The Leapfrogs

20 years after Rio – Civil society participation in international negotiations

2011-08-31T16:07:00.002+02:00

Even though Non-governmental organizations (NGO) are allowed to participate in international environmental conferences there is still a huge gap between the number of participants from the global North and the global South. This is not due to the lack of organizations in those countries it is more about the fact that these organizations often do not have the financial means to take part in international negotiations – especially when they take place in Europe or the United States. In many countries, funding and public support for NGOs is not successfully developed and many organizations have to struggle for their existence and also for the possibility to accomplish their projects.

While there are enough European NGOs which raise their voice for developing countries I would argue that this kind of support cannot make up for their absence. It is important to strengthen civil society organizations in developing countries and to help them participate in international summits, but also to help them being active in their own country. The change of the venues of international summits is one important step to help NGOs participate. The attention of national and international media can help to increase awareness about the policy area in the host country. Besides, the presence of international partners, NGOs and other organizations can boost cooperation opportunities. But, in the long run, it is important to include NGOs from all over the world fundamentally.

I have just published an article about this topic focusing on international climate negotiations. I would appreciate to receive comments. You can find it here:
http://www.inwent.org/ez/articles/197598/index.en.shtml

Don’t fall into the trap of „Glamour Aid”

2010-09-23T12:32:00.001+02:00

Following the media reports on the current MDG+10 summit of the United Nations in New York is quite interesting: How is it possible to explain such complex socio-political and economic processes to the public? Which examples are selected for showing failure and success? And which experts are allowed to explain who this plight can be solved? And, yes, it is not surprising that Bob Geldof is present at the summit and meets all the high level politicians (media report 22.9.2010 at German Tagesthemen).

Honestly, I can’t stand Bob Geldof and other celebrities like Bono being engaged on such a high political level as I see two fundamental problems: glamour aid is both paternalistic with regards to the poor people in the world and it is anti-democratic with regards to global governance. To be clear: I find it important that many people engage in raising awareness on the MDGs in the public, but I find it problematic if celebrities act like politicians and claim to be speaker of the poor people in the political arena. Let me quickly explain my two points:

With regards to the paternalistic behaviour by celebrities I would like to refer to Dambisa Moyo who illustrated this point quite good – though I do not support Moyo’s simplistic theses on “Dead Aid”, but on this point she is right:

“There are African policymakers who are charged with the responsibility of creating policy, and implementing policy. That's their job. Long, long lines of people have stood in the sun to vote for a president who is effectively impotent because of donors or because glamour aid has decided to speak on behalf of a continent. How would British people feel if tomorrow Michael Jackson started telling them how they should get out of the housing crisis? Or if Amy Winehouse started to give the US government advice about the credit crunch? And was listened to? I think they would be perturbed, and worried. I mean, they've completely disenfranchised the very people we've actually elected!" (highlights by me, Interview with The Guardian, 19.2.2009)

So let me explain my second criticism: glamour aid is anti-democratic. In politics, it is all about legitimacy. So what is the legitimacy for celebrities to be invited in the political arena? Do I have to produce at least five number one hits in the charts that I’m invited to the plenum of the United Nations? What kind of democratic understanding is it? No democratic understanding at all. So what’s the reason for letting celebrities speak to high level politicians? Both want to create a win-win-situation: Politicians gain public support for being friends with celebrities and celebrities gaining attention for seeming to do something good to achieve the MDGs. The problem, however, is that celebrities are not being acknowledged for telling something clever or something that is new, it is just because they are celebrities. Wonderful democracy.

So please, politicians and the public, do not fall into the trap of glamour aid. It is very paternalistic and it harms the democratic understanding – and that’s not how development politics should be in the future!

Human Rights in Mexico

2010-09-02T16:43:00.002+02:00

In Mexico, the fight for Human Rights is very closely connected to the Zapatista movement and its fight for the rights of indigenous people. But unfortunately there are other human rights violations. Just to name a few: There are cases of torture in prisons, the presumption of innocence does not hold and so-called defenders of natural resources - persons that fight for example against illegal logging - are often threatened, violated or even killed.
The notorious "war on drugs" brings further dangers of human rights violations. In order to combat the drug cartels, the state responded with counter violence and increased massively the police and military forces in the country - this entails a militarization of the society. The killings and violence in the country augmented dramatically after this decision. There is a high degree of impunity amongst the military personal as they are held responsible only to a special military court. Since 2006 - the beginning of the "war on drugs" - the number of appeals exploded. Protection of civilians is not anchored in the Mexican law. Finally, the cartels are said to be involved in the military.
More information about human rights in Mexico: http://centroprodh.org.mx/centroprodh/

It is not only about counterfeiting sunglasses...

