G8 world leaders have pledged over EUR 4bn to reduce deaths among mothers and newborn babies in Africa. The heads of state are in Canada for the summits of both the G8 and G20. However, despite this new commitment, G8 nations have only delivered on two thirds of the aid promised to Africa after the meeting at Gleneagles five years ago.
Posts Tagged ‘G8’
Mary Ellen Harte and John Harte: Earth to G8: Limit Global Warming Emissions!
July 15th, 2009 |
No Comments
At the outset of WWII, we didn’t set a goal of keeping German occupied territory to some “upper limit”; we set the goal of making as many airplanes and artillery as possible, and mobilizing troops.
Science Weekly: In search of time
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
What it time? Is it the uniform, steady flow envisaged by Newton that helps us follow our daily routines? A spooky, purely subjective feeling? A dimension of Einstein’s space-time? Or simply the phenomenon that stops everything from happening all at once?
Science writer Dan Falk is on hand to discuss the neuroscience, the physics and the philosophy of chronology and poses the question – do we really know what time is?
James Randerson and Nell Boase join Alok for a round-up of the week’s science news including claims that vegetarians are 45% less likely to develop cancer of the blood compared with meat eaters, a monster haul of new dinosaur species discovered in the Australian outback, and the G8 nations’ battle with climate change.
We also visit the Royal Society’s Summer Exhibition to sink our teeth into some of the latest creations of science. Among the exhibits were a virtual cow, lasers that can treat cancer – and a very excitable and science-literate bunch of schoolchildren.
Don’t be shy …
• Mail us at science@guardian.co.uk
• Get our Twitter feeds for programme updates and daily science news
• Join our Facebook group
Swine flu strikes Downing Street adviser
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
The first case of swine flu has struck Downing Street and it nearly caused a diplomatic crisis.
Gordon Brown’s senior climate change adviser Michael Jacobs was banned from attending the G8 summit in Italy for fear he would pass the contagious disease to Barack Obama and other world leaders.
It is understood that Jacobs contracted the disease while involved in climate change talks in Mexico.
He had travelled to Rome for some preliminary negotiations on the draft of the G8 communique text, and was told by his personal doctor that he was no longer suffering from the disease. He then planned to travel to the conference site in L’Aquila, Italy, but was told by Brown that he could not risk him going.
The prime minister told Jacobs it would be diplomatically disastrous if Britain was responsible for infecting the G8′s leaders. Instead, Jacobs followed negotiations by phone.
A Downing Street source said there was no evidence that anyone else in Brown’s entourage has contracted swine flu and that if they had, proper procedures for decontamination will be followed.
Jacobs is seen as the one of the best informed climate change specialists in Britain and his absence from the talks was regarded as a significant loss. He made no mention of contracting the disease or the ban imposed on him when he sent out a circular to those interested in climate change setting out the outcome of the negotiations, and the problems that lie ahead in securing a deal at Copenhagen at the end of the year.
Jacobs, former general secretary of the Fabian Society, clearly did not regard his absence as fatal to the outcome of the summit since he pointed out in his email to green groups that five big achievements had been secured at the L’Aquila talks,
For the first time the G8 and developing nations agreed that the science demanded global average temperatures rise by only 2C on preindustrial levels.
“Until a few weeks ago, in fact in the case of the developing countries until a few days ago we did not believe we were going to get this agreement,” he said.
Secondly, the G8 agreed to cut its own emissions by 80% by 2050.
He also said it was now possible to see an agreement to cut global emissions by half at Copenhagen, the aim of the talks. The G8 meetings had seen developing countries for the first time accept the concept that their emissions were peaking, Jacobs said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Swine flu strikes Downing Street adviser
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
The first case of swine flu has struck Downing Street and it nearly caused a diplomatic crisis.
Gordon Brown’s senior climate change adviser Michael Jacobs was banned from attending the G8 summit in Italy for fear he would pass the contagious disease to Barack Obama and other world leaders.
It is understood that Jacobs contracted the disease while involved in climate change talks in Mexico.
He had travelled to Rome for some preliminary negotiations on the draft of the G8 communique text, and was told by his personal doctor that he was no longer suffering from the disease. He then planned to travel to the conference site in L’Aquila, Italy, but was told by Brown that he could not risk him going.
The prime minister told Jacobs it would be diplomatically disastrous if Britain was responsible for infecting the G8′s leaders. Instead, Jacobs followed negotiations by phone.
A Downing Street source said there was no evidence that anyone else in Brown’s entourage has contracted swine flu and that if they had, proper procedures for decontamination will be followed.
Jacobs is seen as the one of the best informed climate change specialists in Britain and his absence from the talks was regarded as a significant loss. He made no mention of contracting the disease or the ban imposed on him when he sent out a circular to those interested in climate change setting out the outcome of the negotiations, and the problems that lie ahead in securing a deal at Copenhagen at the end of the year.
Jacobs, former general secretary of the Fabian Society, clearly did not regard his absence as fatal to the outcome of the summit since he pointed out in his email to green groups that five big achievements had been secured at the L’Aquila talks,
For the first time the G8 and developing nations agreed that the science demanded global average temperatures rise by only 2C on preindustrial levels.
“Until a few weeks ago, in fact in the case of the developing countries until a few days ago we did not believe we were going to get this agreement,” he said.
