There is nothing like a display of commitment by world leaders to reduce global poverty and hunger to turn the stomach. This is just to forewarn you that there’s another gathering taking place in New York this week.
Nick Clegg, who will be pleased the escape the simmering anger of delegates at the Lib Dem conference in Liverpool, will join others at the United Nations. The plan is to take stock of the progress – or more precisely, the lack of it – on eight UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted 10 years ago.
Surprise, surprise. A new UN report, The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture, finds “serious gaps” in the realisation of commitments only five years away from the deadline for achieving the MDGs. These are agreed targets that aim to reduce poverty, hunger, maternal and child deaths, disease, inadequate shelter, gender inequality and environmental degradation by 2015.
Remember Gleneagles, when the G8 group of major economies pledged in 2005 to increase official development assistance (ODA) by $50 billion and double aid to Africa by $25 billion? Presently, the funding gap on commitments to Africa alone is over $16 billion.
Some countries are suggesting that the shortfall is a result of the financial crash. But this is disputed by Jeffrey Sachs, an MDG adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. "One could say there was a certain lack of seriousness in this process from the start," he says. "In 2007 and 2008 I would say [to G8 officials], what about Gleneagles? You have a commitment, 2010 is very explicit. And very senior officials in the German government would say to me, 'Oh Professor Sachs, you don't think they're going to be honoured, do you?'"
The cynicism in these remarks is of no consolation to the world’s starving. Global hunger is on the rise since the adoption of the UN goals, with nearly a billion people now going without adequate food. And the number of women who die in childbirth every year is still in the hundreds of thousands, falling far short of the UN goal to cut maternal deaths by three quarters.
The UN reports that there has been no significant reduction in the tariffs imposed by developed countries on poorer countries, and average tariffs on key products from developing countries remain relatively high. This is because no developed capitalist country is going to give up a competitive edge to back up commitments with deeds.
Agricultural subsidies in developed countries still represent three times the present amount of ODA flows and remain high in absolute terms. “This continues to undermine prices and income opportunities for farmers in developing countries, affecting food security, most alarmingly, in places where hunger is widespread,” says the UN.
As for pledges of debt relief, 27 out of 39 low-income and small middle-income countries are in “debt distress” or at high risk of facing that condition. These nations can end up paying more in interest on loans than they receive in aid.
When it comes to access to medicines, the report find that the cost of many essential medicines has actually been rising, meaning that even the lowest priced generic medicines for both chronic and acute diseases remain unaffordable for many of the world’s poor. On average, in 2008, people in developing countries paid almost three to six times the international reference prices.
You can be sure that the usual pledges to help the world’s poor will be repeated in New York. You can also be certain that gross inequalities will persist so long as the world is run by major economic and financial corporations fronted up by tame politicians.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
For revolutionary solutions to create a sustainable, not-for-profit economy in place of global capital alongside a real democracy based on People’s Assemblies. Visit our web site at www.aworldtowin.net
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Monday, September 20, 2010
Thursday, June 05, 2008
UN summits - all talk and no action
Another week, another United Nations-sponsored summit. Another failure to act. The food summit is just ending in Rome with no effective plan to come to the aid of the increasing numbers of people in the developing world who are going hungry because of rising prices and shortages.
From food to biodiversity, it’s the same story. Three species die out every hour of every day. Yet governments who have just finished a 12-day conference on biodiversity could not reach agreement on measures to halt the destruction of species and habitats. Another week, another UN summit. Another failure to act.
There was acknowledgement that the UN Convention on Biodiversity’s previous targets will not be met and the only “achievement” was to set up more working parties and to say in the final statement signed by 122 government ministers, that "biological diversity is being destroyed by human activities at unprecedented rates".
Martin Kaiser, head of the Greenpeace delegation summed up the conference: "The UN biodiversity summit inches forward like a snail while animals and plants are being wiped out at great speed.” In fact, it was so meaningless that some organisations are reconsidering whether to attend in future. Joy Hyvarinen, international treaties adviser at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “After 10 years of these meetings there is no impact I can discern on slowing down the destruction of the natural world, but they have set up a wonderful bureaucracy for discussing it.”
Deforestation was largely ignored as an issue, under pressure from countries led by Brazil and Indonesia. Tropical forests are home to an estimated 50% of all life on the planet. These are the areas where tigers, orang-outang, Asian elephants, rhino, river dolphins, toucans – are at risk, not to mention thousands of other plants, animals and insects whose names we may not know, but which form crucial links in the web of life on the planet.
