APRONAD Sent report to UN Global Compact

The Association for the Promotion of New Development Alternatives has sent its Communication on Engagement, Coe, to the UN Global Compact, of which it is a party.

In the UN Global Compact, is the Corporate Sustainability Initiative Bigger Planet. It is basically a call for companies to align strategies and operations with the universal principles of human rights, work, the environment and the fight against corruption, and to act to advance the objectives Social.

Those of us who are part of the UN Global Compact are obliged to send a biennial report called "Communication on involvement", where we reaffirm our support for its ten principles in the areas of human rights, labor standards, Environment and anti-corruption.

In this communication on involvement, we describe the measures taken by our Organization to support its principles.

Prior to the breakdown of activities and results, we conducted a contextualization exercise with the Tittle Of The environment and the challenges of the Global Compact in Panama “

"Despite being considered a country in transition, with macroeconomic stability and comparatively high growth rates, Panama has high indices of poverty and social exclusion, which has placed it as one of the countries with the greatest inequality in the World According to the Gini index applied to income. Poverty and social exclusion are geographically and socially well-located: women, children, the disabled, the indigenous, the poor peasants and the inhabitants of the urban-marginal areas are the most vulnerable groups, not only In economic terms but also environmental.

Despite the efforts made by the corporate leadership with the support of the Global Compact and other international entities, the conditions of inequality and exclusion in which large sections of the population live have undergone few changes.

A Panamanian NGO, Apronad, has raised a course of action that seeks to approximate non-traditional business sectors to the ten principles of the UN Global Compact, so that the movement acquires new protagonists and new alliances.

Principle Eight: The environment offers great potential for unifying the efforts of the business sector, communities, indigenous peoples and civil and environmental society.

Part of the implementation of principle 8, it has focused activities in the forestry sector by designing and developing the "Panama Forest Conservation Project – Reduction of GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation", the Strategic objective is raised in terms of integrating forests into all policies to advance the objectives of sustainable development.

It has selected the scope of action in the platform for "roads to low carbon and resilient development".

For those interested in getting to know the detail of our Coe You can download it at the following link (in spanish): Communication on ENGAGEMENT (COE) – APRONAD.

THE INTERSECTION OF CORRUPTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN WATER SCARCITY ISSUES

WATER SCARCITY — A DYSTOPIAN REALITY.

Earlier this month, news outlets reported that Day Zero – the day that Cape Town would officially run out of water – will no longer fall this year. The narrative and tone of Day Zero-related headlines have indicated the onset of a rather dystopian reality, where the pushing forward of the day when one of the world’s major cities will completely run out of water is considered good news. First, Day Zero was pushed to April, then May, June, July, and now it has been moved out of the 2018 calendar completely — provided Cape Town’s inhabitants continue adhering to a stringent regime of water conservation and reuse.

What Day Zero and its coverage have ultimately demonstrated is that society is and will be changing profoundly in the coming years. Water, which is essential to all human life and activity is becoming increasingly scarce; UN-Water has stated that by 2025, almost one-fifth of the global population is likely to be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity, while two-thirds of the population will most probably live under conditions of water stress. How society adapts to such conditions as the pressure on water resources increases is a question that is becoming more pertinent by the day; it is a question that is already dominating domestic and international politics in drought-ridden regions of the world, and will continue to do so for years to come.

An equally important question, however, which remains unsatisfactorily answered and examined — is how do societies get themselves into the critical situation of water scarcity in the first place? Climate change is undoubtedly a central thread, given its effects on the water cycle, as is evidenced by the situation in Cape Town. But another less widely discussed thread is that of corruption.

A workshop hosted by Transparency International (TI) and the Water Integrity Network (WIN) aimed to address just that. In February, a group of twelve journalists gathered in TI’s Berlin office during their study tour with the Institute for Journalism in Norway. The tour was designed to give journalists a deeper understanding of pertinent societal issues. The workshop organized by WIN, TI’s Climate Programme and MiCT (a non-profit organisation that implements media development projects in crisis regions), focused on corruption in two seemingly niche, but vitally important areas; the water sector and climate finance.

WATER SCARCITY IS AS MUCH A CORRUPTION ISSUE AS IT IS A CLIMATE CHANGE ONE.

“Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.”

– Transparency International

Most people in developed countries probably take access to clean and safe water for granted, and may not necessarily put the words ‘water’ and ‘corruption’ together. The reality is that in many regions of the world, the water sector is highly prone to corruption for a number of reasons, and it can be attractive to exploit for personal interest by those working within it, when considering the large amount of public and private investment needed, for instance to develop water infrastructure. Compounding this is the complexity of the sector; water governance tends to be broad and dispersed across various agencies, and its management requires highly technical scientific and engineering expertise, meaning that a relatively selective number of people have a comprehensive understanding of and, by extension, control over the sector. Because of this complexity, it becomes harder for others who do not have this specialised expertise to identify when things are going wrong and to hold those in charge to account.

