Economists launch blog on “Triple Crises” in finance, development, and environment

On February 1, new voices joined the policy debate on the global crises in finance, development, and the environment. The “TripleCrisisBlog,” with an initial roster of economic analysts from nine countries, was launched by the Global Development and Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University (USA), India’s Economic Research Foundation (ERF), and the Washington office of the Heinrich Boell Foundation. The initiative is chaired by GDAE’s Kevin P. Gallagher and ERF’s Jayati Ghosh.

“Crises are not new to the world economy nor to developing countries,” Gallagher and Ghosh write in their introductory post. “Indeed, our current predicament is a convergence of at least three crises: in global finance, development, and environment. These areas are seemingly disparate but actually interact with each other in forceful ways to reflect major structural imbalances between finance and the real economy; between the higher income and developing economies; between the human economic system and the earth’s ecosystems. This blog seeks to contribute to a more open and global dialogue around these three crises: about how they interact, and how they can collectively be solved.”

The TripleCrisisBlog starts with a wide diversity of analysts from the global North and South. In addition to Gallagher and Ghosh, the roster includes: Jeff Madrick, Sanjay Reddy, Mehdi Shefaeddin, Charles Abugre, Martin Khor, Alejandro Nadal, Matias Vernengo, Adil Najam, CP Chandrasekhar, Jim Boyce, Ilene Graebel, Gerhard Schick, Timothy A. Wise, Lyuba Zarsky, and Frank Ackerman. Ghosh and Gallagher will co-chair the project, with Wise serving as "managing editor."

Visit the TripleCrisisBlog >>> here.

ActionAid welcomes Sarkozy’s stance on financial reform

ActionAid welcomed French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s announcement that France plans to use its presidency of the G20 next year to create a new international monetary system. In a new report, Fruits of the Crisis: Leveraging the Financial & Economic Crisis of 2008-2009 to Secure New Resources for Development and Reform the Global Reserve System, ActionAid and Third World Network note that the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) could be used as an innovative financing tool to meet developing countries’ urgent requirements for development, climate adaptation, and counter the impacts of the global financial crisis.

Creative use of SDRs could complement measures such as the proposed financial transaction tax and levies on bunker fuels and aviation to raise the sums urgently needed. With international co-operation, SDRs would mobilise more resources than existing proposals for innovative financing. The report includes recommendations to build on the G20’s innovative use of SDRs to address the global crisis. It calls for mobilising the resources represented by the idle SDRs allocated to rich governments, and for easing the conversion of and use of SDR proceeds by developing countries.

In line with Sarkozy's speech to business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the report concludes that SDRs could also be a key part of reform measures that would address the causes of the global financial and economic crisis. In a climate of financial reform, with increasing volatility in the US dollar’s value and level of trust, SDRs may be the best option as an international reserve currency.

The new report analyses proposals for reform to the global monetary system from the United Nations and a range of economists and has been authored by Soren Ambrose of ActionAid and Bhumika Muchhala of Third World Network and is available >>> here.

Aid agencies sound the alarm on the militarization of aid in Afghanistan

As Foreign Ministers gather in London for a major conference on Afghanistan, leading aid agencies warn that the international militaries' use of aid as a “non-lethal” weapon of war may even be putting Afghans at greater risk. A US army manual for commanders in Afghanistan and in Iraq defines aid as a non-lethal weapon designed “to win the hearts and minds of the indigenous population to facilitate defeating the insurgents”. The Afghan government estimates international forces have already spent $1.7bn on “aid” in Afghanistan. The US military alone has budgeted an additional $1bn for the coming year – more than Afghanistan’s state budget for agriculture, health and education combined.

In their new report, Quick Impact, Quick Collapse, the eight international agencies show their concern that the militarization of aid is putting ordinary people on the frontlines of the conflict. Afghans say that the military places them at greater risk when they build schools and clinics which then become targets of armed opposition groups. The agencies say that “quick impact” projects provide a quick fix rather than sustainable development. Military-led humanitarian and development activities are driven by donors’ political interests and short-term security objectives and are often ineffective, wasteful and potentially harmful to Afghans. International guidelines agreed by ISAF and the UN state that “the military is primarily responsible for providing security, and if necessary, basic infrastructure and urgent reconstruction assistance limited to gap-filling measures until civilian organizations are able to take over.”

