Showing posts with label world-bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world-bank. Show all posts
07 May 2012
31 March 2012
A World Bank President Who's Not a Crony or a War Criminal?
On Friday, President Obama announced that he is nominating physician and Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim to lead the World Bank. This likely appointment was greeted with approval by many long-time critics of corporate globalization. And it came after an unprecedented level of debate about who should be the institution’s next president
By Mark Engler | Foreign Policy in Focus | March 30, 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content24 March 2012
World Water Day Focuses on Food Security
The 2012 edition of World Water Day, which is held every year on 22 March, focused on the theme "water and food security"
Climate Change Policy & Practice | 22 March 2012
15 March 2012
Dire Poverty Falls Despite Global Slump, Report Finds
A World Bank report shows a broad reduction in extreme poverty — and indicates that the global recession, contrary to economists’ expectations, did not increase poverty in the developing world
By ANNIE LOWREY | The New York Times | March 6, 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related ContentFormer clean energy czar tries to stop Europe's dirtiest new power plant
In a letter to top-level U.S. Treasury officials, Daniel Kammen wrote that he will be "bitterly disappointed" if the World Bank finances a 600-megawatt lignite-fired power station outside the Kosovo capital of Pristina
By Lisa Friedman | E&E News in Bank Information Center | 14 March 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content06 March 2012
World Bank Says Carbon Fund May Shrink Following Price Slump
A World Bank Group unit says its fund for investing in carbon projects that generate emissions credits after 2012, when the first commitment period of the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol ends, will probably shrink
By Catherine Airlie and Mathew Carr | Bloomberg | Mar 5, 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content02 March 2012
In the REDD: New report from Friends of the Earth International about the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership
A recent report from Friends of the Earth International takes a further look at the Australian-funded Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership. The report looks at the social and environmental effectiveness of the KFCP project and concludes that forest carbon offsets are a false solution to climate change
By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 1st March 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content29 February 2012
World Bank’s FCPF fails to consult with Indigenous Peoples in Honduras
The Indigenous Peoples Confederation of Honduras (CONPAH) recently wrote a letter to the State Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment, Doctor Rigoberto Cuéllar Cruz, about the lack of consultation relating to the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility in Honduras
By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 29th February 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content23 February 2012
“REDD+ has opened a space for increased dialogue on difficult forest sector policy and tenure issues”
The World Bank and its history of involvement in the forests of Indonesia related to REDD+ and forest tenure issues - Interview with the World Bank in Indonesia
By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 23rd February 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content01 January 2012
New Year Brings Economic Aftershocks
Hideo Sato, 47, and his family escaped to this snowy city 200 km from the radiation emitting Fuksuhima power plant that was struck by a massive earthquake-driven tsunami on Mar. 11
By Suvendrini Kakuchi | Inter-Press Service | Jan 1, 2012
Read more... Sphere: Related Content19 December 2011
The Endless Algebra of Climate Markets
“The Endless Algebra of Climate Markets”, is the title of a recent paper by Larry Lohmann of the UK-based NGO the Corner House. That’s him on the left holding up an “I love emissions trading”, T-shirt that Fortis Bank (now part of BNP Paribas) was handing out at a UN climate conference
By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 16th December 2011
12 December 2011
Climate Justic Now!: Durban talks -- Rich polluters impose 'new regime of climate apartheid'
Antidote is Cochabamba Peoples’ Agreement
By Climate Justice Now! | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal | December 11, 2011
Read more... Sphere: Related Content
Protesters block the halls at the Durban International Conference Centre, December 9, 2011. Photo from Earth Negotiations Bulletin.)