These are the key factors that WIN outlines as contributing to water sector corruption. Although there is a lack of comprehensive research on just how much money leaks out of the sector due to corruption, the water sector is a high-risk area for corruption, and corruption takes on many forms. There are countless cases of important water projects remaining unfinished due to funds being embezzled, arbitrary and unfair tariffs being set for water usage, funding being spent on inappropriate or poorly constructed infrastructure to ‘cut costs,’ bribes being demanded for water services, and facilities being subject to poor operation and maintenance (see the Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016 for more information on this). Whatever form it takes, corruption and lack of integrity in the water sector has profound effects because it ultimately makes water services more difficult to access, and especially the poor, marginalized and voiceless are affected most. When monetary resources are diverted away from the development of sustainable water infrastructure, operation and maintenance costs, or inappropriately spent, the result is sub-standard service delivery, or sometimes even a complete absence of water provision. This seriously aggravates the problem of water scarcity.

Water sector corruption has been an ongoing saga in South Africa, and a report published by the South African Water Caucus last November on the state of affairs at the Department of Water Sanitation does not point to any improvements. Of the many issues the department faces, “poor financial management (including overspending, accruals and corruption allegations), considerable policy and institutional uncertainty and incoherence, major challenges to institutions that are critical for water governance, deterioration in … infrastructure due to lack of maintenance and investment and significant deficiencies in reporting, compliance monitoring and enforcement” raise considerable concerns about how transparently projects and processes are being managed, and whether those in charge are being held accountable.

But how linked are Cape Town’s current water woes to corruption? More nuanced writing on water shortages in Cape Town has made compelling cases that corruption has worsened what could’ve been an avoidable fate. For example, Dr. David Olivier, a post-doctoral fellow at the Global Change Institute, has argued that the water crisis has been driven more by politics than by drought, and an article published by The Atlantic last month also identifies the city’s issues as having been exacerbated by corruption.

CLIMATE FINANCE — ADDING FUEL TO THE FIRE?.

Acknowledging the role of corruption in growing water scarcity is important because too often the problem is examined only as a climate change issue. This is not to negate the importance of addressing climate change as a factor — but without a comprehensive understanding of how the effects of climate change are exacerbated by poor governance, solutions that are put forward for climate-related problems such as water scarcity may be rendered ineffective.

One such solution is climate finance, which TI highlighted at the Berlin workshop. Climate finance refers to money that is invested to help countries prevent global warming and adapt to its worst effects. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) commits industrialised countries to channel up to US$ 100 billion a year by 2020 to support developing countries in mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. In a handbook TI has designed for journalists interested in covering climate finance corruption, it is stated  that the “stakes involved in financing such programmes are high; how these funds are spent could save the lives of millions now, and ensure billions in the future are set on a safe path.” But they also warn that the governance structures involved in responding to climate change problems may not be strong enough to manage the threats effectively, pointing out that “some of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world also fare the worst on their Corruption Perceptions Index.”

A noteworthy example from TI’s research and investigations into tracking where climate finance actually ends is that of $3.1 million of national climate funding being used to build ‘climate resilient housing’ in south-west Bangladesh, in the aftermath of Cyclone Aila. Investigations by TI’s Bangladesh Chapter revealed that these ‘houses’ were not even built with walls; according to TI Bangladesh, this was so that the department responsible for carrying out the project could halve their costs and take credit for building more structures.

Water scarcity is more and more so being viewed as a climate change problem, a problem that will inevitably require climate finance in order to fund projects that make the water sector more ‘climate ready.’ In 2014 – 2015, around US$4.1 billion was given to the Water Supply and Sanitation sector globally, making up about 9 per cent of total climate-related development finance. Given increased levels of climate change-induced water scarcity, particularly in developing countries, it is probable that the share of climate finance the water sector will receive in coming years will increase. However, as water sector corruption is in part motivated by the huge amounts of money the sector requires, committing further funding to the sector in the form of climate finance, without comprehensively considering where weak governance, transparency and accountability may be compromised and taken advantage of, could simply end up as money down the drain.

CONNECTING THE DOTS — THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTS.

What investigations into climate finance by organisations such as TI and GermanWatch bring to fore is that climate finance is not something that can simply be slapped on to climate change problems such as water scarcity. This is not to say that climate finance will not be instrumental in combatting these problems. Rather as TI puts it, ‘we need to highlight corruption cases in climate finance to make climate finance work better, not because we think climate finance is a bad idea.’

The workshop organised by TI and WIN in February aimed to emphasise two main points; first, that some very pertinent and relevant societal issues are aggravated by corruption, and second, that journalists need to make that connection in their reporting so as to improve wider understanding of how these problems are being mismanaged, and what factors might hinder the effectiveness of their solutions. From WIN’s perspective, investigations into the water sector are pivotal to revealing corrupt practices that affect water availability. Journalists can and should play an important role in breaking down the technicalities of the water sector, and communicating important investigative findings to the broader public. Moreover, journalists are a crucial means through which advocacy messages can be delivered, and a voice can be given to disadvantaged social group and stakeholders affected by water sector corruption.

