Category: International
South Africa: COSATU-aligned public service unions call on Government to increase its offer
| March 31, 2015 | 8:02 pm | Africa, International, Labor | Comments closed

Statement by COSATU Public Service Unions, 24 March 2015

The seven COSATU Public Service unions, namely, NEHAWU, SADTU, POPCRU, DENOSA, SAMA, SASAWU and PAWUSA together with other unions admitted in the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC) submitted demands to the employer on 30th September 2015. Our demands included, amongst others:

• 15% salary increase for all employees

• A single-term agreement

• R3000.00 housing allowance in the absence of a Government Employees Housing Scheme (GEHS) which must be delinked from each spouse employed in the public service

• 10 leave working days for parents with children with disabilities

• Bursary Scheme for government employees’ children

These negotiations have been very slow as a result of employer delaying tactics. The current agreement expires on the 31 March 2015 therefore we are left with literally 6 (six) days to its expiry.

The parties at the PSCBC agreed during the pre-negotiations process that the base from which the negotiations will start from will be 5,8%, based on the year-on-year CPI of the 2013/14 Financial Year. The employer tabled their opening bid as 5% increase which was against the spirit of the pre-negotiations meeting. Labour rejected their initial offer on the basis that the employer was reneging on the undertaking of the pre-negotiations process. They later came with a proposal of 5,8% salary increase across the board for the Financial year 2015/16 within a multi-term agreement of 3 (three) years.

On the 3rd of March 2015, labour moved from 15% salary increase across the board to a 10% increase and moved from R3000.00 housing allowance to R1500.00. We were shocked and disturbed when the employer reversed its offer to 4,8% claiming that it was a projected average CPI for the 2015/16 financial year.

After much delay from the employer the negotiations came to a halt in the early hours of Monday, 23 March 2015. The meeting went on until 02h30 in the morning with Labour insisting on negotiating for a better deal, an approach that was met with an arrogant and intransigent attitude of the employer. The employer came back and increased their meagre 4,8% offer with a shameful 0,2 to make it 5% for the current Financial Year and CPI plus 0,5% in the following two Financial Years. Labour rejected that offer.

It was then agreed in Council that the employer must go back to its principals for a revised and a better offer as Labour is still on 10% increase across the board. Parties to the PSCBC will meet again on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 to continue with the negotiations.

It must be noted that Labour is fully committed to engage the employer seven days a week until the settlement is reached. At the same time, as Labour, we will be engaging with our members to comprehensively engage with them on what is transpiring in the negotiations.

We further call on government to show the same commitment to this process.

US Combat Forces, FBI and CIA in Ukraine
| March 21, 2015 | 10:48 am | Analysis, Imperialism, International, National, political struggle, Russia, Ukraine | Comments closed
US Combat Forces, FBI and CIA in Ukraine: Vice President Biden Congratulates Poroshenko for Violating Minsk Peace Agreement
Global Research, March 20, 2015
www.globalresearc/4E03C05D.jpg
Obama continues using Kiev junta proxies to wage war on Donbass. He’s gone all-out to sabotage multiple peace efforts spearheaded by Russia.
He didn’t wage war to quit. He’s supplying Kiev with heavy weapons, munitions and other US aid.
US combat forces are in Ukraine working directly with its military. CIA and FBI operatives infest Kiev.
On March 18, Joe Biden called Poroshenko. He congratulated him for violating Minsk.
It calls for granting Donbass special status autonomous rule. Draft Kiev legislation designates it “temporarily occupied territories.”
A White House statement said Biden “welcomed the (parliament’s) adoption of implementing measures relating to the law on special status for certain areas of eastern Ukraine…”
He lied saying legislation adopted complies with terms stipulated under “September 2014 and February 2015 Minsk agreements.”
Kiev continues violating their letter and spirit with full US support and encouragement.
“The two leaders discussed the upcoming multinational training program for Ukraineís (Nazi infested) National Guard forces, which the United States will support,” the White House statement said.
They ‘agreed” on maintaining sanctions on Russia. They lied claiming they’re in response to “Russia(n) violence and instability in” Donbass.
They concurred on pressuring “the international community…to increase the costs to Russia for pursuing such actions.”
Sergey Lavrov responded saying Washington wants Ukrainian crisis conditions settled militarily.
Kiev’s failure to grant Donbass special status violates its pledge to do so.

