Feed aggregator

Die Ukrainer haben ein russisches Lagerhaus in der Region Cherson zerstört. Die darin geladene Munition fliegt in einem Feuerball in die Luft. Auch mindestens 40 Tankwagen sollen in der Nähe stationiert gewesen sein.

Bulgarien prüft derzeit, wie es seine Kampfflugzeuge aus der Sowjetära vor Ende des Jahres instand halten kann, da das Land ohne diese Flugzeuge keine Luftwaffe mehr hätte.

Die jüngste Zusage der Slowakei, die Militärausgaben auf zwei Prozent des BIP zu erhöhen, um den Anforderungen der NATO zu entsprechen, könnte durch die derzeitige Regierungskrise untergraben werden.

By Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Jul 12 2022 (IPS)

Long a means for powerful nations to influence developing countries, development finance has gained renewed significance in the new Cold War. Unlike during the US-Soviet Cold War, the rivalry now is between mixed market capitalist systems.

Development aid rivalry
After reneging repeatedly on development aid and climate finance promises, the G7 big rich nations dutifully lined up behind US President Biden’s Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) at their 2022 Summit in Schloss Elmau, Germany.

Anis Chowdhury

With a $200bn US commitment, the G7 promised to mobilize $600bn in public and private funds for infrastructure investments in developing countries to compete with China’s multitrillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The White House denounces BRI, claiming the PGII offers “values driven, high-quality, and sustainable infrastructure”. Hence, G7 funding is more likely to have strings attached, e.g., taking sides in the new Cold War.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman emphasized, “China continues to welcome all initiatives to promote global infrastructure development”, but insisted China is “opposed to pushing forward geopolitical calculations under the pretext of infrastructure construction or smearing the Belt and Road Initiative”.

US national security priority
At the 2021 G7 Summit, Biden had unveiled a similar Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative, insisting it would define the G7 alternative to China’s BRI. Based on his domestic Build Back Better (BBB) programme, B3W was soon ‘dead in the water’ when the Senate rejected BBB.

The White House’s claim that with the B3W, the “United States is rallying the world’s democracies to deliver for our people, meet the world’s biggest challenges, and demonstrate our shared values” has also been dropped from PGII.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

With few B3W details forthcoming, the European Union (EU) launched its own Global Gateway for developing countries in December 2021, promising €300bn in infrastructure investments by 2027.

At the EU-African Union Summit in February 2022, the EU announced €150bn financing for the Africa-Europe Investment Package, half the Global Gateway budget.

EU leaders have touted their Global Gateway, suggesting G7 initiatives should be not only complementary, but also mutually reinforcing. But the EU’s African priority is not necessarily shared by other G7 members.

EU funding of €135bn will be from the European Fund for Sustainable Development. The UK Clean Green Initiative, from the 2021 Glasgow Climate Summit, and Japan’s $65bn for regional connectivity may also not be additional.

Acknowledging scepticism about how much is new money, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged G7 members to present their pledges consistently to allay doubts about double-counting and the low grants share viz loans.

When the PGII was announced to replace the B3W, it “created significant confusion”. Making clear its purpose, the White House unequivocally asserted PGII will “advance U.S. national security”.

Far-fetched, risky, conditional
The G7 also urges using public money to leverage private sector funds. But such initiatives have previously failed to mobilize significant private funding – hardly inspiring hope of meeting the trillion-dollar financing gap.

The Economist has found blended finance – mixing public, charitable and private money – “starry-eyed” and “struggling to take off”. Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank warn public-private partnerships (PPPs) incur contingent fiscal risks.

Worse, PPPs distort national priorities, favour private investors and worsen debt crises. They have also not improved equity of access, reduced poverty or enhanced sustainability.

Developing country debt crises typically involve commercial loans or private sector money. For example, the 1980s’ Latin American debt crises were triggered by US Fed interest rate hikes to kill inflation.

Private sector loans usually involve higher interest rates and shorter repayment periods than loans from governments and multilateral development banks. Unsurprisingly, they lack equitable restructuring or refinancing mechanisms.

Ignoring yet another UN resolution, powerful nations disregard developing countries’ appeals for fair and orderly multilateral sovereign debt restructuring arrangements. Similarly, the West refuses to fix unfair trade, tax and other rules disadvantaging poorer countries.

Trust deficit
Over half a century ago, rich nations promised 0.7% of their gross national income (GNI) as development aid. But total overseas development assistance (ODA) from rich Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) members has barely exceeded half the promised amount.

Worse, the share has actually declined from 0.54% in 1961, with only five nations consistently meeting their 0.7% commitment in many years. Oxfam estimated 50 years of unkept promises meant a $5.7 trillion aid shortfall by 2020!