A major report on the economic impact of loss of biodiversity published to coincide with the conference, points out that a business as usual scenario will mean many eco-systems will be “damaged beyond repair”, and that by 2050:
· 11% of remaining wild areas would be lost, chiefly as a result of conversion for agriculture, the expansion of infrastructure, and climate change
· almost 40% of the land currently under low-impact forms of agriculture could be converted to intensive agricultural use, with further biodiversity losses
· 60% of coral reefs could be lost - even by 2030 - through fishing, pollution, diseases, invasive alien species, and coral bleaching due to climate change.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity review assesses financial consequences in the hope of galvanising governments to act. It says that human activities are causing almost £40bn-worth of damage to land-based ecosystems each year. And without dramatic changes, all of the world’s fisheries will have collapsed within 50 years, leaving a billion people who rely on fish protein facing starvation.
During the conference, the US government helped to clarify the reasons for this global failure to act. They finally agreed to place the polar bear on their endangered species list but added that protecting it must not stand in the way of economic development in its habitat. So in the end it is all about putting profit first.
After the biodiversity marathon, Bonn is now hosting the latest round of UN-sponsored global climate change negotiations. These will no doubt have similar results. Global summits of capitalist politicians fronting for global business are a total waste of space. The planet and its people cannot afford to fritter away any more time. These empty UN talking shops need to be replaced with democratically-controlled, people’s global forums that will develop strategies to end the power of the global corporations to wreck the planet in pursuit of private profit. Then human activity could start to make a positive difference.
Penny Cole
Environment editor
From food to biodiversity, it’s the same story. Three species die out every hour of every day. Yet governments who have just finished a 12-day conference on biodiversity could not reach agreement on measures to halt the destruction of species and habitats. Another week, another UN summit. Another failure to act.
There was acknowledgement that the UN Convention on Biodiversity’s previous targets will not be met and the only “achievement” was to set up more working parties and to say in the final statement signed by 122 government ministers, that "biological diversity is being destroyed by human activities at unprecedented rates".
Martin Kaiser, head of the Greenpeace delegation summed up the conference: "The UN biodiversity summit inches forward like a snail while animals and plants are being wiped out at great speed.” In fact, it was so meaningless that some organisations are reconsidering whether to attend in future. Joy Hyvarinen, international treaties adviser at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said: “After 10 years of these meetings there is no impact I can discern on slowing down the destruction of the natural world, but they have set up a wonderful bureaucracy for discussing it.”
Deforestation was largely ignored as an issue, under pressure from countries led by Brazil and Indonesia. Tropical forests are home to an estimated 50% of all life on the planet. These are the areas where tigers, orang-outang, Asian elephants, rhino, river dolphins, toucans – are at risk, not to mention thousands of other plants, animals and insects whose names we may not know, but which form crucial links in the web of life on the planet.
A major report on the economic impact of loss of biodiversity published to coincide with the conference, points out that a business as usual scenario will mean many eco-systems will be “damaged beyond repair”, and that by 2050:
· 11% of remaining wild areas would be lost, chiefly as a result of conversion for agriculture, the expansion of infrastructure, and climate change
· almost 40% of the land currently under low-impact forms of agriculture could be converted to intensive agricultural use, with further biodiversity losses
· 60% of coral reefs could be lost - even by 2030 - through fishing, pollution, diseases, invasive alien species, and coral bleaching due to climate change.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity review assesses financial consequences in the hope of galvanising governments to act. It says that human activities are causing almost £40bn-worth of damage to land-based ecosystems each year. And without dramatic changes, all of the world’s fisheries will have collapsed within 50 years, leaving a billion people who rely on fish protein facing starvation.
During the conference, the US government helped to clarify the reasons for this global failure to act. They finally agreed to place the polar bear on their endangered species list but added that protecting it must not stand in the way of economic development in its habitat. So in the end it is all about putting profit first.
After the biodiversity marathon, Bonn is now hosting the latest round of UN-sponsored global climate change negotiations. These will no doubt have similar results. Global summits of capitalist politicians fronting for global business are a total waste of space. The planet and its people cannot afford to fritter away any more time. These empty UN talking shops need to be replaced with democratically-controlled, people’s global forums that will develop strategies to end the power of the global corporations to wreck the planet in pursuit of private profit. Then human activity could start to make a positive difference.
Penny Cole
Environment editor
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Profiting from the food crisis
The world’s major governments are sitting on their hands while the world’s poor face starvation from soaring food prices. This is the stark conclusion to be drawn from the fact that the United Nation’s World Food Programme (WFP) has so far received only £9 million towards closing a £380m funding gap, despite all the fine words from London, Washington and other capitals.
What is also increasingly clear is that the focus is on imposing top-down, market-driven “solutions”, which will deliver no benefits to the poor but will boost investment in research into agri-chemicals, GM crops, and second generation bio-fuels. The British government, for example, is giving just £30m extra to the WFP but has pledged £400m in extra investment in “agricultural research” over next five years. Much of it will be spent in the UK.
UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon is doing his best to keep the issue upfront but he faces a slow reaction by governments more concerned about the impact of the global financial crisis on shares and property values then they are about starvation. The WFP believes 100 million people are currently going short of food. The prices of staple foods including rice, grain, oil and sugar are all at least 50% higher than a year ago. Fertiliser prices have soared too, leading to a decline in production by poorer farmers.
As for the leading agencies of global capitalism, they see the food crisis as an opportunity to boost corporate-driven globalisation. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, says curbs on food exports, “have a damaging global impact”. He called for the completion of the Doha round of trade talks as it “would reduce trade barriers and distortions and encourage agricultural trade”. The World Bank is developing a “Strategic Framework for Climate Change and Development” which will “provide direction on how adaptation - in agriculture as well as other impacted areas, such as flood-prone coasts - can be integrated into country, sectoral, and regional development strategies”. In other words, a series of expensive, prescriptive and ill-planned strategies will be imposed on poorer nations in return for World Bank funds.
In an excellent report on the food crisis, the biodiversity group GRAIN says:
“Farmers across the world produced a record 2.3 billion tons of grain in 2007, up 4% on the previous year. Since 1961 the world’s cereal output has tripled, while the population has doubled. Stocks are at their lowest level in 30 years, it’s true, but the bottom line is that there is enough food produced in the world to feed the population. The problem is that it doesn’t get to all of those who need it. Less than half of the world’s grain production is directly eaten by people.
“Most goes into animal feed and, increasingly, biofuels – massive inflexible industrial chains. In fact, once you look behind the cold curtain of statistics, you realise that something is fundamentally wrong with our food system. We have allowed food to be transformed from something that nourishes people and provides them with secure livelihoods into a commodity for speculation and bargaining. The perverse logic of this system has come to a head. Today it is staring us in the face that this system puts the profits of investors before the food needs of people.”
The way out of this impasse is through putting land into the hands of the people who work it and giving them independence and self-determination. It also means placing the global chemical and agri-business and food distribution corporations under democratic control and common ownership. Scientists and technologists could then get to work on sustainable, holistic approaches to agriculture and food production on the basis of need and not profit.
Penny Cole
Environment editor
What is also increasingly clear is that the focus is on imposing top-down, market-driven “solutions”, which will deliver no benefits to the poor but will boost investment in research into agri-chemicals, GM crops, and second generation bio-fuels. The British government, for example, is giving just £30m extra to the WFP but has pledged £400m in extra investment in “agricultural research” over next five years. Much of it will be spent in the UK.
UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon is doing his best to keep the issue upfront but he faces a slow reaction by governments more concerned about the impact of the global financial crisis on shares and property values then they are about starvation. The WFP believes 100 million people are currently going short of food. The prices of staple foods including rice, grain, oil and sugar are all at least 50% higher than a year ago. Fertiliser prices have soared too, leading to a decline in production by poorer farmers.
As for the leading agencies of global capitalism, they see the food crisis as an opportunity to boost corporate-driven globalisation. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, says curbs on food exports, “have a damaging global impact”. He called for the completion of the Doha round of trade talks as it “would reduce trade barriers and distortions and encourage agricultural trade”. The World Bank is developing a “Strategic Framework for Climate Change and Development” which will “provide direction on how adaptation - in agriculture as well as other impacted areas, such as flood-prone coasts - can be integrated into country, sectoral, and regional development strategies”. In other words, a series of expensive, prescriptive and ill-planned strategies will be imposed on poorer nations in return for World Bank funds.
In an excellent report on the food crisis, the biodiversity group GRAIN says:
“Farmers across the world produced a record 2.3 billion tons of grain in 2007, up 4% on the previous year. Since 1961 the world’s cereal output has tripled, while the population has doubled. Stocks are at their lowest level in 30 years, it’s true, but the bottom line is that there is enough food produced in the world to feed the population. The problem is that it doesn’t get to all of those who need it. Less than half of the world’s grain production is directly eaten by people.
“Most goes into animal feed and, increasingly, biofuels – massive inflexible industrial chains. In fact, once you look behind the cold curtain of statistics, you realise that something is fundamentally wrong with our food system. We have allowed food to be transformed from something that nourishes people and provides them with secure livelihoods into a commodity for speculation and bargaining. The perverse logic of this system has come to a head. Today it is staring us in the face that this system puts the profits of investors before the food needs of people.”
The way out of this impasse is through putting land into the hands of the people who work it and giving them independence and self-determination. It also means placing the global chemical and agri-business and food distribution corporations under democratic control and common ownership. Scientists and technologists could then get to work on sustainable, holistic approaches to agriculture and food production on the basis of need and not profit.
