The newspaper El Espectador Colombia has just published that won the prize for obstructing Fossil climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. (See full article below)
According to several articles published in national media Colombian authorities for climate change is irrelevant, and we went to the old trick of "navel-gazing" to divide and not to find common areas of dialogue. This disaster is interesting to recover the role of promotion, dissemination and control of NGOs draw attention to this kind of attitude that leave us in clear evidence, despite the excuse that.
More or less a year, Professor George Lopez noted the new challenges facing today's peacemakers. Environmental degradation in the front row, along with the increase of transnational crime. Just a few days ago the NY Times also reported that the environment was considered by the United States as a matter of national security. We are preparing a new generation of peacemakers to address these issues?
I wonder what level of participation had different sectors of Colombian civil society in defining the negotiating strategy of Colombia for the summit in Copenhagen and if it took into account the seriousness of it.
Colombia has a long way ... + + +
Colombia NGOs give Fossil of the Day Award
By: Pablo Correa, special envoy to Copenhagen countries, in their view, hinder the negotiations.
Colombia and the United States were awarded third place in the Fossil of the Day Award for delaying negotiations on the draft REDD (Reduction Program, Carbon Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). This is an award that every day a group of Ong assigned to countries as they hinder the negotiations on climate change summit in Copenhagen.
Colombia was worthy of punishment that is announced through the ECO to be distributed among participants because in a later converted a three-page text where conditions were agreed where REDD worked in a seven-page text. "The editing of the text and its expansion prevent the text to arrive soon at the hands of the ministers," said the editors of ECO and added "there was a big step backward in what until now had been a positive process in the Summit."
In an interview with The Spectator, the Environment Minister Carlos Costa explained why Colombia had a different position than most countries on the issue of REDD is considered one of the most important summit since it is the financial mechanism to maintain standing forests and stop deforestation worldwide is responsible for 17% of the issue of greenhouse gases.
In broad terms, Colombia is opposed to the REDD money to be managed at national level and proposes to do at the subregional level. According to Minister Costa: "The Silver Redd of this convention is not a donation to compensate us for the past. Is to curb deforestation and threats to deforestation. The easiest thing for everyone would be for each country to commit to some goals of control of deforestation and receive few resources. If you fail you are suspended resources. If you meet him come over. But Colombia has peculiarities. One, our rate of deforestation is short and if a region is out of position national targets are affected. "
explained in the interview that "if something happens in one region the opportunity to receive money for the rest of the country is threatened. Redd projects have to be consulted with the communities. I can not even say "here is lowered by law deforestation." That should be consulted. Especially because most of the forest is owned lands of indigenous and black communities. Working at the subnational level gives that flexibility. "
Some nongovernmental organizations have attacked the position of Colombia suggesting that what is behind the government's case is the inability to control coca crops. In this regard the minister replied: "That's the story they are selling to attack our position. Our position is based on that when you have a country with cultural and geographic variety as Colombia can not ask the same thing to a Central American country. We want to open the door for resources between communities and resources either directly, not everything has to mediate the state and creating a bureaucracy. When you build a direct reaction, the community realizes that we are talking seriously and do well the task. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment