DURBAN SCANDAL: While King Mswati III of Swaziland is a billionaire - UNDP pays to fly ministers of Swaziland to attend Durban and vote on COP17

undpwatch undpwatch

#DURBAN SCANDAL: #KingMswati of #Swaziland is a billionaire,@UNDP pays 2 fly his ministers 2 attend #Durban & vote on COP17 @helenclarkundp

CLICK HERE FOR STORY ON SWAZI OBSERVER

UNDP rescues Minister Macford, funds trip to COP 17

THE United Nations Development Fund (UNDP) has rescued government by providing funding for Minister of Tourism and Environmental Affairs Macford Sibandze to attend the Conference of Parties (COP 17) in Durban.
The conference started on Monday. “As part of its support to the country, UNDP is providing technical and financial support to a delegation from Swaziland to attend the global conference in Durban, South Africa.
“The UNDP is particularly pleased that the delegation will be led by the minister of tourism and environmental affairs and confident that their participation would strengthen the country’s systems and capacity for resilience to environmental shocks which often have direct implications on development,” reads a statement issued by the organisation.. The importance and impact of climate change and environment issues on development have increased over the years. Environmental degradation impacts on access to clean water, affordable energy services, causes food shortages and increases poverty.
Pollution due to industrialisation and the burning of fossil fuels has resulted in the depletion of the ozone layer, fuelling climate change and global warming that is resulting in increasingly violent storms, worsening of droughts, unprecedented floods and new diseases.
“These problems will be part of the agenda of the ongoing 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),” the organisation said. The statement also states that UNDP helps countries increase their capacity for environmental sustainability and disaster risk reduction at the global, national and community levels through sharing best practices, providing innovative policy advice and linking partners through pilot projects.
The organisation also states that UNDP, in collaboration with the Swaziland Environmental Authority (SEA), has undertaken a campaign to remove and dispose of all ozone depleting gases from the environment.
It also reveals that UNDP is also currently supporting the SEA to decommission industrial equipmentcontaining gases that contribute to climate change and replace them with hydrocarbon natural gases.
Further, the organisation supported the deputy prime minister’s office in preparing a disaster management policy and decentralised disaster preparedness plan aimed at preparing local development committees to deal with possible floods, drought and bush fires.
After the 2008 forest fires that decimated commercial forests and crippled the forestry industry, UNDP supported the government develop a multi-sectoral bushfires contingency plan to address the problem at the community level.

KING MSWATI III of Swaziland

Click here to view this on Wikipedia

Wealth

Mswati has been criticized for his lifestyle, especially by the media. Following criticism of his purchase of luxury cars, including a $500,000 luxury automobile, he banned the photography of his vehicles. According to the former CEO of the Office of the king, the purchases were personally funded and the king of Swaziland earns a high salary as Head of State, has investments within and outside the country and owns an unspecified amount of shares in different companies within Swaziland^{[citation needed]}.

According to the Forbes 2009 list of the World's Richest Royals, king Mswati is worth a reported $200 Million USD.^[7] This does not include a sum of about $10 Billion USD that his father king Sobhuza II put in trust for the Swazi nation during his reign, in which Mswati III is the trustee.

In January 2004 the Times of Swaziland reported that the king requested his government to spend about $15-million to redecorate three main palaces and build others for each of his 11 wives.^[8] The Prime Minister's Office issued a press statement saying the article in the Times of Swaziland was "reckless and untrue" and that the proposal was for the construction of 5 State Houses, not Palaces, and the cost was only E19.9 million.^[9] Later that year the go-ahead was given to build five new palaces at a cost of more than $4-million out of public funds.^[10]

Durban: - Your taxes to Pay U.S. 'Climate Debt'? UN will manage its distribution to poor nations (Fox News)

This is a Fox News Video

Click on the link to go and view the video on FoxNews

FOX NEWS VIDEO (Click on link to view on FoxNews)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1322695241001/

UNDP leadership decides to bring back from the dead a CROOK - the man who brought industrial development to China paid by the West IP

Are certain individuals at Queen's Privy Council of Canada (QPC)

trying to rehabilitate Beijing's Strong man through UNDP?