2010-07-19T14:46:00.003+02:00

The EU is negotiating with the USA, Canada and a few others a new trade agreement that aims at enforcing intellectual property rights – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or short: ACTA.

Several aspects of this agreement are seen as problematic: Amongst others, ACTA circumvents multilateralism and established multilateral fora and Individual internet users may be criminalized using free software.

Moreover, ACTA will have severe implications for developing countries. First of all, it is problematic for developing countries that they do not take part at the negotiations but are affected by the results. Although the EU Commission states that ACTA will not have any negative effect on the access to medicine, several experts think that exactly this will happen. Counterfeiting is not only limited to fake products like sneakers but also to patents, trademarks and thus medicine. With ACTA, the current trend of anchoring stricter rules in ongoing trade negotiations than in TRIPS will be strengthened and it will be more difficult for developing countries to have access to affordable medicine. The enforcement of intellectual property rights is not cheap and there is the danger that money will be shifted for example from the health sector to the implementation of ACTA in developing countries. The transfer from generic medicine produced e.g. in India heading for African countries through the EU is also jeopardized.

See also petition by professors, MEPs and others.

EU-India Free Trade Agreement threatens access to medicine

2010-07-19T14:44:00.000+02:00

Since 2007 the EU is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. This is part of a trade web the EU is spinning all over the world since the Doha talks in the framework of WTO do not advance. This evolution is - without looking at the substance - already questionable as multilateralism is weakened and the huge EU trade block usually faces less strong developing countries during the negotiations.

Critics fear the negative impact on the liberalization of the financial and agricultural sectors.

Of special concern is however the danger that the FTA might hinder the access to medicine for developing countries. India is the “pharmacy” of the world producing 80% of the generic medicine for AIDS/HIV. This medicine is crucial for the treatment of poorer people. The EU now wants to put high enforcement standards on intellectual property rights into the agreement. The Commission wants to prolong the duration of patents and pushes for data exclusivity which would make India to undertake clinical studies although existent again on its own.

And the money escapes....

2010-02-07T13:42:00.002+01:00

Taxation is a rather boring topic at the first glance. Its importance for developing countries was neglected for a long time, but is slowly entering the political agenda.
There are two basic problems at the moment. One, money simply escapes from developing countries when it should not. Illegal capital outflows are huge in many states. That has several reasons. Transnational Corporations often do creative accounting; they produce in developing countries but do not pay taxes there because of their integrated business structure, based in many countries. Quite often, the rich elite of a country is not taxed either and directs all its money into one of the various tax havens.
Secondly, developing countries also suffer from inadequate revenues, because they have a large share of shadow economy. Also, the international tax race leads developing countries to lower its rates. Tax revenues from international trade are decreasing due to the financial crisis but also due to the WTO liberalization policies. A further reason is that the tax administration is rather weak and political systems often lack legitimacy. Public services are rather poor that is why people simply avoid to pay taxes. There is often an extremely narrow tax basis in developing countries.

All this is very bad for developing countries. First, they lack money to finance public services, run the state etc. Second, taxation contributes to enhancing democracy and accountability of the state. Non-tax revenues make the regimes more free about what to do with the money, and rentier states tend to have a bad development record.

That is why tax havens have to be closed and countries should focus on strengthening their taxation administration, reduce or eliminate tax exemptions and mobilize the citizens by taxing them.

Post-Copenhagen - A mixture of strategies

2010-02-06T16:20:00.003+01:00

Let us be honest: The conference in Copenhagen was a failure and a huge disappointment. From a political perspective we didn’t get an agreement – it is even called a non-agreement – and the next steps will probably be difficult. Questions arise: How long will it take to find a global solution? Will we even get a global agreement? Is the framework of the United Nations not the right place to decide about these questions as states only pursue their own interests? Some scientists even ask a dangerous question: Is democracy not the right system for difficult questions? Last Saturday I discussed all these questions with Individual Supporters of the European Green Party in Brussels and I would like to share my main arguments. Of course, it took some time to get over Copenhagen, but I think that we should not stop fighting for a global agreement. But it would probably be better to focus on different strategies and on different levels also.