The agencies call on the 70 countries participating in tomorrow’s London Conference to rethink the militarized approach to aid and shift their focus towards a long-term aid strategy based on meeting the real needs of Afghans. The agencies say that the distribution of aid is heavily biased in favor of areas where the troop presence is strongest rather than distributed according to need. The needs of people in more secure areas and vulnerable populations, particularly Afghans displaced by the conflict and other factors as well as returnees are being overlooked.

The agencies say that over the last eight years there have been many places where significant progress has been made in health, education and rural infrastructure, but these have been driven by Afghans’ needs, carefully planned by development experts and implemented in partnership with communities and local government. The excessive influence of short-term military goals over aid policy is part of a larger flaw in the US-led strategy. “Troop-contributing countries overemphasize military issues and sideline the critical challenge of promoting genuine development and good governance,” says Farhana Faruqi-Stocker, managing director of Afghanaid. “This imbalance matters, not only because of the resulting human cost, but also because poverty and weak, corrupt government are key drivers of conflict, and must be effectively addressed if there is to be sustainable peace and development.”

* The paper, Quick Impact, Quick Collapse, can be downloaded >>> here.

Obama bank reforms: Major step in the right direction, trade unions say

US President Barack Obama’s announcement of plans to restructure banks as a key component of comprehensive financial regulatory reform is a major step in the right direction, which other governments must rapidly commit to match through similar laws, according to the international trade union movement. Linking the banking sector’s “binge of irresponsibility” to the deepening unemployment crisis, Obama has proposed a series of urgently-needed reforms, including an end to the practice of banks using depositors’ money to engage in the kind of high-risk speculative operations, such as hedge funds and private equity, which helped plunge the world into recession.

“While tens of millions of people are losing their jobs, the very same bankers and financiers who poisoned the global economy with their greed and arrogance are once again playing their dangerous game of financial roulette. They show no interest in helping solve the crisis, only in lining their own pockets with even bigger bonuses than before. This has to stop, and other governments must also move to take them on quickly and with the same determination as President Obama is showing,” said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder. News of multi-billion dollar bonuses, even in banks which had to be rescued by taxpayers, is a particularly ugly feature of the financial economy and has caused widespread outrage. On top of this, the “leveraged buyout”, where corporate takeovers are financed through massive debt, and employees often lose their jobs as a result, remains a feature of the world economy.

The US proposals are aimed at tackling one of the key causes of the world recession, and need to be implemented quickly and as a central pillar of overall reform, including action on bonuses and measures to limit purely speculative practices across the finance sector. “We need a clear and globally coherent regulatory framework to make sure that banking practices serve the real economy. A financial transactions tax to reduce speculation and provide funds to help pay the costs of the crisis and generate sustainable and decent jobs and development must also be part of the package,” said John Evans, general secretary of the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD.

ONE: Creative thinking urgently needed to tap alternative sources of climate finance

An agreement of $10bn a year in fast track financing for the next three years and $100bn a year by 2020 for poor countries to cope with climate change must come over and above existing aid promises, Africa advocacy group ONE said after the Copenhagen climate summit. Currently these sums will largely be subtracted from promised resources to help these same countries fight poverty. But climate change is putting additional stress on poor countries – which is why they need additional funds to cope with it – on top of existing and promised aid levels,” said Jamie Drummond, Executive Director of ONE UK.

“Promises of aid made by the G8 in Gleneagles in 2005 must not be lost in Copenhagen. Without a clear commitment that these climate funds are additional, the dollar amounts are next to meaningless. This debate over ‘additionality’ might seem arcane, but within the details lie billions of dollars - and very real impacts on millions of lives,” Drummond said. “Without this additionality, Copenhagen adds up to nothing. It is not clear how a cap on two degrees will be achieved, but it is very clear that much more can and must be done, including harnessing the potential of African and other developing countries to be renewable energy hubs and help capture carbon through growing trees."

ONE supports the African proposal for an interim target of $50bn by 2015 on top of existing and promised aid to help the poorest countries – many of them in Africa – with pressing adaptation needs. The Copenhagen Accord mentions a High Level Panel to assess how alternative sources of funding can contribute to raising genuinely additional funds. ONE says this urgent High Level Task Force should be convened immediately and with links to the highest political level to look into alternative sources of climate finance to complement additional public funding from rich countries. These sources could include: revenue from aviation and shipping, international auctioning of emissions allowances, a financial transactions tax and the proposal to use the IMF’s own currency, known as Special Drawing Rights. ONE also highlighted the need for accountability and transparency for these new funds.

