My published Stories
RAMESH PRASAD BHUSHAL
Just before the global meeting on climate change started Monday in Doha, Qatar, where thousands including government officials from more than 190 countries have gathered to discuss how to tackle the earth´s rising temperature and its negative effects, a greatly detailed financial analysis has disclosed that the rich nations have failed to fulfill the promises they made in past years to support poor nations.
“So far, only $23.6 billion of the $30 billion promised has been committed. And only 20 percent of the money has been allocated to projects that will help poor nations adapt to a changing climate,” mentiond the report published by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
The wealthier nations promised in 2009 to provide developing countries with US$30 billion by the end of 2012, and said this should be “new and additional” finance balanced between support for adaptation and mitigation activities.
They made additional pledges about transparency, governance and the need to help the most vulnerable nations first. But the countries have not even fully committed their pledges.
The study also revealed that half the support provided was in loans and the remaining was grants, which means poor countries must repay with interest the cost of adapting to a problem they have not caused.
Aside from money, the report says that rich nations have not even provided enough transparent information to prove that their contributions are really new and not just diverted from existing aid budgets.
To examine transparency in more detail, the researchers evaluated donor nations across 24 measures. On the resulting scorecard, no donor nation scored more than 67 percent.
“Without transparency about how and when rich countries will meet their climate finance pledges, developing countries are left unable to plan to adequately address and respond to climate change,” says co-author Timmons Roberts of Brown University in the United States, whose Climate and Development Lab led the research.
On these measures, Norway has performed best, providing five times its fair share. At the other end of the scale, both Iceland and the United States contributed less than half their fair share.
David Ciplet, also of Brown University, added “Only two of the ten donors we assessed are delivering their fair share of climate finance, based on their ability to pay and how much they have contributed to climate change through emitting greenhouse gases in recent decades.”
The broken promises will make it harder for developing countries to take seriously what richer nations say at the UN climate change talks that kicked off Monday in Qatar.
The poor track record of rich nations in meeting their fast-start finance pledges has raised serious concerns that these countries will also renege on their bigger promise to ensure that $100 billion flows to developing nations each year by 2020 to help them respond to climate change.
“With trust in short supply, and little time to negotiate a global response to climate change, the UN talks need an injection of goodwill,” says IIED´s Saleemul Huq. “The rich nations can provide this by making good on their past promises and showing the poorer nations that they are serious about working together to tackle this global challenge.”
Major findings of the report
Finance is not adequate
Only Japan and Norway committed their ´fair share´ of climate finance
Only one-fifth of climate finance supports adaptation in developing countries despite commitments to balance funding between adaptation and mitigation
Contributor countries are not being transparent. Only Switzerland received a ´pass grade´ in this year´s transparency scorecard
UN Climate Funds remain empty shells. Only two percent of climate finance is being delivered through the UN Climate Funds.
With reference to my latest publication on Jang news (Urdu Language); dated November 25, 2012 with regards to illegal deforestation, greater impact on biodiversity, illegal hunting of endangered species & on climate change.
Implementation on Wild life Ordinance act 1972 is no longer applied in Pakistan, it is a disaster for forestry due to illegal hunting of species, It is a great danger for wild life in Pakistan.
Ministry of environment and Forestry excuse and express their emotions. According to International environmental Organization, Pakistan is facing great danger to lose wild life animals species in which Indus Dolphin, eye pick, Marco Polo, Tiger, Bear in Baluchistan, turtle, Deer, Alpine ibex, buffalo, on the edge of border of Pakistan and India another species called Nelgai, It is one of the most commonly seen wild animals of northern India and eastern Pakistan. The mature males appear ox-like and are also known as Blue bulls. The Nilgai is the biggest Asian Antelope. Another Species exist on the border of Pakistan & China, Gazelle, it is any of many antelope species in the genus Gazella. In Pakistan we have numerous zoological species in which five thousand species exist in Himalaya alone, one hundred and ninety four residential species, and six hundred and sixty eight emigrational species , four hundred in Ocean, one hundred and twenty five in lake those kind of species, there are alone Seven Hundred numerous kinds species exist in Sea Wild life, the life of all mentioned species are considered safe in Pakistan and yet we have struggling to hold on. Deforestation of areas and illegal hunting of endangered species that live, Correspondence between organizations, Managing Information, Human Expansion and Enhancement, Enhancement & Expanding of Agriculture, Exploration of Oil & Gas, and Water existence, those areas are totally disastrous of Wild life. there has a greater impact on biodiversity than climate change, degradation of coral reefs, according to a researcher. In Sindh, the Organization of Wild life is permitting the License for hunting the animal upon two thousand Rupees. The holder of that license are allowed to hunt down Breeders, Quails & Francolin. At the End of the January more than fifteen people allowed for the hunt of Alpine Ibex. The license issued as per random selection.
Climate change can adversely affect habitats and biodiversity. In reverse, the protection of biodiversity can help mitigate climate change and also help communities adapt to climate change. In this scenario, the international negotiations regarding the Biodiversity Convention have an impact on climate change. Here are three op-eds from the 11th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity held at Hyderabad, India, from 8 to 19 October 2012.
Changing climate is changing the habitat and reducing chili and bamboo production for Kangpara villagers in Bhutan. This, in turn, is affecting their livelihoods.
Today, high above the rocky Bindu “Gol” or valley in Chitral, which is located on the way to Mastuj, lies the manmade Bindu glacier. “This was an artificially seeded glacier that was made in 1840 by our forefathers”, explains Siraj, a local villager. “There was no water in our area and so they decided to grow a glacier a hundred feet above the settlement”. He says there is no one left in the village with the knowledge of how to grow a glacier today, but in the past they heard that “cow manure, salt and straw” were combined to “plant” the glacier. “It took three years for it to grow into a glacier and then it kept growing”. Now it is so big that there was a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) in August 2010, which ended up blocking the Chitral River below the valley for twelve hours since so much debris had come down with the flood.
A colleague who had been covering the climate negotiations for several years said something prophetic as the Copenhagen Summit began packing up. “It will take a couple of hurricanes to hit New York before the Americans wake up and realise the reality of climate change and decide to do something about it”. Well, last week Hurricane Sandy hit New York City, and finally the American media was full of talk about climate change.