“If Washington welcomes the action, which undermines the Minsk agreements, then we can only conclude that Washington is inciting Kiev to resolve the issue by military means,” Lavrov explained.

“The Ukrainian leadership..basically terminated their commitments to engage in direct dialogue and negotiate with south-eastern Ukraine, including on the issue of elections, on the implementation of the law on the special status…”

Russia’s OSCE envoy Andrey Kelin accused Kiev of spurning conflict ending dialogue with Donbass.

“No lasting truce and sustainable ceasefire are possible without political settlement, and no such settlement is possible without dialogue,” he said.

“Kiev is categorically reluctant to speak with Donbas about political settlement. Last year’s developments seem to be reoccurring.”

“We saw it a year ago and it ended up, as we know, in Ukraineís aggression against Donbas.”

“Kiev is seeking to fall into the same trap, arrogantly ignoring representatives of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics.”

“If they do not observe what has been agreed in Minsk after months of warfare, and Minsk agreements provide for a dialogue between the parties to the conflict to establish the DPR and LPR status, local elections in Donbas and normal political settlement, the risk (of attempts to solve the conflict by military means) considerably increases.”

Kiev systematically breached previous peace initiatives straightaway. It ignores Minsk II provisions.
It wants total control over Donbass regained. It intends seizing it forcefully.
Illegitimate prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk explained it several times. Most recently on Wednesday unambiguously saying “(o)ur goal is to regain control of Donetsk and Lugansk.”
Last April, naked aggression was launched to accomplish Kiev’s objective. Low-intensity conflict continues – heading toward resuming full-scale war at Washington’s discretion.
Expect it any time. Expect likely greater mass slaughter and destruction than before.
“We will fight using all method and techniques,” said Yatsenyuk. Meaning no-holds-barred dirty war – using banned weapons, willfully targeting civilians, and committing other egregious crimes of war and against humanity.
Expect Russia and rebels blamed for US/Kiev crimes like earlier. Chances for peace are nil.
At risk is direct US/Russian confrontation. Fox News is one of many presstitute platforms promoting it.
It features anti-Russian gun-slinging retired generals. Robert Scales told Fox the only way to change things in Ukraine is “start killing Russians.”
A criminal case was opened against him in Russia under Article 354 of its Criminal Code.
He advocates cold-blooded murder. He’s not alone. Active and retired US political and military officials want war on Russia.
Giving them national television air time increases the possibility. Lunatic fringe loose cannons infest Washington.
Retired General/former US army vice chief of staff Jack Keane wants US bases closer to Russia’s borders.
Sanctions and provocative military exercises aren’t enough, he says. He urges tougher actions.

“I think weíve got to recognize that the security issues in Europe are no longer in Central Europe where our forces were post-WW2,” he said.

“The fact is theyíre in Eastern Europe, so we should realign our bases not on a temporary basis but on a permanent basis, put the air bases and the ground bases further into eastern Europe, move them out of Central Germany where they currently are.”

“That’ll cost some expense, but it’s absolutely worth it in terms of letting Putin know clearly that those countries, those Baltic countries…matter to us.”

“They are a part of NATO and we’re not going to accept any challenge to them.”

“This would send a really loud signal to them that clearly the security situation in Europe has changed.”

“Itís recognition of those changes. It’s a recognition of the intimidation and the threatening situation that is clearly developing.”

