In many ways, a rhino is an odd-looking creature. Even its name, meaning a creature with a horn on its nose, betrays its unusual appearance.
So if you had a sudden urge to put a horn on your head, not use your knees and chew on some leaves, you may be catching the spirit of World Rhino Day.
It was celebrated in Zimbabwe at the weekend and all over the world with art shows, auctions, walk-a-thons and lectures with the theme of Five Rhino Species Forever.
The effort was to raise awareness for the threats posed to the rhinoceroses hunted for their horns believed to have medicinal properties.
Rhinos can be very big, with the two largest of the five species weighing up to 2,7 tonnes and standing six feet high and up to 15 feet in length.
This makes them second only to elephants as the world’s largest land mammals. Yet in spite of their size, over short distances they can move at speeds of up to 48km per hour and can turn very sharply. You don’t want to be chased by a rhino.
Rhinos also have the unfortunate distinction of being one of the most endangered animals on earth. For over 100 years, the rhino has been subject to dedicated conservation efforts, but in spite of this, since the 1970s the world’s rhinoceros population has declined by over 90%.
Agreeably poor performances by African countries could be threatening the survival of wild rhinos, tigers and elephants.
Yet conservationists might not bother rescuing other species such as a giant soft-shell turtle or a pygmy three-toed sloth because these animals don’t provide any clear benefits to humans. As Zimbabwe commemorated Rhino Day, I wondered how we should decide which endangered animal species to focus on saving?
First, the usual culprits - habitat destruction, pollution, hunting, and climate change.
There’s another problem: unlike cuddly or “charismatic” endangered animals like tigers, the African painted dog, pangolin - or even the appetite-suppressing hoodia cactus, which has obvious medicinal uses - these endangered species are dangling precariously close to extinction because of the simple fact that they don’t offer humans any clear benefits. In many cases, people don’t care enough about these species to intervene.
So are these species worth devoting limited resources to saving?
The donor community and conservation movements are increasingly leaning towards a “what can nature do for us?” approach, where species and wild habitats are valued and prioritised according to the services they provide for people. Well, saving every single species is an “enormous undertaking”.
Yet it’s often better to save “umbrella species like tigers, elephants, and rhinos” in order to protect the habitats they share with other endangered creatures.
Scientists fear that these plants and animals are at the greatest risk of extinction because, quite simply, they don’t offer any obvious or immediate benefit to humans.
Of the world’s five species of rhino, two are found in Africa in particular Zimbabwe or southern Africa - the Black rhino and the White rhino, while the other three species are found in Asia. These are the Greater One-Horned (Indian) rhino, the Sumatran rhino and the Javan rhino. The Javan, the Sumatran and the Black rhino are all critically endangered.
There are possibly only 48 Javan rhino left, with approximately 200 Sumatran and around 4 800 Black rhino.
The Greater One-Horned (Indian) rhino is considered to be vulnerable, with just under 3 000 remaining, while the Southern White rhino is in a better position, although considered to be near threatened, with approximately 20 600.
Two sub-species are in a very grave position. There are only seven Northern White rhino left in the world and the Vietnamese sub-species of the Javan rhino is down to only four or five left in the wild.
The chief reason for the decline in their world population is that rhino horn is widely regarded in traditional Chinese medicine as being a “remedy” for a whole range of ailments including pain, fever, acne, laryngitis, mumps, herpes, epilepsy and even cancer.
Rhino horn is comprised of keratin, which is the same material as hair and fingernails.
The front horn of the two African species can reach up to four feet in length, while the Asian species have shorter horns that are rarely longer than two feet.
But extensive tests have shown that claims of medicinal properties of rhino horn are completely without foundation, yet its continued use, particularly in China and Vietnam, is pushing these animals ever closer to extinction.
As is usually the case, when something is in high demand but is not legally available, international crime syndicates move in. The result is that after drugs and weapons, the illegal trade in rhino horn is now considered to be the third biggest illegal trade industry in the world.
Poaching is now endemic. For instance, in the 255 days between January 1 and September 11, 2012, 381 rhinos were illegally killed in South Africa alone - over 10 every week.
The scenario is saddening in Zimbabwe and elsewhere as well.
On the side of the rhino is the fact that international crime also attracts international law enforcement. South African law enforcers have also voiced suspicion that game farmers and reserve owners are actually killing their own rhinos and selling the horns.
When the potential rewards are so high, it is easy to understand the temptation, especially since interceptions and prosecutions are really nothing more than a tip of an iceberg and there is little real chance of ever being caught.