TI’s presentation on climate change highlighted that ‘climate change communicators have done a good job of turning technical topics such as greenhouse gas emissions into a widely understood and recognised problem’; however, journalists need to bring the conversation further by shedding the same light on the solutions available for these problems, starting with climate finance. Journalists have a huge role to play not only familiarising broader audiences with climate finance, but also in tracking funds committed to projects in the name of climate mitigation and adaptation. This is particularly important for money committed to the water sector, given the integrity risks that already exist within the sector.

This post was written by Huda Awan, who has worked with the Water Integrity Network as an intern.

Private sector key, say GCF Latin America Dialogue partners

BOGOTÁ, 09 MAR 2018

The importance of the private sector was a common theme among many of the participants at the

recently-concluded GCF Structured Dialogue in Latin America.

Opening the Dialogue on Monday, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos Calderón - a former economist and winner of the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize - emphasised the need for the private and public sectors to work together in developing sustainable solutions to address climate change.

A number of formal and informal discussions during the four-day event pointed to a shared view of the need to draw in the private sector further and to establish examples of climate finance in action.

More demonstrations of how climate finance can work are needed to dispel nagging perceptions by Latin American businesses of it being a risky venture, said Gloria Visconti, lead climate change specialist at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), a GCF Accredited Entity with seven projects approved by the GCF Board. 

"Such perceptions of risk, in addition to a general limited experience about climate finance, mean the Latin American financial system is not yet fully equipped to invest in climate action," she said, adding that IDB is striving to fill this space.

"There is already fertile ground for climate action in Latin America, with a sophisticated level of knowledge and commitment by governments in the region. We now need to address the perceived risks of climate investments by businesses in order to mobilise the private sector at scale."

GCF investment in the region could help produce a "dynamo effect" by easing the access of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and other organisations embarking on climate measures to credit and other financial instruments, added Ms Visconti.

The first GCF Structured Dialogue to be held Latin America, which opened in Colombia on Monday, was designed to alleviate what many see as a current lag in regional climate investment.

Antonio Garcia, a climate change specialist with the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), a GCF Accredited Entity with two approved projects, highlighted the need to attract the private sector further in boosting investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

"It is necessary to share knowledge about climate finance, such as during the Structured Dialogue, to show that it can be profitable for local financial institutions to take up this new line of business," he said.

"While there is a varying level of advances by Latin American countries in climate change related activities, we need to assure the same level of accessibility to international climate finance resources."

GCF regularly holds Structured Dialogues in different regions of the world to stimulate thinking on how to drive national and regional momentum on climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to improve knowledge of how to access GCF resources.

GCF has already committed close to USD 736 million in climate finance for Latin America, which in turn represents nearly USD 2.7 billion in co-financing.

The Latin American Structured Dialogue has generated discussions among proponents of a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy on how regional governments can work with GCF to find the sweet spots where climate action and business profits meet.

U.S. judge to question Big Oil on climate change

SAN FRANCISCO, March 21 (Reuters) - Five of the world’s biggest energy producers will be questioned by a federal judge on Wednesday about climate change science, part of a lawsuit that accuses the companies of misleading the public for years about their role in global warming.

The cities of San Francisco and Oakland, California sued Chevron Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp, ConocoPhillips , Royal Dutch Shell PLC, and BP PLC last year, seeking an abatement fund to help the cities address flooding they say is a result of climate change.

The companies argued in legal filings on Tuesday that the case in San Francisco federal court should be dismissed, partly because Congress has given regulatory agencies, not the courts, authority over the production and emission of fossil fuels.

The lawsuits, filed by Democratic Party politicians, are part of a larger campaign to address climate change in the courts. Worldwide, there are almost 900 lawsuits on climate change in 25 countries, a U.N. study said last year.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup invited both sides to a hearing on Wednesday to describe their views on “the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding.”

Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office 14 months ago, domestic policy on climate change has been turned on its head. Republican Trump has pushed to increase production of fossil fuels and ordered a broad reversal of climate regulations. He said last year that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions but Washington has not disengaged from it completely.

Alsup, who has presided over high profile technology cases including one between Alphabet’s Waymo and Uber Technologies Inc over self-driving cars, is known to ask blunt questions from the bench.

Chevron attorney Avi Garbow on Tuesday told reporters the company will tell the judge it agrees with the scientific consensus that it is extremely likely human influence is the cause of warming. It is unclear whether the other companies will agree with that view.

Representatives for the other four companies could not immediately be reached.