Secondly, the G8 agreed to cut its own emissions by 80% by 2050.
He also said it was now possible to see an agreement to cut global emissions by half at Copenhagen, the aim of the talks. The G8 meetings had seen developing countries for the first time accept the concept that their emissions were peaking, Jacobs said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Swine flu strikes Downing Street adviser
July 12th, 2009 |
No Comments
The first case of swine flu has struck Downing Street and it nearly caused a diplomatic crisis.
Gordon Brown’s senior climate change adviser Michael Jacobs was banned from attending the G8 summit in Italy for fear he would pass the contagious disease to Barack Obama and other world leaders.
It is understood that Jacobs contracted the disease while involved in climate change talks in Mexico.
He had travelled to Rome for some preliminary negotiations on the draft of the G8 communique text, and was told by his personal doctor that he was no longer suffering from the disease. He then planned to travel to the conference site in L’Aquila, Italy, but was told by Brown that he could not risk him going.
The prime minister told Jacobs it would be diplomatically disastrous if Britain was responsible for infecting the G8′s leaders. Instead, Jacobs followed negotiations by phone.
A Downing Street source said there was no evidence that anyone else in Brown’s entourage has contracted swine flu and that if they had, proper procedures for decontamination will be followed.
Jacobs is seen as the one of the best informed climate change specialists in Britain and his absence from the talks was regarded as a significant loss. He made no mention of contracting the disease or the ban imposed on him when he sent out a circular to those interested in climate change setting out the outcome of the negotiations, and the problems that lie ahead in securing a deal at Copenhagen at the end of the year.
Jacobs, former general secretary of the Fabian Society, clearly did not regard his absence as fatal to the outcome of the summit since he pointed out in his email to green groups that five big achievements had been secured at the L’Aquila talks,
For the first time the G8 and developing nations agreed that the science demanded global average temperatures rise by only 2C on preindustrial levels.
“Until a few weeks ago, in fact in the case of the developing countries until a few days ago we did not believe we were going to get this agreement,” he said.
Secondly, the G8 agreed to cut its own emissions by 80% by 2050.
He also said it was now possible to see an agreement to cut global emissions by half at Copenhagen, the aim of the talks. The G8 meetings had seen developing countries for the first time accept the concept that their emissions were peaking, Jacobs said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Iran dismisses G-8 declaration
July 11th, 2009 |
No Comments
Teheran has offered a flat response to a declaration issued by G-8 leaders, in which they voiced concern over Iran’s handling of the post-election violence. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the statement by the world leaders at the G-8 summit in L’Aguila, Italy had contained “no new message.”
‘Tyranny and corruption must end’
July 11th, 2009 |
No Comments
US president praises host Ghana as model for prosperity and says continent’s era of corrupt ‘strongman’ governments must end
In his first visit to Africa since taking office, Barack Obama said today that the continent of his ancestors must overcome tyranny and corruption if it is to flourish.
Speaking in Ghana’s parliament, Obama said the key to Africa’s future prosperity was democratic and accountable government.
“Development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa’s potential,” he said.
In an tough speech aimed at politicians across the continent, he gave an unsentimental account of squandered opportunities since the end of colonial rule. “No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers,” he said.
“No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20% off the top … No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.
“Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.”
Obama conceded that colonialism had left a legacy of conflicts and arbitrary borders. “But the west is not to blame for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants.
“Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war,” he said. “But for far too many Africans conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes.”
Earlier, after meeting Ghana’s president, John Atta Mills, Obama praised the country’s record of democracy and economic growth as a rare success in a continent beset by corruption and poor governance.
“We think that Ghana can be an extraordinary model for success throughout the continent.”
This morning, Obama was given a hero’s welcome in the country’s capital, Accra. Thousands of people wearing Obama T-shirts thronged the streets, cheering and waving as his motorcade swept past.
Walls and utility poles were plastered with posters of Obama and Mills, as well as the word “change” – the mantra of Obama’s presidential election campaign. Other posters showed the president and his wife, Michelle, with the greeting “Ghana loves you”.
Obama and his family arrived late last night from the G8 summit in Italy, where the world’s richest nations agreed on a $20bn (£12.4bn) food security plan to help poor nations feed themselves during the global recession.
Speaking in Italy before he left, Obama said: “There is no reason why Africa cannot be self-sufficient when it comes to food.”
The Obamas will visit Gold Coast Castle, a former British slave trading post. Michelle Obama is a great-great granddaughter of slaves.
The visit comes as the US plans a much more assertive policy in Africa, using both diplomacy and the threat of force to end the protracted conflicts in Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria, which are seen as two of the main obstacles to the continent’s progress.
“This is both a special and an important visit for him personally as president, but also for our country to articulate a vision for Africa,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman.
Despite the enthusiastic reception from ordinary Ghanians, no major public events have been planned during Obama’s 21-hour visit, for fear it could cause a celebratory stampede, as almost happened during a 1998 stop by Bill Clinton.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Obama wants to end African conflicts
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
US president to emphasise democratic goals for African countries during speech to Ghanaian parliament
The US is planning a dramatically more assertive policy in Africa, sometimes backed by a threat of force, to end conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nigeria that are seen as among the principal obstacles to the continent’s revival.
