioxide emissions peak as early as possible. India announced it will double its wind and solar power production by 2020.

Developing countries stressed their own efforts to address climate change. Many emphasized initiatives to protect and expand their forests. Georgia said it was working to become carbon neutral by 2050; Costa Rica said it would use 100 per cent clean energy by 2016; and Chile said it was aiming to green 45 per cent of its energy by 2025.

Many countries stressed efforts to build carbon-trading mechanisms and the need to put a price on carbon emissions.

More than 70 countries and 1,000 companies endorsed the development of  mechanisms that would reflect the true costs of emissions and other forms of pollution.

More than 30 companies endorsed the Caring for Climate Business Leadership Criteria on Carbon Pricing, which include setting an internal carbon price high enough to affect investment decisions to drive down greenhouse gas emissions.

Some of the most ambitious goals were announced by coalitions of governments businesses and civil society. Financial institutions, commercial and national banks, insurance companies and pension funds vowed to mobilize more than $200 billion in finance for climate action by the end of 2015 through a host of new initiatives, such as those aimed at issuing green bonds and shifting assets to clean-energy portfolios.

In an acknowledgment of the special needs of people on the frontlines of climate change, Summit participants placed a heavy emphasis on adaptation and resilience initiatives. These included an announcement from the insurance industry, representing $30 trillion in assets and investments, committed to creating a Climate Risk Investment Framework for industry-wide adoption by the end of next year.

“Looking forward, we must maintain the spirit of compromise and commitment that characterized our discourse,” Mr. Ban concluded.

“We must fulfill and expand on all the pledges and initiatives brought forward today. As we walk together on the road to Paris in December 2015, let us look back on today as the day we decided – as a human family – to put our house in order to make it liveable for future generations.”

The announcements and commitments made at the Climate Summit can be found at www.un.org/climatechange/summit and on Twitter from @climate2014live #climate2014.

Source: http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/2014/09/historic-climate-summit-opens-new-chapter-global-efforts-tackle-climate-change/

Some video links to the proceedings are as follows:

Read More

Global Days of Action for Development Justice - "Nyayapoorna Vikas ki Maang"

"U;k;iw.kZ fodkl dh ekax"

A few pics of the event "Global Days of Action on Development Justice" that CECOEDECON and Beyond Copenhagen Collective organized as part of the Campaign for People’s Goals for Sustainable Development. on 21 July at Shilki (Chaksu), Jaipur.

The event brought multi-stakeholders that have been left behind in the development process by ensuring representation from the grassroots - smallholder and marginalized farmers, village development committees, elected women representatives, micro-finance cooperatives members, youth groups, members of local governing bodies such as Panchayat Samiti.

There was a call for need to radically change the global political and economic system through a transformative and redistributive framework that aims to reduce inequalities of wealth, power and resources between countries, between rich and poor and between men and women. Regional priorities were emphasized: economic justice, gender equity, climate justice, accountability and inclusive development.

Also sharing link to the video that was globally launched in 14 countries on 21 July 2014:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I2cEDbIW04&feature=youtu.be

Read More

Hard choices at Copenhagen

During the Climate Change Conference in 2009, the Obama-BASIC meeting was a watershed, saving Copenhagen from a complete collapse and also marking the emergence of the BASIC quartet as a major force in international climate policy diplomacy

Hillary Clinton’s recent memoirs reveal how during the fortnight-long Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, on December 18, 2009, United States President Barack Obama and she barged into a room in which President Lula of Brazil, President Zuma of South Africa, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China and Dr. Manmohan Singh were meeting along with their respective delegations and started tough negotiations.

The much-touted Copenhagen Conference was heading nowhere. Presidents and Prime Ministers from across the world had been unable to agree to a global agreement to combat climate change. Finally, it was the Chinese Premier who convened a meeting of the BASIC group comprising Brazil, South Africa, India and China. The quartet’s ministers had been working closely together both in the run-up to and at Copenhagen itself.