All of the oil companies generally acknowledge that greenhouse gasses are a contributor to climate change. However, the companies argued in court papers on Tuesday that they should not be held liable for global warming, which is caused by “billions” of parties and “complex environmental phenomena occurring worldwide over many decades.” (Reporting by Dan Levine; editing by Grant McCool)

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Sign-On Letter: G20 Nations and Multilateral Development Banks – Stop Funding Fossils

On the eve of the One Planet Summit in Paris, France, as governments and stakeholders gather to discuss the urgent need for climate finance, over 180 civil society groups released a letter being sent to leaders of multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, and leaders of G20 governments.

The letter calls for multilateral development banks and G20 governments to commit to phase out subsidies and public finance for fossil fuels as soon as possible, except in extreme cases where there is clearly no other viable option for increasing energy access to the poor. This total phaseout should be achieved by no later than 2020.

Signatories including Oil Change International, Les Amis de la Terre – Friends of the Earth France, Christian Aid, Greenpeace, Reseau Action Climat – Climate Action Network France, WWF International, BankTrack, Climate Action Network International, Global Witness, 350.org, Germanwatch, CIDSE, and the Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development were part of more than 190 organisations from over 55 countries around the world who signed the letter.

190+ GROUPS:  STOP FUNDING FOSSILS AT ONE PLANET SUMMIT

 Multilateral Development Banks and G20 Nations Must Stop Funding Fossils

 

To the leaders of the multilateral development banks and G20 nations,

As more than 190 civil society organizations from over 55 countries, we urge all multilateral development banks and G20 nations to commit to phase out subsidies and public finance for fossil fuels as soon as possible, with a total phaseout by no later than 2020. This ongoing government support for fossil fuels undermines global climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.

As leaders gather in Paris, France for the One Planet Summit, climate impacts around the globe are mounting in severity each year, and the poorest and most vulnerable continue to be hit first and hardest. The Paris Climate Agreement’s objective to “align finance flows with low-emission, climate-resilient development and to shift public finance away from high-emitting infrastructure” is more urgent than ever before.

But instead of funding the solution, G20 governments and multilateral development banks still overwhelmingly fund the problem. For the most recent three years where data is available, G20 public fossil fuel finance averaged $71.8 billion annually – nearly 90 times the rate of global assistance for small island developing states for resilience to climate change and disasters at only $800 million annually. And the multilateral development banks financed projects with fossil fuel exploration components at $1.8 billion annually – three times the rate of all global climate-related development finance to small island developing states, at $550 million annually.

Given their importance to the world’s energy trajectory both in their financing of energy projects and their crucial signaling role for the broader investment community, we urge multilateral development banks to:

• Set a clear timeline for the phase out of public finance for oil, gas, and coal production, starting with the elimination of all finance for fossil fuel exploration and coal, except in extreme cases where there is clearly no other viable option for increasing energy access to the poor. Fossil fuel finance should be phased out no later than 2020. 

• Commit to transparency and accountability by tracking and publishing greenhouse gas emissions of all investments, making these figures publicly available on an annual basis, and establishing a clear timeline to achieve a science-based reduction of portfolio-wide emissions. 

Likewise – given their annual commitment since 2009 to “phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, we urge G20 leaders to make good on this promise at their 2018 summit in Argentina, and to:

• Set a clear timeline for the full and equitable phaseout by all G20 members of all fossil fuel subsidies by 2020, starting with the elimination of subsidies for fossil fuel exploration and coal. 

• Set a clear timeline for the full and equitable phaseout by all G20 members of domestic and international public finance for oil, gas, and coal production by 2020, except in extreme cases where there is clearly no other viable option for increasing energy access to the poor. Fossil fuel finance should be phased out no later than 2020. 

• Commit to be fully transparent about all fossil fuel subsidies in a consistent format made publicly available on an annual basis, to increase transparency of reporting on investment in fossil fuel production by publicly-owned financial institutions, and to complete fossil fuel subsidy peer reviews by the end of 2018.

Recent assessments have found that: a) G20 nations are providing billions in public finance to fossil fuel production, at more than 4 times the rate they are supporting renewable energy;[1] b) multilateral development banks funded more than $5 billion in oil, gas, and coal production in 2016, after the Paris Climate Agreement was reached in December 2015;[2] and c) G20 governments spend more than $444 billion each year on support to fossil fuel production alone.[3] All of this public support to fossil fuels comes as we must rapidly shift investment towards clean energy, and despite clear evidence that we need to keep at least 80% of existing fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 

We urge multilateral development banks and G20 leaders to take the decisive steps toward ending public support for fossil fuels outlined above. Governments of the richest countries in the world, and their key institutions must establish an ambitious 2020 deadline for the phase out of subsidies and public finance for fossil fuels, in order to drive sustained and scaled-up climate action.