Barack Obama is to address Ghana’s parliament tomorrow on his first visit to Africa as president with a speech that is expected to emphasise that the key to prosperity is democratic, accountable government. But an important part of the new administration’s policy will focus on ending key conflicts through more forceful diplomatic initiatives after years of drift by the Bush administration.
The White House is shortly to appoint a special envoy to central Africa with a brief to tackle a web of conflicts that have afflicted eastern Congo for 15 years,and destabilised the region, in the belief that the success or failure of one of the continent’s largest countries will decide central Africa’s future.
A senior administration source said that the US believes the primary problem is the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which is led by men wanted for the 1994 genocide of Rwanda’s Tutsis who fled to Congo and controls swaths of territory close to Rwanda’s border.
The source said that the priority will be to break the FDLR leadership with a mix of diplomatic pressure, including the prospect of war crimes trials, backed by the establishment of “a more professional force” to replace the ill-trained troops serving in the UN largest peacekeeping mission who have failed to contain the conflict. However, the source said that there is a belief that the threat may be enough to force the FDLR to give up the fight. He said that the make-up of such a force is unresolved.
The initiative will also focus on confronting the Lords Resistance Army, a particularly brutal Ugandan rebel group also based in Congo. But the source said that broader pacification will require more interventionist diplomacy to press other countries such as Rwanda and Uganda that contribute to the destabilisation to recognise that their security is intertwined with Congo’s success.
The administration is also eyeing the continuing violent upheaval in the Niger Delta which is a major source of America’s oil imports amid deep scepticism over the capabilities of President Umaru Yar’Adua who is seen as weak and indecisive as his country fragments.
The conflict is deepening with several rebel groups and parts of the military now acting as warlords and some major oil companies warning that they are considering pulling out of the region altogether.
But the emphasis there is likely to remain firmly diplomatic as the US presses Yar’Adua to address seriously the issues of impoverishment, environmental devastation and endemic corruption that have alienated people in the delta and given rise to rebel groups and armed gangs that now control large parts of the region.
However there are fears that US intervention could result in the further militarisation of the continent. Confronting the FDLR is likely to draw in the US Africa Command (Africom) which is increasingly involved in conflicts on the continent, including overseeing a botched Ugandan attack on LRA rebels in Congo.
The US military is also now supplying weapons to the fragile government in Somalia as it tries to stave off Islamist insurgents. The Americans also allied themselves closely with Ethiopia’s repressive regime during its attack on Somalia.
Daniel Volman, director of the African Security Research Institute, one of three dozen organisations which wrote an open letter to Obama urging him to reverse the militarisation of US policy in Africa, said Africom’s growing role will further destabilise the continent.
“It encourages governments to rely on the use of force to deal with internal problems, to avoid democracy, to avoid addressing the internal issues these African countries face,” he said.
“The US is now engaged in a major new military project in Somalia, providing arms and ammunition to the Somali government there, encouraging countries like Burundi and Rwanda which have peacekeeping forces there to conduct military training so we don’t send to have our own troops there, all of which encourages that government to seek a military solution instead of developing a political solution to the kind of problems that exist.”
There remain deep divisions over other aspects of Africa policy, especially Darfur. Before his election, Obama promised strong action against the Sudanese regime but the state department is at odds with itself on the crisis. The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, believes the Khartoum leadership is not to be trusted and wants a hard line taken with Sudan but others argue that the conflict has been over simplified and that it is in any case largely over.
However, when Obama addresses Ghana’s parliament tomorrow, his focus will be on democratisation as the path to Africa’s revival.
“This isn’t some abstract notion that we’re trying to impose upon Africa,” he told allAfrica.com. “There is a very practical pragmatic consequence to political instability and corruption when it comes to whether people can feed their families, educate their children. And we think that the African continent is a place of extraordinary promise as well as challenges. We’re not going to be able to fulfil those promises unless we see better governance.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Poor nations urge G8 emissions cuts
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
Diplomat says developing nations ‘will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are commiting themselves’
Developing nations are prepared to make concessions on climate change targets if the G8 fulfils its side of the bargain in the run-up to the climate change talks in Copenhagen in December, a key negotiator told the Guardian today.
The developing countries want the G8 nations to sign up to a 40% cut by 2020, but that figure is off the radar of the EU and, given the unwieldy legislation laboriously passing through the senate, not a possibility for the US.
In important forward steps this week, the G8 agreed to cut its emissions by 80% by 2050 and said worldwide emissions should fall 50% by the same date.
However, the value of this pledge has been reduced by the lack of an agreed start date from which the emission cuts should be measured, making it a distant promise.
Luis Alfonso de Alba, the lead co-ordinator on climate change for the developing countries at the G8, told the Guardian that their call for a 25-40%cut in developed nations’ emissions by 2020 was based on what UN climate change scientists had recommended.
The Mexican diplomat gave some ground, saying: “It does not have to be a specific target of 40%.
“That is what we hope to achieve, but this is a process of negotiation.”
He said a G8 commitment to a 2020 target was “fundamental”, adding: “It is logical that developing countries will commit once they have certainty that developed countries are commiting themselves.
“We need to see the mid-term targets go much higher, and we want to see all the developed countries, including the US, move at the same pace.