The UN perspective
The most optimistic sentence I’ve heard was “Better a non-agreement than a bad agreement.” And this is not wrong. Some steps have been taken in Copenhagen and even though China and the US were probably the main draggers of the agreement, they are still on board and they probably will be in 2010. We should go on with this strategy as the international area is the only way to really find an adequate solution to our global problem.

Coalition of the willing
Not the best term thinking about Bush and the war on terrorism, but a good term to describe the idea: If not every state is willing to sign a global contract the pushers for a global agreement should unite to agree at least on a smaller agreement. Even the Kyoto protocol was not signed by the whole international community. Some of you might ask: How much impact can a global agreement have without the United States or China? I would say: It can have an impact as a good cooperation between willing states in the climate and energy sector will also force the draggers to do it, especially regarding technical progress and cooperation. Probably some of the progressive take-off countries would support such an agreement.

Other levels – The European and also the national level
There is also the possibility to intensify bilateral and multilateral cooperation, e.g. in the framework of development assistance. The green party in Germany has already claimed that Germany should increase its assistance for adaptation and technology transfer in developing countries starting in 2010 with around 7 billion Euros per year, going on with 10 billion dollar per year between 2013 and 2020. If the German government would follow this application this could set a good example for other European countries. But: I am very skeptical whether the conservative-liberal coalition is going to do that.

On the other hand the conference in Copenhagen has also shown that the climate community is supported by a strong civil society. Thus I would suggest intensifying the dialogue with NGOs, consumers and other actors of civil society to increase pressure on countries and also on companies. Naming shaming strategies, massive protests and other measures should also be supported by politicians from green or green-thinking parties. In Brussels we have already decided to intensify the cooperation between green parties in Europe, exchanging knowledge, programs and strategies. There is still enough hope and power. Rome wasn’t built on a day, also.

Socio-cultural perspectives on climate change and democracy

2010-01-03T18:47:00.003+01:00

A review on Leggewie & Welzer’s „Das Ende der Welt, wie wir sie kannten“ (2009)

“The end of the world as we know it” is the English translation of the new book’s title by the German authors Claus Leggewie and Harald Welzer. This book goes beyond the classical ecological-technical perspectives on climate change by describing the socio-cultural context in which these changes take place. The authors analyse challenges and chances for contemporary democracy and elaborate a potential approach for future political participation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

The book starts with a review on the political and scientific debate on climate change by providing all relevant information for understanding the so called “meta-crisis climate change” (chapter 1). However, experts in the field can easily skip this chapter and begin with the second chapter which discusses the basic social phenomenon that people’s awareness on the environment does not correspond to people’s actions. Leggewie & Welzer’s rationale for this phenomenon is the complexity of global problems and constantly intervening factors in the social and psychological perspective on individuals (p.97). Thereafter (in chapter three), the authors criticise actual crisis management (“business as usual”) and claim for a “third industrial revolution” which both revises the aberrations of the first and second industrial revolutions and creates new jobs in a green economy (p.132).

The forth chapter then focuses on the main thesis of the book: today’s democracy is under pressure due to its inefficiency and ineffectiveness and thereby leads to declining credibility in democracy by its citizens (p.146). Leggewie & Welzer conclude that particularly change agents which promote innovative incentives for social change need to be integrated again in the democratic processes (partaking = Teilhabe) (p.149). Referring to Karl Polanyi’s concept of the embeddedness of the economy in the society, the last chapter then describes The Great Transformation which describes the way for more democratic participation. This transformation requires two principle concepts for coping with the climate crises: increasing “empowerment” of the people for allowing a self-determined pursuing of their interests and increasing “resilience” which describes the way of how people manage their problems and overcome barriers (p.196). The authors conclude that civil disturbances are already there (p.216) and new communication technologies provide opportunities for networking and mobilisation of climate campaigns (p.220). Therefore, an APO 2.0, meaning an “extra-parliamentary opposition 2.0” (Außerparlamentarische Opposition 2.0), is necessary to promote a cultural revolution of everyday life (p.227). Finally, this renaissance of the community can not be seen as an organisation, but as an attitude which should abolish the “Leitkultur” of waste (p.230).

Prof. Claus Leggewie and Harald Welzer are both working at the Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut in Essen. Leggewie is member of the scientific advisory board of the German government on global environmental changes (WGBU). The book is well written and refers to many contemporary examples in the context of German politics and the international prenegotiations to Copenhagen. An interview with the authors in the taz (19.09.2009) has been also translated into English.