Betrayal or breakthrough?

Copenhagen Accord: Triumph of spin over substance

The ‘climate deal’ presented in Copenhagen (>>> Copenhagen Accord) is a triumph of spin over substance says Oxfam International. The deal provides no confidence that catastrophic climate change will be averted or that poor countries will be given the money they need to adapt as temperatures rise. Leaders have also put off agreeing a legally binding deal until the end of 2010. Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International said: “This deal barely papers over the huge differences between countries which have plagued these talks for two years.

The document recognizes the need to keep warming below 2° but does not commit to do so. The deal promises $100bn a year in climate cash for poor countries by 2020. This is an aspirational goal not a commitment – poor countries will have no confidence that they will receive the money they need to reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate. $100bn is only half the money needed. The shortfall could mean that health workers in South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa will not get the $1.5bn they need each year to prevent climate induced deaths from malaria and diarrhoea. There are no assurances that the $100bn will be additional to existing aid commitments. This means aid for education and health care could be diverted to pay for flood defenses. The $100bn will not all be public money. Unless climate cash comes from public sources, there are no guarantees that it will reach the right people, in the right places, at the right time.

Global temperature rises will be kept below 2° C, the Accord says. In reality the absence of any emissions reductions targets means there is no guarantee warming will be kept below 2°. Climate science is clear on the need for deep emissions cuts by 2020. Specific targets are essential. Shorbanu Khatun, a climate migrant at the summit with Oxfam said: “I came all the way from a displaced persons camp on the flooded coast of Bangladesh to see justice done for the 45,000 people made homeless by cyclone Aila. How do I tell them their misery has fallen on deaf ears?”

Copenhagen Accord: The financial side

Guest commentary by Liane Schalatek

It is ironic, really.

The question about financial transfers from the industrialized to the developing countries – one of the most contentious issues throughout the two weeks’ negotiations in the Bella Center – might be one issue area, where a final Copenhagen declaration could show a clear way forward — albeit in an otherwise weak and watered down political statement by Head of States, a sad remnant of the earlier, grander vision of a comprehensive “Copenhagen Deal”.

Finally, concrete numbers — the most to be expected for a future “Copenhagen Climate Fund” — are on the table. And while they are not as grandios as hoped for, they will, if collected and tranferred speedily, go a long way to improve the lives and livelihoods of men and women in the devleoping world as well as the world’s climate. Over the next three years, industrialized countries commit to transfer some $30 billion in short-term financing to developing countries. Most of these funds over the next three years would probably be delivered through existing (climate) financing mechanisms, including at the multilateral development banks and the GEF. (A reminder: It took seven years from COP decision to the start of operations of the new Adapation Fund). By 2020, a “Copenhagen Climate Fund” under the direct authority of the UNFCCC would then collect some $100 billion per year by 2020.

This at least, is what a three-page outline document for a political declaration, the result of a “green room”-type meeting of 30 countries came up with after a long night of negotiations early Friday morning. But it seems also the outline of what is politically possible as a financing framework, with its baselines seemingly holding throughout the high-level segment of the negotiations and the statements by Obama, Merkel, Lula & Co.

While US President Obama disappointed all those who had expected he would pull a financial trump card out of his sleeve and top the announcement that US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had made on Thursday, Brazil’s President Silva da Lula surprised pleasantly by indicating that as an emerging economy his country might contribute to providing financial transfers to the poorest and most climatically exposed countries. An interesting side note: in his comments, President Lula’s explicitly warned of putting new climate funding under the control of the World Bank….

As encouraging as these stated intentions sound, a lot of the details are still missing. For example, it remains unclear how much the United States would contribute to such a Fund in the long-term. And nowbody knows how much the US are willing to cough up for the most urgent adaptation and mitigation action in developing countries in next three years. In contrast, the EU and Japan had both put their financial cards already on the table, promising $10 billion (EU) and $15 billon respectively from 2010-2012.

On the sources of financing, there is likewise ambiguity — but that might be a blessing in disguise. While the G30 draft outcome document lists private (carbon-markets) and public bilateral and multilateral sources, it also leaves room for “alternative sources of financing. This opens the door for the development of innovative tax instruments (for air or maritime travel or financial transactions a la Tobin), which a suggested high level panel under the COP could explore. Using (global or regional) sin taxes would go a long way to secure the truly additional and predictable revenue source that the developing countries are holding out for.