“We still need to see numbers. We respect the internal debate in the US, but it is important for the US to understand that this is a global issue and a multilateral negotiation.”
He said developing nations could not “just sit and wait to see what the internal debate in the US resolves”. He insisted the meeting chaired by Barack Obama under the aegis of the Major Economies Forum this week had made progress in accepting common responsibility for the crisis and for the need for carbon emissions to peak.
“Climate change is no longer seen as a north-south issue,” he said. “It is no longer a donor recipient relationship.
“The most important message is that assuming individual responsibilities to fight climate change can start immediately, and by doing it immediately it will be easier to reach an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen.”
De Alba said Mexico had already come up with its own carbon reduction programme, and he expected other developing nations to do the same over the coming months.
It was acknowledged at the summit that science dictates world temperatures must not rise more than 2C degrees above pre-industrial levels.
The negotiators hope this acknowledgement will drive the coming negotiations in the run-up to Copenhagen.
The talks include three UN sponsored meetings in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona as well as another meeting of the G20 in September.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Gaddafi demands Lockerbie bomber’s return
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
Prime minister tells Libyan leader at G8 summit that Megrahi case is matter for the Scottish courts
In his first face to face meeting with Gordon Brown, Muammar Gaddafi today demanded the return of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
The Libyan leader was told by the prime minister that it was a matter for the Scottish courts.
Gaddafi, wearing a flowing black and white silken robe and protected by female bodyguards, is at the G8 summit in Italy as the rotating president of the African Union.
He has pitched a bedouin-style tent outside the G8 barracks in which world leaders are staying during the three-day summit.
In a 40-minute meeting between the two leaders, conducted in Arabic and English, Brown insisted he could not intervene in the Megrahi case.
Scottish judges this week delayed completing an appeal into Megrahi’s conviction until at least September, even though he has prostate cancer and faces a risk of dying in prison.
The bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 killed 270 people on the aircraft and the ground.
Gaddafi’s demand for the return of Megrahi was countered by Brown urging him to do more to cooperate with the Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.
Her murder led to the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries for a decade, but Gaddafi subsequently worked to improve relations with the west, so much so that Tony Blair went to Tripoli to meet him in 2004.
The Libyans have admitted responsibility for Fletcher’s killing by embassy staff and have paid compensation, but Britain is complaining that Libya is not producing witnesses, meaning the inquiry has stalled for more than a year.
Brown also called on Gaddafi to help bring about the return of six-year-old Nadia Fawzi, who was abducted by her Libyan father in 2007.
Her English mother, Sarah Taylor, wants her daughter returned, and Gaddafi promised Brown that the Libyan courts were on course to reunite the two shortly.
More broadly, Brown – who was accompanied by three UK officials – also urged Gaddafi to use his influence to persuade Middle Eastern countries to renounce nuclear weapons.
It is not clear whether Gaddafi has any influence over the Iranian regime.
The 67-year-old leader, wearing dark glasses for much of the day and sporting long dark hair, resembled an ageing rock legend and was generally seen as the star of today’s meetings.
Brown praised him for abandoning his chemical weapons programme unilaterally in 2003, a move intended to bring about a normalisation of relations with the west.
The two leaders also agreed to work together to bring stability to the oil market, with Brown promising to use his influence to improve African representation on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
British officials admitted the meeting had started formally, but gradually warmed up as discussions continued.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
G8: high comedy, chaos and emotion
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
Aid to Africa takes centre stage at G8
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
Group of Eight joined by African leaders to discuss Obama plan for £9bn package of food aid
The leaders of the G8 today came under pressure to honour their promises to the world’s poorest countries as Africa took centre stage at the final session of the three-day summit.
After two days spent discussing the global slump, the stalled trade deal and climate change, the presidents and prime ministers of the Group of Eight richest nations were joined by a group of African leaders to discuss Barack Obama’s plan for a $15bn (£9.2bn) package of food aid designed to revolutionise agriculture in the least developed nations.
Some aid agencies fear that the G8 will fail to deliver on the food security plan, noting that promises made at the Gleneagles summit four years ago to double foreign aid had not been met.
African leaders said ahead of today’s talks that they would raise their concerns about G8 backsliding. “The key message for us is to ask the G8 to live up to their commitments,” Meles Zenawi, the Ethopian prime minister, said before flying to Italy for the half-day meeting.
In recent years, the G8 has invited African leaders to join the summit for talks on development and besides Meles, the leaders of Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa were all at the table today.
Thousands of anti-globalisation demonstrators were hoping to turn up the heat on the industrialised powers with a protest march on the summit venue in the Italian mountain town of L’Aquila.
The anti-capitalist marchers will also tap into local frustrations about the slow progress of reconstruction since the 6 April earthquake devastated the town, with more than 24,000 people still homeless in the area.
Despite only limited progress at the summit on the key issues of climate change, trade and development, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, urged the G8′s critics to be patient.
“There is a bit of frustration because one would like to convince everyone about everything and obtain all the results straight away, but things are progressing,” Sarkozy said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Time for action on agriculture
July 10th, 2009 |
No Comments
With announcements on agriculture expected from the G8 today, Farm-Africa’s new chairman, Martin Evans, tells Liz Ford what Africa’s subsistence farmers really need
Asked what he would like the G8 to do for African farmers this week, the new chairman of Farm-Africa, Martin Evans, doesn’t hesitate to offer a list. Top of that list is money for research into new disease-resistant seed varieties, improved animal healthcare, particularly in those areas vulnerable to climate change, and help for farmers to access new technology and markets.