Holding up an outcome

The two Presidents and two Prime Ministers started their confabulations at around 6p.m. All four had immediately agreed that the BASIC group should not be seen to have been responsible for the failure at Copenhagen. Just about 15 minutes into the meeting, President Obama, accompanied by Secretary Clinton and a large retinue of officials, walked into the room unannounced saying that he was actually looking for Premier Wen and then adding that he was lucky not only to have found him but also find him in the company of his BASIC colleagues. He then got down to business right away and said that according to his impressions, there were three contentious issues holding up a successful outcome at Copenhagen: (i) a global goal for reduction of emissions by 2050; (ii) measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of each country’s actions; and (iii) the need for a legally-binding global treaty.

After he had spoken, Premier Wen, after welcoming President Obama, turned to Dr. Singh. Dr. Singh, who had been greeted effusively by President Obama earlier, spoke of the complexities in the three issues raised and underscored the determination of the BASIC quartet to contribute constructively to a solution that is effective and equitable. He then asked me to elaborate.

I then proceeded to explain why the acceptance of a global goal could foreclose development options for developing countries and that for the present the global goal should rest with the formulation agreed to in the Declaration of the Leaders at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) held in L’Aquila, Italy on July 9, 2009 which said thus: “We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees Celsius.” Ambassador Shyam Saran also spoke up explaining in some detail why a quantitative target would not be in the interests of developing countries.

Transparency and language

President Obama readily conceded our point. But he went on to then say that for the U.S., the issue of international transparency of domestic commitments was paramount and he wouldn’t leave Copenhagen without arriving at a settlement on it. The transparency issue then became the topic of heated discussion. Before the heads-of-state meeting, Mike Froman of the U.S., He Yafei of China and I had been meeting to hammer out acceptable language. I tried some formulations that were not acceptable to China and some others that were unacceptable to the U.S. We went in for the summit meeting without having reached any agreement. He Yafei and I had, however, agreed that India and China would not accept any formulation that did not contain the following — “… while ensuring that national sovereignty is respected.”

I briefed the meeting about the differences that still existed. President Obama then asked the sherpas to move to the corner of the room, discuss the matter further and come back. In this impromptu conclave, I suggested “international discussion” which was vetoed by the U.S. I then tried “international consultations” which was also vetoed by the Americans who said that there must be a reference to “assessment.” I suggested “analysis” as an alternative and my Brazilian counterpart qualified it as “technical analysis.”

After some 10 minutes of haggling, we moved a few steps to report back to the bosses. I told President Obama that the best we could offer is “international consultations and technical analysis which would respect national sovereignty.” I said that “scrutiny/review/assessment” is simply unacceptable to the BASIC group.

President Obama’s immediate reaction was negative. He said that “international consultations” seems like a pointless talk shop. I then told him that there is precedent for “international consultations” in the relations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) with member-countries. President Obama immediately saw the point and instantaneously said that if there is such a precedent he would buy this formulation. That settled “international consultations.” President Obama then said that “technical analysis” was unacceptable. It should be “technical review/scrutiny/assessment.” I then said that President Obama’s choice of words would be politically unacceptable but we could live with “technical analysis” since that is what the IMF and the WTO do in any case.

Then, President Obama objected to the word “technical” in “technical analysis” saying that it circumscribes the scope of the analysis. I consulted with Dr. Singh and Premier Wen and said that we should clinch the deal by dropping our insistence on the word “technical.” Both President Lula and President Zuma concurred. Dr. Singh and Premier Wen asked me to announce it.

I then said to President Obama, “Sir, we will agree to ‘international consultations and analysis’ but you must agree to the reference to ‘respect for national sovereignty’.” Again, to President Obama’s eternal credit, he did not hesitate for a moment and said “done.” That was the breakthrough moment which the entire world had been waiting for.

After the MRV issue was settled largely on account of President Obama overruling his own aides, we moved on to the legally binding global treaty issue. Dr. Singh said that much more work needed to be done before any commitment to such a treaty could be made. President Obama responded by saying that he would go along with what Dr. Singh was saying. He then ended the meeting with a flourish by saying — “Now I have to sell our agreement to my good friends the Europeans.”

