Eco Business: Lighting the Dark Continent, by Achim Steiner, Adnan Amin, and Kandeh K. Yumkella
Canada.com Emerging economies slam Canada over Kyoto withdrawal
Download 302.1 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Back to Menu ============================================================= UN News
- Back to Menu _________________________________________________________________ General UN News
- Back to Menu _________________________________________________________________
- Back to Menu ============================================================= Featured Blog posts
- Back to Menu _________________________________________________________________ SciDev (US): How Rio+20 may boost the science in sustainability
- Back to Menu _________________________________________________________________ RenewEconomy: Ignoring forests won’t solve Rio+20′s problems
- Back to Menu =============================================================
Canada.com Emerging economies slam Canada over Kyoto withdrawal15 February 2012 The world's largest emerging economies are singling out Canada for its "casual" approach to fighting climate change, saying it raises serious doubts about the Canadian government's credibility. In a joint statement, the so-called BASIC countries of Brazil, South Africa, India and China, said they were disappointed about Canada's decision to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, the world's only legally binding treaty on global warming. The federal government's decision was announced after it had participated in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change discussions last December. "Ministers regretted the announcement by Canada, within a few days after the conclusion of the Durban Conference, withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol," said the four countries, after concluding a meeting this week in New Dehli. "Ministers observed that the Kyoto Protocol is not only a cornerstone of the international climate regime but a legally binding agreement under the UNFCCC and that any attempts by developed countries to casually set aside their existing legal commitments while calling for a new legally binding agreement seriously questions their credibility and sincerity in responding to the climate crisis." Environment Minister Peter Kent has suggested Canada would meet its own targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But Canada has not introduced a plan to achieve its goals and has indicated it does not want to do so under the legally binding mechanisms of the Kyoto agreement.
Flag-off in Kenya Technical Teachers College (KTTC), Gigiri Avenue Award ceremony at the KTTC sports grounds
As part of the Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) Project, UNEP and UNEP Risø Centre (URC) facilitated a Regional Capacity Building Workshop in Fringilla, Zambia from 14 to 17 February 2012. The GEF funded TNA project is intended to lead to the development of national Technology Action Plans (TAPs) that prioritize technologies, recommend enabling frameworks for the diffusion of these technologies and facilitate identification of good technology transfer projects. This includes identifying and pursuing potential financing sources. The TAPs will systematically address practical actions necessary to reduce or remove policy, finance and technology related barriers. During the three day workshop on ‘Barrier Analysis, Enabling Environment and Development of Technology Actions Plans’, UNEP Risø introduced a new publication ‘Overcoming Barriers to the Transfer and Diffusion of Climate Technologies’. The publication provides practical and operational guidance on assessing and overcoming barriers facing the transfer and diffusion of technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation.The publication served as an input to the workshop which provided training in identifying barriers to technology transfer and diffusion, identifying enabling frameworks to overcome the identified barriers and in developing Technology Action Plans (TAPs) describing measures to overcome the barriers in facilitating the transfer and diffusion of selected technologies in the participating countries. The training was facilitated by URC, along with ENDA, the Regional Centre for Africa. Participants included TNA Coordinators, National Consultants working on the TNA on mitigation and adaptation and government officials from Ghana, Kenya, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Sudan, and Zambia. Initiated in November 2009, 15 countries from Asia, Africa, Latin & Central America and Europe were selected for participating in the first round of workshops in the TNA project. The current workshop was part of the second round of the project, initiated in 2010, comprising 21 countries. Back to Menu _________________________________________________________________ Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias assumes helm at Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 15 February 2012 Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias today began his tenure as the Executive Secretary to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the Secretariat’s offices in Montreal, Canada. Mr. Dias, a Brazilian national, brings many years of experience in policy-making and in coordinating the implementation of biodiversity policies, programmes and projects at the national and international level. Deeply involved with the negotiations and implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity since its