Leggewie, Claus / Welzer, Harald (2009). Das Ende der Welt, wie wir sie kannten: Klima, Zukunft und die Chancen der Demokratie, S. Fischer, 278 pages, ISBN 978-3100433114

EU DEVELPOMENT ARCHITECTURE ON THE MOVE

2009-12-24T12:13:00.002+01:00

The EU development architecture is quite difficult to understand. This stems from the fact that the institutional landscape, like in other EU policy fields, evolved and grew over the years – often as the result of political compromises. One example is that the Development Commissioner is only responsible for the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP countries) but not for Latin America and Asia which fall under the jurisdiction of his colleague responsible for foreign affairs.

The whole EU development apparatus is currently being reformed, with the layout of the new Commission and the establishment of the External Action Service (EAS), that is the new diplomatic corps of the EU, after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. However, what it will look like is not really clear yet – and which possibility is the best for promoting development objectives neither. What is already sure is that there will again be an independent Directorate General for Development headed by a Commissioner responsible also for the development part of EuropeAid. The former energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs was suggested by Barroso for this post. The entire Commission has still to be approved by the European Parliament in January. Barroso also decided to create a new portfolio for international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response and designated the Bulgarian foreign minister Rumiana Jeleva. The aid component was formerly under the auspices of the development Commissioner. You can find pros and cons for this outsourcing that is why it is too early to give a definite opinion about this rearrangement and one will have to see how both Commissioners really cooperate at the end. The new Commissioner responsible for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy plays a role as well because many neighbourhood countries are also developing countries. You see, the development architecture will get even more fragmented as it has been before.

What is still not clear and where the big discussion is about is where the programming will be done. Rumours in Brussels say that the (EAS) will most probably be in charge. This has the advantage that EU’s foreign policy might get more consistent but many people fear that diplomats with no knowledge of development policy will conceptualize the EU’s development policy.
It is also discussed whether the Development Cooperation Instrument, that is the financing instrument for developing countries except the ACP states, will stay outside the realm of the development Commissioner or finally be integrated like many NGOs demand.

No rights no REDD

2009-12-14T16:07:00.010+01:00

On this sunny Sunday I am sitting in our nice Danish apartment waiting for the start of the demonstration in Copenhagen and for the huge NGO party which is already legendary. Today the UNFCCC secretary announced to restrict entrance for NGOs to 30 per cent of the original number of registrations starting from Tuesday. For some organizations this will create a huge problem. But there is still a lot going on, in the words of a good friend: “Two days at the COP feel like a week. You keep on talking with people from all over the world and you’re always overwhelmed with information.”

Yesterday I attended a very emotional discussion about REDD. REDD means “reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation”, in simple terms: You pay people not to cut off their forests, as 25 per cent of global carbon emissions are coming from deforestation and degradation. The discussion about a REDD mechanism started in 2007 with the publication of Stern’s Review. In 2007 at the Bali Conference Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea brought up a proposal for a mechanism to reduce these emissions. It is likely to be included in the new climate agreement – of course, if there will be one.

One of the most important questions, besides the financing mechanism (market-based mechanism or a global fund) is the participation of indigenous communities. We were talking to representatives from indigenous communities in Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Peru and Bolivia which are also part of the COICA network, a network for the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations in the Amazon Basin.
„Sin derechos indigenas no REDD“ - “No rights – no REDD” is the slogan of the indigenous people organizations. Their concern is about the impact of new forest policies on their livelihood and traditional practices of their communities. One of the participants stated, that he fears misuse of the REDD mechanism by some local governments which are already waiting for the chance to force communities leaving their forests and livelihoods.
Most of them took part in the program “Readiness on REDD”, a project developed by the Whole Woods Research Center. The multi-stakeholder forum focuses on the practical side of REDD, strategic activity-based partnerships and tries bringing together people from different regions and different stakeholder groups in their countries (national and local governments, companies, NGOs), working together in activities. The first step is already taken but there is still a lot of mistrust between different stakeholders and a long way to go.

WAITING FOR MR. NIEBEL

2009-12-11T14:23:00.006+01:00

Welcome to Copenhagen!