Given the escalation of elephant poaching in Zimbabwe and most of Africa and the increased levels of organised crime involved in the trade, it is clear that the situation is now critical.
Wildlife crime not only poses a threat to animals, but is a risk to people, territorial integrity, stability and rule of law. Regional co-operation is needed to counter the flows of illegal ivory and arms spilling across borders.
millenniumzimbabwe@yahoo.com/twitter.com/wisdomdzungairi
Monday, 24 September 2012
Sunday, 23 September 2012
Do birds cry at bird funerals?
Human beings are not the only creatures on the globe to ceremonially honour their dead. There have been many anecdotal reports suggesting that other animals carry out their own traditions when one of their own passes away.
This includes primates, elephants, rhinos, lions, birds, and other species which we consider intelligent. A new study found that one bird species, the Scrub Jay, has a very unique behaviour. They will summon their group together to screech over the body of a dead jay. This loud, boisterous “funeral ceremony” in which they cry over their fallen one can last for up to 30 minutes.
The research conducted by University of California (UC) Davis graduate student, Teresa Iglesias showed that the Western Scrub Jays host screeching “funerals” for up to a half-hour. Iglesias recorded the Jays’ reactions when she placed a dead Jay on the ground near the feeding tables.
When she placed the dead bird, the other birds began a series of loud, screeching calls to attract other Scrub Jays. The scrum of birds was then found to screech for up to 30 minutes.
That’s unique funeral behavior of the scrub jay, isn’t it?
This disclosure came as the world’s largest conservation forum IUCN World Conservation Congress (WCC) curtain closed in South Korea at the weekend with warnings that reckless development was ruining the planet's natural health, pushing thousands of species towards extinction.
Closer to home, daggers were recently drawn between Zanu PF ministers Francis Nhema (Environment) and Walter Mzembi (Tourism) over the “parcelling out” of plots in the world’s renowned Save Valley Conservancy (SVC).
Instead of dealing with the problem, the matter has turned very political, at a time the State of the natural world had been “severely compromised”, with unrestrained development, reducing biodiversity and nearly 20 000 species facing extinction.
Separated from nature, we cannot imagine ways to resolve climate change, poverty or shortages of water, food and energy resources.
Hence, the Zanu PF politburo task team set up to deal with the SVC takeover bid should come up with a workable way-out acceptable to all and sundry to ensure the survival of endangered species in the conservancy given reports of mass slaughter of wildlife.
If tiny little birds have feelings, what about endangered rhinos, elephants and many more facing danger in the unprotected conservancy and elsewhere, as a result of political considerations and infighting.
There is indeed a need for a holistic socio-economic approach to conservation efforts in Zimbabwe.
What is more is that the quadrennial IUCN conference took place against a drumbeat of scientific warnings that a mass extinction looms, as species struggle to survive in a world of depleted habitat, hunting and climate change.
At Rio+20 world summit in June, it was disclosed that out of 63 837 species the IUCN had assessed, 19 817 ran the risk of extinction.
At threat are 25% of mammals –elephants, rhinos, lions, and cheetah among others, 41% of amphibian species, 20% of plants and 13% of birds, according to the prestigious “Red List”.
Many of these species are essential for humans, providing food and work and a gene pool for better crops and new medicines.
Zimbabwe and other countries had pledged under the Millennium Development Goals to break the rate of loss in species by 2010, but fell badly short of the mark. After this failure, it is expected that the country should set a “strategic plan for biodiversity” under which the country should vow to prevent the extinction of “most known species”.
The country should actually designate huge swathes of land as nature reserves or we will have little chance of establishing enough protected areas for wildlife and fish to stave off a disastrous loss of species.
Given that the environment and tourism industries are intertwined, progress should be made in setting up and/or governing more protected areas in the form of conservancies to benefit the majority.
Indian nationalist Mahatma Gandhi once said the “earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed”. There is no doubt that Zimbabwe has abundant wildlife, but politicians should desist from exploiting valuable species and habitats for personal gain than to strive to protect them, even if paying lip service to environmental goals.
The future for conservation lies in co-operating with the business world and politicians should get out of their comfort zones.