11 November 2011
World Bank’s Benoit Bosquet on REDD: “It’s probably good to take the time to get things right”
The “ultimate goal is to jump-start a forest carbon market”, the World Bank announced in 2007, at the launch of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facitily. A “jump-start” is a way of starting a car with a flat battery. After four years of trying, perhaps it’s time to accept the fact that there’s no point jump-starting the forest carbon car when the wheels have fallen off
By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 9th November 2011
Read more... Sphere: Related ContentCarbon Fund Risks Undermining REDD Readiness
Last month, 29 NGOs and indigenous peoples organisations from 14 countries wrote to the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility expressing their concern that the World Bank is rushing through its REDD readiness process
By Chris Lang | REDD-Monitor | 2nd November 2011
Read more... Sphere: Related Content17 October 2011
Beware of ‘social justice’ promises by international bankers
In these days of dire economic and environmental crisis, with political elites under attack from Athens to Washington, the establishment is desperate for legitimacy. Even International Monetary Fund (IMF) staff now publicly endorse "social justice" at the same time they tighten austerity screws
By Patrick Bond | Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal | October 12, 2011
Read more... Sphere: Related Content
Ismail Serageldin was invited to deliver the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture, which he titled, “The Making of Social Justice”. Serageldin has been a leader of the water privatisation lobby’s World Water Council.
16 April 2010
"Third World" concepts no longer relevant: Zoellick
The old concept of "Third World" no longer applies and rich countries cannot impose their will on developing nations that are now major sources of global growth, World Bank chief Robert Zoellick said on Wednesday
Lesley Wroughton | Reuters | Apr 14, 2010
World Bank President Robert Zoellick delivers a speech on ''Modernizing Multilateralism for a World in Transition'' in Washington April 14, 2010. Credit: Reuters/Molly Riley
In a speech setting the stage for World Bank and IMF meetings in Washington next week, where emerging economies will play a bigger role, Zoellick cautioned against falling back into patterns of self-interest.
He said economic progress in developing countries had profound implications for global cooperation, multilateralism and the work of institutions such as the World Bank.
"Economic and political tectonic plates are shifting," Zoellick told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center. "We can shift with them, or we can continue to see a new world through the prism of the old.
The meetings next week are expected to approve the first capital increase for the World Bank in 20 years. While rich industrial countries have been the biggest contributors to the World Bank and long dictated how the money is spent, emerging market countries will have a bigger role.
"Shareholders face a decision to strengthen the bank group, or allow it to wane in influence ... leaving it poorly resourced to cope with whatever comes next," he noted.
AIDING THE POOR
The Bank's resources have been stretched by record borrowing from developing countries during the financial crisis, as global demand dropped and credit markets dried up.
Since the crisis hit in mid-2008, the World Bank has committed more than $100 billion in loans and grants to developing countries. When it comes to total disbursements, the World Bank overtook the IMF's crisis payments.
Records show total disbursements between July 2008 and March 2010 was $67.7 billion for the World Bank and $56.9 billion for the IMF.
As the crisis spread across the globe, rich and emerging economies synchronized their responses to find a way out.
But with signs of global economic recovery now underway, Zoellick said he worried that the incentive to cooperate will fade as the recovery gives way to a fast-evolving multipolar world economy.
"Already we feel gravitational forces pulling a world of nation-states back to the pursuit of narrower interests," he said.
The shifts in the world are not only in China and India, he said. Sub-Saharan Africa is set to grow by an average of over 6 percent to 2015 while South Asia, where half the world's poor live, could grow by as much as 7 percent over the same period.
With such growth, there are also opportunities for investors in Africa he said noting: "After Lehman Brothers and Greece, investors know developed markets can be risky too".
RESPONSIBLE STAKEHOLDERS
He said sharing responsibilities in a new international system will not be easy as world trade talks under the Doha Round and climate negotiations in Copenhagen revealed.
When it comes to tackling climate challenges, Zoellick cautioned that developed countries cannot impose "a one-size fits all" model on developing countries. "They will say 'No,'" he said.
"We need to move away from the binary choice of either power or environment," he said. "Climate change policy can be linked to development and win support from developing countries for low carbon growth -- but not if it is imposed as a straitjacket," Zoellick added.