(Originally published in: Klima der Gerechtigkeit)

Leaked UN report: What Copenhagen pledges mean for future temperatures

Catholic CIDSE network and Caritas Internationalis say that the leak late yesterday of a UN report that proved that there is a significant gap between developed country rhetoric and their emission reduction commitments to date. They fall far short of what is required to prevent climate catastrophe in the future setting an unparalleled challenge to rich countries on the last day of the climate talks.

The internal UN report, dated 15 December, was never meant to be circulated. However, it merely confirms what many voices, civil society and developing countries most prominently, have been stating for months; rich countries fail to walk the talk on emission reductions, as their concrete commitments do not match with their expressed political will to tackle climate change. The report asserts that current developed country pledges would result in a further warming of the earth’s average temperature of 3° C, whilst developed countries continue to claim to be committed to limiting this rise to 2°.

“1° may not sound like very much to someone on the street, but the difference between 2° and 3° for developing countries is counted in hundreds of thousands of lost lives. In fact the most vulnerable countries are calling for 1.5° to be the limit,” said Anika Schroeder of German CIDSE member Misereor. “Developed countries claim to be committed to avoiding dangerous climate change in the future; this report reaffirms that they can no longer deny the science, and must now match these claims with adequate binding commitments.”

Thousands in Copenhagen to demand system change

At the end of the first week of the climate talks at Copenhagen, thousands of activists from the Climate Justice Action and Climate Justice Now! networks are joining the climate march under the banner of “System Change Not Climate Change” to denounce the climate negotiations as a predictable failure. The protesters are demanding radical changes in economic and political systems in order to address the climate crisis. The coming together of the Climate Justice Action and Climate Justice Now! is an unprecedented coalition of social movements, NGOs and grassroots climate activists from around the world to demand alternatives to the failed market solutions being pushed by governments and big business.

The ‘System Change’ contingent has been tipped as the largest and loudest section in the march and includes people from 50 different countries. It will include a flat bed truck broadcasting music and speeches from prominent activists from the global south.

Josie Riffaud from La Via Campesina a global coalition of peasant movements, said: “We’ve seen this week in Copenhagen that governments are turning the climate chaos into commodities. Farmers – men and women - are taking to the streets today because we are so outraged by the ineffective targets and false solutions such as agrofuels being peddled by business lobbyists and governments that listen to them.” Lidy Nacpil from the Jubilee South Coalition said: “All week we have heard a string of excuses from northern countries to make adequate reparations for the ecological crisis that they have caused. We are taking to the streets to demand that the ecological debt is repaid to the people of the South.”

Lars Fredikssen, an activist from Climate Justice Action said: “At the root of the climate crisis is an economic and political system that puts profit above people and the long term sustainability of this planet. Unless we address these root causes, climate change will devastate people around the world. These talks are a predictable failure and that’s why we will be taking action next week to create a People’s Assembly. We want the voices of ordinary people who are already being affected by climate change to be heard and listened to.”

Both networks will continue to work together on 16 December, where they are planning to bring the energy from the streets into the Centre where the talks are being held. A massive People’s Assembly will take place when thousands are expected to march to the Bella Centre to expose the false solutions and to propose positive alternatives and at the same time, hundreds of people inside the talks are expected to walk-out and join.

Spanish EU presidency 2010: Intermón Oxfam calls for tax justice

Intermón Oxfam has published a policy paper which outlines specific policy benchmarks for the Spanish government to push at the EU level during its presidency, starting on January 2010. These include the following:

* To support and defend within the G20 and prior to the IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, the setting up of a multilateral and automatic information exchange models;
* To support the inclusion of a Finantial Transaction Tax at the International level and to include during 2010, at least in the Euro-zone, a Currency Transaction Tax of 0,005% to finance ODA;
* To promote a reform in the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) governance in order to increase its accountability and the political control from the EU and from the National Authorities;
* To ensure that the coming IFRS 8 review (in 2010) becomes the opportunity to bind Multinational Corporations (MNCs) to submit, in the annual report, their accounting information on country by country (C-B-C) basis and to ensure that the already engaged procedure for a new IASB norm for the Extractive Industries (replacing the current IFRS 6) will include a compulsory C-B-C reporting requirement for MNCs;
* To support the introduction of C-B-C reporting as a compulsory requirement for MNCs of all sectors through the Directive 2004/109/EC (TOD Directive) review, that will probably take place during the first half of 2010.