The need for action is overcoming global political sclerosis. Companies working anywhere in Africa are increasingly investing in biodiversity expertise, in community development, environmental restoration and long-term conservation capacity building.
millenniumzimbabwe@yahoo.com/twitter.com/wisdomdzungairi
This includes primates, elephants, rhinos, lions, birds, and other species which we consider intelligent. A new study found that one bird species, the Scrub Jay, has a very unique behaviour. They will summon their group together to screech over the body of a dead jay. This loud, boisterous “funeral ceremony” in which they cry over their fallen one can last for up to 30 minutes.
The research conducted by University of California (UC) Davis graduate student, Teresa Iglesias showed that the Western Scrub Jays host screeching “funerals” for up to a half-hour. Iglesias recorded the Jays’ reactions when she placed a dead Jay on the ground near the feeding tables.
When she placed the dead bird, the other birds began a series of loud, screeching calls to attract other Scrub Jays. The scrum of birds was then found to screech for up to 30 minutes.
That’s unique funeral behavior of the scrub jay, isn’t it?
This disclosure came as the world’s largest conservation forum IUCN World Conservation Congress (WCC) curtain closed in South Korea at the weekend with warnings that reckless development was ruining the planet's natural health, pushing thousands of species towards extinction.
Closer to home, daggers were recently drawn between Zanu PF ministers Francis Nhema (Environment) and Walter Mzembi (Tourism) over the “parcelling out” of plots in the world’s renowned Save Valley Conservancy (SVC).
Instead of dealing with the problem, the matter has turned very political, at a time the State of the natural world had been “severely compromised”, with unrestrained development, reducing biodiversity and nearly 20 000 species facing extinction.
Separated from nature, we cannot imagine ways to resolve climate change, poverty or shortages of water, food and energy resources.
Hence, the Zanu PF politburo task team set up to deal with the SVC takeover bid should come up with a workable way-out acceptable to all and sundry to ensure the survival of endangered species in the conservancy given reports of mass slaughter of wildlife.
If tiny little birds have feelings, what about endangered rhinos, elephants and many more facing danger in the unprotected conservancy and elsewhere, as a result of political considerations and infighting.
There is indeed a need for a holistic socio-economic approach to conservation efforts in Zimbabwe.
What is more is that the quadrennial IUCN conference took place against a drumbeat of scientific warnings that a mass extinction looms, as species struggle to survive in a world of depleted habitat, hunting and climate change.
At Rio+20 world summit in June, it was disclosed that out of 63 837 species the IUCN had assessed, 19 817 ran the risk of extinction.
At threat are 25% of mammals –elephants, rhinos, lions, and cheetah among others, 41% of amphibian species, 20% of plants and 13% of birds, according to the prestigious “Red List”.
Many of these species are essential for humans, providing food and work and a gene pool for better crops and new medicines.
Zimbabwe and other countries had pledged under the Millennium Development Goals to break the rate of loss in species by 2010, but fell badly short of the mark. After this failure, it is expected that the country should set a “strategic plan for biodiversity” under which the country should vow to prevent the extinction of “most known species”.
The country should actually designate huge swathes of land as nature reserves or we will have little chance of establishing enough protected areas for wildlife and fish to stave off a disastrous loss of species.
Given that the environment and tourism industries are intertwined, progress should be made in setting up and/or governing more protected areas in the form of conservancies to benefit the majority.
Indian nationalist Mahatma Gandhi once said the “earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed”. There is no doubt that Zimbabwe has abundant wildlife, but politicians should desist from exploiting valuable species and habitats for personal gain than to strive to protect them, even if paying lip service to environmental goals.
The future for conservation lies in co-operating with the business world and politicians should get out of their comfort zones.
The need for action is overcoming global political sclerosis. Companies working anywhere in Africa are increasingly investing in biodiversity expertise, in community development, environmental restoration and long-term conservation capacity building.
millenniumzimbabwe@yahoo.com/twitter.com/wisdomdzungairi
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Place forests under local control
Zimbabwe is endowed with vast tracts of protected areas — parks, nature reserves and other natural areas — accounting for nearly 20% of the country’s land area.
These assist in reducing deforestation, habitat and species loss and support the livelihoods of millions countrywide, whereas globally, forests assist over one billion people, while containing 15% of the world’s carbon stock.
Sadly, over 700 000 hectares of protected areas have been destroyed this year alone around Zimbabwe by forest fires ignited by people hunting for mice or game. Pastures have also been destroyed for selfish reasons, resulting in livestock and wildlife starving due to loss of pasturage.
This is unfortunate given that the country prides itself as an agriculture-based economy, (but) where a sizeable population has no regard for the environment.
This is why protected areas such as Save Valley and Midlands conservancies must be jealously guarded for future generations. No one individual should benefit at the expense of the public really.