Incidentally, there are two other accounts of this historic meeting that Secretary Clinton describes with the focus understandably on President Obama and herself. Strobe Talbott writes in his book Fast Forward: “Manmohan Singh engaged with Obama but let Jairam Ramesh, his energy and environment minister, do most of the arguing. Ramesh did so with relish. He was aggressive, sometimes acerbic, but not strident.” Jeffrey Bader in his Obama and China’s Rise also has more direct and detailed account of the Obama-BASIC Summit meeting and writes: “India’s environment minister Jairam Ramesh argued politely but aggressively with Obama over several points.”

Undoubtedly, the Obama-BASIC meeting was a watershed. It saved Copenhagen from a complete collapse and also marked the emergence of the BASIC quartet as a major force in international climate policy diplomacy. The meeting was also tense. My Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua was absolutely livid at the compromise arrived at on the transparency issue even though it had the support of his own Prime Minister. In an unusual outburst, he started banging the table and launched into an angry tirade which left all of us stunned. Premier Wen quietly told the interpreter not to translate. Minister Xie continued for some time prompting President Obama to ask, “What is he saying?” Prompt came Secretary Clinton’s reply which had the whole meeting exploding with laughter leading to a lowering of the tension, “Mr. President, I think he is congratulating us!!!” Alas, her memoirs do not have a reference to this master quip.

(Jairam Ramesh was India’s Minister for Environment and Forests from June 2009 to July 2011.)

Read More

A year later, no lessons learnt

Little seems to have been done by the State governments, past and present, in the area of disaster prevention, mitigation and management. Picture shows Indo-Tibetan Border Police personnel rescuing a woman pilgrim during the floods.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-year-later-no-lessons-learnt/article6120397.ece

Uttarakhand is still in dire need of a development plan that is also sensitive to the fragile ecosystem that was crippled by the floods and landslides of 2013

Santosh Naudiyal stood on the verandah of a building in Rudraprayag last December while he narrated his story. On October 1, 1994, the night of the Rampur Tiraha massacre, Santosh and his friends boarded a bus to New Delhi to participate in a dharna to demand for a separate State of Uttarakhand. “We fought for it and today we have it,” he told me, pointing towards the Rudraprayag collectorate that stood shakily on sinking ground.

The June 16-17 deluge last year — one of the worst calamities the State has witnessed — resulted in flash floods and landslides. The situation was exacerbated by a defunct disaster management system, the result of the apathy of consecutive governments that have ruled the State.

This was not the Uttarakhand that Santosh and his friends had desired.

The floods and after

The deluge left Uttarakhand in shambles. Flash floods pummelled the Alaknanda, Bhagirathi, Mandakini, Gori Ganga, Pindar, and Kali rivers. According to official data, 4,190 people died in the disaster, more than 2,500 buildings were completely destroyed, and 2,070 roads and 145 bridges were damaged. However, numbers alone do not reveal the extent of loss.

In the weeks that followed, more than a lakh pilgrims and locals were evacuated from the disaster-hit areas: the Kedarnath, Badrinath, Yamunotri and Gangotri shrines, the Sikh pilgrimage site, Hemkund Sahib, and parts of Pithoragarh and Bageshwar districts. Only after rescue operations were over did the government shift focus to the locals.

It has been a year since the tragedy crippled the State; yet, sadly, locals continue to remain the government’s second priority. Rehabilitation of villagers is still incomplete. Locals continue to make trips to their tehsildars, patwaris, sub-divisional magistrates, and district magistrates for pending compensation issues, to appeal for the construction of safety walls and for the rebuilding of roads and bridges.

Last year, yatras to the four shrines and to Hemkund Sahib resumed. But with two months of inaction following the catastrophe, Chief Minister Vijay Bahuguna’s exit was on the cards. Only after Harish Rawat replaced Mr. Bahuguna as the State’s new Chief Minister on Februrary 1 did the post-disaster reconstruction work gain momentum. However, the pace again slackened when elections assumed priority.