At the 2005 Gleneagles Summit, G7 leaders pledged to double their aid by 2010, earmarking $50bn yearly for Africa. But actual delivery has been woefully short, with no transparent reporting or accountability.

Most development aid is neither transparent nor predictable. After some earlier progress in untying, aid is increasingly being ‘tied’ again – requiring recipients to implement donor projects or to buy from donor country suppliers – compromising effectiveness.

The US ranked lowest among the G7, giving only 0.18% in 2021. To make things worse, US aid effectiveness is worst among the world’s 27 wealthiest nations. Clearly, besides aid volume shortfalls, quality is also at issue.

The Syrian refugee crisis and Covid-19 pandemic have provided some recent pretexts to cut aid. Some powerful countries have turned to ‘creative accounting’, e.g., counting refugee settlement and ‘peace-keeping’ military operations costs as ODA.

Unsurprisingly, the UN Deputy Secretary-General is “deeply troubled over recent decisions and proposals to markedly cut” ODA to service Ukraine war impacts on refugees.

Controversies over what climate finance is ‘new and additional’ to ODA have not been resolved since the 1992 adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Rio Earth Summit.

G7 countries also fell far short of rich countries’ 2009 pledge to annually give $100bn in climate finance until 2020 to help developing countries adapt to and mitigate global warming.

The OECD’s reported $79.6bn in climate finance in 2019 was the highest ever. But OECD estimates are much disputed – e.g., for double counting and including non-concessional commercial loans, ‘rolled-over’ loans and private finance.

Cooperation, not conflict
Although China is new to development finance, it is now among the world’s biggest development financiers. Following broken promises and duplicity, even betrayal, China’s significance has increased as OECD donor funding declined relatively.

China is now a bigger player in international development finance than the world’s six major multilateral financial institutions together. Many developing countries have few options but to engage with, if not rely on, China.

Undoubtedly, there are justifiable concerns over China’s development finance and practices. These have included adverse environmental impacts, poor transparency and a high share of commercial loans – even if at concessional rates.

In 2019, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde suggested the new BRI phase would “benefit from increased transparency, open procurement with competitive bidding, and better risk assessment in project selection”.

Lagarde approved of China’s new debt sustainability framework and green investment principles to evaluate BRI projects. She expected “BRI 2.0 … will be guided by a spirit of collaboration, transparency, and a commitment to sustainability that will serve all of its members well, both today and tomorrow”.

The new Cold War may well spur more healthy and peaceful rivalry, inadvertently improving development aid and prospects for developing countries.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Climate Hypocrisy Ensures Global Warming
• China Debt Traps in the New Cold War
• World Bank Urges Governments to Guarantee Private Profits
• World Bank’s ‘Mobilizing Finance for Development’ Not Financing Development
• Can Private Finance Really Serve Humanity?
• Hospital PPPs Undermine Healthcare
• Blending Finance Not SDG Financing Silver Bullet
• Scaling up Development Finance

Nach einem russischen Raketen-angriff auf ein Wohnhaus im Osten der Ukraine steigt die Zahl der Opfer weiter. Unterdessen wurden über 30 Leichen aus dem zerstörten Gebäude geborgen und 9 Menschen lebend aus den Trümmern gerettet.

Die slowenischen Gasverbraucher:innen werden aufgefordert, Erdgas mit Vorsicht zu verwenden, nachdem die Energieagentur des Landes die Öffentlichkeit am Montag frühzeitig vor möglichen zukünftigen Versorgungsunterbrechungen gewarnt hat.

By External Source
Jul 12 2022 (IPS-Partners)

 
The way nature is valued in political and economic decisions is both a key driver of the global biodiversity crisis and a vital opportunity to address it, according to a four-year methodological assessment by 82 top scientists and experts from every region of the world.

Approved on Saturday, by representatives of the 139 member States of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature finds that there is a dominant global focus on short-term profits and economic growth, often excluding the consideration of multiple values of nature in policy decisions.

Economic and political decisions have predominantly prioritised certain values of nature, particularly market-based instrumental values of nature, such as those associated with food produced intensively. Although often privileged in policymaking, these market values do not adequately reflect how changes in nature affect people’s quality of life. Furthermore, policymaking overlooks the many non-market values associated with nature’s contributions to people, such as climate regulation and cultural identity.

