Building the Future together in Israel and Palestine: Why it is the only real Option?It is crystal clear, almost self-evident, by now that the only real option concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is peace in the shape of the two-state solution that is being in the present, and will be in the near future, forcefully pushed by the Obama administration. This can be seen, should be seen, as a window opportunity which may not last for a long time, however. Storm clouds are already gathering on the horizon in the form of a two-nation / one-state solution which, I believe, is a recipe for disaster because it is entirely unacceptable for 99.5 per cent of the Jewish population of Israel who are viscerally opposed to it because in such a State they would soon find themselves in a minority, and that is almost a psychological impossibility. That does not mean, however, that a significant minority of Jewish Israelis could not live in a future Palestinian State, just like the strong minority of Israeli Arabs live in Israel.
Therefore, the Israeli government should not waste time to declare publicly and unequivocally not only that that it accepts the two-state solution, but that it will do everything in its power to make it a success – by, inter alia, investing heavily in Palestinian industrial and agricultural projects, and helping in Palestinian institution- and infrastructure-building.
It is time for Israel to understand that time is not working for Israel’s current policies for a very powerful and overriding reason which is the following: The world is in the midst of fundamental change: the old paradigm characterized by unlimited economic growth, a huge and growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, the persistence of extreme poverty and the destruction of the environment has done its time and is being, and will be, gradually replaced by a new paradigm whose predominant aspect will not be the perceived interests of the states and big business, but the peoples’ rights, or the human rights of the peoples, which comprise the new rights of : self-determination and development, life and security, a peaceful environment and remedial justice; violations of these rights will be investigated by international courts and the violators will no longer be able to benefit from impunity.
Intimations of what is in store for Israel can be seen in what happened with the Goldstone Report, and that is only a preliminary, an hors d’oeuvre so to speak. The consequences of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Gaza which will soon begin ‘judging’ the war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by Israel and Hamas in the Gaza war can be expected to be worse.
What all this means is that Israel is presently caught in a downward spiral whose end-result will be, if it is not reversed, that Israel will progressively be transmogrified into something that is part a garrison state, part an apartheid state and part a pariah state. Certainly, this is neither a viable nor an acceptable future for Israel. Therefore, the downward spiral must be reversed, and turned into an upward spiral which will make Israel to be perceived by the peoples of the world, the civil societies of the world, because this is ultimately what will count in the long run, as a nation-state that really wants to build in the region a better and sustainable future with the Palestinians.
A dramatic gesture is needed at this point to impulse or jump-start that process. Like Anwar al-Sadat more than thirty years ago, Binyamin Netanyahu must go to Ramallah and pay a personal visit to Abu Mazen. That will show clearly that Israel means business. And Abu Mazen will respond because that is in the well-considered interest of the Palestinians. As for Hamas, it will be faced with a difficult dilemma, and forced to deal with this new and constructive challenge … constructively.
Of course, this radical change cannot be achieved as long as Israel Beiteinu and the religious parties are part of the Israeli government. A national unity government is needed that incorporates all the political forces of the country that are willing to undertake such a policy: Likud and Kadima, principally, and some other smaller parties, like Meretz.
I believe that making peace with the Palestinians will usher a new era in the Middle East in which the regressive forces will find themselves in a disarray and on the defensive.
Global Signature Campaign for Finance-Transaction-TaxAfter the IMF consulted civilians about the Finance-Transaction-Tax (FTT), as announced in previous news, European Attacs, several NGO’s and civil society groups now call out for further support to successfully implement the FTT in the near future. It’s important to communicate the urgency and necessity of a tax against poverty in public, to draw attention to this important issue.
It’s easily possible to raise the voice for a FFT through signing a letter online on the web-page. There is great hope to get numerous support for this campaign until the G20-summit from 24th-26th of June in Toronto.