However, protected areas must be placed under local communities control to increase their incomes and sustainability.
To increase the income of many of the billion forest-dependent people worldwide, the current conservation model for investment in forests/wildlife must be turned on its head.
An initiative of unprecedented scale, led by The Forests Dialogue (TFD), IUCN and the Growing Forests Partnerships (GFP), has also found that optimising the benefits and productivity of forests requires moving from a “resource-led” model to a “rights-based” system of “locally controlled forestry”, that places local control of forests/wildlife at the heart of the investment process.
Over the last three years, TFD, partnering with IUCN, organised a series of country level dialogues engaging over 400 forest owners, investors, NGOs, governments and intergovernmental agencies. The resulting report, “Investing in Locally Controlled Forestry”, launched last week at IUCN World Conservation Congress in Jeju South Korea (WCC), shows that with the right processes in place, and under the right conditions, almost any individual or group can build a successful forest enterprise.
“A first step is to recognise that many forests and landscapes are inhabited by people with some form of land rights,” says Chris Buss, Senior Programme Officer for IUCN’s Global Forest and Climate change Programme “Investors are increasingly aware they must respect these rights through recognised processes, although the practical implications of such processes have until now received less attention.”
The learning from this initiative demonstrates that these processes often result simply in compensation for loss of access to land or resources, rather than a genuine shared enterprise. In contrast, a “rights-based” system places local control at the heart of the process. Under this system, the people who own or have rights over the forest are the ones who seek investors and partnerships for managing their natural resource assets.
The rights-based approach will recognise local people’s autonomy and their rights to determine the land’s destiny and to gain income from its effective management. Hence, empowering local people to make decisions on commercial forest management and land with secure tenure rights, the ability to build their own organisations and access to markets and technology can be a highly effective way of raising incomes and protecting forestry resources. Communities, governments and investors, according to the report, all stand to gain from investing in locally controlled forestry.
However, launching a commercially viable enterprise is not without its own challenges and requires adjustments to conventional investment approaches.
Ironically, the ugly public spat between Environment minister Francis Nhema and Tourism Minister Walter Mzembi became the highlight at the WCC albeit for the wrong reasons. In terms of conservation, Zimbabwe is viewed as a leader globally given its sustainable development policy advocating for sustainable utilisation of the wildlife resource — perhaps through safari hunting, eco-tourism and Campfire programmes.
Apparently, it is the Campfire programme that put Zimbabwe on the world map resulting in the establishment of conservation areas such as the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park linking the country’s second largest national park Gorezhou, South Africa’s Kruger and Mozambique’s Gaza Coutada 16. The country was to establish another conservation area Kaza linking Zambezi National Park in Victoria Falls, Zambia, Namibia, Chobe in Botswana and Angola.
These are great initiatives by a country now under siege for botching up the wildlife-based land reform programme in Save Valley. *millenniumzimbabwe@gmail.com/millenniumzimbabwe@yahoo.com
These assist in reducing deforestation, habitat and species loss and support the livelihoods of millions countrywide, whereas globally, forests assist over one billion people, while containing 15% of the world’s carbon stock.
Sadly, over 700 000 hectares of protected areas have been destroyed this year alone around Zimbabwe by forest fires ignited by people hunting for mice or game. Pastures have also been destroyed for selfish reasons, resulting in livestock and wildlife starving due to loss of pasturage.
This is unfortunate given that the country prides itself as an agriculture-based economy, (but) where a sizeable population has no regard for the environment.
This is why protected areas such as Save Valley and Midlands conservancies must be jealously guarded for future generations. No one individual should benefit at the expense of the public really.
However, protected areas must be placed under local communities control to increase their incomes and sustainability.
To increase the income of many of the billion forest-dependent people worldwide, the current conservation model for investment in forests/wildlife must be turned on its head.
An initiative of unprecedented scale, led by The Forests Dialogue (TFD), IUCN and the Growing Forests Partnerships (GFP), has also found that optimising the benefits and productivity of forests requires moving from a “resource-led” model to a “rights-based” system of “locally controlled forestry”, that places local control of forests/wildlife at the heart of the investment process.
Over the last three years, TFD, partnering with IUCN, organised a series of country level dialogues engaging over 400 forest owners, investors, NGOs, governments and intergovernmental agencies. The resulting report, “Investing in Locally Controlled Forestry”, launched last week at IUCN World Conservation Congress in Jeju South Korea (WCC), shows that with the right processes in place, and under the right conditions, almost any individual or group can build a successful forest enterprise.
