View previous stories
	UNDP: Environmental trends threaten global progress for the poor by United Nations Development Programme   Nov 2011   Development progress in the world’s poorest countries could be halted or even reversed by mid-century unless bold steps are taken now to slow climate change, prevent further environmental damage, and reduce deep inequalities within and among nations, according to projections in the 2011 Human Development Report, launched by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).   The 2011 Report—Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All—argues that environmental sustainability can be most fairly and effectively achieved by addressing health, education, income, and gender disparities together with the need for global action on energy production and ecosystem protection. The Report was launched in Copenhagen today by UNDP Administrator Helen Clark with Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, whose new government has pledged to reduce Denmark’s CO2 emissions by a dramatic 40 percent over the next 10 years.   As the world community prepares for the landmark UN Conference on Sustainable Development in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, the Report argues that sustainability must be approached as a matter of basic social justice, for current and future generations alike.   “Sustainability is not exclusively or even primarily an environmental issue, as this Report so persuasively argues,” Helen Clark says in the foreword. “It is fundamentally about how we choose to live our lives, with an awareness that everything we do has consequences for the seven billions of us here today, as well as for the billions more who will follow, for centuries to come.”   UNDP has commissioned the editorially-independent Human Development Reports each year since 1990, when its Human Development Index (HDI), a composite measure of health, education and income, first challenged purely economic measures of national achievement and called for consistent global tracking of progress in overall living standards.   Between 1970 and 2010 the countries in the lowest 25 percent of the HDI rankings improved their overall HDI achievement by a remarkable 82 percent, twice the global average. If the pace of improvement over the past 40 years were to be continued for the next 40, the great majority of countries would achieve HDI levels by 2050 equal to or better than those now enjoyed only by the top 25 percent in today’s HDI rankings, the Report notes—an extraordinary achievement for human development globally in less than a century. Yet because of escalating environmental hazards, these positive development trends may instead be abruptly halted by mid-century, the Report contends, noting that people in the poorest countries are disproportionately at risk from climate-driven disasters such as drought and flooding and exposure to air and water pollution.   Sustainability and social justice   Despite the human development progress of recent years, income distribution has worsened, grave gender imbalances still persist, and accelerating environmental destruction puts a “double burden of deprivation” on the poorest households and communities, the Report says. Half of all malnutrition worldwide is attributable to environmental factors, such as water pollution and drought-driven scarcity, perpetuating a vicious cycle of impoverishment and ecological damage, the Report notes.   High living standards need not be carbon-fueled and follow the examples of the richest countries, says the Report, presenting evidence that while CO2 emissions have been closely linked with national income growth in recent decades, fossil-fuel consumption does not correspond with other key measures of human development, such as life expectancy and education. In fact, many advanced industrial nations are reducing their carbon footprints while maintaining growth.   “Growth driven by fossil fuel consumption is not a prerequisite for a better life in broader human development terms,” Helen Clark said. “Investments that improve equity—in access, for example, to renewable energy, water and sanitation, and reproductive healthcare—could advance both sustainability and human development.”   The Report calls for electricity service to be provided to the 1.5 billion people who are now off the power grid—and says that this can be done both affordably and sustainably, without a significant rise in carbon emissions. This new UN-backed ‘Universal Energy Access Initiative’ could be achieved with investments of about one-eighth of the amount currently spent on fossils fuel subsidies, estimated at US$312 billion worldwide in 2009, according to the Report.   The Report adds its voice to those urging consideration of an international currency trading tax or broader financial transaction levies to fund the fight against climate change and extreme poverty. A tax of just 0.005 percent on foreign exchange trading could raise $40 billion yearly or more, the Report estimates, significantly boosting aid flows to poor countries—amounting to $130 billion in 2010—at a time when development funding is lagging behind previously pledged levels due to the global financial crisis.   “The tax would allow those who benefit most from globalization to help those who benefit least,” the Report argues, estimating that about $105 billion is needed annually just to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.   