Fact: America’s only threats are ones it invents.
Fact: Eastern and Western European countries claiming Russian threats lie. None exist.
Fact: Positioning increasing numbers of US military combat troops near Russia’s borders heightens chances for direct confrontation.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
                Copyright © 2015 Global Research
Gerrard Sables Radio Interview
| March 18, 2015 | 11:05 pm | Communist Party Britain, International, political struggle | Comments closed

Demonstration against Fascism and War
| March 17, 2015 | 8:07 pm | Action, International, National, political struggle | Comments closed
CONTACT: Kelly McConnell, Coordinator
                   (213) 448-4363
The Los Angeles Peace Council, in conjunction with the United National Anti-war Coalition, will be holding a rally on Saturday, March 21 at 10am at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA. 90012 (south lawn). On the west coast we are demonstrating our solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are demonstrating in Washington D.C. against continued United States military aggression around the world.
Joseph Hancock, Chapter Organizer said that our mission is to STOP NATO AGGRESSION, and to build the United Front against Fascism and War. NATO operates as an imperialist army against working people around the world. The imperialist powers, led by the United States, provoke military conflict to achieve strategic objectives that benefit the few at the expense of the many. U.S. foreign policy has nothing to do with protecting the people of the United States.
Imperialism’s Trusted Governess
| March 17, 2015 | 8:00 pm | Imperialism, International, National, political struggle, Russia, Ukraine | Comments closed

  – from Zoltan Zigedy is available at:
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

Her face is on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek (3/9-3/15/2015) next to a dramatic headline: Putin vs. the Accountant. Her name is Natalie Jaresko. And, if Bloomberg’s Brett Forrest is to be believed, she and some of her colleagues may hold the fate of Western Ukraine in their hands. As the Minister of Finance, she must find a way to salvage an economy that is in free fall.
Forrest paints a flattering, sympathetic picture of a feisty expatriate determined to rescue Ukraine economically and from the clutches of the evil Putin. Jaresko is encountered visiting hospitalized Ukrainian troops wounded while attacking the resistance fighters in Eastern Ukraine or, as Forrest prefers: consoling “convalescing veterans of recent battles against Russian forces and their proxies in the Ukrainian East. ‘When did you serve?’ she asks, moving slowly from room to room.’How were you wounded?’”
Apart from recounting Jaresko’s mimicking of the obsequious and opportunistic condescension of veterans displayed universally by Western politicians, Forrest offers a calculated adulation of the Minister that conjures many less laudatory questions and suspicions.
For someone who holds the fate of Ukraine in her hands, Jaresko appears to be somewhat of a carpetbagger. Her appointment to lead the Finance Ministry came before she was granted Ukrainian citizenship, a fact that would only be curious outside of a government where two other cabinet members were also not citizens when appointed: her counterpart in the Ministry of Economy and Trade, Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavicius, and Minister of Health, Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili. Jaresko, a US citizen, has two years to renounce her US citizenship. She and her other imported colleagues were appointed by Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsunyuk, the infamous “Yats” vetted by foul-mouthed US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland.
Obviously the US and the EU had to scramble after they encouraged and supported the coup deposing the elected President in February of 2014. They had to reach outside Ukraine to find reliable clients to support the hastily elected candy baron, Petro Pershenko. The story of the clumsy construction of the post-coup government from non-nationals, careerists, and unstable rightists would make for an entertaining episode of House of Cards if Western journalists had the spine to tell it.
So what has Jaresko done to deserve a phone call from Nuland? Er, Pershenko?
Her credentials begin with a master’s degree from the Kennedy School at Harvard, a training ground for those tasked with delivering the US ruling class message to friends and foes alike. Doors opened immediately at the State Department’s Soviet Affairs division. She coordinated her work at the State Department with all of the big national and international trade and economic organizations. When Ukraine left the Soviet Union, Jaresko was perfectly suited to operate on the US State Department’s behalf at the newly installed US Embassy. Her position– Chief of the Economic Section– was a trusted position of a type often calling for close collaboration with covert agencies.
She parlayed that experience into the creation of an “investment“ vehicle for Ukrainian businesses funded by USAID, again a position of great trust and associated in many countries with US influence peddling. Documentation of the modest seed capital from USAID– $150 million– can be found here. One would expect that a 30-year-old entrusted with this task surely had the confidence of highly placed officials in the US government.
Her 1995 venture was absorbed by a new investment management firm, Horizon Capital, which she founded in 2006. Journalist John Helmer documents the consistent losses of Horizon Capital in his detailed report on Dances with Bears (12-03-2014). Despite his discovering only two years of modest gains in a decade, both Bloomberg and Forbes laud the success of Horizon Capital.
Helmer also discovers the fallout from Jaresko’s divorce from her spouse and business partner. Her former husband, Ihor Figlus, has accused her of saddling him with debt from “improper” loans. Their contentious relationship continues. Helmer comments: “It hasn’t been rare for American spouses to go into the asset management business in the former Soviet Union, and make profits underwritten by the US Government with information supplied from their US Government positions or contacts. It is exceptional for them to fall out over the loot.”
Jaresko’s own account of her recruitment bears telling: “…representatives from a headhunting firm hired by the new government, WE partners, visited Jaresko at the Horizon Capital offices. They discussed candidates for various government posts before asking her if she would be willing to serve…” (Bloomberg Businessweek)
While some may find it odd that an independent, sovereign state would engage a US-based (parent company: Korn Ferry) headhunting firm to fill top political posts, Jaresko explains: “I think the president and prime minister wanted me to bring [my] experience.”
Within a week, she was vetted and appointed.
Anticipating skepticism, Bloomberg’s reporter, Brett Forrest, notes that “Jaresko’s appointment… provides fuel to conspiracy theorists…”
Indeed.
His apologetics continue: “No matter their origin, these ministers– and the numerous Poles, Germans, Canadians, and other foreigners who’ve joined the government in senior and mid-level positions– are pulling the same oar.” Forrest joins a host of Western journalists and commentators who find no contradiction in a rabidly nationalistic government staffed with foreigners.
Despite generous aid from the US, the EU, and the IMF, Ukraine has experienced a 21% loss of industrial production, a 69% drop in the value of the currency against the dollar and a 6.9% decline in GDP in the last year.
Estimates of Ukraine debt go as high as $40 billion. Recently, Jaresko announced that investors should expect a “haircut” which “…will probably involve a combination of maturity extensions, coupon reductions and principal reductions.”
Compare the matter-of-fact reporting of this announcement in papers like The Financial Times or The Wall Street Journal to the hysterical media response to the faintest hint of a possible reduction in Greek sovereign debt. Clearly assuming client status, selling your sovereignty to imperialism, earns generous debt forgiveness.
Despite the media-spun fairy tales about Ukraine’s struggle for democracy and independence, the facts challenge that narrative. Behind the curtain of deceit and fabrication is a motley crew of foreign agents, corrupted officials, oligarchs, and neo-Nazis. But one would never know it from the Western media.
Zoltan Zigedy