I arrived yesterday after a carbon-friendly trip by train and ferry. Right now, I am sitting in the conference center, observing other participants from all over the world. 15.000 participants are here in the Bella Center discussing, negotiating, walking, talking and I would guess some of them don’t really know what to do. What is my mission? I am searching for German NGOs to complete questionnaires I will use to complete my University degree. Luckily I already met seven busy but friendly representatives who were able to answer adequately. Thank you very much!

Every morning, the Eco-Newsletter, the Third World Network Copenhagen News Update, and the Earth Negotiations Bulletin inform about the negotiation process. What has happened?

Since the secret “Danish text” (for a deeper analysis take a look at Georg’s blog) has been published a few days ago many parties are trying to push their proposals. On Wednesday Tuvalu called for a Contact Group to discuss its proposal amidst pressure from other parties and was finally rewarded with the first Ray of the Day award by the Climate Action Network (CAN). The proposal calles for an ambitious negotiation process and was supported by a group of young Africans and a huge demonstration inside the conference center:

In their ECO-Newsletter the registered Environmental NGOs are threatening the industrial countries: “As ever, ECO will continue to watch these negotiations closely. Should any open and transparent approach be bastardised into a process that threatens the Kyoto Protocol and prospects for a fair, ambitious, and binding outcome, ECO will not hesitate to pull its support.”

Yesterday Germany earned a Fossil of the Day Award for its announcement that climate finance should be additional to development aid: “It’s an insult to imagine pulling away money promised for famine relief, malaria medicine, and primary school in the developing world, and using that to bargain on climate change”. Mr. Niebel – already the bad guy – will arrive today. I don’t expect a warm welcome.

To follow the negotiations have a look at the UNFCCC website.
Most of the official sessions are closed for media, but you’ll probably get some information from press conferences or side events.

I also found an interesting article in a German newspaper about a blogger who follows the head of the German delegation (sorry – not available in English).

LAST THOUGHTS AND FIRST EXPECTATIONS

2009-12-09T09:36:00.003+01:00

Just a few hours and my train will leave to Copenhagen. On my last evening in Germany I already feel a little bit like COP. Last personal preparations: I’ll take a look at the schedule trying to find my way through interesting seminars, discussions and meetings with people from all over the world.

Discussing climate change in Germany is interesting, but it is also a very technical discourse at times. Discussing climate change at an international conference feels more real, in the sense that the social and political implications of the issue become much more tangible. Talking about the Alliance of Small Island States for example, changes from being a primarily administrative discussion to a very sad reality if you are sitting between two persons from one of these disappearing nations. They ARE affected by climate change and they really need an agreement because their existence depends on it. Creating this understanding is to me one of the central goals of a conference with such an intense stakeholder participation: Bringing people together, learning from each other, finding solutions to global and local problems.

But what will happen if we don’t come to a global agreement?

Fortunately, since today chances have increased that we do: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified six greenhouse gases as dangerous to public health. This is a huge step in the right direction. It raises hopes in the international climate community because it means that the EPA is allowed to regulate the greenhouse gases without requiring new legislation – without seeking the expressed permission of the American Congress. This step also strengthens Obama’s capacities to act. But although the United States is an important player there are other countries which should take responsibilities. Serious climate scientists demand reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 per cent in industrial countries compared to 1990. Even the European Union was not really able to increase its commitment above a level of 20 per cent. Maybe this will increase after two weeks of climate talks, serious negotiations, and a strong civil society. Hopefully…

ELECTIONS IN HONDURAS – CLIENTELISM ALL THE WAY TO GERMANY

2009-12-03T22:14:00.006+01:00

Honduras held elections last Sunday, a moment that marked the next step in the developments after the military coup against President Manuel ‘Mel’ Zelaya from 28 June 2009. Much has been written before on the situation in Honduras after the coup and on the elections in particular. I do not want to repeat what has already been said more eloquently by others. The basics are that about 60% of Hondurans went to cast their votes in an election that can hardly be described as free and fair due to the situation in the country after the coup. Under these circumstances Pepe Lobo got elected as the president to serve the country from January 2010. For the purpose of this blog, I want to focus on the behaviour of the German Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNST) and the German Free Democratic Party (FDP, liberal) after the coup and the elections.

The FNST is one of Germany’s party-associated political foundations. It has close ties with the FDP. Together with similar Foundations that are aligned to the other parties represented in the German Bundestag, it independently conducts publicly funded development cooperation abroad. The Foundations, in this part of their work, are mainly active in democracy promotion and support of political partners along their political lines in host countries. While the Foundations usually do a very respectable job in their work to promote political pluralism and democratic values, the FNST has indeed gotten it wrong this time around.