“What we’d like to see is basically the same thing as African farmers. We need to look at what they want and how the G8 can help supply these things,” says the agricultural economist.
“Money from the G8 that is put into agriculture research systems can have huge benefits. Fund additional research into improved seeds and animal disease prevention and you will offer a safeguard for years ahead. If they [G8] are really paying for agriculture, let’s see some money go into research.”
Farm-Africa is working with the African Medical and Research Foundation (Amref) on improving livelihoods in Katine, north-east Uganda, as part of the Guardian’s three-year development project in the region.
Working with 18 farmers groups in the rural sub-county, the project has seen the introduction of new disease-resistant, high-yielding cassava, which has just produced its first harvest, and plans are underway to build a storage centre for crops, which will allow farmers to sell in bulk and hopefully get a better deal. Mobile phones are increasingly being used by farmers to find the best place to sell their goods.
Crisis talks
After more than 20 years of neglect from the international community, the world food crisis has pushed agriculture if not to the top, then certainly high up on to the G8 agenda this year, which could mean real benefits for farmers. Today a new initiative to fund farming and to tackle global hunger are due to be announced by leaders meeting in Italy, which reportedly could entail an investment of $12bn over the next three years.
The UK’s Department for International Development (DfID) has already laid out its commitment to revitalising agriculture and improving food security in its white paper, published on Monday. What it promises is not dissimilar to Evans’ wishlist. The paper, Building our Common Future, talks about helping subsistence farmers to get seeds and fertilisers, credit and access to markets, and of supporting agricultural research. It mentions “doubling agricultural production in Africa over the next 20 years” and calls on the international community to deliver the $20bn of new funding for food and agriculture promised last year (perhaps an inauspicious sign for any further cash pledges).
“We are just waking up to the fact that agriculture has been neglected and we’re seeing the impact of that. It’s absolutely true that the volume of aid and financial flows going into agriculture has been in decline over the last two decades,” says Evans, who took over as chairman this week.
The wake up call was triggered by the spike in food prices in 2007-08. Although prices for staple crops have now stabilised, DfID is still predicting long-term problems in producing and procuring food for nearly 1 billion people. The alarming rise in food prices coincided with the publication of the World Bank’s World Development Report 2008, which for the first time in more than 25 years focused on agriculture. The report said agriculture was “a vital development tool” for achieving the Millennium Development Goal to halve poverty by 2015. “The World Development Report refocused everyone’s attention,” says Evans.
Of course, helping farmers involves more than handing out seeds and discussing how new technologies can increase yields – it’s about making farming viable. “Food security is more than growing more food in your own backyard, it’s more of everything. Food security is about making farming more productive and more profitable. You need to improve access to markets. [Subsistence farmers] really don’t have good access to markets. You need investment in roads and communication technology to ensure trading conditions are right. Some money can usefully and sensibly be put into basic things like that.”
He adds: “It’s very difficult for poor people to amass any savings, so we can help them a lot by giving a bit of capital. I’m not suggesting that things are handed out on a plate. But we need to help to create the conditions that make things accessible and ensure farmers are encouraged and convinced that benefits outweigh the risks, and to take an entrepreneurial approach to things. It’s not about us turning up in our 4x4s, dumping things and leaving, it’s about working with farmers to identify problems and come up with plans. It’s very much about people helping themselves.”
He adds that farmers, the majority of whom are women, need educating on new technologies, such as how to conserve water and better irrigate land. But they also need to be convinced these new ideas are going to work. In Katine demonstration farms were set up to allow villagers to do just that.
Passing on the benefits
But with any new money promised by the international community comes the question of how it will get to farmers. Evans admits implementation is the hard bit, but that’s where NGOs like Farm-Africa step in. Donors are increasingly channelling aid through governments, but there has also been an increase in cash filtered through NGOs in recent years. “Assuming money is allocated by the G8, we hope a lot of it will come the way of good NGOs. We can do things neither governments or the commercial sector can do. But we need both.”
Looking to the future, Evans, who has more than 35 years experience working in agriculture, rural development and agribusiness, would like Farm-Africa to explore how large-scale business can benefit smallholder farmers, with whom the charity works throughout east Africa. “There are good examples where large-scale business can connect with small farmers by buying their products under contract, processing them for them and providing advice and seeds and technical support,” he says. “We can’t do these for all crops in all places, but I would like to see Farm-Africa exploring more opportunities for merging large scale agriculture and business to benefit small groups.”
“Like it or not, large-scale business is a fact. It can be a threat, but can also be a great way to look to see how Farm-Africa can open up these opportunities for the benefit of small farmers.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Talks may lead to UK nuclear cut
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Prime minister rules out unilateral reduction
• Tougher inspection regime to be proposed
Britain’s nuclear stockpile could be reduced after multilateral talks next year that are likely to flow from a global summit on nuclear weapons, Gordon Brown indicated yesterday.
