Safety of uprooted Somalis key concern for UN refugee agency

The United Nations refugee agency today expressed its deep concern for the safety of more than 8,000 people trapped in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, by clashes which have uprooted more than 100,000 people since the start of the year.

Security Council extends UN force for two months, as talks with Chad continue

The Security Council today extended the mandate of the UN peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic and Chad until 15 May, as discussions continue on the future of the operation.

UN agency begins airlifting food aid for refugees uprooted from DR Congo

The United Nations today started to airlift urgent food aid for tens of thousands of people who have fled ethnic violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and are seeking refuge in neighbouring Republic of Congo (ROC).

Putin seeks to bolster links with New Delhi

By James Lamont in New Delhi
Published: March 11 2010 02:00
Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, is embarking on a bold initiative to resuscitate his country’s flagging relationship with India by offering an expansion of nuclear power , military technology transfer and partnership in Russia’s global positioning system.
On the eve of Mr Putin’s arrival in New Delhi today, Russian officials said Moscow wanted to re-energise deep ties forged in the decades after India’s independence that would serve India better than warming relationships with western powers, such as the US.
Mr Putin is expected to sign as many as 15 agreements worth about $10bn (€7.36bn, £6.67bn) during his fifth visit to India in a decade.
One top official said that while Russia had come to India’s rescue at the end of British rule, “other influential powers” had taken 50 years “to realise that India is a superpower in the making”. He also said that Russia was ready to provide India with military technology that Europe and the US would not.
Russia is offering to accelerate its nuclear plant building programme in India, build a fifth-generation jet fighter and military transport aircraft with India and partner with it in the production of satellite navigation equipment for Russia’s Glonass, a rival to the GPS system of the US.
Russia’s commercial relationship with India is grounded in military supplies , including jet fighters and submarines, and energy. Bilateral trade is worth about $8bn a year. Russia is the main supplier of weaponry to India’s security forces and has built two nuclear reactors in Tamil Nadu and has plans to build four more. Moscow also hopes to diversify commercial ties with investments in telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and information technology.
Alexander Kadakin, Moscow’s ambassador to New Delhi, said Russia had given India’s military the technological edge to defend itself from terror attacks and hostile neighbours, such as nuclear-armed Pakistan.
“No country in the world has offered India the technological deals as my country has done. We have shared the most sensitive and newest [technological] developments,” he said.
However, Russia’s arms supply has run into difficulties over the price of an aircraft carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov . Mr Kadakin said a lesson from the dispute was that New Delhi would have to be prepared to pay the price for advanced weapons systems and closer technological partnership.
“The days when you could get weapons for grain, rice and Ludhiana hosiery are gone forever,” he said.
Indian diplomats say that Russia’s relationship with India lost its way in the 1980s and 1990s and both sides must now make effort.
“With the break-up of the Soviet Union, the whole edifice of relations . . came crashing down,” said Rajiv Sikri, a former secretary in India’s foreign ministry.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Solar PV has failed in Germany and it will fail in the UK

Our tariff plan is near-identical to Germany’s – that’s the one that produced woeful amounts of energy, jobs and innovation