beginnings, he participated as a member of the Brazilian delegation in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the Convention. Previously the National Secretary for Biodiversity and Forests at the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, Mr. Dias was directly responsible for overseeing several multi-institution programmes and the work of four institutions attached to the Ministry. Mr. Dias was previously a member of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, Vice President of the International Union of Biological Sciences, and Coordinator of the Steering Committee of the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network. Trained as a scientist, he holds a Bachelor of Science in biological sciences from the University of Brasilia, with a Doctor of Philosophy in zoology from the University of Edinburgh. Born in 1953, Mr. Dias is married and has one child. Mr. Dias succeeds Ahmed Djoghlaf, who had served as Executive Secretary since January 2006. On assuming his post, Mr. Dias stated: “It gives me great pleasure to succeed those that have successfully led the Convention Secretariat since the beginning – Angela Cropper, Calestous Juma, Hamdallah Zedan and Ahmed Djoghlaf. If you ask what my three priorities are for the Convention, my answer is implementation, implementation and implementation.” Mr. Dias begins his tenure following the strong success of the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, held in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010. At that historic meeting, Governments approved a new Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 with its twenty Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Governments also agreed on the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Back to Menu ============================================================= Featured Blog posts Green Peace: Protecting oceans- It's not rocket science 15 February 2012 It’s not rocket science - closing areas of land and water to humans allows nature to recover and restore its fragile balance. The idea has been successfully tried and tested many times on land but it has taken years of destruction before the message has hit home for the oceans. Ten years ago in Johannesburg, global leaders committed for the first time to establish by 2012 networks of marine protected areas to protect oceans from human impacts. The 2012 target has been reiterated over and over in global and regional environmental political meetings. In 2007 Mediterranean governments agreed to set aside by 2012 marine protected areas including seas areas of international waters to save marine life, and in 2009 they agreed to a plan to make it happen. It’s now February 2012. I am in freezing Paris where the 17th meeting of the Mediterranean Environment Convention – the Barcelona Convention – has just taken place. The icy temperatures here in the French capital reflect the cold truth. There is no Mediterranean network in place... in fact the last area of international waters to be protected was set up ten years ago! The complex politics of the region and thorny histories between governments has hindered collaboration for the protection of the oceans that belong to all of us- you and me. In the past years Greenpeace has taken direct action in the Mediterranean to stop the senseless plunder of bluefin tuna. We have published reports and scientific information highlighting areas, such as the Sicilian Channel and the Balearics, and have proposed a network of marine reserves covering 40% of the Mediterranean sea. In Paris, once again Greenpeace denounced the lack of action and urged governments to stop dragging their feet and take action. The meeting finally decided to send the the list of ecologically and biologically significant areas identified by the regional scientific project to the global Convention on Biological Diversity. The science has identified significant areas in the region - fragile seamounts, coral reefs and spawning areas of species such as bluefin tuna. Countries now need to take up the responsibility to protect these areas against overfishing, destructive fishing, pollution and abandon their catastrophic plans to drill for oil and gas. Will the Mediterranean countries act to defend the sea, despite the region’s political and financial turmoil? Or will there be more empty promises? Unlike most areas of the world, the lack of progress in the Med is less about legal gaps and more a result of the lack of political will. For most parts of the world’s oceans however, there is no mechanism to set up and manage protected areas in the high seas. A new Oceans Rescue Plan is necessary to spell these rules out and we hope that the need to negotiate such an agreement will be agreed at the Rio 2012 conference this June. Unfortunately countries such as the U.S, Iceland and Norway still enjoy the wild west of the high seas and want to see no further development of rules to protect and manage marine life in these areas. Thankfully, the 22 Mediterranean countries at least sent the opposite message through the Paris declaration last Friday. Back to Menu _________________________________________________________________ SciDev (US): How Rio+20 may boost the science in sustainability 10 February 2012 One of the most likely outcomes of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) taking place in Brazil in June will be a high-level intergovernmental panel charged with monitoring the planet's progress towards sustainability. A key function of the