In a year, the blocked roads have been opened, some have been black-topped, some reconstructed. Broken bridges have been replaced with makeshift ones. Roads have been reconstructed, but by boring deeper into the mountains, already subject to constant erosion by the river flowing beside them. At some places, protection walls have been built; at others, debris from landslides has been left as it is, blocking the roads this monsoon season too. A biometric registration system has been introduced this year to keep track of the pilgrims, and the State Disaster Response Force has been deployed on the yatra routes. However, the meteorological equipment has not been upgraded since last year. Talks of establishing an early warning system began only recently.

An area prone to disasters

The June calamity apart, Uttarakhand has witnessed a number of disasters in the past — from earthquakes and landslides to flash floods. Yet, little seems to have been done by the State governments, past and present, in the area of disaster prevention, mitigation and management.

According to the State Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre’s (DMMC) records, in 1999, a major earthquake in Chamoli caused the deaths of 101 people. Another earthquake hit Uttarkashi in 1991 killing 768 people. Both earthquakes measured more than six on the Richter scale. “The State has not witnessed a major earthquake for more than 200 years,” the DMMC’s 2012 report stated. “This enhances seismic risk in the region.”

The Earthquake Risk Map of India places 13 districts in Uttarakhand under seismic zone IV (severe intensity zone) and V (very severe intensity zone). Despite this, several dams and roads have been constructed along fault lines, K.S. Valdiya, an eminent geologist and honorary Professor of Geodynamics at the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, said in a discourse after the deluge.

According to the authorities, nothing more than regular training and awareness programmes are being conducted on disaster management in case of an earthquake.

The DMMC report also states that other than earthquakes, the State is vulnerable to hailstorms, cloudbursts, flash floods, forest fires, and avalanches. In 2012, a landslide in Ukhimath and flash floods in the Assi Ganga and the Bhagirathi rivers killed about a 100 people and caused extensive damage to livestock and property. A 2010 Comptroller and Auditor General of India’s report states that the 2010 monsoons affected 29.24 lakh people; 214 people lost their lives in the season. The report further states that between 2005 and 2009, 474 people across Uttarakhand lost their lives to various disasters.

What is perhaps lacking in Uttarakhand is an effective disaster management system. A combined effort needs to take place between the State Disaster Management department, the State Disaster Management Authority, the meteorological department, and other departments. If every agency continues to work towards disaster management in isolation, the death toll will only increase.

Redefining development

Bumper-to-bumper construction of hydroelectric power projects, buildings and roads, with little knowledge of the effects of such constructions in the region, continue at a reckless pace in the State’s current development framework.

Last year on August 13, the Supreme Court issued an order in which it directed the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to constitute an expert body to “assess whether the existing and ongoing/under-construction hydroelectric power projects have contributed to the environmental degradation and, if so, to what extent.” It also directed the MoEF and the State government to “not grant any further environmental clearance or forest clearance for any hydroelectric power project in the State of Uttarakhand, until further orders.”

The expert body, in its Chopra Committee Report, elucidated the adverse role played by the projects in worsening the disaster.

A Himalayan policy drafted by Shekhar Pathak, a historian from Uttarakhand, and Hemant Dhyani of Ganga Ahvaan, a movement for the conservation of the Ganga and the Himalayas, states that after witnessing calamities in the Uttarakhand region for almost four decades, it was clear that “all these calamities failed in fully sensitising the system, administrators, and policy makers.”

The draft of the policy, which is a part of the Chopra Committee Report submitted to the Supreme Court, suggests establishing micro hydel projects, solar projects, stopping illegal mining, strengthening Van Panchayats, and demarcating cultural eco-sensitive zones for the conservation of biodiversity, among other recommendations.

The State’s tourism sector has suffered a loss of about Rs. 12,000 crore following the calamity. A population of around 7 lakh, which was dependent on the earnings from religious tourism, has been affected. Lack of livelihood opportunities and safety concerns are resulting in migration from the affected areas. The State is in dire need of a fast-paced development plan that is also sensitive to the fragile ecosystem.

The missing momentum in development efforts coupled with a change in leadership and redevelopment plans implies that political will is necessary for the State to develop while addressing environmental concerns.

Read More