Let me begin with a plea to tone down this debate on feed-in tariffs. Jeremy Leggett and I have addressed each other politely and stuck to the facts. I have no ill feelings towards him; I simply believe that he is wrong about solar power. But the level of viciousness displayed on the comment threads, by email and on other sites has to be seen to be believed.
Where does fury of this kind come from? In my experience it’s often associated with denial. People who don’t like the outcomes dismiss the facts and lash out at the bearers of bad news. Could we, just for once, please try to get past this reaction, and judge the case on its merits?
My own instincts press me to support solar power. Like most environmentalists I believe that small is beautiful. I hate pylon lines and I don’t care for the sight of big power plants of any description, wind farms included. I detest the big energy firms which provide our electricity. I am deeply attracted to the idea of being able to produce my own power, just as I love producing my own fruit and vegetables. But my attempts to find the best means of tackling climate change, which I explain at greater length in my book, Heat, have forced me to put my gut feelings to one side. Our choices must be based on the best possible information. Otherwise we waste our lives chasing chimeras.
Against my instincts I have come to oppose solar photovoltaic power (PV) in the UK, and the feed-in tariffs designed to encourage it, because the facts show unequivocally that this is a terrible investment. There are much better ways of spending the rare and precious revenue that the tariffs will extract from our pockets. If we are to prevent runaway climate change, we have to ensure that we get the biggest available bang for our buck: in other words the greatest cut in greenhouse gas production from the money we spend. Money spent on ineffective solutions is not just a waste: it’s also a lost opportunity.
Environmentalists have no trouble understanding this argument when lobbying against nuclear power. Those who maintain that it’s more expensive than renewable electricity argue that we shouldn’t waste our money investing in it. But now I hear the same people telling us that we should support every form of renewable generation, regardless of the cost.
I’m delighted that Jeremy has acceptedmy bet that solar PV won’t reach grid parity in 2013. I am also happy for the winnings to go to SolarAid. I agree with Jeremy that solar PV is an appropriate technology in Africa, where most people are off-grid and there’s much more sunlight. It’s in this country that it makes no sense.
And I accept Jeremy’s challenge to write a column admitting I’m wrong if he wins the bet (but I won’t accept his subtle slippage, substituting “near” for “at”). If I am wrong, it won’t be the first time. In 2005, before I had crunched the numbers, I called on green NGOs to switch from supporting windfarms to promoting “decentralised microgeneration projects”, which I considered a more attractive option. After I discovered just how badly this would set back efforts to decarbonise our power supplies, I changed my views. What would it take to change his?
Jeremy and I can speculate about how useful solar electricity will be in the UK until we’ve worn our keyboards out. Until our bet closes in 2013, by which time billions of pounds will have been committed, no one will know which of us is right.
But you don’t have to rely on speculation to see how this is likely to pan out. As the old cookery programes used to say: “Here’s one we prepared earlier.” The German experiment, almost identical to the UK’s, has now been running for ten years. An analysis published in November by the Ruhr University (pdf) shows just what it has achieved.
When the German programme began in 2000, it offered index-linked payments of 51 euro cents for every KWh of electricity produced by solar PV. These were guaranteed for 20 years. This is similar to the UK’s initial subsidy, of 41p. As in the UK, the solar subsidy was, and remains, massively greater than the payments for other forms of renewable technology.
The real net cost of the solar PV installed in Germany between 2000 and 2008 was €35bn. The paper estimates a further real cost of €18bn in 2009 and 2010: a total of €53bn in ten years. These investments make wonderful sense for the lucky householders who could afford to install the panels, as lucrative returns are guaranteed by taxing the rest of Germany’s electricity users. But what has this astonishing spending achieved? By 2008 solar PV was producing a grand total of 0.6% of Germany’s electricity. 0.6% for €35bn. Hands up all those who think this is a good investment.
After years of these incredible payments, and the innovation and cost reductions they were supposed to stimulate, the paper estimates that saving one tonne of carbon dioxide through solar PV in Germany still costs €716. The International Energy Agency has produced an even higher estimate: €1000 per tonne. There are dozens of ways in which you can save carbon for 100th of the cost of solar PV at high latitudes.
The Ruhr University paper comes out against using feed-in tariffs to stimulate wind power as well, but in this case it shows that large-scale wind power in Germany is likely to become cheaper than conventional power by 2022, at which point subsidies will become redundant. It makes no such prediction for solar PV. It reinforces the point I made in my first sally: while Germany, like the UK, belongs to the European emissions trading scheme, any carbon savings made by feed-in tariffs merely allow polluting industries to raise their emissions. The net saving is zero. The paper suggests that a far more cost-effective mechanism would be to crank down the emissions cap under the trading scheme – then let renewable technologies fight it out to offer the biggest carbon saving per euro.
As for stimulating innovation, which is the main argument Jeremy makes in their favour, the report shows that Germany’s feed-in tariffs have done just the opposite. Like the UK’s scheme, Germany’s is degressive – it goes down in steps over time. What this means is that the earlier you adopt the technology, the higher the tariff you receive. If you waited until 2009 to install your solar panel, you’ll be paid 43c/kWh (or its inflation-proofed equivalent) for 20 years, rather than the 51c you get if you installed in 2000.
This encourages people to buy existing technology and deploy it right away, rather than to hold out for something better. In fact, the paper shows the scheme has stimulated massive demand for old, clunky solar cells at the expense of better models beginning to come onto the market. It argues that a far swifter means of stimulating innovation is for governments to invest in research and development. But the money has gone in the wrong direction: while Germany has spent some €53bn on deploying old technologies over ten years, in 2007 the government spent only €211m on renewables R&D.
In principle, tens of thousands of jobs have been created in the German PV industry, but this is gross jobs, not net jobs: had the money been used for other purposes, it could have employed far more people. The paper estimates that the subsidy for every solar PV job in Germany is €175,000: in other words the subsidy is far higher than the money the workers are likely to earn. This is a wildly perverse outcome. Moreover, most of these people are medium or highly skilled workers, who are in short supply there. They have simply been drawn out of other industries. The researchers say that:
“Any result other than a negative net employment balance of the German PV promotion would be surprising. In contrast, we would expect massive employment effects in export countries such as China.”
Germany’s solar exports (€0.2bn in 2006) have been greatly outweighed by its imports (€1.44bn in the same year). And it’s not getting any better:
“Recent newspaper articles report that the situation remains dire, with the German solar industry facing unprecedented competition from cheaper Asian imports.”
The UK’s prospects of building the major export industry Jeremy dreams of are even slighter, as it will now have to take on Germany as well as China and Japan. We’ve missed the boat by years.
While I’ve been taking plenty of flak for arguing this case, I’ve also received a lot of support from green energy experts. Chris Goodall and David Thorpe, for example, have both come to similar conclusions, by working the case out from first principles. If you doubt what I say, I urge you to read their analyses, and the astonishing figures they have produced.
I have no horses in this race: I have no products to sell. I hope that some of you might be able to see that this is an honest attempt to get to the truth of the matter, and to find the most effective means of preventing runaway climate change.
Monbiot.com