The initiator of the petition Jesuit priest Jörg Alt has great expectations in this project. So does Detlef v. Larcher from the Attac-coordination-circle, who repeatedly emphasizes how banks currently use the financial crisis in Greece to boost speculations against the Euro. Citizens paying taxes will get the bill in the end. A FTT could prevent such mechanisms taking place.
World Vote Now!On February 23, at the invitation of MEP Graham Watson, Joel Mardsen presented his 1 1/2 hour documentary film WORLD VOTE NOW ! Over eight years, Joel Mardsen and a team of film makers and global governance activists roamed all continents to screen the election and voting process in countries throughout the planet. ...
Film maker Joel Mardsen's conclusion based on sample interviews in 26 countries shown in this fascinating documentary: the peoples of the world are ready to participate in a global referendum on global issues such as climate change, poverty eradication, health, water and gender issues, and the establishment of a lasting, universal peace - a precondition to the prosperity and well-being of all the peoples of the world. The film maker even tested a satellite voting machine with bewildered members of election commissions.
Watch the trailer!
Reviving the American Liberal MovementBy Rabbi Michael Lerner
Close to 600 people in the San Francisco Bay Area gave up their President's Day Monday vacation to spend some nine hours in a "Strategy Conference for Liberals and Progressives" to address "How To Support Obama to BE the Obama Americans Thought We Elected" and "How to Launch a Constitutional Amendment to Restrain Corporate Power" after the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow unrestrained corporate spending on elections.
[...]
The second major focus was on the Global Marshall Plan. The NSP version (read it at www.spiritualprogressives.org) calls for the US to take the lead by example in creating an international consortium of advanced industrial societies, each of which would dedicate 1-2% of their GDP each year for the next twenty to once and for all end global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education, inadequate health care, and repair the global environment. Part of the plan involves changing the terms of international trade to favor the poor instead of only the advanced industrial societies. Though few of the attendees believe that such a plan could pass the present Congress, they argue that the anti-war movement has been hobbled by only knowing what it is against, not what it is for, and the Global Marshall Plan gives that positive vision. The NSP has consistently argued that it is the Strategy of Generosity rather than the Strategy of Domination that is the most rational path to achieve Homeland Security, and that the Global Marshall Plan could be funded by the same monies that will be squandered in endless wars. While supporting the more limited ideas of the Millenium Goals, NSPers argue that Americans are more likely to rally around a program that could in fact end global poverty than one that only promises amelioration of the worst suffering in the poorest of states, but not a fundamental transformation of the economics that continues to maintain this situation. In late January, Congressman Keith Ellison introduced H.Res. 1016 which called on the President and the Congress to embrace this strategy of generosity for homeland security.
Source: Huffington Post
The Robin Hood Tax - turning a crisis for the banks into an opportunity for the world
A Robin Hood Tax on banks' financial transactions could raise hundreds of billions of pounds to fight poverty, protect public services and tackle climate change, according to a campaign launched today (Wednesday) by an unprecedented coalition of domestic charities, aid agencies, unions, faith organisations and green groups.
The campaign is calling on the leaders of the UK's political parties to support a global tax on the banks to help repair the human damage caused by the global economic crisis, protect public services at home, fight poverty abroad and help foot the bill for climate change.
The campaign, supported by almost 50 organisations including Oxfam, the TUC, Barnardo's, The Salvation Army, ActionAid and Save the Children, is launched with a promotional film starring Bill Nighy, and written and directed by Richard Curtis (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Comic Relief). It is backed by regional events, advertising and online promotions challenging politicians, banks and the public to Be Part of the World's Greatest Bank Job.
The Robin Hood Tax is backed by financiers and hundreds of economists who have signed a letter supporting the campaign.
Alastair Constance, City trader and founder of Ethical Currency, which already levies a voluntary rate of 0.005 per cent on all currency transactions, said: "Billions of pounds whizz round the global financial system every day. A tiny tax on each transaction is absolutely practical and will hardly be noticed by those paying it. But it could still raise billions to help make the world a better place."