panel, which seemed to be gathering support at a meeting held in New York last month (25–27 January) to discuss the outcome of conference, will be to inject more science into the political discussion of how to achieve sustainability. But, with several competing proposals on the table, it is not clear what form such an intergovernmental panel would take. What would its mandate be? And how would it include developing countries, which may have less scientific expertise than developed countries but just as much stake in the panel's activities and outcomes? Some believe that a scientific panel should be restricted to preparing regular 'state of the planet' assessment reports. A top-level advisory committee to the UN last week proposed setting up a board to give science advice to the UN secretary-general. Others are pushing for a full intergovernmental panel comparable to — and perhaps responsible for — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And some favour a combination of these ideas. Politically, any proposal will need to both assure developing countries that their voices will be heard, and meet the concerns of developed countries regarding costs and bureaucracy. All these issues are likely to surface at the next round of negotiations in New York next month (19–23 March). A flurry of proposals. The starting point for negotiations has been the first draft of the Rio+20 outcome document, known as the 'zero draft'. This flags up the need for regular 'state of the planet' reviews and calls on the UN secretary-general to coordinate such assessments, although it does not specifically mention an intergovernmental panel. "The zero draft is now accepted material for negotiations of the Rio+20 outcome," says Gisbert Glaser, a senior advisor at the International Council for Science (ICSU), one of the coordinators of the Scientific and Technological Community 'major group' at Rio+20 negotiations. One proposal that goes significantly further than the zero draft is a global sustainability panel to advise the UN, an idea endorsed by the UN secretary-general's high-level panel in a report published last week (30 January). The panel, including politicians from both developed and developing countries, states the need for a global scientific initiative to strengthen the interface between policy and science. This would produce assessment reports "in the context of sustainable development", including socio-economic analyses. Planet from above The panel could produce regular 'state of the planet' reports. A separate proposal, which is gathering support from developing countries and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), is the creation of an Intergovernmental Panel on Sustainable Development, along the lines of both the IPCC and the recently-established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This proposal, put forward by Indonesia last July, is backed for example by the Stakeholder Forum, a civil society pressure group that is tracking the Rio+20 negotiations. It goes further than the zero draft's call for 'state of the planet' assessments to include a broader assessment of what sustainable development means for people. This is an important addition if developing countries are to support the proposal. They say that concerns about sustainable development should not just be about environmental damage and resource depletion, but should include ideas about how a country can develop both socially and economically while preserving its environment. The Stakeholder Forum suggests that such a panel could be modelled on the IPCC, bringing together representatives from the scientific and political communities. It could oversee both the IPCC and IPBES, as well as future panels, although the structure would need to be agreed. The purpose of the panel would need to be clear, says Farooq Ullah, head of policy and advocacy at the Stakeholder Forum. For example, would it do its own research or consolidate the research of others? Global sustainability versus sustainable development A separate proposal — supported by parts of the scientific community — comes from the European Union, and calls for a "mechanism for international research cooperation on major sustainable development challenges", working alongside the IPCC and IPBES rather than overseeing them. Another idea, being promoted by a broad coalition of scientific organisations under the banner of the Future Earth initiative, is to create an Intergovernmental Panel on Global Sustainability (IPGS), which would carry out regular assessments of the state of the planet. An IPGS would bring together "and expand upon existing assessments [such as those done by the IPCC], strengthening links between science and policy", according to the Future Earth initiative, which will be launched at the Planet Under Pressure conference in London, United Kingdom, next month (26–29 March). Deforestation Deforestation is one of many environmental issues facing the planet The 'global sustainability' of this proposal is distinct from the 'sustainable development' of the Indonesian submission: one focuses on the state of the planet, the other on the process of development. The IPGS would also be broader in scope, and have a role closer to the wording of the zero draft. Another difference, however, is that while the impact of sustainable development is central to the Indonesian proposal, in the Future Earth proposal it is just one aspect. This could make it harder for developing countries to support it, diplomats suggest. Sybil Seitzinger, executive