The full report (in Spanish only) is available >>> here.

http://www.intermonoxfam.org/cms/HTML/espanol/3693/091123_Posicion_IO_sobre_fiscalidad_para_el_desarrollo.pdf

$200bn – the price of success in Copenhagen

Rich countries could set off a chain reaction that leads to success in Copenhagen if they put forward at least $200bn per year in new public funds to help poor countries reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate. Big developing countries such as China have signalled that they are willing to increase – and formalize – already significant pledges to reduce emissions if rich countries provide the necessary support. This, in turn, could help rich country leaders overcome domestic barriers to more ambitious targets. And it could secure the support of the world’s poorest countries that need help to adapt to a rapidly changing climate.

President Obama has already set the wheels in motion by agreeing to join other world leaders on 18 December and by announcing that the US is ready to pay its fair share towards the ‘fast start’ fund. Rich countries have said they are willing to put forward $10bn a year between 2010 and 2013 to help vulnerable countries tackle climate change. The European Union must now build on the US move by putting forward its share of the $200bn a year needed in the long term – and pushing for the US to do the same. In October the EU said that a global fund worth up to €50bn ($74bn) per year is needed to help poor countries tackle climate change but stopped short of saying how much it will contribute.

But Oxfam warned that climate finance must be new. Many rich countries still plan to use money from existing aid commitments to meet their climate obligations. Antonio Hill, Senior climate change advisor for Oxfam International said: “The price of success in Copenhagen is $200bn. $200bn could trigger off a chain reaction that delivers more ambitious emissions reductions and helps the world’s poorest people adapt to a changing climate. We need to see this figure sparkling overhead in Christmas lights by the end of the Summit. Its peanuts compared to the $8.4 trillion we found to save drowning banks.”

Rich countries are indeed mistaken if they think that less than a half of the emissions cuts demanded by the science and $10bn in re-packaged aid promises can be spun as a success in two weeks time. It underestimates the real needs of billions of poor people and overestimates the patience of poor countries who have clearly signalled their preference for no deal over green wash.

WTO Ministerial was a missed opportunity

The seventh WTO Ministerial Conference turned out to be a missed opportunity in addressing the serious challenges facing women and men in the global economy. It turned out a missed opportunity to promote a new model of multilateral trading system that addresses livelihood, employment, decent working conditions, food security, climate change and gender inequalities. Ministers of the 153 WTO Member States reassembled on 30 November to 2 December in Geneva for the seventh Ministerial Meeting under the theme of “The WTO, the multilateral trading system and the global economic environment.“ Despite eight years of ongoing negotiations on the Doha Round – the Ministerial was not a defining moment for coming closer to its conclusion. In addition, no major decision on the future of the WTO was taken.

While most governments paid lip-service to a swift conclusion of the Doha round in 2010, they showed no real political commitment and failed to provide concrete proposals on how to overcome the existing deep differences. On these parameters, the proposed stock-taking Conference in the first quarter of 2010 is nothing more than a PR exercise to affirm that the Doha round is not dead and the WTO as an institution still has some relevance. The WTO, and its Doha expansion agenda, is not appropriate to help resolve the current global economic challenges.

Unfettered trade liberalisation and market opening – embodied by the WTO – have not worked to promote human well-being for all – instead there is vast evidence of the contrary. The fact that most Ministers failed to recognise the link between neoliberal trade policies and the multiple crises facing the world today – including food, financial, economic, employment, climate and social crises – is cause for serious concern. At the Conference, Ministers discussed world trade in abstract terms as opposed to deliberating on the impact of trade liberalisation on sustainable livelihoods of women and men, food security and employment. The Conference, therefore, failed to examine how the structure and the content of the WTO could be changed to address these global challenges.

NGOs and social movements from all parts of the world used the Ministerial meeting to jointly discuss alternative proposals to the neoliberal trade agenda. Together they put forward the claim that a new model of governing multilateral trade must be developed, which shifts away from the neo-liberal trade model embodied by the WTO to allow for space for alternative, heterodox and feminist economic and development approaches. These approaches make the crucial link between economic and social policies, focus on people's needs, rights and livelihoods, including the empowerment of women, social justice and equality as well as an equal distribution of resources and power and put the social reproduction side of the economy at the core.