Footnotes:

[1] http://priceofoil.org/2017/07/05/g20-financing-climate-disaster/

[2] http://priceofoil.org/2017/10/12/development-banks-still-funding-fossils/

[3]https://www.odi.org/publications/10058-empty-promises-g20-subsidies-oil-gas-and-coal-production

Sincerely, 

[192 organisations from 58 countries and several regions, presented alphabetically] 

Abibiman Foundation – Ghana Act Alliance EU – Belgium Adivasi Mulvasi Astitva Raksha manch – India African Climate Reality Project – South Africa Africa Youth Coalition Against Hunger Sierra Leone – Sierra Leone AKSI for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice – Indonesia All Nepal Peasant's Federation – Nepal All Nepal Women's Association – Nepal Alliance Sud – Alliance of Swiss Development Organisations – Switzerland Alofa Tuvalu – Tuvalu & France Alternative Information Development Centre – South Africa Amazon Watch – United States Les Amis de la Terre – Friends of the Earth France – France Amsterdam Fossielvrij – The Netherlands Aotearoa Youth Leadership Institute – New Zealand Appropriate Technology for Living Association – New Zealand Arab Youth Climate Movement Lebanon – Lebanon Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development – Asia Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives – South Korea Bangladesh Jatiyo Sramik Jote – Bnagladesh Bangladesh Krishok Federation – Bangladesh Bank Information Center Europe – The Netherlands BankTrack – The Netherlands Both ENDS – The Netherlands Bretton Woods Project – United Kingdom Bulig Visayas – Philippines Campaign for Climate Justice Nepal – Nepal Carbon Action Aotearoa – New Zealand CARE International – Climate Change and Resilience Platform CDL Bangladesh – Bangladesh CEMBI-USB – Venezuela Centar za Ekologiju i Energiju – Bosnia and Herzegovina Center for Biological Diversity – United States Center for Environmental Justice – Sri Lanka Center for International Environmental Law – United States Centre for Human Rights and Climate Change Research – Nigeria CHANGE – Vietnam Change Partnership – International Christian Aid – United Kingdom CIDSE – International Clean Air Action Group – Hungary Climate Action Hobart – Australia Climate Action Network Europe – Europe Climate Action Network International – International Climate Alliance Switzerland – Switzerland Climate and Development Advice – Germany Climate and Development Lab – United States The Climate Justice Project – United States CliMates – France CNCD-11.11.11 – Belgium Collectif Causse Méjean – Gaz de Schiste NON ! – France Columbus Community Bill of Rights – United States CONAJEC – Coordination Nationale des Jeunes pour l'Environnement et le Climat – Burkina Faso Concerned Citizens against Climate Change – The Netherlands Coordination Office of the Austrian Bishop's Conference for International Development and Mission – Austria Counter Balance – Czech Republic Debt Watch – Indonesia Derecho Ambiente y Recursos Naturales – Peru DIB – Denmark Les Dindons de la Farce – France East Africa Climate Change Network – Kenya Ecoaction – Ukraine EcoEquity – United States Economic Justice Network Sierra Leone – Sierra Leone eco-union – Spain EKOenergy – Finland Engajamundo – Brazil Environics – India Environmental Defence Canada – Canada Environmental Justice Foundation – United Kingdom Epikaizo Care Initiative – Tanzania EquityBD – Bangladesh European Environment and Health Youth Coalition – Hungary Focus Association for Sustainable Development – Slovenia Fossielvrij NL – The Netherlands fossil-free.ch – Switzerland Fossil Free Göttingen – Germany Fossil Free Uppsala – Sweden Frederick Mulder Foundation – United Kingdom Freedom from Debt Coalition – Philippines FreshWater Accountability Project – United States Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland – United Kingdom Friends of the Earth U.S. – United States Fundacion Madariaga – Argentina Fundacja Instytut Rozwoju Innowacyjnej Energetyki – Poland Fundacja Rozwoj TAK – Odkrywki NIE – Poland GARJAN-Nepal – Nepal GEFONT Trade Union Federation – Nepal Germanwatch – Germany Gitib – Philippines Global Catholic Climate Movement – International Global South Initiative – Nepal Global Witness – International Greenpeace Grupo de Financiamiento Climático para Latinoamérica y el Caribe (GFLAC) – Mexico Health and Environment Alliance – Belgium Himalaya Niti Abhiyan – India Honor the Earth – United States Human Rights Alliance Nepal – Nepal Human Rights Foundation Aotearoa New Zealand – New Zealand iMatter – United States Indian Social Action Forum – India InspirAction USA – United States Institute for Policy Studies – Climate Justice Program – United States Jagaran Nepal – Nepal Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society – Japan JATAM – Indonesia Kazdagi Association for the Preservation of Natural and Cultural Resources – Turkey Kerala Independent Fishworkers Federation – India Khazer Ecological NGO – Armenia Kiko Network – Japan Koalicja Klimatyczna – Poland KRuHA – People's Coalition for the Right to Water – Indonesia LDC Watch – International Legambiente – Italy Leave it in the Ground Initiative – International Living Legacies – New Zealand Madden Sainsbury Foundation – Australia Market Forces – Australia Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns – International McCulloch Consulting Limited – United Kingdom Mediterranean Youth Climate Network – Morocco Migrant Forum in Asia – Philippines Milieudefensie – The Netherlands Mom Loves Taiwan Association – Taiwan Monitoring Sustainability of Globalization – Malaysia Mouvement Ecologique – Friends of the Earth Luxembourg – Luxembourg Nadi Gati Morcha – India National Federation of Hawkers Bangladesh – Bangladesh National Federation of Women Hawkers – India National Hawkers Federation – India Natural Resources Defense Council – International NGO Ecoclub – Ukraine North Country Veterans for Peace – United States Oil Change International – International Oil Money Out – United States Our Climate Declaration – New Zealand Our Rivers Our Life – Philippines Overseas Development Institute – United Kingdom Pacific Islands Climate Action Network – Fiji Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum – Pakistan Pakistan Rabita Committee – Pakistan Philippine Movement for Climate Justice – Philippines Plateforme de la Société Civile sur le Changement Climatique – Haiti Polski Klub Ekologiczny Okręg Mazowiecki – Poland Power Shift Network – United States Reacción Climática – Bolivia REFEDD – French Student Network for Sustainability – France REK Rowlands & Partners – United Kingdom The Renewables – New Zealand Reseau Action Climat – Climate Action Network France – France River Basin Friends – India Rootskeeper – United States Rural Reconstruction Nepal – Nepal Sanlakas – Philippines Sawit Watch – Indonesia SEAFish for Justice – Indonesia Sierra Club – United States Sierra Leone School Green Club – Sierra Leone Sisters of Mercy of the Americas' Institute Justice Team – United States Stop Petróleo Vila do Bispo – Portugal Solidaritas Perempuan – Indonesia SUPRO – Bangladesh South Asian Alliance for Poverty Eradication – Nepal Southern Oregon Climate Action Now – United States SustainUS – United States Swiss Youth for Climate – Switzerland Taiwan Environmental Protection Union – Taiwan TENMYA 21 – Tunisia Trade Un. Turtle Island Restoration Network – United States Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Binghamton Green Sanctuary – United States Unnayan Onneshan – Bangladesh Urgewald – Germany Voice – Bangladesh Wodonga Albury Towards Climate Health – Australia Woman, Development, Future Public Union – Azerbaijan Women Engage for a Common Future – Germany WoMin African Alliance – Africa WWF – International Youth for Environment, Education and Development Foundation – Nepal Youth Movement for African Unity – Ghana Youth for Ocean! – France ZERO – Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável – Portugal Zukunft statt Kohle – Future instead of Coal – Switzerland 11.11.11 – Belgium 350 Africa – Africa 350 Ankara – Turkey 350 Montgomery County – United States 350 New Orleans – United States 350 New Zealand – New Zealand 350.org – International