The Robin Hood Tax would not be levied on banks' transactions with their high street customers, but only apply to transactions between financial institutions. While different rates of tax would apply to different types of transaction, they would start at just five pence for every thousand pounds traded - an average of 0.05 per cent.
But even such tiny taxes would raise hundreds of billions of dollars a year given the scale of transactions - equivalent to $10,000 a day for every one of the 1.2 billion inhabitants of the world's 30 richest countries in the OECD. Experts have estimated an international transaction tax system could eventually raise as much as £250bn ($400bn) every year.
While an internationally agreed tax system is the best way to proceed, the UK Government and European Union should start extending transaction taxes already in existence, such as the UK's 0.5 per cent stamp duty on shares, the campaign says.
This would both raise much needed money and encourage other countries to adopt the proposal, with modern foreign exchange markets an attractive and easy target for a unilateral tax on sterling and Euro transactions.
The market for financial transactions has exploded in the last decade, and is now worth 60 times global GDP. Before the financial crisis banking was the most profitable industry in the world, with profits five times that of the pharmaceutical industry, and three times bigger than the privatised utilities, according to consultants McKinsey & Company. At the same time the financial sector is not taxed as much as other sectors.
The campaign is calling for countries which levy the tax to keephalf the proceeds domestically and for the rest to be split 50-50 between poverty reduction and tackling climate change. The UK's share of the tax would amount to tens of billions of pounds.
Money raised by a Robin Hood Tax could be used to avoid cuts to vital public services and for a range of good causes including:
* Meeting the Government's target to halve child poverty (£4bn)
* Ending the benefit trap that makes it too expensive for people to leave welfare and return to work (£2.7bn)
* Protecting schools and hospitals at home and abroad under threat of cuts
* Meeting the Millennium Development Goals to cut child deaths by two-thirds, maternal mortality by two-thirds and tackle malaria and HIV/AIDS, and
* Providing resources to enable a deal to be done on tackling climate change.
The UK campaign is part of an international movement with similar calls being made in the USA, Europe and across the developing world. Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Nancy Pelosi, Jose Manuel Barroso and Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia) have all spoken out in recent months in support of some form of transaction tax.
Financial figures who have backed transaction taxes include Lord Turner (FSA), George Soros, Warren Buffet, Avinash Persaud (chairman of Intelligence Capital), Sir Philip Hampton (RBS chairman) and Terry Smith (chief executive of money brokers Tullett Prebon).
Polling carried out by YouGov for Oxfam shows there is already significant public support for a Robin Hood Tax, with almost twice as many people in favour of the policy as oppose it. It is also the public's favoured option for reducing the UK's deficit - well ahead of reducing public spending or raising income tax, VAT or corporation tax. Faced with a 12 per cent deficit, the next government will be facing a stark choice - raising other taxes such as income tax or VAT, cutting services, or taxing the banks. The campaign believes that the Robin Hood Tax is the right idea at the right time.
In a letter to the leaders of the UK's political parties, the campaign says: 'You could ignore the big problems facing the world, and accept that climate change will stay unchecked, and that the poorest people at home and abroad will have a very hard time of it over the next decade. Or you can find all the money needed by directly taxing the British public themselves.
'Or you can work to find an innovative, modern, regular way of accumulating a fund of money to deal with big issues boldly. We would ask you seriously to consider the Robin Hood Tax as that radical new option - a small tax on bankers that would make a huge difference to the UK, to the poorest countries and to our planet. Let's turn the crisis for the banks into an opportunity for Britain and the world.'
Barbara Stocking Oxfam Chief Executive said: 'We have a once in a generation opportunity to make global finance work in the interests of ordinary people at home and abroad. A tiny tax on banks would make a massive difference to the millions of ordinary people around the globe forced into extreme poverty by the economic crisis.'
Brendan Barber TUC General Secretary said: 'The crash was made in the finance sector - finance should now make a proper contribution to putting right the damage the crash caused and preventing huge cuts in vital public services.'