Who are they?

MAURICE STRONG is back

Was he ever acquitted from his involvement in oil-for-food scandal?

For UN and UNDP even when UN's own report finds you guilty of corruption - as long as you are a communist or a socialist - It's OK ! You can still do business with the Organization.

UNDP UN Development

Live now! From #Durban to #Rio - live webcast w/ Rajendra Pachouri, Maurice Strong, Rebeca Grysnpan, Khalid Malik: on.undp.org/9awefp

10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

in reply to ↑

@undpwatchundpwatch

@UNDP #MauriceStrong a hero? Maurice Strong named in UN oil-for-food scandalctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada… is@UN he was found guilty of corruption

43 seconds ago via webFavorite Reply Delete

Mentioned in this Tweet

• 
  UNDP UN Development · Unfollow

  Empowered lives. Resilient nations.
• 
  UN United Nations · Unfollow

  Official twitter account of United Nations. Get the latest information on the UN.

  

  Rebeca Grynspan

  @RGrynspan United Nations

  I'm Associate Administrator @UNDP and former Vice-President of #CostaRica, passionate about human #development world-wide.

  
  

  

  Khalid Malik

  @KhalidMalikUNDPview full profile →

  New York, NY, USA

  Currently serving as Head of Human Development Report to the UN Development Programme after having completed assignment as UNDP Resident Representative in China http://www.khalid-malik.com/

Durban Climate Deal: Staying Alive to Fight Another Day

View this article on CHATHAMHOUSE Website.

By Bernice Lee, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resource Governance

Marathon sessions in Durban produced a global climate deal early Sunday morning, after the official talks were scheduled to complete. The world's governments have agreed on a mandate to adopt a legal agreement on climate change no later than 2015, which will come into force in 2020.

The Durban deal is a significant political breakthrough – the first time the world's emerging economies have agreed to enter into a legal arrangement on emissions reduction. The agreed package also includes a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol and the design of a Green Climate Fund to help poor countries tackle climate change.

Critics are already decrying the big disconnect between the rhetoric of triumph and the reality of low ambitions. NGOs like Christian Aid and Oxfam, for example, said the outcome was a compromise that would prove ineffective, and that delaying the implementation to 2020 would amount to accepting a 4-degree world. Others question the 'binding' nature of any international regimes, and where the cash for the US$100 billion a year by 2020 Green Climate Fund will come from.

On the plus side, the deal testifies to growing global acceptance of the dangers of climate change – despite the adverse economic climate – and that the world's governments pulled out all stops to avoid another multilateral collapse. It is also significant that China, India and the US have agreed to reduce their emissions within a global framework.

The European Union, which practically went to Durban naked, should also be applauded for re-asserting itself as the climate leader. The EU alliance with the small island states and the least developed countries, supported by the progressive Latin American countries, managed to break the seemingly unbreakable 'bond' among China, India and the US. It was a good day for diplomacy as the delegates found an ambiguous set of words to keep the show alive.

In the end, the Durban deal is an accurate barometer of where the world stands on the politics of climate change – yes it is extremely important, but no it cannot deliver ambitions today. There is no question that governments will face tremendous challenges in improving the emissions outlook in the interregnum, even though there is commitment in the text to raise the ambition of the pledges made since Copenhagen. 

The hope is that the deal will send the signals to markets that the world's governments will take climate change seriously, triggering substantive clean investments in the coming decade. A Beijing-New Delhi Protocol in 2015 anyone?

UNDP: Durban - What is at stake for Africa?

• Date:29 Nov 2011
• Source(s):United Nations Development Programme - South Africa (UNDP South Africa)

At its most fundamental, climate threatens to negate the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and hinder positive movement in the areas directly related to UNDP’s mandate. Ensuring that developing countries are best able to tackle the many dimensions of climate change is therefore core business for our organization. The mechanisms established by the Cancun Agreements provide new opportunities for countries to develop, finance and deliver climate change programming. UNDP's role will be to help them to make the most of the emerging mechanisms.