director of the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme, which backs the Future Earth proposal, says: "We don't just need an assessment of the planet, we need to develop this panel and give it a new suite of tools [such as the ability to do early warnings and provide socio-economic impacts to policymakers] that are easy for decision-makers to use, but based on strong science." The proposal does not mean abolishing the IPCC or IPBES, she says. "But we need to look at the world from a more integrated perspective". She also suggests that a global sustainability panel should include and advise a broad range of institutions. "We need to think of [including] major financial institutions, such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and beyond, as well as NGOs that have big stakes in ensuring global sustainability," she says. The creation of any intergovernmental panel to monitor global progress towards sustainability would inevitably raise the issue of government influence, and how it might affect the presentation of scientific data. "But it also has advantages because governments are involved in the co-production of knowledge," says Frank Biermann, chair of the Earth System Governance Project, a network of researchers specialising in global environmental change management, which is providing input to various proposals. Scientific knowledge produced without government engagement "might not be taken seriously by governments later on", he suggests. Getting developing countries on board. Not all the proposals are mutually exclusive, and some might merge along the way, diplomats say. Glaser points out that ICSU has been involved in developing several proposals, as "the best mechanism may not necessarily be the one that gets the most political support". ICSU says it wants the best science, but that proposals should include clauses relevant to developing countries. "The EU proposal is supported by a very strong group of countries, and we have also lent our support to this idea of a global mechanism. But we are not in a position at this stage to single out one or two [proposals] and say they are our favourites," says Glaser. Children in an African slum Developing countries want sustainable development, not just global sustainability The United States and Canada oppose any panel with significant bureaucracy and high administrative costs, pointing to the IPCC's operating costs of US$12–13 million a year. Seitzinger argues that this is "not a large amount of money compared to the cost savings that this type of science-based information would provide" and it would identify cost-effective areas for investment. Many countries, particularly in the South, have not shown their hand on the type of panel they would support. Biermann points out that developing countries will only back a body if it makes them feel adequately represented. "But you also have huge imbalances in scientific resources between countries," he says, adding that geographic balance may not lead to the best scientific judgements. Despite the many challenges that it presents, the idea of an intergovernmental panel with a strong scientific role is gaining traction. In New York last month, "people were beginning to consolidate around this idea", says Ullah of the Stakeholder Forum. Many issues remain to be resolved, from whether to focus on global sustainability or sustainable development, to ensuring an appropriate balance between political and scientific representation. But with four months to go before Rio+20, both NGOs and the scientific community are optimistic that an acceptable solution can be found. Back to Menu _________________________________________________________________ RenewEconomy: Ignoring forests won’t solve Rio+20′s problems 14 February 2012 In June 2012 around 40,000 participants are expected to attend one of the most important environmental gatherings in a generation – Rio+20. A draft agenda has been released, bearing the slogan “The Future We Want”. It identifies seven critical issues for new sustainable development goals that will be released in Rio: jobs, energy, cities, food, water, oceans and disasters. But with forests only mentioned briefly in the text and in isolation to other key issues, will Rio+20 really help develop a future we want? Forests make up 31 per cent of the world’s entire land mass. The resources they provide are essential to the daily livelihood of almost 1.6 billion people – more than a quarter of the world’s population. They are key to many ecosystem services, including mitigating and adapting to climate change, influencing weather patterns, capturing and storing carbon, providing food and fuelwood for many poor and vulnerable communities, supporting biodiversity and generating employment. The absence of forests from this year’s agenda is remarkable. The first Rio meeting put a very big emphasis on forests and subsequently set the stage for all major international environmental agreements, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the UN Convention on Biodiversity. While it is important that the Rio+20 meeting explore new ground and address the emerging problems of the 21st century, policymakers must recognise that forests are essential to all of the major challenges that are on the table for this meeting. For example, the program for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) has played a big role in international negotiations by helping to integrate forests into the solution to climate change. Through this mechanism, we now