Negotiations to the UN Adaptation Fund are stuck at the end of the first week of negotiations. The fund had been decided a year ago at the climate conference in Bali in the last minute to fund adaptation measures in the worst affected by climate change in developing countries. This followed a dispute between North and South, which has allowed where it had gone mainly to the governance structure of the fund and the details of disbursements. Actually, the fund no later than early next year, should have become operational. This now seems increasingly questionable but what angered many developing countries very much. largely
While the issue of governance structure and to the satisfaction of southerners is solved - they are the majority in the top decision making body - the disagreement occur about how the money of the fund will be spent evident. Developing countries demand largely unconditional "direct access" because they want to avoid to be constrained by donor countries through conditionalities imposed unilaterally. Industrial countries argue again reversed without criteria, the risk was great that the funds are not used effectively. Among non-governmental organizations, the question of conditionality has been discussed comparatively little - so far the question of adequate funding was the focus. Just organizations express deep concern from the south but that money alone is not sufficient if it is not guaranteed that it really matters where, where adaptation does most in need.
In the struggle for solutions now could be the human rights approach to argue for the "Bread for the World," Diakonia disaster relief and German Watch said in their joint study on climate change and food security, enhanced start talking. The focus here is on the application of minimum human rights standards as criteria for the Adaptation Fund. Such standards are derived from the Human Rights Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its further legal interpretation in the so-called "general law comments" such as the right to food in 1999. The use of human rights minimum standards to qualify the allocation of funds in the Adaptation Fund would have several advantages: First, human rights standards
are strongly geared to provide the accommodation needs of the most vulnerable population groups in the center. This can be achieved that will primarily help those on their own are not able to protect itself from climate change
Second, they include procedures to strengthen the rights of individuals who demand transparency and make the state accountable. This can cause be that structural discrimination - should be avoided in the course of adjustment programs - such as minorities.
Third human rights standards are already applicable international law and widely recognized. Because of their universality principle, its application would be on the Adaptation Fund so no additional conditionality. It was just a matter of making their implicit application explicitly - for example by clear references to international legal framework and the inclusion of appropriate criteria in the standards of the Fund. The two sides could agree - developing countries as developed countries, because both the distinction in international law enshrined human rights are required. A similar method has been practiced by the FAO, had adopted its 190 member states in 2004 "Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food" for better training of national food security strategies.
At a side event in Poznan, "Bread for the World" and German Watch have at the presentation of their study, "Climate Change, Food Security and the Right to Food" advertised for such action and learn many permission. Because this approach is potentially suitable to dissolve the blockage in the negotiations of the Adaptation Fund, the concept is now racing in the form of a formal "Submission" be introduced into the negotiations. The next week could be followed by meetings with government delegations.
Thomas Hirsch, "Bread for the World"
0 comments:
Post a Comment