VCSs News: Carbon Pricing Takes Off

The October / November 2017 Newsletter of Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), has included the following report of great importance.

Limiting the increase in global average temperature to within 2° Celsius of preindustrial levels requires dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. One of the best ways to do that is to shift the social and economic costs of greenhouse gases from the public to the polluter.

BONN – The hurricanes that pummeled the Caribbean, Texas, and Florida this year left highways submerged, homes and businesses demolished, and lives lost. The floodwaters have since receded, but the images of upheaval remain etched in our collective memory. Recovery will take years, perhaps decades, and it will cost billions of dollars.

Experts tell us that warming oceans are causing hurricanes to become more powerful, and other consequences of anthropogenic climate change – from severe droughts in the Horn of Africa to extreme flooding in Asia – are leaving millions without food and basic shelter. But while the link between burning fossil fuels and deadly weather has been strengthening for years, policymakers have not always heeded the warnings.

This is changing rapidly. Today, countries, citizens, and a growing number of businesses around the world are finally taking action. This month, thousands gathered for the UN’s climate change conference in Bonn, Germany, to ratchet up global ambition in the fight against climate change. Following the successful Paris climate agreement two years ago, expectations for further progress and continued collaboration are high.

One of the more promising recent initiatives is the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC), which brings together 30 governments and more than 180 businesses and strategic partners to put a value on carbon dioxide emissions. The idea is simple: if we are to meet the Paris accord’s target of limiting the increase in global average temperature to less than 2° Celsius above preindustrial levels – ideally, to 1.5° above preindustrial levels – we must dramatically cut emissions. As co-chairs of the CPLC, we believe that one of the best ways to do that is by shifting the social and economic costs of heat-trapping gases from the public to the polluter.

With the sense of climate urgency increasing, it is no longer acceptable to pollute for free and pass the bill to future generations. Putting a price on carbon is the most efficient way to reduce global emissions while encouraging sustainable and robust economic growth. Moreover, by putting a price on pollution, governments can generate revenue for investments like clean energy, schools, and health care, making it a double win.

The ultimate goal, of course, is to encourage businesses to clean up their acts, and today, a growing share of business leaders understand that pricing carbon is one of the best ways to combat climate change. They also recognize that their businesses can thrive even as they work to reduce emissions.