have serious prospects for progress that we have not had during the past two decades. Research by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and others has shown that forests have instrumental but under-appreciated roles to play in all seven key areas to be discussed at Rio+20. Forests and jobs Forest resources are essential to the daily livelihoods of about a billion people. A recent global study by CIFOR’s Poverty and Environment Network found that forest income makes up almost one-quarter of total household income for people living in or near forests. It is more significant than the amount they earn from agriculture. Many existing tools for assessing poverty and income – such as the World Bank’s Living Standard Measurement Survey – fall short in capturing the importance of the income from natural resources. The true value of forests in the livelihoods of the world’s rural poor remains largely invisible. Forests and energy According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in some parts of Africa woodfuels account for almost 90% of primary energy consumption. Scientists believe that deforestation across the Horn of Africa, particularly for firewood harvest, has been a major contributor to the pervasive drought in the region. Furthermore, fluctuating oil prices and growing concerns about climate change have led to a renewed commitment to renewable energy. This is pushing up demand for biofuels such as those produced from palm oil, jatropha and soy. Cultivating these fuel crops contributes to the loss of forests, which reduces and even eliminates these fuels’ positive impact on the atmosphere. Forests and food Forests are a nutritional bounty. In rural areas of the Congo Basin, for example, many communities depend on wild meat hunted in forests for up to 80% of the fat and protein in their diets. Forests also provide goods and services that support the agricultural sector by providing homes for the bees, bats, and other pollinators of agricultural crops. With agricultural commodity prices already at an all-time high and set to stay that way for another decade, the sustainable intensification of agriculture to ensure secure future food supplies and reduce negative environmental impacts will not be possible without also preserving our forests. Forests and water Water is a renewable resource. Yet, the profligacy with which it has been used, the speed of human population growth, and the increasing per capita demands for water together mean that provision of adequate, safe supplies is now a major source of concern, expense and international tension. Forested catchments are vital sources of fresh water for human use. They supply an estimated 75% of usable water globally. Loss of forests has been blamed for everything from flooding to aridity and for catastrophic reductions of water quality. Forests and cities In many developing urban centres, wood charcoal is the fuel of choice. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’s capital, the proportion of households using wood charcoal as the primary source energy rose from 47% to 71% between 2002 and 2007. Global trade in forest products, which occurs primarily in urban centres, is a lucrative enterprise. It reached a total value of $327 billion in 2004 (or 3.7% of global trade in all commodity products according to the UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs). Forests and oceans Coastal ecosystems – such as mangrove forests – are critical to curb the effects of climate change. About 20% of the worlds’ mangroves have been destroyed in the last 25 years. This has led to the release of centuries of accumulated carbon and disturbed the coast’s natural protection against storm surges and other weather events. Mangroves are also important to coastal fisheries, with many species of fish and crustaceans using mangrove forests as nurseries for their young. Recent studies have documented the fisheries decline due to mangrove deforestation and the consequent loss of economic welfare among coastal communities in Thailand, Indonesia, and Mexico. Forests and disasters In 2006, rural communities in East Kalimantan, Indonesia were devastated by a catastrophic flash flood that buried thousands of homes and rice fields under two meters of water. Nearby forests played a crucial role in providing basic subsistence to vulnerable communities for many months following the disaster. Furthermore, timber harvesting can affect landslide occurrence. If there had been more forests on steep slopes in East Kalimantan, it could have helped to slow the flow of and retain some of the rainwater. It’s clear that forests are ever more crucial to the problems that are on the table at this discussion. Rio+20 offers the opportunity to discuss forests in the context of some of the world’s most pressing problems and integrate them into the solutions. The background documents do not reflect the important contributions that forests can make toward solving the problems that are on the table. There will be several preparatory meetings for Rio+20 over the course of the next few months; these offer the opportunity to correct the unfortunate lack of attention to forests in the Rio+20 agenda. Leaving forests out of the equation will only ensure that Rio+20’s problems do not get fully solved. Back to Menu ============================================================= Directory: cpi -> briefs briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news briefs -> The environment in the news Download 302.1 Kb. Share with your friends:
|