Noel Kempff project is ’saving the forest’ by forcing destruction elsewhere

Forest conservation project in Bolivia proves that unless a nation as a whole cuts deforestation, individual carbon offset schemes are worthless

Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 March 2010 11.49 GMT

It is the ultimate greenwash nightmare. A tough international deal to curb emissions of greenhouse gases is passed in Mexico later this year. Companies then meet their targets not by cutting their own pollution but by buying into hundreds of forest “conservation” projects round the world. But those projects then fail to deliver real benefits for forests or staunch the flow of carbon into the atmosphere.
Some big-time green groups prosper but the planet burns.
Exhibit A in this doomsday scenario is a 14-year-old forest conservation project in Bolivia called the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project, one of the world’s largest schemes to fix carbon in protected forests. It is the brainchild of the US green group The Nature Conservancy and industrial partners, including the oil company BP and America’s largest burner of coal, American Electric Power.
The Noel Kempff project is hailed by The Nature Conservancy as a model for the operation of Redd (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) – the international plan to allow countries and companies to offset their carbon emissions by investing in preventing the destruction of forests.
Like much else, negotiations on Redd stalled in Copenhagen last December. But it is still on the agenda for agreement when talks resume in Cancun next December.
Some think such projects could scupper Redd though. Last autumn Greenpeace dubbed the Neol Kempff project a “carbon scam”.
The $10m project, launched back in 1996, doubled the size of an existing national park and sought to project more than 800,000 hectares of forest, while testing the idea of running a forest as a verifiable carbon sink. It currently employs 27 rangers. With deforestation thought responsible for an estimate 17% of carbon emissions, the stakes are high.
The problem, however, is summed up in one word: leakage. That is jargon for what happens when the loggers put their chainsaws in the back of a pickup, drive down the road to the next forest, and resume activities. In other words, can protecting one place prevent the forces of forest destruction from simply moving elsewhere?
This is hard to do. Since the start of the Noel Kempff project, deforestation rates in Bolivia have gone up. So the argument is that one-off carbon offsetting projects do not deliver real benefits to the atmosphere unless governments undertake much wider efforts to curb deforestation.
For this reason Greenpeace is not alone in believing that Redd should only compensate at the national level. No awarding of carbon credits for “sub-national” projects like Noel Kempff. In other words: unless a nation as a whole cuts deforestation, then nobody gets any carbon credits. Only that way can you stop leakage wrecking it.
But groups such as the Nature Conservancy strongly disagree. They have a clear institutional interest. Their main activity is buying or managing land for conservation. It says there are good reasons for backing sub-national projects and has lobbied hard to ensure they stay in the UN’s plans.
The Nature Conservancy says “national-scale accounting is the ultimate goal” of Redd. “However, a transition period should be allowed in which sub-national or project-scale activities can generate credits for sale in compliance markets.”
It adds that “this type of activity will need to be accomplished at a much larger scale to make a significant difference to greenhouse gas emissions”. And that is where the difference arises. The Nature Conservancy thinks sub-national projects will result in “learning by doing“; its critics think they will fatally undermine the whole enterprise.
While hailed as a model, the Noel Kempff project does not augur well for being able to measure carbon in forests. By 2004, the corporate partners in the project had reported offsets of 7.4m tonnes of CO2. But in 2005 a new evaluation cut that figure to just over 1m.
But even this could turn out to be an over-estimate. The 2005 audit shaved 16% off claimed offsets to account for leakage. Greenpeace cites a report from Winrock International, a non-profit consultancy, saying the long-term leakage figure could be much higher.
How would this play out in the carbon markets? Under the Noel Kempff plan, 51% of the emissions reductions achieved by the project can be claimed as offsets by corporate partners like AEP and BP. The remaining 49% goes to the Bolivian government. The original plan was to sell the emissions reductions on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which trades in voluntary carbon offsets.
Both AEP and BP told the Guardian this week that they had not offset any of their emissions as a result of the Noel Kempff project. BP said: “The project has not yet generated any carbon credits and BP has received no credits from it.”
AEP, which burns 77m tonnes of coal annually in the US, uses the project to burnish its environmental image. It advertises its support for the Noel Kempff project on its website as part of its corporate citizenship activities.
It says that the company is “committed to combating tropical deforestation and putting in place criteria to ensure that forest offsets can be part of the toolkit for addressing global climate change”. Both BP and AEP referred questions about the progress of the project to The Nature Conservancy.
It says Greenpeace’s description of the Noel Kempff project as a scam was “an attempt to discredit emissions offsets that businesses might claim by supporting such efforts in the future”. Rather, it says, the project was a pioneering activity from which much has been learned. AEP agrees. It says: “The reduction in the offsets from the project should be viewed as a validation, not criticism, of the project as it demonstrates that [The Nature Conservancy] and the project funders were willing to adjust the offset amounts based on improved science.”
But have the right lessons been learned? Better carbon accounting is of course a good thing. But if the Noel Kempff project is truly a model for a future world of carbon markets rooting in rainforest conservation projects, it suggests real problems ahead. If companies with environmental reputations to defend can become bogged down in charges of greenwash, what about the bad guys?