As a part of Geneva Trade and Development Symposium, WIDE, together with WEED, War on Want and Seattle to Brussels Network organized a session entitled “Trade, employment & Global Europe – looking beyond a ‘social clause’. Panel discussion evaluated critically current free trade policies that continue to dominate world trade and threaten to put millions more in rich and poor countries alike out of work and highlighted the importance of the links between trade and gender in these discussions.

>>> WIDE Statement

Climate change: ITUC statement for Copenhagen

With governments downplaying prospects for December’s UN climate summit and the chances of a binding agreement receding fast, the international trade union movement has called on governments to go to Copenhagen ready to make decisions that will put the world on an unequivocal path to a low-carbon future. “The science shows clearly that the longer we wait, the higher the human, environmental and economic costs will be. We need governments to make ambitious commitments which will set in stone the core elements of a treaty that must be completed as a matter of urgency. This means legally-binding targets on emissions and longer-term financing to assist developing countries to adapt, as well as “just transition” strategies to deal with the social and employment dimensions,” said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder.

The ITUC statement to the Summit sets out the international trade union movement’s position in detail, emphasising the need for creation of green and decent jobs, through investment in new low-carbon production and services and measures to reduce the carbon footprints of existing industries. The ITUC platform was developed through an exhaustive 18-month process of negotiation involving trade unions from every part of the world, and reflects the concerns and proposals of working people from developing and industrialised countries.

The ITUC Statement to the Copenhagen COP15 Summit and other information about trade unions and climate change can be found at http://climate.ituc-csi.org.

World Food Summit must tackle hunger with just and sustainable solutions

CIDSE and Caritas Internationalis, together the world’s largest development alliance, working with communities impacted by the food crisis across Asia, Africa and Latin America, travel to Rome for next week’s World Food Summit to call on world leaders to harness the potential of small-scale farmers. The catholic alliances believe urgent action is needed now; every day over a billion people go to bed hungry and currently over 23 million people across East Africa are in need of emergency food aid due to drought and a food price crisis made worse by the global economic recession. Since the global food crisis hit in 2007 there is increasing recognition by governments of the need to invest in small-scale agriculture in developing countries to ensure that small producers earn a decent income and enjoy the universal right to food.

“This is a very positive development, but recognition needs to be translated into national country policies and donor support strategies that promote small producer organisations and strengthen their ability to improve production, processing, and marketing - including their capacity to negotiate with buyers and other market actors. The Summit leaders should particularly prioritise farmer’s engagement in policy development, their access to land and water, inputs, credit, insurance, markets, training and extension services,” said Bob van Dillen, from the CIDSE and Caritas networks. However, there is a significant threat that the international community will promote the use of high-tech agricultural techniques, many of which are socially or environmentally unsustainable and create dependence on external inputs, rather than investing in what these farmers really need. The World Food Summit is also expected to reiterate support for further opening of markets and completion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations, which CIDSE and Caritas believe would hurt small-scale farmers rather than help them unless significant changes are made to current proposals.

CIDSE and Caritas believe that if the international community is serious about harnessing the potential of small-scale farmers, policies should particularly target women producers, who are the backbone of the rural economy and crucial actors in ensuring household food security. Both networks call on developing country governments to allocate, within 5 years, a minimum of 10% of their annual budgets to implement these urgent policies. The international donor community should make at least an equivalent commitment to agriculture and rural development in their Official Development Assistance (ODA), whose share within overall ODA spending has fallen from 17% in 1980 to around 5% today.

Parallel to the Summit a Civil Society Forum is taking place in Rome from 14-17 November. An APRODEV and CIDSE Briefing Paper and recommendations to the EU for the World Food Summit is available: >>> here

Oxam reacts to G20 finance ministers

According to Max Lawson, Oxfam senior policy adviser, a tax on banks would be a major step towards clearing up the mess caused by their greed. “The G20 has a responsibility to act. Every minute around the world 100 people are forced into extreme poverty as a result of the economic crisis. Money raised by a financial transaction tax on banks could make a massive difference to the lives of ordinary people.” A global financial transaction tax could raise $1.15 trillion annually to help those affected by the economic crisis in both poor and G20 countries.

On tax havens Lawson said: “It is not sustainable for the G20 to protect themselves from tax havens while allowing them to continue to deprive poor countries of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. A multilateral deal to ensure all countries are protected from tax havens must be a key priority for the G20 in 2010.”