“A first step is to recognise that many forests and landscapes are inhabited by people with some form of land rights,” says Chris Buss, Senior Programme Officer for IUCN’s Global Forest and Climate change Programme “Investors are increasingly aware they must respect these rights through recognised processes, although the practical implications of such processes have until now received less attention.”
The learning from this initiative demonstrates that these processes often result simply in compensation for loss of access to land or resources, rather than a genuine shared enterprise. In contrast, a “rights-based” system places local control at the heart of the process. Under this system, the people who own or have rights over the forest are the ones who seek investors and partnerships for managing their natural resource assets.
The rights-based approach will recognise local people’s autonomy and their rights to determine the land’s destiny and to gain income from its effective management. Hence, empowering local people to make decisions on commercial forest management and land with secure tenure rights, the ability to build their own organisations and access to markets and technology can be a highly effective way of raising incomes and protecting forestry resources. Communities, governments and investors, according to the report, all stand to gain from investing in locally controlled forestry.
However, launching a commercially viable enterprise is not without its own challenges and requires adjustments to conventional investment approaches.
Ironically, the ugly public spat between Environment minister Francis Nhema and Tourism Minister Walter Mzembi became the highlight at the WCC albeit for the wrong reasons. In terms of conservation, Zimbabwe is viewed as a leader globally given its sustainable development policy advocating for sustainable utilisation of the wildlife resource — perhaps through safari hunting, eco-tourism and Campfire programmes.
Apparently, it is the Campfire programme that put Zimbabwe on the world map resulting in the establishment of conservation areas such as the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park linking the country’s second largest national park Gorezhou, South Africa’s Kruger and Mozambique’s Gaza Coutada 16. The country was to establish another conservation area Kaza linking Zambezi National Park in Victoria Falls, Zambia, Namibia, Chobe in Botswana and Angola.
These are great initiatives by a country now under siege for botching up the wildlife-based land reform programme in Save Valley. *millenniumzimbabwe@gmail.com/millenniumzimbabwe@yahoo.com
Elephant in the room at climate talks
The United Nations climate machine has rolled into Bangkok, and an elephant sat patiently on the table in the plenary room.
As the latest round of UN climate talks kicked off in an “informal” session, observers described the presence of United States representatives as an “elephant in the room”.
The Obama administration recently announced it does not support an international agreement that guarantees a safe climate. They actually reject the entire premise of the international negotiations and instead they want to keep on with business as usual, each country doing whatever it wants.
“Business as usual” caused this crisis in the first place. Bringing that approach in Bangkok only guarantees climate catastrophe.
One of the key issues in the negotiations is that of “adaptation finance” — the amount of money needed for countries, especially the poorer ones, to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The amount needed is calculated to be at least $150 billion a year although some consider this a low estimate. Until now, the amount pledged by rich countries was pitifully low, and while the European Union has begun to indicate that they will put some money on the table, it is still nowhere near what is necessary.
As politicians falter, the public has once again taken a lead with communities across northern Thailand providing “small change for the climate” to give a boost to the adaptation fund.
The money collected was handed over in five elephant piggy banks last week to the top official in charge of the UN climate change negotiations — by five Thai children representing the 1,3 million people who have already called for a fair, ambitious and binding treaty as part of the anti-rich country’s campaign. They also represented the millions of young people whose futures are at risk if a strong outcome is not achieved in Qatar in December.
The official was clearly moved by the presentation and immediately suggested that one of the elephants could be placed on the table in the plenary room to remind delegates of their responsibilities to the people of the world. He was good to his word, and the elephant duly appeared with him at the opening session — sadly, however, this is currently the only money on the table.
Almost 50 of the world’s poorest nations claimed pledges made by rich countries to provide funds to help them adapt to a warmer planet risked being overlooked as UN negotiations over a global climate pact to start in 2020 got underway in Bangkok.
The group of mostly African nations said that ill-fated talks launched in 2007 to find a successor to the Kyoto Protocol must not end without richer nations pledging financial aid to help them cope with rising sea levels caused by climate change.
Traditional industrialised nations and blocs such as the European Union, the US and Japan want to close down the talks, which failed in 2009, to produce a legally-binding global pact to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases starting next year.
They want to focus on a new deal to take effect at the end of the decade. Rich nations have pledged to find $100 billion per year starting in 2020 to help nations combat the effects of climate change, but poorer nations are concerned that existing pledges of $10 billion a year will expire in December without a new interim agreement in place.