 

Partido Comunista rechaza maniobras militares en Puerto Rico
| March 14, 2015 | 7:59 pm | International, Latin America, National, Party Voices, political struggle | Comments closed

  • El Partido Comunista de Puerto Rico rechaza la presencia militar de EE.UU. en la isla caribeña.

    El Partido Comunista de Puerto Rico rechaza la presencia militar de EE.UU. en la isla caribeña. | Foto: EFE

Publicado 13 marzo 2015 (Hace 21 horas 38 minutos)

La organización comunista asegura que esas maniobras responden a un ensayo para luego imponer el orden militar cuando se desplome el poder colonial impuesto por Estados Unidos en Puerto Rico.

El Partido Comunista de Puerto Rico (PCPR) rechazó este viernes los ejercicios militares que realizará la próxima semana la Guardia Nacional con la presencia de soldados estadounidenses.

A través de un comunicado, la organización comunista lamentó que Puerto Rico sea utilizado como el centro de entrenamientos militares de Estados Unidos.

“Resulta inexplicable, desde la perspectiva humanitaria, que se militarice a Puerto Rico ante eventuales catástrofes naturales, cuando la respuesta del Estado (federal y colonial) debería ser simulacros de las agencias encargadas de protección y socorro de la población”, subraya la comunicación.

El PCPR lamentó que la denominada Operación Respuesta Borinqueña conformada por soldados puertorriqueños y unos mil efectivos de los estados de Nebraska, Vermont, West Virginia y Washington sean enviados a realizar esas actividades en vez de promover la paz y la integración entre los pueblos.