G20 meeting in Scotland: Action for employment, but questions remain

The world’s trade union movement has welcomed the decision by G20 Finance Ministers meeting in St Andrews, Scotland, to keep jobs high on the agenda for economic recovery and reform, and to “maintain government support for the recovery until it is assured”. The meeting also decided that the ILO will have a role in assessing the effectiveness of G20 policies for “strong, sustainable and balanced growth”, although the major players in this process will still be the IMF and the World Bank. Nevertheless, several serious questions remain unanswered by the St Andrews meeting. While the Finance Ministers committed the G20 to responsiveness and legitimacy, especially concerning reform of the international financial institutions, trade unions are extremely concerned that the Financial Stability Board (FSB), which has a primary role in designing new architecture for financial regulation, still effectively operates in secret.

“The FSB has made no effort to discuss and consult outside a very narrow circle of people, many of whom bear heavy responsibility for the current crisis. The G20’s stated commitment to transparency won’t have much meaning at all unless governments make the FSB come out from behind closed doors and open up to discussion and consultation,” said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder. The unions have also expressed dismay at the lack of progress on a global transactions tax, championed by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown who hosted the meeting. “The IMF, which has been asked to make recommendations on this, has traditionally opposed such a tax and now seems to be steering the G20 towards a weak option which would not generate many funds nor make banks help to pay for the crisis they caused. This would only add to the enormous burden working people are already bearing, and would do little if anything to restrain destructive speculation,” said John Evans, General Secretary of the OECD Trade Union Advisory Committee.

The communiqué issued by the St Andrews meeting does include references to the need for financing to tackle climate change; however, no concrete commitments are given either in terms of actual funds to be made available or on the emissions reductions that need to be agreed at the UN Conference in Copenhagen next month. “Finance will be critical to success or failure at December’s Copenhagen Climate Summit, and the absence of clear commitments from this weekend’s G20 meeting on financing within the industrialised economies, or to help developing economies find a low-carbon development path, does not bode well for success in Copenhagen,” said Ryder.

AOSIS States: No Backsliding in climate deal

The world’s threatened island states last week expressed alarm at suggestions that the Copenhagen Climate Summit will not produce legally binding outcomes to build on the current international climate regime. Speaking at the conclusion of climate talks in Bangkok, Ambassador Dessima Williams, Permanent Representative of Grenada to the United Nations in New York and current Chair of the 43-member Alliance of Small Island States, said her group was deeply concerned with the "divisive rhetoric" that had characterised some of the discussions in Bangkok.

Williams addressed the growing divide by proposing two separate and legally binding outcomes in December. Island states joined with other developing nations in calling for deeper emission reduction commitments by industrialised countries under the Kyoto Protocol for the period after 2012. She also called for a second, multilateral and legally binding agreement to define action for all countries, including the United States, sufficient to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Responding to a push by some industrialised countries to move forward without the Kyoto Protocol, Williams said: "It is essential that we build upon, and do not weaken, the existing legally binding framework". She added that "now is not the time for backsliding. The failure to deliver ambitious legally binding outcomes in Copenhagen will threaten the survival small island states." – Williams also noted that Bangkok had seen Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama and Sri Lanka join AOSIS and the Group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in calling for global warming to be limited to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures. The AOSIS targets are now supported by close to 100 countries, more than half the UN membership.

Statement of the UNFCCC Women’s Caucus at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks

Bits of "women" for a chunk of the earth's population? We, women representing women`s organisations from around the world, appreciate UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's recognition of women as stakeholders in this process. We are grateful for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat led by Yvo de Boer in recognizing us as a possible constituency. However women's leadership and participation in the discussions and ultimately, in the implementation of climate change solutions have yet to be clearly articulated.

While the documents mention "women" at least 20 times, "women" mostly appear in the lists of vulnerable groups. Yet women have made significant contribution in solving the climate crisis through their leadership, experience, perspectives and ideas. We deserve to be included as stakeholders with interests that outstrip individual governments and corporate entities particularly those that refuse to consider the gendered impacts of climate change.

The strong integration of gender dimensions in the discussions would have enabled a more comprehensive analysis of the causes of climate change. Until today, patriarchal politics and corporate greed are the helm of the UNFCCC process as it is held hostage by most developed countries that have been unconscientiously messing up the planet and are not showing any signs of restraint.

Women represent half of the world's population. Often through our unpaid labour, we provide up to 90% of the household's food and other needs. Many of us walk a long distance just to fetch water. Sometimes some of us are raped as we set out to gather firewood.