In fact, many business leaders are among the most enthusiastic supporters of effective carbon pricing. Just last month, the Carbon Disclosure Project revealed that the number of companies with plans to pursue internal carbon price mechanisms has grown to almost 1,400 globally, up from 150 in 2014. This includes more than 100 of the world’s largest companies, with total annual revenues of some $7 trillion. Royal DSM (which is led by one of the authors) has set a carbon price of €50 ($59) per ton, joining other global companies like Michelin, Danone, and General Motors in applying meaningful carbon prices to “future-proof” their business.

Some 40 countries – including Canada – are also putting a price on carbon pollution, and more governments are planning to implement similar schemes soon. In 2015, China announced plans to create the world’s largest carbon-pricing system. And earlier this year, Ontario, Québec, and California signed an agreement to create the world’s second-largest carbon market.

This trend must continue – for environmental and economic reasons. A May 2017 study conducted by the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices – led by two of the world’s top economists, Joseph E. Stiglitz and Nicholas Stern – found that setting a “strong carbon price” is essential not only for reducing global emissions, but also for sustaining innovation and growth.

To be sure, putting a price on carbon pollution must become part of a broader set of actions to future-proof our economies and societies. To reduce greenhouse-gas emissions further and foster economic vitality, we must improve public transportation; construct energy-efficient buildings; and support efforts by businesses, innovators, and investors to develop clean-energy solutions. This is what Canada is already doing, because we know that these policies can reduce emissions and help create new, well-paying jobs.

As is often said, climate change represents both a challenge and an opportunity. By pricing carbon pollution and harnessing our collective abilities, we can address the former and seize the latter. Pooling the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit found in countries and businesses will enable us to fight climate change, strengthen our economies and societies, and leave our children and grandchildren a healthier planet.

Sources: https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/blogs/2017/11/24/carbon-pricing-takes-off 

More ambition and innovation in tackling climate change (VCS)

We have received the April / May 2017 Spring Newsletter from Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). VCS was founded in 2005 by environmental and business leaders who saw the need for greater quality assurance in voluntary carbon markets. CEO David Antonioli speaks about President Trump's decision to withdraw the Paris Agreement. The statement follows:

"Dear Colleague,
More than anything, we see Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris Agreement as a call to continue the work we are already doing, and we look forward to working with all of you to push for more ambition and innovation in tackling climate change".

We saw it coming, and yet Trump’s decision to pull out of the landmark Paris Agreement was nevertheless deeply disheartening. While we were dismayed by the decision, we are no less motivated to keep working towards climate action. We stand with countries, states, cities, organisations and corporations worldwide that have signaled their commitment to stick with the Paris Agreement and continue to find ways of addressing climate change. Indeed, on the same day as Trump’s announcement, Colombia published what we think is a far-reaching and incredibly innovative decree setting out how companies subject to a US$5/tonCO₂e tax on fuels can reduce their tax liability by surrendering high-quality carbon offsets. This is just one of what we hope (and expect) to be many examples of countries and others taking the lead in forging solutions to fight climate change.

For VCS, supporting the Paris Agreement means continuing to provide frameworks that catalyze investment in activities that reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It also means providing frameworks that will work in the context of a fully functioning Paris Agreement, which will require that we continue to make sure our projects and programs deliver measurable results and also deal with some of the challenges we see coming forward, including the need to address double counting and claiming".

Climate change in the Azuero Peninsula, Panama

Francisco Rivas Ríos.

apronad@gmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/apronadpanama/

The extreme climate variability.

Drought is not the only problem facing the region of Azuero, as a result of climate change. Two contrasting news explains the consequences of extreme climate variability resulting from this phenomenon.

The first news was published by the newspaper El Siglo on April 8, 2015, under the title: "The Estivaná dying, fear running out of water ." The second was published in La Prensa on September 8, 2015 with the title: "Two thousand people affected. River flood affects Water supply in Los Santos ".

In the first news Regional Director IDAAN, Melquiades Zambrano said that " cannot be guaranteed that the river Estivaná -during the next summers - provide enough to feed the population of Llano de Piedra flow". In this situation she reported that a good 420 feet deep to 200 gallons per minute would be enabled to supply this population.

Meanwhile, September 8, 2015 La Prensa reported that: "A growing strongest Estivaná River supports more than 2,000 residents of the town of Llano de Piedra, in the province of Los Santos, without water because they broke the pipes well that supplies the place. This is the length of pipe that is above the ford on the river mentioned in the pathway Piedras Llano-El Faldar, which was affected by the flood . "This time indicated that the four-inch pipe 40 caliber was busted, so they sent a handyman to repair the institution.

 

Both news is sampled from one of the characteristics of climate change: the impact of unsustainable human activities, to which the natural climate variability adds. It is important to remember the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as a change attributed directly or indirectly to human activity, climate that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable periods of time.

 

The natural variable (Arco Seco) and environmental degradation.