Why is the current round of climate negotiations important for Africa?

The current round of climate negotiations, known as 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), will take place in Durban. It is hoped that Africa will be better represented than in the past. As a region, Africa is the least responsible for climate change but it will be most affected. The region has been speaking with one voice but is struggling to be heard. For Africa, the requirements are the same as in previous years. First, countries from the region are asking that global warming be kept below a 1.5 degrees temperature increase by the end of the century – which is almost impossible now given the current trends in emissions. Secondly, African countries are asking that developed and emerging countries (China, India, Brazil, etc.) agree to massively reduce their emissions. The third requirement is for the international community to help Africa adapt to the impact of climate change because its economies are fragile, like their agriculture which is often rain-fed.

What should be the most important message for developed countries?

Developed countries must fulfill their previous commitments. The Bali Roadmap had created opportunities in the area of technology transfers, adaptation, mitigation and financing. On financing, developed countries had estimated the needs at USD 30 billion by 2012 and 100 billion annually by 2020. But the current economic downturn has made it much more difficult to confirm these commitments. Today, some Northern countries are proposing that we should include private sector investments in these global commitments. Africa is calling for new and additional financial commitments.

What are the most important mechanisms which will be discussed in Durban?

In Cancún, one of the agreements was to establish a Green Climate Fund. Since then, a few great ideas have emerged, such as the adoption of an international currency tax to feed that fund. The Adaptation Fund will also be on the agenda, currently financed by a 2 percent levy on all carbon credits, which allow Northern countries to reduce emissions in Southern countries by purchasing emissions permits. The future of the fund will obviously be uncertain if the Kyoto Protocol is not extended. Another issue in Durban will be technology transfers, including the creation of a center and a network devoted to the issue. There is already a consensus and this point will probably constitute a real step forward in the negotiations. Durban will also see further progress on REDD, which allows developing countries to finance their reductions in carbon emissions by protecting their forests.

What is the role of UNDP and can you provide some examples of our work on the ground?

In general terms, UNDP aims to build the capacities of developing countries, particularly in the climate change negotiations. In addition, UNDP assists them in accessing the funds that are being gradually established, helping them to define strategies for developing low- carbon and climate resilient economies.

Another example is our “Boots on the Ground” programme, through which we mobilized 26 climate change focal points from UNDP in the Least Developed Countries, including 14 African countries. This initiative aims to support African decision-makers in their approach and understanding of the problem. Climate change cannot be the sole jurisdiction of Environment Ministries – all government departments must be involved. Tackling climate change involves designing policies on land use, agriculture, the economy, energy, etc. UNDP is also following countries in their application for direct access to international funds, which will allow for more flexibility and better responses to their requests. So far, international funds were available through implementing agencies. Now, we are helping them to meet the fiduciary requirements for direct access. Thus, Senegal became the first African country to identify a national agency that will have direct access to financing from the Adaptation Fund.

Additional information

http://www.undp.org.za/cop17-information/416

Durban III: The Good News and the Bad News

by Claudia Rosett @ PajamasMedia.com

In the United Nations cosmos of Orwellian ventures, one of the prominent features has become the series of conferences named for an initial 2001 conclave in Durban, South Africa. That gathering was supposed to be about fighting racism. Instead, it became a debauch of anti-Semitic Israel-bashing so extreme that then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell ordered the U.S. delegation to walk out. That conference is now known as Durban I.