In sharp contrast to the vast majority of the international community, the FNST has publicly argued that the coup was a legitimate mean to protect the Honduran constitution. It even invited guests associated with the coup to a discussion in the German Bundestag. As the FDP’s parliamentary speaker on foreign policy, Dr. Rainer Stinner explained to the public during the parliamentary debate on the Honduran elections: the Foundation has reached its conclusion because it “took a more differentiated look”, as that is “what Liberals do.” As a formally independent and non-elected organisation, the “Naumen” may choose to do so. More problematic is that the FDP has chosen to back up the Foundation’s questionable position. Both Mr. Stinner and MP Wolfgang Gerhard – FDP heavy weight and at the same time head of the Naumann Foundation – made this view quiet clear when they were asked during the parliamentary debate.

Why would the FDP make such a move despite the risk of alienating itself from virtually every other significant voice in the international community and against internal opposition expressed though an open letter of former scholarship holders of the Naumann Foundation? My personal guess would be that the FDP does what it usually does these days – clientelistic politics for its perceived friends. In this case the network seems to start with the head of the Honduran office of the Naumann Foundation, who Green MP Thilo Hoppe in his speech identified as a “close friend” of Edwin Santos. Santos was the presidential candidate for the Honduran liberal party in Sunday’s elections and supporter of the coup against president Zelaya.

It is frightening to observe this behaviour by the FDP – not least because both the current Foreign Minister and the Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development belong to this party. As in other policy fields, the FDP seems to see foreign policy as an area where it can use its entrusted position of power to promote the interests of their own clients, rather than orient themselves towards the common good. The smug attitude with which Mr. Stinner finished his speech seems to confirm that the party is widely immune to criticism, and worse to the position taken by international partners. During the years in opposition, which it shared with two left-wing parties and against its historical ally the CDU, the party has cultivated a “we-against-the-rest” mentality. Given its current “success”, I don’t see how this will change in the coming years. If you have more faith in the FDP, please feel free to write Mr. Stinner at: rainer.stinner@bundestag.de.

I would love to hear about the answers you get!

CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN COPENHAGEN

2009-11-24T01:22:00.006+01:00

Two weeks to go and a lot to talk about: While Obama reconsiders attending the climate conference in Copenhagen many activists have already made their decision. 10.000 people are expected in a massive civil society protest during the official negotiations. During the official conference NGOs have organized an alternative civil society summit in the city. A big demonstration will be staged on December 12th.

The Danish government has decided to spend 84 million Euro on security measures, which also includes some hard measures against protesters. Sit-in protest can probably be sentenced to 40 days in prison and preventive strategies are increased from 6 to 12 hours of arrest.

But it will also be difficult for registered NGOs inside the conference center. Usually the COP is a conference with a good cooperation between civil society organizations, research institutes and governmental delegates. And it is usually possible to join all the official meetings as there are only a few closed sessions. But the delegates are now discussing closing most of the sessions. This means: no participation for those with a yellow badge – the badge of the representatives of civil society.

Good news: Like every year the side events during the conference will be open to everybody. The UNFCCC has just published the schedule. Adaptation, climate justice, REDD and technology transfer are hot topics. As the events are often attended by government officials this selection could also influence on decision makers.

My recommendation for December:
1. Go to Copenhagen
2. Go by train or by bus (some NGOs offer cheap bus trips to Copenhagen)
3. Attend the civil society summit
4. Take care
5. Buy carbon-friendly Christmas presents, if you won’t be arrested

If you don’t go to Copenhagen: Follow this blog—I’ll try my best to keep you informed.
And another recommendation: I just found an interesting blog by Petra Steinberger, a German journalist writing in English. Her reports about environmental and climate topics are highly recommendable: East of Eden

IT DEPENDS ON THE MEASUREMENT...

2009-11-18T13:59:00.002+01:00

The so-called Stiglitz Commission was established by the United Nations General Assembly to make suggestions for the reform of the international financial architecture. It also recently refreshed the debate about how to measure development and progress.

Today, when GDP seems to be the eternal, omnipresent and only benchmark for economic performance it is hard to imagine a world that uses different indicators. Hand in hand with the rise of the concept “development” after World War II, when progress was equalled with economic growth which seemed to be easy to achieve with the right plan, the world was classified and quantified. For the first time, accounts of national economies were calculated and the GDP got established and became the first and most important parameter for measuring progress. It fitted very well in the ideas of these times: a great optimism for shaping society and economy prevailed and people were searching for comparability, the hard facts and concrete recommendations for action. Economic growth started to be the main objective for development. The belief was that if you want a certain output, only provide for the appropriate input. Economic theory provided the ingredients for achieving economic growth. All this is mirrored in the GDP as measure of development: important factors are left aside, it is a purely economic perspective, wealth distribution is not taken into account, unofficial social work e.g. in the family household is not counted and environmental degradation and the gender perspective are not included. For the first time, the world was officially divided into rich and poor.

The general critique on the pure economic focus of development in the 1970’s and 1980’s and the inclusion of social factors into the development agenda culminated into the alternative by Amartya Sen famous today. His capacity-based approach to development assumes that every human being has different wishes what to achieve and certain capabilities to fulfil these wishes and needs. For him, development means the widening of peoples’ capabilities and choices and therefore their freedom. Although his ideas were materialized on the international level in the human development index that adds to the GDP among other factors life expectancy and education, this approach is still limited and based on country rankings. Furthermore, the dominant players like World Bank still use the GDP as their first and foremost measurement and the great majority of policies still reflect the “GDP-thinking”.

Stiglitz undertook a new attempt to change the focus on numbers in people’s heads. He challenged the explanatory power of the GDP. But as was to be expected, the world’s governments will not follow his suggestions.

ANTI-CORRUPTION – SEATS IN THE LAST ROW?

2009-11-11T16:47:00.005+01:00

Germany has earned a rare privilege given its status as country that prides itself as forming a part of the engine of European integration, G20 member, the world’s largest exporter, and leading partner in development cooperation. In the third session of the Conference of State Parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) that is held in Doha from 9–13 November 2009, German representatives take their seats in the last rows. The reason is that although Germany is one of 110 countries that signed the UNCAC in 2003, it has yet failed to ratify the Convention. 141 other countries have been more progressive, including most G8 countries.

Last month, the Annual Membership Meeting of Transparency International has called upon "the recently elected members of the German parliament to swiftly tighten the German criminal code regarding the bribery of parliamentarians […]." The new parliament should quickly answer to this call and finally remove this central obstacle to UNCAC ratification in Germany. Given the issue at hand, a cross-party proposal seems to me the right way to advance the topic. If progress in this direction is not made soon, it seems difficult to comprehend how the German development cooperation’s efforts to foster good governance abroad can remain credible, while Germany is not itself a ratifying party of the most comprehensive global framework to curb corruption.

While Germany keeps struggling, the international agenda has already moved on. In Doha, civil society representatives call for a functioning review mechanism in order to strengthen the implementation of the UNCAC. For more information on civil society activities around the Convention, the conference and on how to get involved, please visit the website of the UNCAC Coalition! For German speaking readers, Transparency Germany also offers valuable additional information on Germany’s legislation on bribery of parliamentarians (§108).

Timo's instant-activity-box: Something simple this time - call or write to your MP and express your interest in this topic. If you are not German, feel free to pick an MP you like :).

DER KLIMAGIPFEL IN KOPENHAGEN - ES WIRD HEISS

2009-11-10T00:16:00.011+01:00

Kopenhagen, Kopenhagen, Kopenhagen. Angeblich ist es die wichtigste Konferenz dieses Jahres: Vom 7. bis 18. Dezember findet in Kopenhagen die Klimakonferenz der Vereinten Nationen statt. Und irgendwie sind sich doch alle einig: Während die Kanzlerin Angela Merkel vor dem amerikanischen Kongress die Vereinigten Staaten zu einem ambitionierten Programm aufruft, beteuerte der englische Klimaökonom Nicholas Stern vergangenen Mittwoch in Berlin noch einmal, dass nur mit einem ambitionierten Plan der Klimawandel bekämpft werden kann. Stern verwies auch auf den Zusammenhang zwischen dem Klimawandel und der Armut in Entwicklungsländern. An sich klingt das alles nach Einigkeit. Und zumindest rhetorisch gibt es die.