Asimismo, el partido advirtió que estos ejercicios que se realizarán en San Juan (capital de Puerto Rico) y otros municipios del país caribeño responden a las recientes amenazas del presidente estadounidense Barack Obama contra Venezuela.

“Los ejercicios se realizan como parte de la política norteamericana de usar a Puerto Rico como plataforma de lanzamientos de agresiones militares contra los gobiernos de Latinoamérica”, añade el texto firmado por la dirección del PCPR.

Africa/Global: Falling Short on Climate Finance
| March 10, 2015 | 7:42 pm | Africa, Analysis, Climate Change, Economy, International, political struggle | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
March 10, 2015 (150310)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

Africa, the continent with warming deviating most rapidly from
“normal” conditions, could see climate change adaptation costs rise
to US$50 billion per year by 2050, even assuming international
efforts keep global warming below 2 degrees C this century,
according to a new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
report.

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/clim1503.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/clim1503.php

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains the press release and excerpts
from the Executive Summary of the new UNEP report Africa’s
Adaptation Gap 2: Bridging the Gap – mobilizing sources.

The report contains updated data on the expected cost of adapting to
climate change under different scenarios for global warming, for the
time horizons of 2020, 2050, and 2100. Key messages include the fact
that Africa is already the continent where climate is already
deviating from normal more rapidly than any other continent.

Projections for impact rise enormously even if global warming is
held to less than 2 degrees C, and even more so if efforts to slow
global warming are insufficient to make that goal. This means that
the most important action to be taken is to limit the damage by
“deep global emission reductions.” Even if this is done, the costs
of adaptation will rise rapidly, requiring action to find new
sources of funding at national, continental, and global levels.

The report suggests a continent-wide levy (transaction tax) on four
sectors: extractive industries, financial and banking transactions,
international trade, and tourism. It also highlights the imperative
for national tax systems to be made more effective, including
minimizing reductions in the tax base from illicit financial flows.

For additional background on the current gap in international
climate finance, see the Feb. 26 article by Brookings Instution
analysts Martin Stadelmann and Timmons Roberts. They note that the
UN has issued a “clarification note” admitting that their estimate
of current levels of annual total North-South climate financing of
$40-175 billion is almost certainly closer to the lower than the
upper end of that range. See http://tinyurl.com/m9zo2pz

For talking points and previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on climate
change and the environment, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/envexp.php

Of related interest:
March 9 Guardian article by Bill McKibben
http://tinyurl.com/p2qg3we

“Pressure is growing. A relentless climate movement is starting to
win big, unprecedented victories around the world, victories which
are quickly reshaping the consensus view.”

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Costs of Climate Change Adaptation Expected to Rise Far Beyond
Africa’s Coping Capacity Even if Warming Kept Below 2 degrees C

Climate adaptation costs for Africa could soar to reach US $50
billion annually by mid-century.

United Nations Environment Programme

http://tinyurl.com/kb3llqg

Cairo, 4 March 2015 – Africa, the continent with warming deviating
most rapidly from “normal” conditions, could see climate change
adaptation costs rise to US$50 billion per year by 2050, even
assuming international efforts keep global warming below 2 degrees C
this century, according to a new United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) report.

Released at the 15th African Ministerial Conference on the
Environment (AMCEN), Africa’s Adaptation Gap builds on UNEP’s
Emissions Gap Report 2014, which showed that the world is not
currently headed in the right direction for holding global warming
below 2 degrees C. This latest Africa Adaptation Gap report also
builds on UNEP’s Global Adaptation Gap Report 2014, which found that
adaptation costs in all developing countries together could climb as
high as US$250-500 billion per year by 2050.

Produced in collaboration with Climate Analytics and the African
Climate Finance Hub, the report says deep global emissions
reductions are the best way to head off Africa’s crippling
adaptation costs. It also finds that the continent’s domestic
resources are insufficient to respond to projected impacts, but
would be important to complement international funding for African
countries – including meeting the Cancun climate finance commitments
by 2020.