Penny Cole
Environment editor
Thursday, August 23, 2007
UN throws in towel on climate change
The United Nations is preparing to throw in the towel on achieving further cuts in the emission of greenhouse gases by the world’s industralised nations. Instead, it plans to rely on already discredited carbon trading and offsetting schemes. The cat was let out of the bag by the UN official leading negotiations for a new convention to follow on from the Kyoto treaty, which ends in 2012. He believes that rich nations should be absolved from the need to cut emission if they pay developing countries to do it on their behalf. In fact they should be able to buy their way out of 100% of their responsibilities.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, says: "We have been reducing emissions and making energy use more efficient in industrialised countries for a long time, so it is quite expensive in these nations to reduce emissions any more.
But in developing nations, less has been done to reduce emissions and less has been done to address energy efficiency." So, de Boer observed, "it actually becomes economically quite attractive for a company, for example in the UK, that has a target to achieve this goal by reducing emissions in China".
This policy shift is a major step back from Kyoto which requires industrialised nations to reduce the majority of emissions themselves, rather than resorting to carbon trading or offsetting to reach their targets. Even the Stern Review for the New Labour government states that all developed nations will have to make emissions cuts of at least 60%-90%, with many developing world countries allowed only a modest increase or a small decrease. And Stern clearly says that these figures “do not incorporate international emissions trading”. In other words, emissions trading is viewed as an add-on to real reductions.
The De Boer approach is already built into the Climate Change Bill before parliament. This insists that emission reductions purchased overseas may be counted towards the UK’s targets. The government claims that this “ensures emission reductions can be achieved in the most cost effective way, recognising the potential for investing in low carbon technologies abroad as well as action within the UK to reduce the UK’s overall carbon footprint”.
It fell to the Commons environmental audit committee to point out that in order for a country to have surplus carbon credits to sell, it must first be overachieving its emissions targets. The committee asked: “Given the challenges that this might entail as targets become tougher, this raises questions over the extent to which the global supply of such credits will in the future be able to meet demand. The government has yet explicitly to address this uncertainty in the extent to which the UK can rely on emissions trading in order to meet its targets.” The committee added that it was concerned that this approach “might foster a false sense of complacency about the progress and policies required to decarbonise the UK”.
The truth is not as complicated as the committee makes out. Behind all the manoeuvring around the Climate Bill and the buying and selling of carbon “credits”, there is mounting evidence that globally, capitalism does not have the capacity or the will to tackle climate change. All it can offer is a façade of action, behind which governments, and now the UN, give wholehearted support to business as usual for the corporations and the richer nations. The case for offsetting capitalism itself with not-for-profit alternatives and a real democratic political system, is stronger than ever.
Penny Cole, environment editor
A World to Win
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, says: "We have been reducing emissions and making energy use more efficient in industrialised countries for a long time, so it is quite expensive in these nations to reduce emissions any more.
But in developing nations, less has been done to reduce emissions and less has been done to address energy efficiency." So, de Boer observed, "it actually becomes economically quite attractive for a company, for example in the UK, that has a target to achieve this goal by reducing emissions in China".
This policy shift is a major step back from Kyoto which requires industrialised nations to reduce the majority of emissions themselves, rather than resorting to carbon trading or offsetting to reach their targets. Even the Stern Review for the New Labour government states that all developed nations will have to make emissions cuts of at least 60%-90%, with many developing world countries allowed only a modest increase or a small decrease. And Stern clearly says that these figures “do not incorporate international emissions trading”. In other words, emissions trading is viewed as an add-on to real reductions.
The De Boer approach is already built into the Climate Change Bill before parliament. This insists that emission reductions purchased overseas may be counted towards the UK’s targets. The government claims that this “ensures emission reductions can be achieved in the most cost effective way, recognising the potential for investing in low carbon technologies abroad as well as action within the UK to reduce the UK’s overall carbon footprint”.
It fell to the Commons environmental audit committee to point out that in order for a country to have surplus carbon credits to sell, it must first be overachieving its emissions targets. The committee asked: “Given the challenges that this might entail as targets become tougher, this raises questions over the extent to which the global supply of such credits will in the future be able to meet demand. The government has yet explicitly to address this uncertainty in the extent to which the UK can rely on emissions trading in order to meet its targets.” The committee added that it was concerned that this approach “might foster a false sense of complacency about the progress and policies required to decarbonise the UK”.
The truth is not as complicated as the committee makes out. Behind all the manoeuvring around the Climate Bill and the buying and selling of carbon “credits”, there is mounting evidence that globally, capitalism does not have the capacity or the will to tackle climate change. All it can offer is a façade of action, behind which governments, and now the UN, give wholehearted support to business as usual for the corporations and the richer nations. The case for offsetting capitalism itself with not-for-profit alternatives and a real democratic political system, is stronger than ever.
Penny Cole, environment editor
A World to Win
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)