Vikki's posterous

Déjà vu

Post communique - which was just as we expected - and a speech from Obama, we were joined by Michael Froman, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs (phew).

I asked him the following just before my laptop truly gave up the ghost:

"At the LDN summit there was no specific figure put on the table for a fund to deal with climate change, now that the time has come to put this into action, I just wondered if you thought this was one of the reasons that things are moving so slowly in this area?"

His answer was basically that yes, along with technology and science, finance is one of key aspects of battling climate change that is yet to be agreed upon.Then went on to say that it needs to be discussed.

Right, yes, it definitely needs to be discussed. Froman went on to say that this was one of the topics on the agenda for November's Finance Ministers meet.

This is the second time I've asked this at a G20 event, here's an excerpt from the blog I wrote for Global Cool directly at London in April:

"After several very key questions from Todd Lucier, I got the chance to ask Mr Miliband the question that had been playing on my mind since his official time with the press;

“It’s obviously very positive that world leaders have agreed that carbon needs to be high on the agenda, but do you not feel that we need to put aside concrete and measurable funds to allow climate change to be dealt with? It’s all very well saying that we’ll work towards agreeing on actions in Copenhagen, but if we don’t assign funds now  (while they are being ‘dealt out’, as such) it may too late?”

After a repetition of the question, or more accurately, the question Mr Miliband hoped I was asking, he completely agreed with me. He noted that yes, it was vital to put funds in place to help countries struggling to respond and deal with the effects of climate carbon. This is indeed true, but it’s not really what I was asking. I was asking about the allocation of funds across the board, within the G20 network itself, to help everyone tackle the elimination of climate change, not the results of it.

When are they going to stop putting this off and assign proper funds to action instead of talk?

Chatting again with Kumi Naidoo

The bloggers and I just got to have another chat with Kumi, who is Head of GCAP (Global Call to Action against Poverty).

Media_httpwwwforumblogorgphotosuncategorizednaidoo3jpg_onfojeajrtgnfgj

My main question to him was this: What would a successful outcome be for you today?

He said straight off the bat that he didn't think we'll see it, but in theory, a successful communique would outline the promises made in April - and then put a percentage of progress next to each target. As in, 'we made 20% of progress on this and 0% on everything else' (the reform of the IMF for example).

The IMF is an interesting example as it's governed in a non-democratic way, so the trade off for giving money to them was this phantom reform, which has yet to have happened.

He went on to say that one key success would be an acknowledgement of what's actually happened, rather than an attempt to remove from people's memories what has been promised at previous Summits,

Second, though he also said he knew it wouldn't be happening (the decision has been bumped to Nov), is a serious commitment to providing the $150 billion of additional support for developing countries. At moment, the wording in the draft communique is uncertain about whether the figure proposed is additional to existing aid or on top.

In terms of dealing with poverty: 'the best we can hope for is that the allocations for emergency food to the tune of $20 billion/year will be delivered'.

However, Kumi says that this Summit will be remembered as the one that finally killed off the G8 (the Summit in Canada next year may become last one, or could possibly become a G20). And while GCAP welcomes the broadening of outlook, there are an overwhelming number of countries not represented.

He spoke of his personal experience of living in South Africa, and that the government says it will speak for all of Africa, but he doesn't truly believe it.

In the G20 there is no Egypt, with its 65 million people or Nigeria and its 110 million people. If decisions are really to be made from a democratic perspective rather than financial - membership to this group should be based on population size.

It is important that the G20 recognises its limitations, and does everything to move towards discussing these issues at a 'G192' (via the UN, which hosts 192 countries instead of just 20).

Responses to the leaked communique

On the potential IMF 'reform', Max Lawson, Oxfam senior policy adviser, said: "This is not IMF reform, it is just tinkering at the edges. Unless it changes its rules to give poor countries a real say in the way it is run, the IMF will remain the world’s rich country club.”

To give this context, developed countries have 57% voting rights for IMF funding, with developing countries only being given almost half of that.

On cutting fossil fuel subsidies, David Waskow (who we just did a briefing with) said: "Removing fossil fuel subsidies could be an important step towards cutting CO2 emissions. But it should not be allowed to distract from the failure of rich countries to offer poor countries the help they need. Poor people should not be asked to pay the price of cutting emissions, it is rich countries that must cut fastest and furthest."

On the 'G20 replacing G8 issue, which I think is a substantial movement towards presenting a more unfied global effort at least: "The G20 is more representative than the G8 put there is still no seat at the table for the poorest countries. South Africa is the only African country included in this club. That means when the G20 talks about growth and stability they are leaving the poorest countries in the cold.