While he did not mention it, the World Bank last week approved a controversial loan for a coal-fired plant in power-strapped South Africa despite abstentions from the United States, Britain and the Netherlands over concerns about its environmental impact.
Zoellick said the developed world has prospered through hydro-electricity from dams, noting that some of the same countries think the developing world should not have the same access to power sources used by developed economies.
"For them, thinking this is as easy as flicking a switch and letting the lights burn in an empty room," he added. "The old developed country prism is the surest way to lose developing country support for global environment goals."
Zoellick said the World Bank too must be open to change.
(Reporting by Lesley Wroughton; Editing by Dan Grebler)
© Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters
Read more... Sphere: Related Content11 April 2010
The fight against eco-imperialism
It is not acceptable to use climate change as an excuse to limit growth in poor countries as the west's carbon emissions rise
Andrew Chambers | guardian.co.uk | 11 April 2010
Cooling towers of a coal-fired power plant in Beijing. South Africa has been criticised for its plans to build a similar power station. Photograph: Alexander F. Yuan/AP
Last Thursday the World Bank approved a £2.4bn loan to build a huge new coal-fired power station in South Africa. The issue has exposed the rift between two central international goals – alleviating poverty and preventing global warming. South African ministers claimed that the project was essential for their country's development, while a concerted environmental campaign lobbied international governments to block the scheme. Amid concerns about global warming, this question of development versus environment may become one of the most contentious international issues over the next few years.
Since the 1970s the green movement has acquired ever-greater prominence in international development. In the last decade, global warming concerns have refocused the emphasis of poverty reduction strategies away from development and towards the environment. This is portrayed as a win-win situation – where the interests of the local people are perfectly aligned with the interests of environmental campaigners. Sustainable technologies like wind turbines and solar panels improve the lot of the recipients while keeping their carbon emissions to a minimum. However, this approach has been criticised as a form of eco-imperialism – because western carbon considerations remain a limiting factor on developing world progress.
The Working Group on Climate Change and Development is a network of more than 20 NGOs including WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Founded in 2004, its "central message is that solving poverty and tackling climate change are intimately linked and equally vital, not either/ors".
The group's most recent report lists the overarching challenges as (1) how to stop and reverse further climate change, (2) how to live with the degree of climate change that cannot be stopped and (3) how to design a new model for human progress and development that is climate-friendly. The makes fascinating reading – and is illuminating as to the ideological backdrop to development policy.
These environmental groups, while spanning quite a large spectrum, tend to demonstrate an affinity with the pro-rural socialist left. The report describes climate change as not just a threat but also an "opportunity" to re-think the entire global system. It challenges western notions of development and growth and, most starkly, concludes that "mere reform within the current global economic system will be insufficient" to tackle poverty in a carbon constrained future. Indeed, members of these groups often seem to embrace rural village life as representing a pre-industrial idyll which should be preserved.
Such romantic ideology therefore seeks to largely maintain the status quo – where the African poor are kept "traditional" and "indigenous". It's hard to disagree with Lord May, former president of the Royal Society in his observation that "much of the green movement isn't a green movement at all, it's political".
With poverty redefined in terms of the environment and infused with pro-rural socialism, large-scale projects to industrialise or modernise are not the priority – indeed, western-style development and modernisation are seen as part of the problem. Instead there is a self-limiting bottom-up approach which subsidises underdevelopment not as a transitionary phase but as an end goal.
To effectively sideline the development strategy that every western country has undertaken in raising living standards is remarkable. Indeed, while India and China have lifted at least 125m people out of slum poverty since 1990, over the same period 46 countries have actually got poorer – the large majority of them African states.
It would be too simplistic to prescribe the industrialisation and modernisation agenda pursued by India and China as a panacea for the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, and the Indian and Chinese policies have not been without adverse consequences. Nevertheless, it is a staggering achievement which demonstrates that poverty alleviation should be pursued through a developmental agenda.