Claire Melamed Head of Policy at ActionAid said: 'We now have a chance to raise enough money to create real and lasting change. If politicians are brave enough we could turn a financial crisis into an opportunity for the world's poor by raising billions from the banks to spend at home and abroad.'
Further information:
* Jon Slater, Oxfam, 01865 472249 or 07876 476403
* Liz Chinchen, TUC, 0207 467 1248 or 07778 158175
* Asha Tharoor, ActionAid, 0207 561 7634 or 07813 688680
* Kathryn Rawe, Save the Children, 0207 012 6701 or 07827 256072
* Pippa Rodger, Barnardo's, 0208 498 7404 or 07500 968419
You can follow the Robin Hood Tax campaign on our website www.robinhoodtax.org.uk
Or on Twitter @robinhood
The following 48 organisations are supporting the Robin Hood Tax Campaign: ActionAid, Action for Global Health (UK), ACTSA (Action on Southern Africa), Africa Europe Faith Justice Network - UK, Article 12 in Scotland, ATD Fourth World, Barnardo's, Cafod, Centre for Alternative Technology, Chigwell Justice and Peace Centre, Christian Aid, Christian Medical Fellowship, Christian Socialist Movement, Church Action on Poverty, Church of Scotland Church and Society Council, Commonwealth HIV & AIDS Action Group, Forum for Stable Currencies, General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, Health Unlimited, Housing Justice, Interact Worldwide, International HIV/AIDS Alliance, National Justice and Peace Network, National Union of Teachers, NCVO, nef (the new economics foundation), Oxfam GB, ONE, People and Planet, Plan UK, Results UK, The Salvation Army, Save the Children UK, Stamp Out Poverty, Stop AIDS Campaign, Student Partnerships Worldwide, TB Alert, Tearfund, Trades Union Congress, UNA-UK, Unicef UK, Unite, University and College Union, Urban Forum, War on Want, World Development Movement, World Wide Robin Hood Society, Zacchaeus 2000 Trust.
The YouGov poll for Oxfam was undertaken between 13 to 16 November 2009. Total sample size was 2070 adults. The poll found that almost twice as many people would support (53 per cent) than oppose (28 per cent) a financial transaction tax on the basis that some of the money raised would be used to help people hit by the economic crisis in the UK and abroad.
More than a third (36 per cent) said a tax on banks was their preferred option for cutting the UK's deficit. This compared to 26 per cent who opted for cutting public spending. It was four times the 9 per cent who supported increased tax on businesses; five times the 7 per cent who wanted income tax raised; and nine times the 4 per cent who favoured increasing Value Added Tax (VAT).
Press release issued 10 Feb 2010
Why we need a Marshall Plan for HaitiThe saddening and horrific pictures from Haiti after its devastating earthquake brought back vivid memories for me. I lived through an earthquake when I was a young boy in Morocco, and I know how harrowing it is. At that time, there were forty thousand casualties -- nothing close to what has happened in Haiti -- but I still recall the traumatic scenes of collapsed buildings and mourning families.
Haiti has now been devastated on a far larger scale. The earthquake -- the worst in the region in more than 200 years -- is the latest in a series of natural and man-made disasters that have, over the years, turned the Caribbean country into the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Some 80 percent of its nine million people live below the poverty line.
The earthquake has flattened much of the capital, Port-au-Prince. According to the International Red Cross, three million people, nearly a third of Haiti's population, will need emergency food, water, and shelter for months to come.
Two hundred years ago, Haiti was the "Pearl of the Antilles." Its amazingly rich soil then produced four crops a year. It is not unrealistic to imagine that the country can be rebuilt as a prosperous nation. But it needs help over a prolonged period.
That's why I'm proposing a type of Marshall Plan -- an international effort to support the Haitian authorities in rebuilding the country and back its democracy, much as the United States helped rebuild Europe after the destruction of World War II.