Yet we continue to venture outside, if only to feed and shelter our families and communities. We significantly make up small-scale fisheries which is far less intrusive to the marine ecosystem. Despite the deep relationship we have established with nature as resource managers, especially in ancestral domains, a majority have yet to be accorded land rights, credit, information and a string of even the most basic human rights.

This situation even worsens as access to natural resources becomes scarcer
due to climate change.

In times of displacement because of extractive industries such as oil exploration, mining, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes and others, women and girls constitute more than half of the death toll because of cultural restrictions, lack the necessary know-how and resources to protect themselves While tired and lost, we continue to perform our reproductive roles as providers and nurturers wherever and however we settle.

As women's empowerment primarily comes from women themselves, we need the opportunities to meaningfully engage the process, whose framework so leaves much to be desired especially in terms of transparency, accountability and equity. Women's participation will be fundamental for realization of a gender integrated approach to climate change. It is for this reason that we urge governments to include the following paragraph in the Shared Vision, which serves as the outcome document's preamble:

"The full integration of gender perspectives is essential to effective action on all aspects of climate change, adaptation, mitigation, technology sharing, financing, and capacity building. UNFCCC processes must ensure compliance with existing women's rights standards and best practice as enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and UN Security Council Resolution 1325 [Women and Peace-Building]. The advancement of women, their leadership and meaningful participation and engagement as stakeholders in all climate related processes and implementation must be guaranteed."

Bangkok, 8 October 2009

Climate negotiations stuck: US becoming key obstacle

The rift between rich and poor countries has intensified because rich countries have not put serious money on the table to help poor countries adapt to the escalating impacts of climate change and develop on a low carbon pathway, international aid agency Oxfam said on the last day of UN climate negotiations in Bangkok. Oxfam senior climate adviser Antonio Hill said a continued lack of political will from rich country leaders also meant there was no movement on the emissions reduction targets that would help safeguard billions of the world’s poorest from death and suffering.

“The millions of people facing greater floods, droughts and failed harvest after failed harvest will be the real losers if the US, Canada, EU, Japan and Australia continue as blockers to the UN negotiations,” Hill said. The US in particular was becoming the biggest obstacle to a fair and safe global climate deal in Copenhagen. “The US has been silent on the scale of finance it will commit to, and has yet to adopt an ambitious emissions reduction target by 2020, giving negotiators none of the political clout necessary to unblock negotiations in make-or-break areas.” He said the desire of the EU, Japan, Canada and Australia to accommodate the US and abandon the Kyoto Protocol was an example of the poor leadership on show by all these countries these past two weeks.

According to Oxfam, Bangkok has been a warm-up session for negotiators who have shown their skill in trimming text, but in political terms, when the starting gun fired it became a race to the bottom, with rich countries weakening existing commitments under the international framework. The poorest, most vulnerable countries looking ahead to Copenhagen now face an impossible choice - to accept an agreement that fails to reduce the life-or-death risks they face, or to hold out for a safe and fair deal but risk walking away from Copenhagen empty-handed. “It is useful that the US is prompting a debate on who does what under a global agreement, but if it really hopes to have a constructive dialogue with developing countries it has to up the ante first by tabling an offer of finance and emissions cuts commensurate with its historic emissions and economic weight,” Hill said.

“The US’ endorsement of a new fund for developing countries is an encouraging step forward, although big questions remain on how it will operate.” Hill pointed to other areas of useful progress in the areas of agriculture, mitigation action from developing countries, and aviation and shipping emissions over the past two weeks. “But what we have seen in Bangkok was a cosmetic procedure, when what was required was major surgery,” he said.

Developing countries came to Bangkok willing to negotiate. China is a world leader in renewable energy investment, has committed to reduce emissions in line with its economic growth path, and has offered support to help developing countries, including small island states and African nations, adapt to the impacts of climate change. Last week Indonesia committed to deep cuts below business as usual.

For developing countries, another disturbing development in Bangkok has been a hardening of rich country positions on the issue of finance: they are now openly insisting climate finance should come from existing aid budgets. But aid must be increased, not diverted, say NGOs. If promised aid increases are plundered for climate purposes, it could mean that 8.6 million fewer people have access to HIV and AIDS treatment, 75 million fewer children will be in school, and 4.5 million more children die than would otherwise be the case.