The truth is that African poverty is not a result of global warming. It is likely that the poor will be disproportionately affected by global changes in temperature – but this is not a reason to limit development. It is development which will allow countries to better cope with the consequences of a changing climate. For example, the Netherlands is better prepared to build dams to protect its coastline from rising sea levels than Bangladesh. Those that will be hardest hit by global changes to temperature will be those who are most exposed to the vagaries of the environment now – the rural poor.
Environmental policies that seek to reinforce the rural status quo as a means of limiting carbon emissions may be of benefit to the developed world, but they are detrimental to the long-term ability of the poor to cope with climate change. The planned South African power plant at Limpopo exposes the collision between these different policy aims. With the country going to the World Bank for a £2.4bn loan, international governments have been forced to weigh up developmental advantage versus environmental damage.
South Africa suffers major power shortages and insists that a new plant is essential to the country's economic progress. Environmentalists are horrified that the plant will emit 25m tonnes of carbon per annum, and point out that much of the new electricity will be used by heavy industry. Despite a concerted lobbying campaign from environmental groups, the loan was approved on Thursday – albeit with abstentions from Britain, America and the Netherlands. A US treasury spokesman explained that the abstention was due to an "incompatibility with the World Bank's commitment to be a leader in climate change mitigation and adaption". Considering that the World Bank's first affirmed purpose is to alleviate poverty, we can see how pervasive the reframing of poverty in terms of environment has become.
It is up to the developed world to produce the technologies for cleaner energy and implement policies to significantly reduce carbon emissions. It is not acceptable to use global warming as a way of limiting growth in poor African countries when our own climate emissions continue to rise.
Environmental movements certainly have a role to play in highlighting ecological degradation and its impact on local people, and in some cases the interests of protecting the environment will be perfectly aligned with the needs of the local community. However, it is unacceptable for poverty reduction in the developing world to become a staging post for ideological battles lost elsewhere. We should embrace whatever methods provide the best outcome in alleviating poverty – whether that be new roads or airports, power stations or renewables. To do otherwise is to be guilty of the worst kind of eco-imperialism – where the poor are held back for the benefit of the rich.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Read more... Sphere: Related Content10 April 2010
World Bank's $3.75bn coal plant loan defies environment criticism
US, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy and Norway abstain from vote in protest
Suzanne Goldenberg | The Guardian | 9 April 2010
The World Bank approved a controversial $3.75bn loan to build one of the world's largest coal plants in South Africa yesterday, defying international protests and sharp criticism from the Obama administration that the project would fuel climate change.
The proposed Medupi power station, operated by South Africa's state-owned Eskom company, was fiercely opposed by an international coalition of grassroots, church and environmental activists who said it would hurt the environment and do little to help end poverty. As planned, it would put out 25m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and would prevent South Africa making good on a promise to try to curb future emissions.
The bank said it had acted to help South Africa escape a crippling power shortage. "Without an increased energy supply, South Africans will face hardship for the poor and limited economic growth," said Obiageli Ezekwesili, the World Bank's vice president for Africa.
But the bank's approval for the Medupi plant, though expected, was overshadowed by dissatisfaction from American and European donors, as well as a groundswell of protests.
America, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy and Norway registered their opposition to the loan by abstaining from the vote, the traditional method of dissent on the board which operates by consensus.
In a statement, the US treasury department said the loan was incompatible with the bank's stated commitment to promoting low carbon economic development.
"We expect that the World Bank will not bring forward similar coal projects from middle-income countries in the future without a plan to ensure there is no net increase in carbon emissions," it said. Britain, registering its abstention, noted the controversy surrounding the plant.
"The project raises several sensitive and potentially controversial issues which it has not been possible to resolve before this period began," a statement from Dfid said.
However, a World Bank official said the strong wording of such statements did not carry over to the Board's discussions of the loan. "It was not an easy decision," he said. "Everybody recognised the concerns about climate change, but this was a balancing act."
The vote by the World Bank had been widely seen as a test of the Obama administration's commitment to new guidelines put forward barely three months to shift aid to the developing world away from coal and fossil fuels to less polluting energy sources.