The Report examines social factors not always associated with environmental sustainability:   • Expanding reproductive rights, health care and contraceptive access would open a new front in the fight against gender inequality and poverty, the Report contends. Reproductive rights can further reduce environmental pressures by slowing global demographic growth, with the world population now projected to rise from 7 billion today to 9.3 billion within 40 years.   • The Report argues that official transparency and independent watchdogs—including news media, civil society and courts—are vital to civic engagement in environmental policymaking. Some 120 national constitutions guarantee environmental protections, but in many countries there is little enforcement of these provisions, the Report says.   • Bold global action is urgently required for sustainable development, but local initiatives to support poor communities can be both highly cost-effective and environmentally beneficial, the Report emphasizes. India’s Rural Employment Guarantee Act cost about 0.5 percent of GDP in 2009 and benefited 45 million households—one-tenth of the labour force; Brazil’s Bolsa Familia and Mexico’s Oportunidades programmes cost about 0.4 percent of GDP and provide safety nets for about one-fifth of their populations.   The authors forecast that unchecked environmental deterioration—from drought in sub-Saharan Africa to rising sea levels that could swamp low-lying countries like Bangladesh—could cause food prices to soar by up to 50 percent and reverse efforts to expand water, sanitation and energy access to billions of people, notably in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.   By 2050, in an “environmental challenge” scenario factoring in the effects of global warming on food production and pollution, the average HDI would be 12 percent lower in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa than would otherwise be the case, the Report estimates. Under an even more adverse “environmental disaster” situation—with vast deforestation, dramatic biodiversity declines and increasingly extreme weather—the global HDI would fall 15 percent below the baseline projection for 2050, with the deepest losses in the poorest regions.   Environmental deterioration could undermine decades of efforts to expand water, sanitation and electricity access to the world’s poorest communities: “These absolute deprivations, important in themselves, are major violations of human rights,” the authors say. Visit the related web page
	G20 don"t ignore development agenda by Reuters & agencies   Nov 2011   The G20 must tackle climate change, by Mary Robinson.   Action cannot be put off until the economic storm has passed. The poor countries most vulnerable to the extreme weather associated with climate change need help now.   The economic crisis has done little to sharpen the pressure for action to tackle climate change. Banking collapses, austerity programmes and social unrest have for the most part knocked climate change from newspaper front pages.   Action cannot be put off until the economic storm has passed. As Sir Nicholas Stern"s report pointed out, unchecked climate change could reduce global output by up to 20%. This would dwarf our current troubles – European output, for example, fell by 4.3% in 2009 but recovered 1.9% last year.   The poor countries most vulnerable to the floods, droughts, storms and other extreme weather associated with climate change need help now. The current famine in the Horn of Africa, where at least three-quarters of a million people are at risk of starvation, and the flooding across south Asia affecting more than 18 million people are just two examples of the sort of humanitarian emergencies already becoming more common.   It is rich countries whose emissions are overwhelmingly responsible for climate change. They have promised $100bn annually to help poor countries cope and to reduce their own emissions. But the fund agreed last year in Cancún has yet to be activated and no deal has been done to scale-up finance to those levels.   Developing countries want those resources to come from developed countries national budgets. Certainly, national budget contributions must lay the foundation of the $100bn, but in the current fiscal climate the temptation to simply relabel old promises of development aid may be too great for finance ministers to resist. Climate change is a new crisis demanding new resources, not old wine in new bottles.   Equally, it is not and should not be up to the G20 alone to come up with a climate deal – that needs to happen in UN negotiations where poor countries have a seat at the table. But there is a chance that the G20, with the help of Bill Gates, could break the deadlock. His report on innovative financing for development, presented to leaders in Cannes, proposes two ways developed countries can raise the new revenues needed.   The first is a charge on the unregulated, high and rising carbon emissions from shipping and aviation. Both sectors must play their part in the fight against climate change, but in the near term, there is a particular opportunity for progress on pricing the emissions from ships – already responsible for more carbon pollution each year than Germany.   Oxfam and WWF have calculated that a moderate carbon price of $25 per tonne would generate $25bn per year by 2020, while raising the cost of global trade by less than $2 for every $1,000 traded.   