“With more than 50 valuation methods and approaches, there is no shortage of ways and tools to make visible the values of nature,” said Prof. Unai Pascual (Spain/Switzerland), who co-chaired the Assessment with Prof. Patricia Balvanera (Mexico), Prof. Mike Christie (UK) and Dr. Brigitte Baptiste (Colombia). “Only 2% of the more than 1,000 studies reviewed consult stakeholders on valuation findings and only 1% of the studies involved stakeholders in every step of the process of valuing nature. What is in short supply is the use of valuation methods to tackle power asymmetries among stakeholders, and to transparently embed the diverse values of nature into policymaking.”

Deeply cross-disciplinary and, based on a large review conducted by experts in social science, economics and the humanities, the Values Assessment draws on more than 13,000 references – including scientific papers and information sources from indigenous and local knowledge. It also builds directly on the 2019 IPBES Global Assessment, which identified the role of economic growth as a key driver of nature loss, with 1 million species of plants and animals now at risk of extinction.

To help policymakers better understand the very different ways in which people conceive and value nature, the Report provides a novel and comprehensive typology of nature’s values. The typology highlights how different worldviews and knowledge systems influence the ways people interact with and value nature.

In order to make this typology useful for decision-making, the authors present four general perspectives. These are: living from, with, in and as nature. Living from nature emphasizes nature’s capacity to provide resources for sustaining livelihoods, needs and wants of people, such as food and material goods. Living with nature has a focus on life ‘other than human’ such as the intrinsic right of fish in a river to thrive independently of human needs. Living in nature refers to the importance of nature as the setting for people’s sense of place and identity. Living as nature sees the natural world as a physical, mental and spiritual part of oneself.

The Report finds that the number of studies that value nature has increased on average by more than 10% per year over the last four decades. The most prominent focus of recent (2010-2020) valuation studies has been on improving the condition of nature (65% of valuation studies reviewed) and on improving people’s quality of life (31%), with just 4% focused on improving issues around social justice. 74% of valuation studies focused on instrumental values, with 20% focused on intrinsic values, and just 6% focused on relational values.

“The Values Assessment provides decision-makers with concrete tools and methods to better understand the values that individuals and communities hold about nature,” said Prof. Balvanera. “For example, it highlights five iterative steps to design valuation to fit the needs of different decision-making contexts. The report also provides guidelines on how to enhance the quality of valuation by taking into account relevance, robustness and resource requirements of different valuation methods.”

“Different types of values can be measured using different valuation methods and indicators. For example, a development project can yield economic benefits and jobs, for which instrumental values of nature can assessed, but it can also lead to loss of species, associated with intrinsic values of nature, and the destruction of heritage sites important for cultural identity, thus affecting relational values of nature. The report provides guidance for combining these very diverse values.”

“Valuation is an explicit and intentional process,” said Prof. Christie. “The type and quality of information that valuation studies can produce largely depends on how, why and by whom valuation is designed and applied. This influences whose and which values of nature would be recognized in decisions, and how fairly the benefits and burdens of these decisions would be distributed.”

“Recognizing and respecting the worldviews, values and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities allows policies to be more inclusive, which also translates into better outcomes for people and nature”, said Dr. Baptiste. “Also, recognizing the role of women in the stewardship of nature and overcoming power asymmetries frequently related to gender status, can advance the inclusion of the diversity of values in decisions about nature.”

The Report finds that there are a number of deeply held values that can be aligned with sustainability, emphasizing principles like unity, responsibility, stewardship and justice, both towards other people and towards nature. “Shifting decision-making towards the multiple values of nature is a really important part of the system-wide transformative change needed to address the current global biodiversity crisis,” said Dr. Balvanera. “This entails redefining ‘development’ and ‘good quality of life’ and recognising the multiple ways people relate to each other and to the natural world.”

The authors identify four values-centred ‘leverage points’ that can help create the conditions for the transformative change necessary for more sustainable and just futures:

• Recognizing the diverse values of nature
• Embedding valuation into decision-making
• Reforming policies and regulations to internalize nature’s values
• Shifting underlying societal norms and goals to align with global sustainability and justice objectives

“Our analysis shows that various pathways can contribute to achieve just and sustainable futures. The report pays specific attention to future pathways related to ‘green economy’, ‘degrowth’, ‘Earth stewardship’, and ‘nature protection’. Although each pathway is underpinned by different values, they share principles aligned with sustainability,” added Prof. Pascual. “Pathways arising from diverse worldviews and knowledge systems, for instance those associated with living well and other philosophies of good living, can also lead towards sustainability.”

Among the other tools offered by the Report to strengthen the consideration of greater diversity of values of nature in decision-making are: an exploration of entry points for valuation across all parts of the policy cycle; six interrelated values-centred guidelines to promote sustainability pathways; an evaluation of the potential of different environmental policy instruments to support transformative change towards more sustainable and just futures by representing diverse values, and a detailed illustration of the required capacities of decision makers to foster the consideration and embedding of the diverse values of nature into decisions.