The administration had come under strong pressure from Democratic leaders in Congress as well as environmental organisations to try to block the loan.
Environmental organisations said its decision to abstain fell short.
"I am not going to give them points for abstaining. This was totally the easy way out," said Karen Ornstein of Friends of the Earth. "If the US were to follow its own clean coal guidance for multilateral development banks it would have had to vote no on this loan."
Michael Stulman of Africa Action said the entire project was misguided, and would do little to help poor South Africans. "This is one of those stereotypical development disaster stories," he said.
This article was amended on 9 April 2010. The original said that the Medupi power station, as planned, would emit 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This has been corrected.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Read more... Sphere: Related Content08 April 2010
Britain may block World Bank loan for coal plant in South Africa
The Government is considering blocking an aid project to provide reliable coal-fired electricity for millions of South Africans after coming under intense pressure from green groups in the run-up to the election
Ben Webster | The Times | April 6, 2010
On Thursday, Britain will cast the deciding vote on whether the World Bank should grant a $3.7 billion (£2.4 billion) loan to allow South Africa to build the Medupi coal plant.
It would be bigger than Drax, Britain’s largest coal plant, and pump out an estimated 25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere.
But it would reduce the risk of power cuts, which have caused billions of pounds of damage to South Africa’s economy in the past two years. The national grid came close to collapsing in 2008 and the South African Government was forced to impose rolling blackouts.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Christian Aid argue that the risk to the world’s climate from the plant’s emissions outweighs the benefits of the secure electricity it would supply.
They have been lobbying behind the scenes to try to persuade Britain to vote against the loan. They have held meetings in recent days with Gareth Thomas, the Minister for International Development, Michael Jacobs, the Prime Minister’s special adviser on climate change, and Susanna Moorhead, head of the World Bank in Britain.
The Government had been inclined to support the loan but is now wavering and may vote against it in Washington on Thursday, partly because it does not want to offend green supporters before the election.
The green groups argue that South Africa should focus instead on building wind turbines, solar panels and other sources of renewable electricity. These sources cost more than twice as much per unit of electricity compared with coal, which South Africa has in abundance.
Pravin Gordhan, the South African Finance Minister, accused green groups of trying to impose their environmental priorities on a country lacking the secure electricity that is taken for granted in the developed world.
“It is regrettable that . . . developed countries and very small group of NGOs in South Africa are putting their environmental concerns, which can’t be immediately addressed, above the economic needs of South Africa and our need to grow the economy so that all the people benefit.
“For now, not only South Africa but developing countries more generally will have to rely on coal.”
The World Bank said that it had studied the less-polluting alternatives to the Medupi plant and none could provide enough capacity in time to avoid widespread power cuts.
It is urging Britain and other contributors to vote in favour of the loan and said in a report: “The project will help avoid an energy crisis across southern Africa.
“Without energy, countries face very limited or no economic growth: factories and businesses cannot function efficiently; hospitals and schools cannot operate fully or safely; basic services that people in rich countries take for granted cannot be offered.”
The proposed World Bank loan includes $260 million for wind and solar power and $490 million for measures to reduce the coal plant’s overall emissions, including a new rail line to transport coal rather than using lorries.
The green groups wrote last month to Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, urging him to vote against the loan on the grounds that it would “undermine the global fight against climate change” and would not reduce fuel poverty.
It said: “While there is significant energy poverty in South Africa this project is not focused on meeting the needs of poor communities but instead on supplying energy to major energy-intensive industrial users that already have access to some of the cheapest electricity in the world.”
Britain, the bank’s biggest donor and one of its five major shareholders, is expected to determine the outcome of the vote because the US is likely to abstain. Despite generating half its own electricity from coal, the US has adopted new guidelines that include a strong assumption against approving World Bank loans for coal plants in developing countries.
The Department for International Development said that it had not yet decided how to vote. “The UK is in ongoing dialogue with the World Bank and the Government of South Africa regarding the loan. We will take a final position on the project when it comes to the World Bank board on April 8.”
Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd
Read more... Sphere: Related Content07 April 2010
PRESS RELEASE: South Africans say "no" to Eskom coal
Community members from South Africa's Limpopo Province filed a complaint with the World Bank Inspection Panel today due to the proposed $3.75 billion loan to Eskom
Bank Information Center | 6 April 2010
AFRICA ACTION PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
South Africans say “no” to Eskom coal
Project-affected communities take their case to the World Bank Inspection Panel
Tuesday, April 06, 2010 (Washington, DC) – Residents located near Lephalale in South Africa’s Limpopo Province today filed a complaint with the World Bank’s independent complaint body, the Inspection Panel, stating that a proposed $3.75 billion World Bank loan to help finance the Medupi coal-fired power plant will significantly damage their health, livelihoods and the environment. The complaint, submitted by Earthlife Africa and groundWork on behalf of affected community members, alleges that the project violates numerous World Bank policies and poses considerable threats to local communities and to the South African society at large. The clock is ticking, as the proposed Eskom loan is expected to go before the World Bank’s board of directors for approval on April 8th.
IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES
Communities living near the Medupi plant contend that if the proposed loan is approved, they would be the ones to bear the burden of hidden costs in terms of health impacts from air pollution, elevated SO2 levels, and mercury residues in their water, air and land; constrained access to water; and the livelihood impacts from degradation of land and water in this largely agrarian area. Already illegal sand mining operations are taking place in the area for the building of Medupi.
The community members who filed the complaint argue that the problems will be compounded by plans for a number of new coal mines and plants in the area; cumulative impacts that the World Bank failed to consider in its assessment of the project.
Caroline Ntapoane, who hails from South Africa’s polluted industrial heartland near Sasolburg, insisted that her concern with the loan is personal. “I know first-hand what the communities have to look forward to, because we experience it every day. We live it in the polluted air we breathe, when our water taps run dry, and when our children get sick. We shouldn’t have to choose between electricity and our health.”
ACCESS FOR THE POOR
While the project’s proponents claim it will provide energy access for the poor, in reality, the project would largely benefit major industries that consume electricity below cost, and whose apartheid-era secret agreements prevent them from sharing the costs associated with construction of the project and repayment of the loan.
Tristen Taylor of Earthlife Africa emphasized that, "With massive disconnections looming due to a doubling of electricity tariffs, a million jobs lost last year, and an effective 40% unemployment rate, one would think that poverty eradication would be foremost in the World Bank and the South African Government's mind. None of Medupi's output will be for the poor, but will be used to service multinational firms.”
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Not only will industries benefit, but the ruling party, the African National Congress, is set to reap major profits from the loan through its investment in Hitachi Power Africa, which was awarded a dubious contract – an obvious conflict of interest. World Bank approval of the loan will help further entrench the ANC off the backs of the poor.
The project is expected to go before the World Bank’s board of directors for approval on April 8th amidst serious questions about the viability of the project. “We are shocked at the speed with which the World Bank is attempting to push the loan through while these and other outstanding issues remain unresolved,” adds Gerald LeMelle, Executive Director of Africa Action.
The fundamentals of the project are being questioned. “This project is to secure uninterrupted electricity for large corporations, such as smelters and mining houses under secretive special pricing agreements. It is not for the millions of poor people who cannot afford or do not have access to electricity. South Africa does not need this loan,” says Bobby Peek, Director of groundWork, Friends of the Earth, South Africa.
- For additional information, please visit www.africaaction.org
- To receive a copy of the Inspection Panel complaint, send a request to:michael.stulman@africaaction.org and jklemm@bicusa.org.
CONTACTS
- Michael Stulman, Africa Action, 202 546 7961
- Sunita Dubey, groundWork USA, 703 732 2559
- Bobby Peek, groundWork South Africa, +27 82 464 1383
- Tristen Taylor, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, +27 84 250 2434
© 2010 Bank Information Center
Read more... Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