The Silencing of Black America Under Obama

A frustrated caucus keeps complaints quiet

By Michael Leahy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 12, 2010; A01

A year ago, members of the Congressional Black Caucus openly wept at Barack Obama’s inauguration. Slowly, that euphoria has given way to frustration that his administration has not done more for black America. Questions about how to elect him have been replaced by questions about how to prod him.

For many, it is the surprise of a political lifetime that they find themselves wrestling with such quandaries. Alternately puzzled and disgruntled, CBC members say key people in the Obama administration have taken them for granted, in the belief that black members of Congress have no stomach for a fight with the country’s first black president.

“We concluded they were just kind of listening to us and that then they would go back [to their offices] and conclude that we would do nothing,” Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), the vice chairman of the CBC, said of one dispute. “Because they had concluded there’s a black president in the White House and that, to some degree, the Black Caucus, you know, was constrained in expressing its desires. After a while, we said, ‘Hey, we see what’s going on and it’s nothing.’ “

On Thursday, CBC members participated in a rare one-hour policy meeting with Obama at the White House to discuss their concerns, most notably their disappointment over a jobs bill that they regard as largely a package of tax breaks for employers, noticeably bereft of job-training programs, new infrastructure projects and summer employment opportunities for youth. Such issues are vital to the CBC, many of whose members represent districts with high levels of unemployment.

In interviews with aides and members afterward, Obama was described as receptive to their message, even though he did not make any large-scale commitments. “He said he knew what unemployment looks like in ‘my own neighborhood in Chicago,’ ” recounted Cleaver, who stressed that he was speaking only for himself. “He said he wanted to do things as quickly as possible.”

“There was no contention at all,” said Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.). “The president is very clearly focused on jobs and job creation.”

A White House official issued a statement that ignored any tensions with CBC members and stressed the administration’s goals: “President Obama is working to develop inclusive policies, whether in health care, education or the economy, that will have a broad impact on the American people, and Thursday’s meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus was a productive effort toward reaching that goal.”