“Biodiversity is being lost and nature’s contributions to people are being degraded faster now that at any other point in human history,” said Ana María Hernández Salgar, Chair of IPBES. “This is largely because our current approach to political and economic decisions does not sufficiently account for the diversity of nature’s values. The IPBES Values Assessment is being released at an extremely important time – just in advance of the expected agreement later this year by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on a new global biodiversity framework for the next decade. The information, analysis and tools offered by the Values Assessment make an invaluable contribution to that process, to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and to shifting all decisions towards better values-centred outcomes for people and the rest of nature.”

By the Numbers – Key Statistics and Facts from the Report

• 10%: increase in the average annual number of valuation studies undertaken over the last four decades

• 65%: valuation applications reviewed (2010-2020) in which the most prominent focus has been on improving the status of nature, followed by improving people’s quality of life (31%), and improving social justice (4%)

• 74%: valuation applications among those reviewed in which ‘instrumental values’ (e.g., nature as an economic asset) were elicited (as opposed to relational and intrinsic values)

• 50%: valuation applications among those reviewed in which value indicators of biophysical measures predominate, followed by monetary and socio-cultural indicators

• 72%: reported valuations performed at the sub-national rather than national or global scales (with very few studies dealing with cross-regional or cross-national protected areas, or with explicit reference to indigenous peoples and local communities’ territories)

• 25%: ecological contexts of reviewed valuations with emphasis given to the value of nature’s contributions to people that come from forests vs. cultivated areas (16%) and inland water bodies (11%)

• +/-48,000: studies out of 79,000 (61%) that provided explicit geo-referenced information

• 56%: reviewed valuations that did not attempt to bring different values together, but instead used distinct biophysical, monetary and socio-cultural indicators

• +/-50%: valuation studies reviewed that bring different values together apply methods allowing values to be directly compared; the other half compare bundles of values, or use relative weights based on participants’ or valuation experts’ rankings or deliberation

• <1%: valuation studies reviewed that keep values separate (i.e., treat them in parallel in a deliberative process) • 44%: valuation studies reviewed in which some stakeholder involvement was reported • 1%: valuation studies reviewed that included stakeholder consultation and their involvement in every step of the valuation process • 2%: valuation studies reviewed that reported consultations with stakeholders on findings • 0.6%: valuation studies reviewed that explicitly account for power issues in the valuation process • 5%: valuation studies reviewed that considered equity when aggregating impacts on individuals and social groups with diverse socio-economic conditions in valuation • 53%: of 460 future scenarios reviewed explicitly articulate values, 42% mention values but do not assess them explicitly and 53% perform some kind of valuation without reflecting on underpinning values

Excerpt:

More than 50 Methods & Approaches Exist to Make Visible the Diverse Values of Nature

UEFA on Monday (11 July) criticised the breakaway European Super League with its group of elite clubs as a textbook example of a cartel, as the European soccer body sought to defend its power and lucrative media rights at a hearing before Europe's top court.

Tous les matins, L’Expresso décrypte pour vous l’info à travers l’Europe.

Die Impfkommission des Kantons Zürich empfiehlt allen Menschen über 80 Jahren den zweiten Corona-Booster. Im Impfzentrum Zürich merkt man deutlich, dass das Interesse da ist, wie eine Reportage vor Ort zeigt.

Statkraft hat die letzte Stufe seiner schwimmenden Solaranlage nach anfänglichen Schwierigkeiten – wie beispielsweise den Untergang eines Ringes von Paneelen nur wenige Tage nach dem Start – in Betrieb genommen. Das Unternehmen hat vier schwimmende Anlagen auf dem Banja-Stausee im...

US President Joe Biden on Monday (11 July) released the debut photo from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope - an image of a galaxy cluster revealing the most detailed glimpse of the early universe ever seen.

Die Gefahr von Waldbränden in Portugal wird aufgrund des Klimawandels und des derzeitigen Zustands der Wälder des Landes jedes Jahr weiter zunehmen, erklärte Ministerpräsident António Costa am Montag vor Journalisten.

L’Estonie donnera bientôt le coup d’envoi de son projet «  Hydrogen Valley Estonia  », qui vise à mettre en place une chaîne de valeur de l’hydrogène à l’échelle nationale afin d’accélérer la transition énergétique et d’améliorer l’indépendance énergétique.

Ein Gesetzentwurf, der den Polen in der Ukraine einen Sonderstatus einräumen würde, wurde am Montag von Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj im Parlament eingebracht.