“All sides need a clearer understanding on how to get to $100 billion a year by 2020 with no gaps,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s climate department and the public face of the talks.
The call comes as traditional rich nations struggle to rein in their national debt and budget deficits, while support for proposals to tap the private sector for cash through regulating or taxing emissions from shipping and aviation have struggled to receive backing.
The Bangkok negotiations, which end this week, will also try to advance talks on whether countries that have refused to be legally bound to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol should be allowed access to the carbon markets launched under the 1997 treaty.
Earlier this month, Australia’s main opposition party which is tipped to win the country’s next general election said it would not object to the country taking on another legal target to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, putting pressure on the government to sign up.
It is not a mystery as to what is missing in the climate change talks — it’s as obvious as an elephant in the room.
They need deep emission cuts in line with the science and they need a commitment to getting finance and technology to communities on the frontline. These were promised by industrialised countries in existing legal agreements, but the tricks they will use to get out of their commitments seem endless.
* millenniumzimbabwe@gmail.com/millenniumzimbabwe@yahoo.com
As the latest round of UN climate talks kicked off in an “informal” session, observers described the presence of United States representatives as an “elephant in the room”.
The Obama administration recently announced it does not support an international agreement that guarantees a safe climate. They actually reject the entire premise of the international negotiations and instead they want to keep on with business as usual, each country doing whatever it wants.
“Business as usual” caused this crisis in the first place. Bringing that approach in Bangkok only guarantees climate catastrophe.
One of the key issues in the negotiations is that of “adaptation finance” — the amount of money needed for countries, especially the poorer ones, to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The amount needed is calculated to be at least $150 billion a year although some consider this a low estimate. Until now, the amount pledged by rich countries was pitifully low, and while the European Union has begun to indicate that they will put some money on the table, it is still nowhere near what is necessary.
As politicians falter, the public has once again taken a lead with communities across northern Thailand providing “small change for the climate” to give a boost to the adaptation fund.
The money collected was handed over in five elephant piggy banks last week to the top official in charge of the UN climate change negotiations — by five Thai children representing the 1,3 million people who have already called for a fair, ambitious and binding treaty as part of the anti-rich country’s campaign. They also represented the millions of young people whose futures are at risk if a strong outcome is not achieved in Qatar in December.
The official was clearly moved by the presentation and immediately suggested that one of the elephants could be placed on the table in the plenary room to remind delegates of their responsibilities to the people of the world. He was good to his word, and the elephant duly appeared with him at the opening session — sadly, however, this is currently the only money on the table.
Almost 50 of the world’s poorest nations claimed pledges made by rich countries to provide funds to help them adapt to a warmer planet risked being overlooked as UN negotiations over a global climate pact to start in 2020 got underway in Bangkok.
The group of mostly African nations said that ill-fated talks launched in 2007 to find a successor to the Kyoto Protocol must not end without richer nations pledging financial aid to help them cope with rising sea levels caused by climate change.
Traditional industrialised nations and blocs such as the European Union, the US and Japan want to close down the talks, which failed in 2009, to produce a legally-binding global pact to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases starting next year.
They want to focus on a new deal to take effect at the end of the decade. Rich nations have pledged to find $100 billion per year starting in 2020 to help nations combat the effects of climate change, but poorer nations are concerned that existing pledges of $10 billion a year will expire in December without a new interim agreement in place.
“All sides need a clearer understanding on how to get to $100 billion a year by 2020 with no gaps,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s climate department and the public face of the talks.
The call comes as traditional rich nations struggle to rein in their national debt and budget deficits, while support for proposals to tap the private sector for cash through regulating or taxing emissions from shipping and aviation have struggled to receive backing.
The Bangkok negotiations, which end this week, will also try to advance talks on whether countries that have refused to be legally bound to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol should be allowed access to the carbon markets launched under the 1997 treaty.
Earlier this month, Australia’s main opposition party which is tipped to win the country’s next general election said it would not object to the country taking on another legal target to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, putting pressure on the government to sign up.
It is not a mystery as to what is missing in the climate change talks — it’s as obvious as an elephant in the room.
They need deep emission cuts in line with the science and they need a commitment to getting finance and technology to communities on the frontline. These were promised by industrialised countries in existing legal agreements, but the tricks they will use to get out of their commitments seem endless.
* millenniumzimbabwe@gmail.com/millenniumzimbabwe@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)