Not withstanding Thursday’s kind words, the CBC’s list of complaints with the White House runs from policy to personal. Despite the caucus’s entreaties, the administration has not provided targeted help to black communities and other struggling areas suffering from disproportionately high unemployment, members complain. Many caucus members say they feel largely ignored by key White House advisers. Their communication with Obama himself is minimal to nonexistent.

Lifting boats

Several CBC members and aides talk derisively of an oft-quoted Obama phrase: that a “rising tide” for America will “lift all boats.” They see it as rhetoric intended to justify why the administration has not focused on their communities at a time when unemployment among African Americans has climbed to 16.5 percent. “I can’t pass laws that say I’m just helping black folks,” Obama told the American Urban Radio Networks. “I’m the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure I’m passing laws that help people, particularly those who are most vulnerable.”

Many in the 42-member, all-Democratic CBC passionately disagree. African Americans and Latinos “bear the brunt of this economic recession,” said Maxine Waters (Calif.). “We must not shy away from targeted public policy that seeks to address the specific and unique issues facing minority communities.”

If Obama hears Waters’s point, it is from a distance. Friends of hers say she has had no phone calls from the president and no consistent contact with other administration officials despite her position as a subcommittee chairman and a key player on the House Financial Services Committee. Before Thursday’s meeting, neither she nor the CBC as a group had met with the president to discuss the jobs bill.

Several prominent caucus members have expressed doubts about the interest of administration officials in African American issues, referring to figures including Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and senior adviser David Axelrod. They “haven’t had much involvement with minority communities in their careers, said Rep. Donald M. Payne (N.J.). “They’ve been in suites and boardrooms.”

The most important discussions between CBC members and administration officials have been prompted by the threat of political crises.

Such was the case in November when 10 caucus members on the House Financial Services Committee threatened a boycott of an administration-backed financial regulatory reform bill. They wanted additional support for jobless Americans who faced the possibility of losing their homes.

Geithner, Emanuel and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sat down with the restive CBC members at the Rayburn House Office Building.

The late-afternoon meeting was already tense when Geithner pondered a question about when small banks and emerging African American finance firms might have a chance to participate as key players in a government program. Geithner said that he “was always going to want to provide contracts to qualified people,” according to witnesses to the exchange, including Cleaver.

Another person at the meeting — who spoke on the condition of anonymity — disputed Cleaver’s recollection, saying that Geithner indicated only that participating small banks had to meet “viability standards.” The source acknowledged that Geithner’s remark set off some disagreement, with a CBC member pointedly telling him that no one had suggested “loosening standards” to accommodate minority-operated banks.

Since their meeting with Geithner and a subsequent boycott of a committee vote on the financial regulatory bill, CBC members have won some accommodations. The bill now includes $3 billion for low-interest loans to unemployed homeowners in danger of foreclosures and $1 billion for neighborhood stabilization programs. “I think the administration needed a very clear signal that we’re not messing around here,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.).

Seeking clout

For older CBC members, many of whom remember receiving calls from inveterate gabber and advice-seeker Bill Clinton during his presidency, Obama’s more distant style has involved adjustments. Asked whether he has received a call from the president since his inauguration, Payne looked up at his office ceiling and answered slowly: “I can’t remember.”

Members point to the CBC’s four committee chairmanships and 18 subcommittee chairmanships as proof of its clout in the House. But several members said they have few African American contacts with substantial sway in the White House. Some caucus members talk wistfully of the last Democratic administration, where the late commerce secretary Ron Brown could relay CBC concerns to Clinton. “We knew Ron had the president’s ear, and he had status,” Payne said.

White House officials are quick to dispute the notion that there are no African Americans under Obama who have influence. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Mona Sutphen points to Melody Barnes, the head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, and senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett as African Americans with special access to the president.

Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.), an Obama loyalist whom the White House asked to speak to The Washington Post for this article, said he is “very comfortable” with Jarrett. He voices no complaints about the administration’s strategies for dealing with high unemployment among African Americans, noting how the stimulus package has benefited parts of South Carolina.

Caucus member generally take pains to distinguish their misgivings about some of the president’s top advisers from their personal commitment to Obama. Cleaver views the prospect of Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign as a referendum on the nation’s comfort level with an African American at the helm. “He’s got to succeed,” Cleaver said, emotion putting a catch in his voice.

But Cleaver, Payne and other CBC members acknowledge the paradox they face. How can you express criticism of the administration without eventually confronting the man at the top?

