An
official with the Canadian International Development Agency, which oversees the
disbursal of Canadian foreign aid, said the desertification convention
committed too much time to meetings and too little to funding on-the-ground
development work.
So lets look at the governments use of doublespeak to lie to the Canadian people: First, actual
Figures from the Programme budget for the biennium 2012–2013 show that support
costs (following United Nations rules) are only 13% of overall budget
In accordance with the financial rules
of the COP and standard practice of the
United Nations, a rate of 13 per cent
is charged to all trust funds for programme support services, or overheads. These support
services are mostly used to cover the costs of administrative support staff and
secretariat staff costs at the United Nations liaison office in New York. Table
5 indicates the estimated human and financial resource requirements for the
next biennium, which are contingent upon associated income to the special
account.
Our government claims to be a supporter of results based budgeting but what do they do when they are faced with results they do not agree with or support, they deny they exist and then shoot the messenger. The
notes I found online show how the budget for this Convention was built using results based budgeting. The doublespeak used by our government shows how little they think of the environment and climate change and also shows the low level
of thinking of our government. The source for the notes
of interest are:
- In decision 3/COP.8, Parties
stated that planning and budget cycles would involve the drafting of
multi-year (four-year) workplans for CRIC, CST, GM and the secretariat
according to results-based management (RBM) principles.
- Results-based budgeting (RBB) may
be regarded as the operational and financial dimension of results-based
management. It links the programme delivery with resource availability,
and provides a framework for credible performance evaluation at the end of
a budget period. The essence of RBM is to ensure that priorities are
identified, and then funded
- The RBM planning documents are
the basis of the budget. The multi-year workplans of CST, CRIC, GM and the secretariat present
the strategic orientation of work to be carried out, which is complemented
by the corresponding two-year costed work programmes that detail the programme
delivery and related costs.
Another
document from the UN (http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cop9/6eng.pdf
) shows what some of the results of the
programme have been over the last few years but according to our government “As part of our efforts to improve the
effectiveness of Canada’s assistance, we are focusing Canadian tax dollars
where they can provide real results,” CIDA Minister Julian Fantino said in a
statement.
The
desertification conference spent about 75 per cent of its estimated $15 million
budget on salaries, consultants, conferences and internal office expenses, and
about 18 per cent on development programs, a CIDA official told The Star.
So
what have been the results so far according to the United Nations (If you click
on the source you will see about 30 pages of results, I have only pulled
a few out for consideration.)
The government of Canada does not appear to
believe that Advocacy, awareness-raising and education are important, as these
rely on Scientific discussion and research. In Canada, our government muzzles
our scientists and does not believe (by its actions such as calling
environmentalists enemies of Canada) in Climate change:
Sub
programme 1 – Advocacy, awareness-raising and education Outcome area:
UNCCD
website visits have risen from an average 8,000 per month in 2007 to around
20,000
per month in 2009, which confirms an increased use of information provided by
the secretariat. Key factors in the secretariat’s enhanced information delivery
have been various outreach activities, targeted events such as the Land Day in
June 2009, and frequent website updates. It may also be noted that observance
of the 17 June World Day to Combat Desertification seems to show a steady
increase; 20 countries reported on events organized in 2008, while for 2009 the
number is close to 30.6
The
secretariat organised or co-organized over 30 side events and exhibitions in
2008,
which
is more than twice the number of corresponding events held in 2007. In 2009, by
the end of June over 20 events had already been organized.
In
line with decision 3/COP.8, the secretariat coordinated the development and implementation
of a comprehensive communication strategy with a set of core communications objectives
and expected results, which is presented to COP 9. In the immediate future, the
secretariat will continue strengthening its awareness-raising functions through
the implementation of this strategy, further development of the website, and
increased coverage, targeting and volume of outreach and related material.
Another
method of fostering attention and increasing press coverage will be the
involvement of “goodwill ambassadors,” that is, well-known personalities who
will help to raise awareness of DLDD issues and participate in related events.
Main challenges to carrying out awareness-raising functions concern the
availability of in-house capacity and the necessary partnerships and resources.
Outcome
area: DLDD issues are addressed in relevant international forums, including
those pertaining to agricultural trade, climate change adaptation, biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use, rural development, sustainable development
and poverty reduction.
The
importance of DLDD issues was included in the reports and resolutions of
several international and regional conferences and forums addressed by the
secretariat, including among others the 16th and 17th sessions of the
Commission on Sustainable Development, the Third World Water Forum, the
International Conference on Sustainable Development and MultiSectoral
Approaches, the Conference of African Ministers of Environment, the 2009 Water Africa
Conference, and the Fourth Tokyo International Conference on African
Development.
The
input of the secretariat to these and many other conferences and forums took
various forms, such as high-level
representation (keynote speeches, moderation of sessions, panel membership and
statements), participation in and provision of information to meetings and
preparatory processes, the organization of side events and exhibitions, and
delivery of UNCCD outreach material.
Outcome
areas: Affected country Parties revise their NAPs [national action programmes]
into strategic documents supported by biophysical and socio-economic baseline
information and include them in integrated investment frameworks.
Affected
country Parties integrate their NAPs and SLM and land degradation issues into development
planning and relevant sectoral and investment plans and policies.
In
order to support affected country Parties in aligning their action programmes
with The Strategy, the secretariat drafted a roadmap and initiated
consultations with the GM on
possible
approaches to the alignment, with the aim of addressing the matter through the
JWP. Within this framework, the secretariat commissioned consultancy services
to draft guidelines on the alignment, and organized eight subregional workshops
and an inter-agency meeting to discuss the draft guidelines. These guidelines
seek to provide a basis for coherent action among Parties on the matter.
The
draft guidelines describe the alignment process as an exercise in improving the
quality of national, subregional and regional action programmes, as well as the
conditions and modalities of their implementation, in order to achieve the
vision described in The Strategy. The main objectives of the alignment process
would be:
(a)
To institutionalize multi-sectoral, participatory and decentralized planning of
DLDD and SLM matters;
(b)
To turn the action programmes into strategic documents that are mainstreamed with
national and sectoral planning;
(c)
To create enabling scientific, policy, legislative and investment environments
and instruments which promote and support sustainable management of land
resources.
So what is the Convention planning to spend its money on next year. Well here is the actual Budget for your consideration.
A.
Secretariat
Advocacy,
awareness-raising and education 1
443 500
Policy
framework 1
401 200
Science,
technology and knowledge 2
300 900
Capacity-building
707 300
Financing
and technology transfer 355
100
B.
Management support
Executive
direction and management 2
410 000
Conference
services 811 750
Administration
and finance services 2 292 075
Subtotal
secretariat 11 721 825
C.
Committee on Science and Technology 76
000
D.
Committee for the Review of the Implementation
of
the Convention 76 000
E.
Global Mechanism
Advocacy,
awareness-raising and education 693 229
Policy
framework
525 754
F.
Management support
Financing
and technology transfer
1 756 383
Subtotal
Global Mechanism 4 131
716
G.
Programme support costs (13%) 2 080 720
H.
Working capital reserve (153 274)
TOTAL (A–H) 17 932 987
Canada
committed $315,000 to the desertification conference’s budget this year, down
from $350,000 in 2012.
So the funding Canada gives may not be missed, but the
shame of it is that Canada’s reputation on the world stage suffers another blow
from these right wing bigots who control Canada.
I am sad to say that by 2015 Canadians
will not be proud of their country, thanks to Steven Harper unless we put pressure on his government to act in a responsible manner.