The IMF has the capacity to provide urgently needed cash resources very quickly, and we -- along with separate contributions from other international agencies -- aim to make $100 million available to Haiti in the next few days as a bridge that will get Haiti through from today's humanitarian needs to tomorrow's reconstruction. The Fund, in close coordination with other donors, is assisting the authorities in getting cash to circulate in the economy so people can buy food, and civil servants can be paid. Banks will reopen shortly but the payments system is not fully operational yet.
That will take care of short-term needs but we should also plan now for the future. A first donors' conference is scheduled to take place in Montreal next week, in preparation for a larger conference in the spring that will mobilize financing for Haiti. I hope the contours of such a plan will start to take shape through the process begun in Montreal. In the coming weeks and months, the Fund will participate, by providing money and expertise, in the reconstruction plan that will be coordinated across the international community.
Part of the goal will be to restart private activity, rebuilding businesses and encouraging guarantees for the banking sector so that lending can get under way again. It is also critical to support the creation of jobs in rural areas, where large sectors of the population have moved because of the quake.
With victims still being dug out of the rubble, Haiti's needs are massive and immediate: the international community is working together to mobilize all available resources and to deliver them as quickly as possible. Once again, in tragic circumstances, the rescue and reconstruction effort highlights that only the international community, acting in concert, can meet challenges that go beyond individual governments. And we must emphasize that the focus on Haiti must not result in the diversion of aid at the expense of other poor countries.
For now, and for at least the next couple of years, Haiti has no payments to make on its existing debts to the Fund, while the emergency loan we are providing is interest-free, with no repayments due for five years. Looking beyond the emergency phase, and as part of an international plan to rebuild the country, there will be a need to reassess Haiti's debt situation in light of the catastrophic damage to its economy. At that stage, the international community needs to be ready to provide comprehensive debt relief.
Today, the urgent immediate priority is to save the people of Haiti. In a few weeks, it will be reconstruction. We must be prepared to think on as massive a scale as then U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall did after World War II. If we seize this chance, we can help the people of Haiti escape their cycle of poverty and deprivation fueled by merciless natural disasters that plague the Caribbean nation. The international community owes it to them.
From the iMFdirect blog via Huffington Post.
Teaser photo: Rémi Kaupp
Copenhagen and Beyond, Civil Society and Civil Disobedience18 January 2010
www.alliancemagazine.org
Few people would disagree that the outcome of the recent Copenhagen conference was very disappointing. But are there positive things that we can build on, Caroline Hartnell asked Kumi Naidoo, the new executive director of Greenpeace International. What can individuals, civil society and private foundations do to ensure we do reach the global deal we need? Advocacy for policy change at global level is the priority now, says Naidoo. Foundations should step up their funding, and should be willing to support civil disobedience along with other approaches.
I’d like to start by asking for your assessment of the outcome of the Copenhagen conference. However unsatisfactory, is it something we can build on?
Since the Bali conference two years ago, the objective of many governments and civil society was to ensure that Copenhagen delivered a fair, ambitious and legally binding treaty. We didn’t get one. However, there are some things that we can put down as partial successes.
First, we began to see national political leadership taking responsibility because the climate issue is not simply about the climate but about the economy, about society and about peace. So we have established that this is not just about environment ministers getting together and talking about a political issue but a central issue that affects how we think about the planet.
The second positive thing is that there was virtually no contesting of the science, even with the recent climategate emails. There was no real problem like we used to have when President Bush was there. I think the scientific debate has been put to bed now.
The third positive thing was that we got agreement on the principle that developing countries are least responsible for the climate chaos we find ourselves in and also the ones paying the most brutal price. They should therefore receive significant financing to help them adapt to the impact of climate change, recognizing the historical responsibility. There were a lot of questions about the figures. The figure that was committed from 2015 is $100 billion a year. Greenpeace has been calling for a minimum of $140 billion and African countries have been calling for $200 billion. The weakness is that no one has said where this is going to come from.