“The accelerating rate of climate change poses great adaptation
challenges, of which we have been well forewarned,” said UN Under-
Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. “The
best insurance against the many potential negative impacts of
climate change is ambitious global mitigation action in the long-
run, combined with large-scale and rapidly increasing funding for
adaptation. Investing in resilience and adaptation as an integral
part of national development planning can develop resilience to
future climate change impacts.”

Africa’s looming climate crisis

Africa is the continent where a rapidly changing climate is expected
to deviate earlier than across any other continent from “normal”
changes, making adaptation a matter of urgency, the report says.

Warming projections under medium scenarios indicate that extensive
areas of Africa will exceed 2 degrees C by the last two decades of
this century relative to the late 20th century mean annual
temperature. Under a high warming pathway, temperatures could exceed
2 degrees C by mid-century across much of Africa and reach between 3
degrees C and 6 degrees C by the end of the century. This would have
a severe impact on agricultural production, food security, human
health and water availability.

In a 4 degrees C world, projections for Africa suggest sea levels
could rise faster than the global average and reach 80cm above
current levels by 2100 along the Indian and Atlantic Ocean
coastlines, with particularly high numbers of people at risk to
flooding in the coastal cities of Mozambique, Tanzania, Cameroon,
Egypt, Senegal and Morocco.

“This is not just a question of money; millions of people and their
livelihoods are at stake,” said Binilith Mahenge, President of AMCEN
and Tanzania’s Minister of State for Environment. “Africa’s
population will be at an increasing risk of undernourishment due to
increasing food demand and the detrimental effects of climate change
on agriculture on the continent. Global warming of 2 degrees C would
put over 50 per cent of the African continent’s population at risk
of undernourishment. Yet, the IPCC showed that without additional
mitigation we are heading to 4 degrees C of warming.”

“Rising to the challenge and addressing the systemic harm that
climate change may cause in Africa, thus undermining the post-2015
sustainable development agenda, warrants leaving no stone unturned
in exploring opportunities for supporting adaptation actions and
measures in Africa,” he added.

Closing the funding gap

The report explores the extent to which African nations can
contribute to closing the adaptation gap – especially in the area of
identifying the resources that will be needed.

The evidence suggests that African countries – such as Ghana,
Ethiopia and South Africa – are already committing some resources of
their own to adaptation efforts. Country-case studies in the report
suggest that by 2029/2030, under moderately optimistic growth
scenarios, Ghana could for example – based on hypothetical scenarios
– commit US$233 million to adaptation financing, Ethiopia US$248
million, South Africa US$961 million and Togo US$18.2 million.
However, international funding will be required to bridge the
growing adaptation gap even if African nations commit to ways to
increase domestic sources. Current levels of international finance,
through bilateral and multilateral sources, are not sufficient.

“Because of the magnitude of the challenge, further examination of
the potential and the feasibility of mobilizing untapped
international, regional and domestic sources should be explored
further,” said Mr Steiner.

Scaling up international climate finance under the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) may lead to sufficient funding
for adaptation, but even in that case, implementation can only reach
its full potential if complemented by comprehensive and effective
national and regional policy planning, capacity-building and
governance.

The promotion of an effective enabling framework for private sector
participation in adaptation activities would also be a key
contributor to closing the funding gap, the report finds.

For more information please contact: Michael Logan, News and Media
Officer, UNEP, michael.logan@unep.org, +254 725 939 620

**********************************************

Africa’s Adaptation Gap 2

Technical Report: Bridging the Gap – Mobilising Sources

Executive Summary

Climate change represents a clear and present danger to the
development prospects of Africa. African countries are going to have
to adapt to protect their peoples from the harsh impacts of climate
change and to ensure that they are not derailed from their current
development pathways.

Developed country Parties to the Climate Convention committed to
“assist the developing country Parties that are particularly
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs
of adaptation to those adverse effects.” (UNFCCC Articles 4.3 and
4.4)

The first edition of Africa’s Adaptation Gap Technical report
(AAGr1) in 2013 provided an overview of the most relevant impacts of
climate change in different sectors across Africa, as well as cost
estimates for adaptation.