To ensure poor countries are not unfairly hit, some revenue should be used to compensate them for the marginally higher import costs that may result. Of the rest, at least $10bn per year could go to the new Green Climate Fund. A shipping carbon charge would strengthen the case for similar measures on aviation.   A joint statement by the finance ministers of France and South Africa last month named shipping and aviation taxes as one of the building blocks of a potential deal when UN negotiations resume in Durban this month. The statement also set out the two countries "strong support" for the other opportunity presented by Gates"s report: financial transaction taxes (FTTs).   Dubbed Robin Hood taxes by campaigners, these involve a tiny levy on transactions of banks, hedge funds and other financial institutions. The taxes would raise tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars a year. As well as fighting climate change in poor countries, revenue could also help the tens of millions of people worldwide pushed into extreme poverty by the economic crisis, and to protect the services and safety nets on which many poor people in developed and developing countries rely.   In addition to France and South Africa, FTTs are publicly backed by Germany, Spain, the European commission, Argentina and a number of countries outside the G20. Although opposition from the US in particular makes global agreement unlikely, that should not prevent progress.   Nicolas Sarkozy has pledged to create a coalition of willing countries to press ahead with FTTs and raise funds for fighting climate change and for development. A thousand economists – including Nobel prize-winners – have written to G20 leaders urging them to be a part of this initiative.   The IMF has warned the G20 that as a result of its exemption from value-added taxes, "the financial sector may be under-taxed and hence perhaps too big". If this is true, then increasing taxes on the sector would help to rebalance the global economy and encourage future growth.   The political case for action is also strong. Polls show people want politicians to rein in banks bonus culture and make the financial sector pay its fair share and contribute to cleaning up the economic crisis it helped to cause. The spread of Occupy Wall Street type protests around the world shows the anger that is bubbling under the surface.   28 Oct 2011   Concern that G20 will avoid pressing, much needed decisions on food security and institute a financial transactions tax to raise international development funding.   Global development groups have called on G20 leaders to step up to their commitments to tackle global food security and come up with new ways to boost world growth that benefits the poorest at the G20 summit on Nov. 3-4 in Cannes, France.   There is widespread concern that the leaders will avoid firm decisions needed to address high global food prices and new ways to finance development.   "The challenge for the G20 is can they see what is needed to ensure broader prosperity," said Samuel Worthington who heads InterAction, an alliance of U.S. based international development groups.   French President Nicholas Sarkozy has called for progress to address rising food prices. He asked billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates to come up with innovative ways to raise resources for poor countries.   The Gates report calls for taxing financial transactions, tobacco, shipping and aviation fuels to raise new sources of aid, according to a draft of the proposals obtained by Reuters.   The financial transaction tax is currently opposed by Canada, Britain, the United States, Australia and China because it purportedly puts a minute burden on banks. France, Germany, Holland, South Africa and Austria to name just a few countries support it.   In the draft, Gates suggests that even a small tax of 10 basis points on equities and 2 basis points on bonds would raise about $48 billion among G20 members.   "We sincerely hope that this is something the G20 takes up seriously and the U.S. at least stops opposing and at best gets behind it in order to address some of the global economic challenges we"re facing," Paul O"Brien, vice president for policy and campaigns at Oxfam America, told reporters.   O"Brien said the G20 agreed on the need to boost growth but the process was hampered by an unwillingness by both advanced and emerging economies to commit to new initiatives to create lasting economic growth.   "If they come out of Cannes with yet another internal discussion and nothing conclusive on institutions or financing, how many more G20"s are we going to wait" he said.   Neil Watkins, director of policy and campaigns at ActionAid USA, acknowledged he did not expect major progress on food security issues at the upcoming G20.   He said he hoped the United States, which chairs the G8 next year, and Mexico, which takes over the G20 from France in 2012, will signal they intend to take up the issues.   "This is a real crisis and G20 leaders have a responsibility to take action to reduce the world"s vulnerability and food insecurity," said Watkins.   Citing a report by the U.S. based International Food Policy Research Institute, he said biofuel production in the European Union and U.S., extreme weather, and increased trading in commodity futures had exacerbated food price volatility.   Robert Zachritz, director advocacy and government relations at World Vision, noted that Americans will spend $7 billion on Halloween costumes and candy alone this year, nearly twice the $3 billion the United States has committed to feeding programs.
	View more stories