Finally, there was a recognition that, as President Obama said, Copenhagen will not avert catastrophic climate change. For once, political leaders didn't attempt to greenwash it because it is so clear that there is a long way to go before the kind of response the science suggests we need is actually achieved. So overall, while Copenhagen didn't live up to expectations, I think the positive things that I've just mentioned give us a measure of cautious optimism for the next stage of the struggle.
Presumably what we’re working towards now is binding targets that do what’s required in the time required?
Correct. The next big meeting, COP16 as it will be known as, takes place in November in Mexico, but the whole message of the campaign that Greenpeace is supporting, the Tck Tck Tck campaign, is that time is running out. If we take what the scientists and economists like Nick Stern are saying, and the International Energy Agency, for every year that we delay taking action, the costs go up by $500 million. In terms of the so-called Copenhagen Accord, governments are supposed to announce the targets that they are seeking to achieve in terms of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, what national plans they are developing, what policies they are pursuing and what assistance they need. The deadline for that is 31 January, so at the moment a lot of energy is going towards that.
There’s also a meeting in Bonn in May/June this year where we’re hoping that we can get some clearer targets on the table. There are also closer, more specific targets like working for zero deforestation by 2015, and we think we can get actionable plans if there’s enough of a political consensus. One of the downsides of the Copenhagen Accord is that it’s really G8-ish or G20-ish in the generalness of the terms in which it’s couched, which local leaders can exploit. Think of all the fanfare surrounding the Gleneagles summit: 2010 was the year to deliver and we’ve not even reached 50 per cent of delivery on many of those promises.
So what can civil society and individuals do to help ensure that these milestones in January, May/June and November are met and we do get the agreements we need?
First, I think citizens and civil society must recognize that governments will not act with the urgency that is needed unless they are pushed into it.
I think there are two broad sets of things individuals can do. One is developing their own understanding of the issue and helping raise awareness in families, schools, places of worship and so on. The other is changing consumer behaviour and building pressure from below for the kind of change that is needed. Take using energy-efficient light bulbs, for example. If there was a significant move in that direction, in the long term, not only would they become cheaper, but we’d probably see much more accelerated movement towards governments passing legislation that makes energy-efficient light bulbs the norm rather than the exception. Other forms of consumer behaviour – the level of demand for meat-based as opposed to vegetarian food, the transport we use – all of these things can also accelerate change at the top. Overall, individual citizens need to pressure their politicians to let them know they care, that inaction on climate will have intolerable consequences.
With regard to civil society, what was positive about Copenhagen was that the climate issue was no longer an issue only for environmental groups. We saw the World Council of Churches and other faith-based groups, trade unions and development organizations that don’t normally get involved in climate issues came to the fore very strongly. This was the aim of the Tck Tck Tck campaign (a collation of civil society organizations including Greenpeace, Oxfam, Amnesty, the International Trade Union Federation and others). We will only know we have turned the corner in terms of climate change activism if we can attract these organizations to put their name and energy and resources behind the campaign.
Why do you think it’s so difficult to engage people in climate change activism?
I think there are three things involved. First, a slow-burning issue like climate change is not very visible and not easy to explain to a broad audience, unlike human rights violations or poverty. The second problem is the science. This is often presented in ways that make it harder for people who aren’t specialists to engage with. When we start talking 350 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere, 1.5 versus 2 degrees, and so on, people get quite alienated. One of the challenges that we took up in 2009 was how we can make all this more accessible, without being simplistic. The third thing is that, unlike human rights violations and poverty, where there are no serious lobbyists putting money and advertising into saying these are good things, with climate change, we come up against some of the most powerful industry interests in the world – the fossil fuel industry and other polluting industries, with huge advertising budgets and very good lobbyists.
Given all the things that stack up against civil society, I think we did quite well to put those lobbies on the defensive.
So what can civil society do next?