This report (2015 AAGr2) is directed towards exploring the extent to
which African countries can contribute to closing the adaptation
gap, in order to better understand the gap in the resources that
will be needed and, thereby, the likely extent to which
international climate finance must be urgently raised, leveraged and
deployed in service of Africa’s pressing adaptation needs.

Given the increasing severity of the adaptation challenge posed by
climate change to Africa, no stone should be left unturned in
looking for solutions for closing the adaptation gap, for two major
reasons: firstly, the case for international solutions is even
stronger if national and regional options are considered and
evaluated; secondly, it is in the interest of African nations and
their stakeholders at all levels to hedge against the possibility
that the funding provided through the Green Climate Fund and other
channels is insufficient or ineffective.

Building on the report’s findings, and relating to the current
negotiations towards the post-2015 agreement context under the
UNFCCC, African policymakers may consider the three following
findings:

1.  The best insurance against potentially catastrophic impacts of
climate change and unmanageable adaptation and (residual) damage
costs in Africa is effective and ambitious mitigation action that
leads to deep global emission reductions;

2.  Cancun climate finance commitments need to be met by 2020, the
historical imbalance between adaptation and mitigation in the
allocation of resources needs to be corrected, and ease of access
(‘modalities’) for African countries needs to be improved. Adequate
(large-scale, rapidly increasing) and predictable funding must be
mobilised for the subsequent periods;

3.  The potential for – and the feasibility of – mobilising untapped
international, regional and domestic sources should be explored
further.

An update on climate impacts shows increased urgency

*  Africa is beginning to experience annual-mean temperatures higher
than any locally experienced in history. This is already happening
in Central Africa and is projected to cover the entire continent in
the next two to three decades; earlier across Africa than any other
continent.

*  Warming projections under medium scenarios indicate that, by the
last two decades of this century, extensive areas of Africa will
exceed 2 degrees C relative to the late 20th century mean annual
temperature. Under a high warming pathway (“over 4 degrees C
world”), that exceedance could occur by mid-century across much of
Africa and reach between 3 degrees C and 6 degrees C by the end of
the century.

*  Combined with changes in water availability, for example, this
will likely have a severe impact on agriculture. 97% of sub- Saharan
agricultural systems are rain-fed, and 60% of the labour force
relies on agriculture.

*  Sea level rise is generally higher along Africa’s coastlines than
the global average, particularly along the Indian and Atlantic
Oceans. Sea levels are projected to rise at least 40cm above 2000 by
2100 in a below-2 degrees C scenario (close to 1.5 degrees C), and
to 80cm in an over 4-degrees C scenario (compared to roughly 70cm
globally). There are chances it could be much worse, with a 15%
chance of 100cm sea-level rise above 2000 by 2100 and a considerable
5% chance of a rise exceeding 130 cm by 2100.

*  Particularly high numbers of people are at risk of flooding in
the coastal cities of Mozambique, Tanzania, Cameroon, Egypt, Senegal
and Morocco.

Estimated adaptation costs point to a very rapid divergence between
globally low and high warming scenarios

*  The first Africa’s adaptation gap report (2013) stressed already
that past (global) emissions commit Africa to adaptation costs of
USD 7-15 billion/year by 2020.

*  This second report estimates that adaptation costs could rise to
about USD50bn/year 2 by 2050 for a scenario holding warming below 2
degrees C.

*  The estimated costs double to about USD100bn/year by 2050 for a
scenario reaching over 4 degrees C by 2100.

*  In the longer term, and relative to Africa’s (growing) GDP,
adaptation costs could rise to as much as 6% of African GDP by 2100
in an over 4 °C world, but in a below 2 °C world, these would be
less than 1% of GDP.

Adaptation cannot prevent all damages: residual damages will always
remain and are large

*  In a more general sense, the IPCC’s recent Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5) noted that even after implementation of potential
adaptation options, residual risks remain for many sectors in
Africa.

*  This, second Africa Adaptation Gap report confirms this in a more
specific sense: even if all cost-effective adaptation is realised,
Africa will still suffer large “residual” damages, which are
estimated to be double the adaptation costs in the period 2030-2050.