Some say that any public airing of their disagreements with Obama runs the risk of politically damaging the president and ultimately slowing the advancement of other African Americans. “He’s ours. He has to be more careful because he is the first black ever to be president,” said Rep. Diane Watson (Calif.). “. . . I want to help him, to protect him.”

Others argue that the president has spent too much time trying to appease Republicans. “His detractors and political opponents want to try to cast him in the role of being some sort of partisan for African American issues,” Ellison said. “I think what he needs to do is just accept the fact that his detractors would say he couldn’t swim if he walked on water. . . . So why break your neck trying to please them?”

In the wake of a recent report in the New York Times that raised questions about CBC fundraising practices and the decision by Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.) to give up his House Ways and Means chairmanship amid an ethics scandal, CBC members worry whether the administration will be willing to risk political capital on their behalf.

Obama has a 91 percent approval rating among African Americans, according to the latest Gallup poll. But Clyburn cautions the administration against becoming complacent about that support. “Depressed [African American] voter turnout would be something no White House politico could do anything about in the next election.”

Cleaver routinely hears the voices of the desperate in his district. “I’ve had people at home tell me, ‘I thought the president was going to do this and that,’ ” he said. But the votes of his African American constituents are solid, he insists. “Disappointment doesn’t equal disassociation,” he said.

What the Sami people can teach us about adapting to climate change

As global warming and habitat degradation accelerates, people indigenous to the Arctic circle say they have much to teach the world about how to adapt, survive, and thrive

Simon Tisdall in Rovaniemi, northern Finland
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 March 2010 12.26 GMT

Elina Helander-Renvall comes from Utsjoki, a place so obscure that even many Finns have little idea where it is. Utsjoki, or Ochejohka, Uccjuuha, and Uccjokk, depending on which local language you are speaking, is Finland’s northern-most municipality. Straddling the border with Norway, it shivers, unregarded, deep inside the Arctic circle, a few icy miles from the shores of the Arctic Ocean.
Utsjoki, population 1,034, is home to Finland’s largest concentration of Sami speakers, the indigenous people once loosely known as Lapps who have eked out an itinerant existence herding reindeer across the frozen wastes of northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and western Russia since the last Ice Age. Nearly 50% of Utsjoki’s population are Sami. In Finnish terms, it’s the closest this eternal minority has got to being the majority.
Born and raised on the margin though she was, Helander-Renvall’s message these days is strictly mainstream. As accelerating climate change and other man-made environmental degradations create growing alarm across the planet, the Sami people have much to teach the world about how to adapt, survive, and thrive, she says.
“There is a lot to learn from the Sami, they have the traditional ecological knowledge, they really know about nature,” said Helander-Renvall, head of the Arctic Indigenous Peoples Office at the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi. “They have the most precise knowledge about the weather conditions, about the plants, the diet, the resources. The Sami people have an ethical relationship with nature; a respect for nature that also has a spiritual side.”
The Arctic region is uniquely vulnerable to global warming, but if it is to weather the storm, it would do well to adopt Sami methods of land and resource management, communal co-operation and communication, local knowledge and best practice, she said.
In order to keep a reindeer herd out of trouble, for example, a knowledge of different types of snow could be decisive, Helander-Renvall said. Muohta (ordinary snow) or oppas (untouched snow) might be safe. But the presence of sievla (wet snow), skarta (thin, ice-like snow layers) or ceavvi (a hard layer that the reindeer cannot penetrate in search of lichen) could dictate a life-saving change of route or decision to move camp.
Local knowledge will also be vital to the large-scale industrial development on the fast-expanding oil and gas fields of western Russia’s Yamal peninsula, and for the burdgeoning commercial and tourism industries in the Scandinavian north. Knowing where it is safe to build, how to site the foundations for a new road, airstrip or pipeline, what terrain to avoid, and how to do so responsibly while protecting biological diversity will all be increasingly important. “We need to preserve and transfer indigenous knowledge to future generations,” Helander-Renvall said.
Professor Monica Tennberg of the Arctic Research Centre in Rovaniemi said the Sami had shown notable ability to adapt to changing climate conditions. “We’ve seen how the community adapts, for example finding new ways to deal with floods. We’ve seen better co-operation, better municipal leadership, better communications, better early warning systems,” she said. Adverse effects of climate change on pasture and traditional herding trails had been met with new rotation and migration patterns and also by a tighter communal discipline.
The Arctic as a whole faces enormous challenges. Broadly speaking the region is warming at double the rate of the rest of the world, said Paula Kankaanpaa, director of the Research Centre, with local “hotspots” that fare even worse.
Symptoms include reduced sea ice; the opening of blue-water sea passages both east and west in summer, north of Canada and Russia; increased levels of carbon-carrying organic waste in the Arctic Ocean caused by melting tundra; coastal erosion due to increased wave activity; loss of habitat for large mammals such as seals and polar bears and growing disruption of indigenous human communities.
Governments still resist the idea that Arctic indigenous peoples have something unique to contribute. Canada announced this month that it will convene a foreign ministers’ meeting of the five Arctic Ocean states (Canada, Russia, the US, Norway and Denmark/Greenland) in March “to encourage new thinking on responsible development” and “reinforce ongoing collaboration in the region”.
To their dismay, Arctic indigenous people’s organisations, including the Sami, Inuit and Inuvialuit, were not invited.