There are four things civil society has been doing and must continue to do. First, we need to continue to make a contribution to the science. Right now, I’m sure that with the current cold spell many people around the world, especially in Europe, are saying, ‘Whatever happened to global warming?’ We need to be able to explain how the impact of global warming is actually producing extremities in the weather, possibly including these colder periods in Europe and North America.
Second, we need to do much more global awareness raising than we’re doing – and we need to do this in a non-jargonistic way. Third, we need to look at what forms private action can take, in terms of consumer behaviour, and what demands people make of the environment in terms of transport, energy consumption and so on. Civil society needs to be engaging in new ways of thinking – everything from energy efficiency to looking at sustainable ways out of energy poverty. Part of the problem we face is that 1.6 billion people in the world are energy poor, with virtually no access to any form of energy whatsoever. We need to find low-carbon ways of moving these people out of poverty by giving them access to PVC solar panels and so on.
You talked about the effectiveness of civil society lobbying prior to Copenhagen. Is there still a continuing advocacy role for civil society?
Absolutely. None of these things go any way towards the scale of changes that we actually need, and that’s why the voice of civil society in lobbying for policy changes and national legislative interventions, backed up by the global treaty that we’re all working for, is critically important for pushing government to make serious cuts in emissions and invest more in energy efficiency as well as renewable energy. I would say that in places like Africa and Asia, we have not begun to exploit the potential of solar and wind energy. There is a huge potential there, which might mean that, ten years from now, with the right levels of investment, Africa, specifically North Africa, could become an exporter of energy to Europe.
How to do advocacy is one of the things that civil society needs to address. The conventional methods of lobbying and letter writing and appealing and going to meetings need to be enhanced. When humanity has been faced with grave problems – slavery or apartheid, for example – it’s only when decent men and women have been willing to step forward and say, 'Enough. I’m willing to put my life on the line, like Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi, I'm prepared to engage in civil disobedience', that these extreme situations are ended. Al Gore has recently called for civil disobedience to advance the climate change agenda. I think that’s part of what civil society needs to do.
And presumably what private foundations and individual donors should do is support the best civil society organizations that are working in these areas?
I think foundations need to be putting their resources into all the activities I've just been talking about. The big issue is how much you put into service delivery versus policy change. I think foundations need to become a bit more cutting-edge in terms of putting more resources into advocacy efforts – and at Copenhagen we did see certain foundations for the first time getting better results from making global grants.
This needs to be intensified. We need to recognize that at the end of the day we can't win the climate challenge by investing only at the national level. We need a global response and more needs to be invested, especially at the global level. Second – and I think this will challenge philanthropy like nothing else – there needs to be more support for peaceful but high-impact civil disobedience. Foundations, particularly the more cutting-edge ones, need to be open to that. And in terms of scale of support, they need to do more!
What do you see as the main obstacle to more and more effective climate-related grantmaking?
Part of the problem we face here, and in other areas, is that we tend to operate in silos, both in our analysis and in our interventions. We put things in environmental silos, development silos and so on. Climate change intersects with many areas of grantmaking. What, for example, is the youth development-climate change nexus? Young people have been the biggest voices on climate change: they know that their future is at stake. Or take grantmaking related to peace and conflict: climate change has already driven local-level conflict in places like Bangladesh and water scarcity was one of the causes of the genocide in Darfur. Likewise, if you look at funding for women, we know that as conflict arises and poverty increases, women and children will pay the biggest price. It's not a question of foundations saying, 'Climate change is a new thing. Now let’s look at what we can do.' It’s a question of how they adapt existing streams of grantmaking to make them more climate friendly.
But overall the focus at this stage should be on policy change at global level?
We can win small, incremental victories here and there at the local and national levels, but the aggregated impact is going to be woefully inadequate. So yes, right now the primary focus should be to help civil society to push our governments to agree a fair, ambitious and legally binding treaty to avert catastrophic climate change.
Kumi Naidoo is executive director of Greenpeace International.
For more information www.greenpeace.org
Photo credit © Greenpeace / Marco Okhuizen