The summit, to be convened by Barack Obama, is expected to come up with a new regime to prevent nuclear proliferation and the safe storage of nuclear stockpiles. It is likely to involve up to 30 countries, providing an opportunity for discussion on a more intrusive weapons inspection regime and a chance for nuclear weapons states other than Russia and the US, which between them account for 95% of nuclear weapons, to contribute to the disarmament process.
Talks are due next year anyway on a successor to the 40-year-old nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Obama summit, which is likely to be held in March, will also look at the risks posed by nuclear terrorism, the safety of nuclear stockpiles and atomic smuggling.
The safety issue has been made more urgent by the expected worldwide spread of civil nuclear power. Obama briefed his fellow G8 leaders on his plan following his summit in Moscow earlier this week, where he signed a framework accord aimed at cutting stockpiles to as low as 1,500 warheads. Britain is acting earlier than intended, mainly because of worries that proliferation is in danger of accelerating, driven by fear of a nuclear North Korea and nuclear Iran.
Gordon Brown indicated that a key aim of the Obama summit could also be to discuss a new inspection regime, whereby countries such as Iran would be placed under a tougher obligation to prove that they were not developing nuclear weapons. In return, non-nuclear weapon states would be given greater help with developing civil nuclear power.
In the next few days, he is due to publish a plan setting out detailed British proposals on civil nuclear power, disarmament and non-proliferation, fissile material security and the role and development of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a speech in March, Brown pointed out that Britain had halved the number of its nuclear warheads since 1997, and said it was ready to reduce the number further in multilateral discussions.
Yesterday, Brown stressed he was not planning to reduce Britain’s stockpile unilaterally, or to revisit the decision to press ahead with a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system. But he indicated a better weapons inspection regime would help give Britain confidence to disarm.
He said: “We have to show that we can deal with this by collective action. Unilateral action by the UK would not be seen as the best way forward. We are prepared to reduce our nuclear weapons, but we need new kinds of assurances that other countries are not proliferating.”
Brown added: “We need a tougher regime so the onus will be on the countries that do not have nuclear weapons to prove this. One of the problems with Iran is the question of whether you can prove or not that they have nuclear weapons. If there is an international agreement that requires all countries to be open with the rest of the world then Iran would have to prove to us that it did not have nuclear weapons, rather than us to prove they were developing nuclear weapons.
“It is not guilty unless proven innocent, but if a country has accepted an obligation not to have nuclear weapons then you have got to prove and demonstrate that is the case, and I would think people would think that is fair.”
Paul Ingram, director of the British American Security Information Council, said there were several ways Brown could slim down the Trident force without abandoning it altogether. “It wouldn’t surprise me if he looks at force structure – the numbers of warheads, how many submarines, how many missile tubes, patrol arrangements. They all enable the government to consider how it can on one hand maintain some kind of nuclear deterrence but at the same time away from a cold war posture.”
However, Daryl Kimball, the head of the Arms Control Association in Washington, portrayed Brown’s offer as a half-measure. “His government needs to more carefully explain why it needs to retain that Trident force in the first place,” Kimball said. “Who are they deterring, why and in what circumstances? There seems to be no explanation except that it serves as a vague insurance policy against some vague future threat.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Britain ‘ready to negotiate Trident’
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
Brown rules out total abandonment, but agrees to reduction in summit expected to prevent proliferation on a new scale
Britain’s nuclear stockpile could be reduced in multilateral talks that are likely to flow from a global summit on nuclear weapons to be convened next year by US President Barack Obama, Gordon Brown indicated today.
The summit is expected to look at a new regime to prevent nuclear proliferation and the safe storage of nuclear stockpiles.
The summit, likely to involve as many as 30 countries, would provide an opportunity for discussion on a new, more intrusive weapons inspection regime and a chance for nuclear weapons states other than Russia and the US, owners of 95% of nuclear weapons, to contribute to the disarmament process.
There are due to be talks anyway next year on a successor to the 40-year-old nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Obama summit, likely to be held in March, will also look at the risks posed by nuclear terrorism, the safety of nuclear stockpiles and atomic smuggling. The safety of nuclear stockpiles has been made more urgent by the likely vast spread of civil nuclear power worldwide. Obama briefed his fellow G8 leaders on his plan following his summit in Moscow earlier this week.
Gordon Brown indicated that a key aim of the Obama summit may also be to discuss a new regime whereby non-nuclear weapon states, such as Iran, would be placed on a new tougher obligation to prove that they were not developing nuclear weapons. In return, non-nuclear weapon states would be given greater help with developing civil nuclear power to meet their energy needs.
He is due in the next few days to publish a plan setting out detailed British proposals on civil nuclear power, disarmament and non-proliferation, fissile material security and the role and development of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a speech in March, Brown pointed out Britain had reduced the number of its nuclear warheads by 50% since 1997, and said: “If it is possible to reduce the number of UK warheads further, consistent with our national deterrence requirements and with the progress of multilateral discussions, Britain will be ready to do so.”
Since then Brown has announced a strategic defence review, and Obama has agreed with the Russians on a further reduction of their nuclear stockpile.
Yesterday Brown stressed he was not planning to reduce Britain’s nuclear stockpile unilaterally, or to revisit the decision to press ahead with a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system. But he indicated a better weapons inspection regime would help give Britain confidence to disarm.