Equal Rights, Equal Opportunities: Progress For All in South Africa

Report back | by Noluthando Mayende-Sibiya

Equal rights, equal opportunities: Progress for all

Courtesy of ANC Today

Report back by Noluthando Mayende-SibiyaOn Monday March 08, South Africa joins the rest of the world in observing International Women’s Day under the theme: Equal rights, equal opportunities: Progress for all.

In addition to the activities organized to mark this day in South Africa, our country has sent a high-level delegation of women Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Members of the Executive Councils, Members of Parliament and Chapter 09 institutions to 54th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) taking place in New York from 01-12 March.

We sent this delegation with full support of Cabinet because the year 2010 is a major milestone in the global struggle for gender equality and improving the status of women. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 15 years since the historical adoption of the Beijing Declaration and its Platform for Action and 10 years since the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

At UNCSW, South Africa is participating in the review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action which provides an opportunity for countries to share experiences and best practices in improving the political and socio-economic status of women. The meeting is also discussing the measures for shaping a gender perspective towards the full realisation of the MDGs and its linkage with Beijing Platform for Action.

We are engaging on issues of women economic empowerment in the context of the global economic and financial crises and the challenges of violence affecting women worldwide. Of particular concern is the omission of the challenge of human trafficking, as it was not perceived as a major problem during the adoption of the Beijing Declaration in 1995. Globalisation and other factors have brought this challenge to the fore and there is a need for a comprehensive global response.

Our delegation to UNCSW is sharing South Africa’s best practices and learning from the innovations of other member-states. Our stories of progress include significant legislative reforms that facilitate gender equality and improved representation of women in political decision-making position, with our country having the third highest number of women in the legislature (45%) worldwide. We are also candid about the challenges of poverty particularly in rural areas, gender based violence, HIV/AIDS and other social challenges affecting women of our country. This rich collection of experiences will enable us to bring home new strategies that will enrich the implementation South Africa’s own programme of action.

Following the President announcement of the establishment of the Ministry for Women, Children and Persons with Disabilities in May 2009, we focused on building systems and processes that will enable this entity to successfully actualise the vision embodied in the announcement and the relevant Polokwane resolution. Our role is to drive, accelerate and oversee the government’s equity, equality and empowerment agenda for women, children and persons with disabilities.

We have largely completed this process and are ready to ensure that 2010 does indeed become the Year of Action for marginalised women, children and persons with disabilities. As indicated in the State of the Nation Address, this year the department will, as part of its oversight function, undertake a rigorous process of integrating equity measures into Government’s Programme of Action.

This action will ensure that government’s delivery process integrates gender, disability and children’s rights consideration thereby ascertaining that women, children and persons with disabilities can access developmental opportunities. This step further sharpens government’s result orientated approach focusing on the five priorities.

Our interventions will ensure that government’s effort to measure and monitor service delivery includes clear indicators relating to the three marginalized groups of our society. In addition to our oversight role, the Department has identified key flagship programmes for this term of government. Some of these projects are: Rural Development for the economic empowerment for women and persons with disabilities, establishment of the Women’s Empowerment Fund, and action to guarantee that government attains 50/50 gender parity.

In line with government focus on combating crime, we will also intensify Campaigns on 365 and 16 Days of Activism on No Violence against Women and Children. The Secretariat responsible for the implementation of these campaigns is already being transferred from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs to the Department for Women, Children and Persons with Disabilities.