*  Africa and the international community will need to find ways to
cope with these residual damages, under any scenario of global
mitigation and local adaptation efforts. Current international
funding falls short and must be scaled up rapidly

*  The climate change challenge exceeds the capacity of the African
continent to respond to projected damages and impacts through
domestic resources, even if the base to raise additional funding is
broadened. Scaled-up international support for African countries is
therefore critical.

*  Current levels of international funding are not sufficient. So
far, while difficult to estimate, roughly USD$1-2bn a year is
flowing to Africa for adaptation, through a variety of sources.

*  A steep increase in adaptation funding from developed to
developing countries would contribute significantly to closing the
adaptation-funding gap. Therefore, increased adaptation funding
disbursements – in line with the USD100-billion target as agreed by
the Parties at the UNFCCC conferences in Copenhagen in 2009 and
Cancun in 2010 – could result in bridging the deepening adaptation
gap by 2020.

*  Such disbursements subsequently need to continue to grow rapidly
to keep pace with warming, and most rapidly if global mitigation
fails to put the world on a pathway to hold warming below 1.5 and 2
degrees C by 2100.

*  Recent positive developments in the operationalisation of the
Green Climate Fund are of critical importance for adaptation
financing in Africa. The GCF initial capitalisation was completed in
December 2014, with pledges amounting to around USD10.2bn. The GCF
Board has decided that 50% of its portfolio should be allocated to
adaptation and, in turn, that 50% should go to particularly
vulnerable developing countries including Least Developed Countries
(LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Africa.

The report’s approach: African case studies on adaptation

This report has taken the approach of exploring the additional
options and opportunities that may exist in Africa through four
country case studies – representing a reasonably diverse sample of
the great variety of countries and economies to be found within
Africa (Ethiopia, Ghana, South Africa and Togo).

*  Each of these case studies explores aspects of the adaptation
response and, in particular, the scope for domestic adaptation
financing, in terms of the increased domestic adaptation resources
that could be generated through economic growth and tax reform,
through adaptation-specific taxes and fees, and through regulation
and market-making aimed at eliciting greater private investment.

*  The conceptually-simple calculations this report presents are
primarily intended to be illustrative of the limits and potential
for adaptation financing from domestic sources in a context where
strong growth is assumed and tax reforms are successfully achieved.

*  The evidence suggests that African countries are already
committing some resources of their own to adaptation efforts and
that there are opportunities for doing more that can be considered
and debated across the continent, with lessons to learn and share.

Options for sources of adaptation funds – international, national,
continental

As the report shows, there are a lot of adaptation options, measures
and sources that countries can mobilise and implement from the
national level to the international level to limit the deepening of
the adaptation gap under any level of global mitigation. The report
assesses:

*  Options at the international level – scaling up countries’
commitments and channelling through the Green Climate Fund and other
channels

*  Options at the national level – resources from national budget

*  Options at the continental level – levies

To address the multiple challenges of adaptation in Africa, there
will be no single solution that solves all the funding and
implementation issues African countries face. Addressing these
challenges will require the deployment of measures at the
international, continental and national levels.

A levy on transactions to pay for adaptation?

This report assesses, amongst other complementary options, the
potential effects of a levy applied on transactions.

Building upon similar international experiences in both developed
and developing countries, and political as well as economic
analyses, a levy on transactions in Africa is explored in four
sectors: extractive industries, financial and banking transactions
(including remittances), international trade and transportation
(including exports) and tourism. The estimated revenue shows that
even if such regional revenues were generated by the application of
these levies, however, adaptation costs would exceed the
revenue generation capacity as early as 2020.

Current and projected adaptation costs for Africa far exceed average
climate finance over the 2010-2012 period. Addressing this urgent
lack of funding will require the deployment of complementary
measures at the international, continental and national levels. Even
if for example a levy were regionally applied on transactions to
raise revenue for adaptation costs which would already exceed the
revenue generation capacity by 2020. Only a steep increase in
adaptation funding from developed to developing countries will
contribute to closing the adaptation-funding gap in Africa.

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org