He said: “We have go to show that we can deal with this by collective action. Unilateral action by the UK would not be seen as the best way forward. We are prepared to reduce our nuclear weapons, but we need new kinds of assurances that other countries are not proliferating.”
He said: “The issue for all countries is can we achieve a sensible reduction in nuclear weapons at this stage whilst existing nuclear weapon states remain so. No one is calling on us as part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to renounce our weapons. The whole point of the NPT is that those countries that have nuclear weapons will be willing to reduce them as much as possible and at the same time those countries that do not have nuclear weapons will be given the benefit of civil nuclear power whilst renouncing nuclear weapons.”
He added: “We need a tougher regime so the onus will be on the countries that do not have nuclear weapons to prove this. One of the problems with Iran is the question of whether you can prove or not that they have nuclear weapons. If there is an international agreement that requires all countries to be open with the rest of the world then Iran would have to prove to us that it did not have nuclear weapons rather than us to prove they were developing nuclear weapons.
“It is not guilty unless proven innocent, but if a country has accepted an obligation not to have nuclear weapons then you have got to prove and demonstrate that is the case, and I would think people would think that is fair.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
G8 fails to agree climate target
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
Rich and developing countries agree only to ‘substantially reduce’ global emissions by 2050
World leaders, including the developing nations, yesterday committed themselves only to “substantially reducing global emissions by 2050″, but failed to agree a specific target, according to a draft of the communique due to be issued later today.
The draft states: “We recognise the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed two degrees centigrade.”
The draft is due to be issued by the Major Economies Forum under the chairmanship of Barack Obama. The MEF contributes 80% of world emissions.
The lack of a substantive agreement, other than the desire to keep global temperatures down, leaves world leaders facing daunting negotiations to reach agreement at the Copenhagen conference in December, which is due to set the entire climate change framework covering the period from 2012 to 2050.
Developed nations, according to the draft, agree to work in the run-up to the UN Copenhagen conference in December “to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050″. In a weak reference to the need for interim targets for 2020 emission cuts, the draft simply states the global goal will be regularly reviewed.
The statement does not commit either developed or developing nations to the worldwide 50% cuts target by 2050 agreed by the G8 on Wednesday. The language agreed jointly on 2C in today’s draft is exactly the same as that deployed by the G8 nations on Wednesday.
The draft statement also states that “the financial resources for mitigation and adaptation will need to be scaled up urgently and substantially and should involve mobilising resources to support developing countries”.
But no figure is given for the scale of resources required in the communique. Green and aid groups suggest that as much as $150bn per year in additional funds will be required to help developing countries respond to the effect of climate change. A lot of this money would be privately funded green technology transferred to developing nations, or cash raised from the nascent carbon market.
They also derided today’s draft statement, with Tearfund warning: “This rolling dialogue points to the opposite direction to urgency and must not continue. We now have to wait until the UN September meetings when the heads of state will gather once again.”
The developing countries are refusing to commit themselves to specific target cuts at this stage partly because they do not know what proportion of the burden of cutting emissions will be taken in the interim.
Developing nations such as Mexico want the rich countries to commit themselves to 40% carbon cuts by 2020, against a baseline of 1990 levels, so that developing countries do not have to take responsibility for the industrialisation of the rich.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
G8 fails to agree climate target
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
Rich and developing countries agree only to ‘substantially reduce’ global emissions by 2050
World leaders, including the developing nations, yesterday committed themselves only to “substantially reducing global emissions by 2050″, but failed to agree a specific target, according to a draft of the communique due to be issued later today.
The draft states: “We recognise the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed two degrees centigrade.”
The draft is due to be issued by the Major Economies Forum under the chairmanship of Barack Obama. The MEF contributes 80% of world emissions.
The lack of a substantive agreement, other than the desire to keep global temperatures down, leaves world leaders facing daunting negotiations to reach agreement at the Copenhagen conference in December, which is due to set the entire climate change framework covering the period from 2012 to 2050.
Developed nations, according to the draft, agree to work in the run-up to the UN Copenhagen conference in December “to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050″. In a weak reference to the need for interim targets for 2020 emission cuts, the draft simply states the global goal will be regularly reviewed.
The statement does not commit either developed or developing nations to the worldwide 50% cuts target by 2050 agreed by the G8 on Wednesday. The language agreed jointly on 2C in today’s draft is exactly the same as that deployed by the G8 nations on Wednesday.
The draft statement also states that “the financial resources for mitigation and adaptation will need to be scaled up urgently and substantially and should involve mobilising resources to support developing countries”.
But no figure is given for the scale of resources required in the communique. Green and aid groups suggest that as much as $150bn per year in additional funds will be required to help developing countries respond to the effect of climate change. A lot of this money would be privately funded green technology transferred to developing nations, or cash raised from the nascent carbon market.
They also derided today’s draft statement, with Tearfund warning: “This rolling dialogue points to the opposite direction to urgency and must not continue. We now have to wait until the UN September meetings when the heads of state will gather once again.”
The developing countries are refusing to commit themselves to specific target cuts at this stage partly because they do not know what proportion of the burden of cutting emissions will be taken in the interim.