It is within this area that we are engaging with issues such as ritual killings as one of priority contact crimes (i.e. assault, rape and murder) affecting women and children. Furthermore with regard to children, our department is focusing on comprehensive protection of the rights of children living in the streets as well a programme for South Africans to support a child from the less privileged communities particularly those in rural areas. Concurrently, we will work to strengthen a culture of age appropriate responsibilities amongst our children.

For the disability sector, we are developing a Plan of Action for the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The department is also developing a strategy that should move the country towards achieving 2% employment of persons with disabilities. This strategy will include the development of tools that will assist government to increase recruitment of persons with disabilities. We will also be encouraging the private sector to match government’s effort in the attainment of 2% employment target for persons with disabilities and 50/50 gender parity. We will be elaborating on the programme of the department during our Budget Vote debate in parliament scheduled for April 16.

The implementation of our programme requires mobilisation of adequate human and other resources. Our organogram with the staff complement of 194 has been approved by the Department of Public Service and Administration. We are finalising the selection for the position of the Director General this month.

In the meantime, I have directed the department to advertise most of the post that we are scheduled to fill in the 2010/11 financial year. These include among others Deputy Directors General responsible for each of three branches - Women, Children and Persons with Disabilities. This will enable the new Director General to urgently select staff needed carry out our task.

As we observe the International Women’s Day, we reassure the women of South Africa that 2010 is indeed a Year of Action in their struggle for Equal rights, equal opportunities: Progress for all.

Noluthando Mayende-Sibiya is an ANC NEC member and Minister for Women, Children and Persons with Disabilities

Nigerian Women in Abuja Protest Mass Killings in Jos

Nigeria women protest at killings

Hundreds of women have taken to the streets of Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, and the central city of Jos in rallies against Sunday’s massacre near Jos.

The women, mostly dressed in black, demanded that the government protect women and children better.

At least 109 people were killed in the ethnic clashes near Jos. Many were said to be women and children.

Survivors have told the BBC how they saw relatives and friends hacked down with machetes and their bodies burnt.

Witnesses and officials say the perpetrators came from the mainly Muslim Fulani group. Most of the victims were Christians from the Berom group.

The attacks appear to be retaliation for violence in the villages around Jos in January, when most of the victims were said to be Muslim.

The women in Jos carried placards proclaiming: “Stop killing our future; Bloodshed in the Plateau [State] must stop.”

They marched carrying Bibles, wooden crosses or branches of mango trees, chanting: “No more soldiers.”

Mass grave

Christian pastor Esther Ebanga told the crowds of women: “Enough is enough.”

“All we are asking is that our children and women should not be killed any more. We demand justice,” the AFP news agency quoted her as saying.
—————————————————————————————–
JOS, PLATEAU STATE
Deadly riots in 2001, 2008 and 2010
City divided into Christian and Muslim areas
Divisions accentuated by system of classifying people as indigenes and settlers
Hausa-speaking Muslims living in Jos for decades are still classified as settlers
Settlers find it difficult to stand for election
Communities divided along party lines: Christians mostly back the ruling PDP; Muslims generally supporting the opposition ANPP
—————————————————————————————-
Meanwhile in Abuja, women staged a similar rally, carrying pictures of the dead.

Risika Razak, one of the leaders of the protest, said she wanted to show the government that “things are not going right”.

“They should beef up security in troubled areas so that we would be able to know that people that go to bed will wake up the next day and life will continue,” she said.

Officials and religious leaders have accused the military of not acting quickly enough to prevent the massacre.

But on Thursday, the commander of the regional task force, Major General Salih Maina, rebuffed the criticism.

He said the army was told of the violence only after it had happened.

Earlier, the BBC’s Komla Dumor visited a mass grave in the village of Dogo-Nahawa where more than 100 bodies from one village had been buried.

One community leader in the village told the BBC how his five-year-old granddaughter had been hacked to death with a machete.

Like earlier eyewitness accounts, he said the violence started with gunfire.

“People were running helter-skelter because of this…. They had never heard something like this before.

“People that were running and run into them, and they were macheted.”

The authorities have arrested about 200 people and charged 49 with murder.

Although the clashes take place between Muslims and Christians, observers say the underlying causes are economic and political.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/8562961.stm
Published: 2010/03/11 18:53:47 GMT