In today's edition of the Capitals, find out more about Vienna wanting to revamp EU migration rules, Gazprom cutting Italy's gas supplies, and so much more.

Ukraine expects a fresh assault by Russian ground forces, following widespread shelling which killed more than 30 people, as Kyiv's Western allies brace for a worsening of the global energy crisis if Russia cuts its supply of oil and gas.

Die Europäische Kommission muss unverzüglich Maßnahmen ergreifen, um das Migrationssystem zu verbessern, da die Belastung für Österreich höher ist als in anderen Mitgliedstaaten, so Bundeskanzler Karl Nehammer vor seiner Reise nach Zypern am Montag.

Törökország megsérti az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményének vonatkozó cikkét, mivel nem tesz eleget az Emberi Jogok Európai Bíróságának (EJEB) 2019. decemberi, jogerős ítélete szerinti kötelezettségének, amely szerint szabadon kell bocsátania Osman Kavala török üzletembert, emberi jogi aktivistát – tájékoztatott a strasbourgi székhelyű Európa Tanács (ET).

Az említett ítélet szerint a török hatóságok annak ellenére vették őrizetbe Kavalát, hogy nem volt elég bizonyíték a bűncselekményre. Ankara ezzel megsértette az üzletembernek az emberi jogi egyezményben is rögzített jogát a szabadsághoz és a személyi biztonsághoz – áll a hétfői állásfoglalásban. A bíróság arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy a török kormánynak mindent meg kell tennie Kavala őrizetének megszüntetése és azonnali szabadon bocsátása érdekében.

A 46 tagot számláló ET felügyelete alatt működő emberi jogi bíróság hétfőn kihirdetett újabb ítéletében megállapította: noha a 2019. december 10-i ítéletet követően a török bíróságok 2020. február 18-án elrendelték Kavala szabadlábra helyezését óvadék ellenében, ugyanezen a napon a helyi ügyész végzése alapján az üzletembert puccskísérlet miatt letartóztatták, majd a következő napon előzetes letartóztatásba helyezték. Előzetes letartóztatását kémkedés vádjával március 9-én megerősítettek.

A strasbourgi bírák leszögezték: sem az őrizetbe vételre vonatkozó határozatok, sem a vádirat nem tartalmazott olyan tényeket, amelyek igazolhatnák a kémkedés gyanúját.

Megjegyezték: noha Törökország tett lépéseket a december 10-i ítélet végrehajtására, s a török bíróságok három határozatban is elrendelték az óvadék ellenében szabadlábra helyezést és egy felmentő ítéletet, Kavala még mindig – négy éve, három hónapja és tizennégy napja – előzetes letartóztatásban van. A hétfői ítélet szerint a török intézkedések nem meggyőzőek arra vonatkozóan, hogy Ankara jóhiszeműen, a bíróság 2019. december 10-i ítéletének következtetéseivel és szellemével összeegyeztethető módon járna volna el, “vagy olyan módon, mely biztosítaná az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményében foglalt jogok védelmét”.

Marija Pejcinovic Buric, az Európa Tanács főtitkára, Tiny Kox, az Európa Tanács Parlamenti Közgyűlésének elnöke, valamint Simon Coveney, Írország külügyminisztere, az Európa Tanács Miniszteri Bizottságának elnöke hétfőn közzétett közös közleményükben arra szólították fel Törökországot, hogy, mint az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményének részes fele, tegyen meg minden szükséges lépést a 2019. decemberi ítélet végrehajtására.

Kavalát a 2013-as, Gezi parki tüntetések megszervezésével összefüggésben 2017. november 1-jén tartóztatták le. Őt és nyolc társát egyebek mellett a kormány megdöntésére tett kísérlettel, valamint politikai és katonai kémkedéssel vádolták meg. A bíróság azonban bizonyítékok hiányában felmentette őket. Mindazonáltal Kavala egy másik ügy miatt jelenleg is börtönben van. Az isztambuli főügyészség ugyanis elfogatóparancsot adott ki ellene a 2016. július 15-i erőszakos hatalomátvételi kísérlettel kapcsolatban, egy bíróság pedig elrendelte letartóztatását, “az alkotmányos rend megdöntésére tett kísérlet” gyanújával.

 

The post ET: Törökország megsérti az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményét Osman Kavala szabadon bocsátásának megtagadásával appeared first on .

Le premier procès croate initié par le Parquet européen concernant l’abus de subventions de l’UE a abouti à un règlement sans peine de prison après que le défendeur a plaidé coupable, rapporte l'agence de presse TPortal.