Developing nations such as Mexico want the rich countries to commit themselves to 40% carbon cuts by 2020, against a baseline of 1990 levels, so that developing countries do not have to take responsibility for the industrialisation of the rich.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Poorer nations rebuff G8 on climate
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
The Group of Eight industrialised economies, including America, today agreed for the first time that they must limit worldwide temperature rises to no more than 2C, but failed to reach agreement with developing nations on how that should be achieved – a disappointment to those expecting Barack Obama to break a decade long deadlock.
The G8, representing the richest nations, also agreed for the first time that it should collectively cut emissions by 80% by 2050, and that the world should be able to cut its emissions by 50% by the same date.
In a fudge designed to recognise the difficulties different rich countries will face in meeting this target, the agreed G8 communique released at the L’Aquila summit set a fuzzy baseline for their 80% cut “of 1990 or more later years”. The communique also acknowledges baselines may vary but “efforts must be comparable”.
UN scientists have used 1990 as the starting point, but the US and Japan have been using 2005 levels. A cap on global warming of 2C is seen as the minimum to prevent irreversible global warming.
There had been hopes in the run up to the summit that the developing countries and the G8 would strike an agreement that world wide emissions should be cut by 50% by 2050, but developing nations held out. These countries, led by China, India and Brazil, said they wanted to see more specific targets from the rich nations before they would make any commitments. In addition, they wanted the rich countries to put out a specific figure on how much cash they were willing to pay to help with green technology transfers.
Obama has so far resisted interim 2020 targets as he faces the more immediate task of passing cap and trade legislation through Congress quickly. Nevertheless, Gordon Brown last night hailed the deal as “historic agreements in terms of desired outcomes in climate change”.
Obama will still chair a meeting of 17 nations, at which he will try to get a collective agreement to limit temperature rises to no more than 2C on pre-industrial levels. Brown insisted such an outcome would represent “real progress”.
Green groups such as WWF and Oxfam argued the 2C aspiration was severely weakened by the lack of interim targets on how it should be achieved. Kim Cartensen, the WWF Global Climate Initiative leader, said: “If they don’t outline a path to reach an announced goal, the two degree statement will just join a long list of broken promises. An ambitious mid-term target for 2020 of developed countries is needed to ensure immediate action.”
British officials argue there is still time to hammer out a deal before the UN-sponsored Copenhagen summit called to set a world wide framework to cut carbon emissions after 2012. Brown insisted: “Today we have laid the foundations for a Copenhagen deal that is ambitious, fair and effective. The world has now agreed that the scientific evidence is compelling and the G8 countries have agreed that developed countries will reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.”
But the clock is now ticking fast as the developed countries have yet to agree their respective responsibilities.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
I apologise for Berlusconi
I’m sorry for our prime minister’s predictable reaction to a story about G8 summit preparations, please keep the spotlight on Italy
As a member of the Italian parliament and former magistrate who ensured that many corrupt politicians and businessmen were brought to justice in the 1990s, I wish to apologise to the editor and staff of the Guardian newspaper for the utterly predictable reaction of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and our foreign minister, Franco Frattini.
The Guardian does its best to keep the public informed. In Italy this government is not accustomed to free debate, or to hearing the truth being told. While sections of the article dealing with preparations for the G8 summit may be debatable, the rest of it contains little that can be refuted.
However, there is one classification missing from the list in the article, one published by Freedom House, which puts Italy 73rd place for freedom of the press. The real problem in our country is that information is firmly in the grip of one individual, namely our prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi – which must be one of the worst cases of conflict of interest ever recorded in any country in the western world.
Berlusconi’s control over the media is exercised via his ownership of the largest Italian publishing house, Mondadori, as well as via the country’s six television networks: three private Mediaset channels owned by Berlusconi himself and three channels of the public broadcaster RAI which Berlusconi indirectly controls and influences, with very rare exceptions I might add, through managerial staff appointments.
His virtually total control of the media allows him to maintain a dominant position and provides an endless source of revenue that helps to consolidate his position within the institutions via a wide-ranging system of patronage. In the past, these revenues were made possible by the tacit approval of previous governments that refused to address the issue of obvious conflicts of interest. Currently Berlusconi pays the Italian government a mere 1% of turnover in return for the television broadcasting frequencies conceded to him and now used for Mediaset transmissions. Since the centre-right coalition government came to power, a number of major parastatal companies have diverted their advertising expenditure from the RAI public television networks to the private networks belonging to the prime minister.
In addition to the media issue, there is now also another, namely the scourge of the “unconstitutional” government reforms. The first of these was a law known as the Alfano bill, which was ordered by Silvio Berlusconi himself as his first act after coming to power, which prohibits the prosecution of himself and the incumbents in three other senior government posts.
The provisions of this law mean Berlusconi did not have to appear in a trial in which he was facing charges of bribing a witness. David Mills, his lawyer and former husband of Blair government minister Tessa Jowell, has been sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment for accepting a bribe. On 6 October, the constitutional court is due to issue a ruling regarding the constitutionality of the Alfano bill and, should the court rule that it is indeed unconstitutional, then Berlusconi will be obliged to stand trial for allegedly bribing Mills.
I would like to conclude by appealing to the Guardian and the other foreign press not to allow the spotlight to move away from Italy and to continue to perform the same vitally important task that they have always performed in the past, namely the task of informing the public, a role that most of our media have abdicated from because they are no longer being allowed to do their job.