Natural climate variability derived from the weather pattern known as the "Arco Seco" is pronounced seasons of drought and lack of rain even in periods in other regions of the natural climate variability derived from the weather pattern known as the "Arco Seco" is pronounced seasons of drought and lack of rain even in periods than in other regions of the country are in the rainy season. Arco Seco region has an area of 1, 070,803.80 hectares, 263.624 inhabitants and a density of 25 inhabitants per square kilometer.  It includes the provinces of Cocle, Herrera and Los Santos.

The impact of the climatic characteristics of the "Arco Seco" River Subbasin Estivaná, for example, has a process of uncontrolled deforestation, with a sharp increase in erosion rates, rising the risk of desertification. The sub can be seen insufficient protection of riparian forests and water catchment areas. Deforestation continues to make way for the expansion of an unsustainable agricultural frontier, causing erosion, soil degradation and desertification.

Additionally, the placement of liquid and solid waste from pig farming and dairy Estivaná directly into the river and other tributaries of the river La Villa, untreated, produces pollution and poor water quality. In the case of pig activities, handling of wastewater is almost zero. Less than 30% of the industries in this activity waste reused or meet infrastructure management of organic waste and the pig trying to comply with it, most systems do not work properly. 

In short, human actions that contribute to climate change in the Arco Seco are, among others: deforestation, fires, overgrazing, indiscriminate use of agrochemicals, intensive exploitation of groundwater, removal of mangroves, improper land use, setting high P (phosphorus).

According to the Climate Change Unit and MIAMBIENTE Desertification, dry forest with the Sabana Veragüense and Ngäbe Bugle part of the " dry and degraded land ", as seen in the map below:

Scenarios Niño, 2016.

On 18 -19 November 2015, the Regional Committee for Water Resources Central American Integration System met, under the XLVIII Climate Forum Central America (MESOAMERICAN FORUM III), in the city of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

The Forum produced the following theses that serve as a starting point the analysis for this article:

I . That surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean have increased at or typical of an El Niño intense higher levels and such a scenario the forecast period of this Perspective (D15-EFM16) will remain for most .

II . That from the month of September, temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean have shown positive anomalies (than normal warmer conditions), even reaching very high values ​​in October and during the period covered by this forecast will continue to increase .

III . The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO for its acronym in English, which modulates the frequency and intensity of El Niño and La Niña), is currently under favoring surface warming of the Equatorial Pacific Ocean.

IV . The Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation have remained neutral or positive phase in recent months, but that it is possible to turn to the negative phase in the second half of winter (January-March 2016 ).

V . That cold season push for the forecast period this perspective be considered within the normal range, with low activity at the beginning of the season (November and December), but increasing thereafter with a consensus forecast of 12 and 14 digs north of the region and the Caribbean, and the possibility of 2-3 of these systems can reach a moderate to strong intensity in the months of January to March. 

In short, human actions that contribute to climate change in the Arco Seco are, among others: deforestation, fires, overgrazing, indiscriminate use of agrochemicals, intensive exploitation of groundwater, removal of mangroves, improper land use, setting high P (phosphorus).

As the air temperature is expected that the maximum temperature (daytime) occurs above its average value, mostly related to the warming that presents the Tropical Pacific Ocean. For minimum temperature (night) is expected to be recorded below normal, due to the absence of clouds.

El Niño exacerbate structural, environmental degradation Arco Seco Panama. The following data are taken from the document entitled: developing strategies for sustainable development for the provinces of Cocle, Herrera, Los Santos and Veraguas, prepared by the National Council for Sustainable Development of Panama (CONADES). 

In the area of ​​Arco Seco, records of annual rainfall does not exceed 1,000 mm of rain, and periods of drought during the dry season extending up to seven months, primarily affecting soil degradation; circumstance is compounded by inadequate management and land use (logging, burning, overgrazing, crops in unsuitable soils, etc.) practices, where erosion is more pronounced each day, reflected in a loss of productive capacity of soils and increased sedimentation rates in rivers and streams.

Reducing flows of major rivers in the region, grazing areas and water availability for use in agricultural, industrial and domestic activities, has led an intensive and uncontrolled exploitation of underground water resources, which availability and extraction rates are unknown; with the consequent advance of desertification in the region.

As a result of this situation, we have the degradation of more than 2 million hectares of land in the central provinces equivalent to 27% of the total land area; sediment flow into rivers and increased siltation and saturation processes almost all the streams and rivers of the Pacific slope, with consequent damage to the water treatment equipment, hydropower, irrigation and drainage, with repercussions on the Marine ecosystem.   

We are prepared for the phenomenon La Niña?

The Climate Prediction Center, CPC (for its acronym in English) of the National Weather Service of the United States belonging to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA and the -IRI- Institute, reported for the first time, 17 December 2015 that the probability of development of La Niña for July-August-September 2016 continues to climb, now exceeding 30%.

In this very short, it is reported that according to the consolidation of forecasts based on the ocean surface temperature of the Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service of the United States, there is a 79% chance of having the phenomenon of La Niña end of 2016.