With the aim of building on the achievements of Durban I, the UN followed up in 2009 with Durban II, also known as the Durban Review Conference. That was held in Geneva, Switzerland, amid the manicured flowerbeds, peacock-bedecked lawns and BMW-filled parking lots of the UN’s Palais des Nations, former home to the failed League of Nations. Durban II is most memorable for having featured, as a star speaker, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Obama administration decided close to the last minute to boycott that conference. Ahmadinejad’s speech triggered a walkout by a host of Western delegates. Pajamas Media’s Roger Simon and I had gone to Geneva to cover Durban II (we found ourselves staying in a hotel where Ahmadinejad had booked 40 rooms to accommodate his entourage) and when the conference fizzled into a gross embarrassment for the UN, thanks to Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust-denying style, Roger quite reasonably hoped that might mean an end to the Durban “process.”

The UN General Assembly decided otherwise. A Durban III conference is now scheduled for Sept. 22, this time at UN headquarters, in New York, timed to coincide with the annual opening of the General Assembly. Officially, it is styled as a 10th anniversary commemoration of the original 2001 Durban I conference. That was an event so hate-filled and grotesque that one might suppose the UN would wish either to forget it, or apologize for it — not commemorate it. But that’s not how things work at the UN, where standard operating procedure of the General Assembly is that U.S. taxpayers supply the biggest share of the money, and outfits like the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, or the 131 members of the so-called Group of 77 (presided over in 2009 by Sudan), decide how to spend it.

The good news is that the Obama administration has finally decided to boycott Durban III. As UN Watch reports, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York led a coalition of 18 senators who months ago called on the U.S. administration to follow the lead set by Canada, and pull out. On June 1, the State Department sent Gillibrand a letter saying the U.S. “will not participate” in Durban III, and had voted against the General Assembly resolution establishing this event “because the Durban process included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism, and we did not want to see that commemorated.”

The bad news is that the UN is still going ahead with Durban III. The next “consultation on the scope, modalities, format and organization of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action” is scheduled for this Friday, at 10 A.M., in the UN’s General Assembly Hall in New York. The “co-facilitators” of these consultations, the ambassadors of Monaco and Cameroon, sent a letter on May 27th to the president of the General Assembly, Switzerland’s Joseph Deiss, inviting him to draw up a list of NGO representatives to attend Durban III. That’s not reassuring, given Deiss’s record as the General Assembly president who this past March employed the UN’s General Assembly Hall as the extravagant and utterly inappropriate venue for the U.S. premiere of a movie trashing Israel.

An Obama administration boycott of Durban III is a good start (though Inner-City Press reports that the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, describes it not as a boycott, but, more euphemistically, an act of non-participation). But even if the U.S. does not participate — indeed, even if the U.S. refuses to fork out the money for the conference itself — U.S. taxpayers are still bankrolling the biggest share of the facilities, the amenities, and even the security that will enable this conference. American taxpayers are footing the biggest share of the bill for the current $2 billion renovation of the UN’s New York headquarters, where the organizers of Durban III are now availing themselves of the meeting halls. American taxpayers pay for 22% of the UN’s core budget, and the U.S. hosts its tax-exempt headquarters and tax-exempt diplomatic missions. Americans foot the bill for ensuring that when Ahmadinejad comes to New York to swagger on the UN stage, as he has done at every General Assembly opening since 2005, he will have a safe visit. The organizers of Durban III, as explained by the “co-facilitatators” of the preparations, the ambassadors of Monaco and Cameroon, are very much hoping that this “commemoration” will be a summit event, studded with heads of state and government.

In other words, if the Obama administration is serious about rejecting the malicious Durban “process,” then steering clear of the actual pow-wow ought to be just the beginning. Nor is the issue the variable cost of the conference itself. The U.S. has a massive investment of many billions of dollars, as well as its own good name, in the enormous fixed costs of the institution of the UN itself. That is what the devotees of Durban III and the Durban “process” are already abusing, yet again. The beginning of a real answer here is not just “non-participation” in Durban III, or even a largely symbolic withholding of some fraction of the variable cost of this latest outrage. Real progress might come if and when the U.S. greets such stunts as Durban III by withholding from the UN sums of money spectacular enough so that even the likes of Monaco, Cameroon and Switzerland’s Joseph Deiss start asking themselves whether the pleasures of such bigotry are worth the cost.