Doch es reicht schon ein Blick in den deutschen Koalitionsvertrag, um ins Schwitzen zu geraten: Im Vertrag findet sich zwar der Satz, dass sich Deutschland bis 2020 dazu verpflichtet, die Emissionen bis zu 40 Prozent gegenüber 1990 zu senken. Konkret wird es nur beim Zurückrudern: Es wird lediglich darauf verwiesen, dass die Maßnahmen im Integrierten Klima- und Energiepaket überprüft und überarbeitet werden sollen. Noch größer ist die Enttäuschung darüber, dass die am meisten emittierenden Industrien auf keinen Fall Minderungsverpflichtungen übernehmen sollen, hier lautet die Aussage wortwörtlich: „Wir setzen uns dafür ein, dass energieintensive Unternehmen, die im internationalen Wettbewerb Nachteile befürchten müssen, weiterhin von der Versteigerung der Emissionsrechte ausgenommen bleiben.“ Enttäuschend bleibt auch die Zusammenarbeit mit Entwicklungsländern: Außer dem Clean Development Mechanism und der Aussage, dass Deutschland zu „einer angemessenen Finanzierung von Technologietransfer, Waldschutz- und Anpassungsprojekten bereit sei“, findet sich wenig Konkretes zur internationalen Zusammenarbeit. Bleibt es unkonkret, weil die Regierung auf die anderen wartet? In einem Stern-Interview hat Merkel betont, dass konkrete Aussagen ausstehen, „Weil es darauf ankommt, was andere machen.“ Wenn alle so denken – wer macht dann eigentlich den Anfang?

Leider niemand. Bei den derzeitigen Zwischenverhandlungen in Barcelona tut sich wenig. Im hauseigenen Newsletter kommentiert der Vorsitzende des BUND, Hubert Weiger, die Konferenz so: „Barcelona hat den Druck auf die Verhandelnden zwar erhöht und die Dringlichkeit von mehr Klimaschutz wieder in den Fokus der Politik gerückt. Aber das Gesamtergebnis ist leider äußerst dünn. Kein einziger Industriestaat setzt auf den erforderlichen hundertprozentigen Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien.“ Und auch insgesamt stehen die Chancen auf ein wirklich bindendes Klimaabkommen schlecht. So schlecht, dass sich Dänemark sogar mit einem Vorstoß eines „politisch verbindlichen Abkommens“ vorgewagt hatte. Nach lauter NGO-Kritik zogen die einstigen Klimavorkämpfer ihren Vorschlag zurück, um sich wieder brav in die Riege der EU einzureihen, welche zumindest offiziell ein rechtlich verbindliches Abkommen anstrebt. Doch der dänische Vorstoß zeigt auch: So recht glaube niemand mehr daran.

Eine gute Nachricht ist, dass in den nächsten IPCC- Bericht das Kapitel „Ethik“ aufgenommen wird, wie Ottmar Edenhofer vom Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung bei der Vorlesung von Nicholas Stern berichtete. Dies ist ein wichtiger Schritt, denn die Entscheidung, wer eigentlich die Kosten des Klimawandels hauptsächlich zu tragen hat, ist tatsächlich eine ethische Entscheidung. Auch wenn China immer wieder als größter Emittent angegriffen wird, so kann man auch die Argumentation der chinesischen Regierung nachvollziehen: Warum sollte ausgerechnet ein derart heterogen entwickeltes Land wie China mit einem derzeitigen Pro-Kopf-Ausstoß von 6 Tonnen Reduktionsverpflichtungen übernehmen, wenn die USA weigert, aber historisch betrachtet die meisten Emissionen weltweit ausgestoßen hat und derzeit bei einem Pro-Kopf-Ausstoß von 20 Tonnen pro Kopf liegt?

Doch die Wissenschaft stößt an ihre Grenzen, wenn die internationalen Entscheidungsträger anderweitig beschäftigt sind: Im Land der unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten kümmert sich Barack Obama gerade um seine Gesundheitsreform. Natürlich ist dies ein wichtiger innenpolitischer Schritt, der viel Kraft und Zeit erfordert. Kraft und Zeit, die für entscheidende Schritte auf dem Weg nach Kopenhagen nicht mehr zur Verfügung steht. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass sich der US-amerikanische Präsident zumindest auf den Weg nach Kopenhagen macht, um mit den anderen Staats- und Regierungschefs über ein Abkommen zu sprechen.

Aktuelle Berichte von der Klimakonferenz in Kopenhagen werden zwischen dem 9. und 18. Dezember hier veröffentlicht.