l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 (CNSNews.com) – Already reviled by green groups for repealing its
predecessor’s carbon tax, Australia’s center-right government is stoking
fresh controversy with plans to slash funding to the U.N.’s top
environmental body.
Coming at a time when a U.N. climate conference in Peru is firing up
activists, the decision by Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s government to cut
funding to the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) by more than 80 percent has
drawn sharp condemnation.
Critics already view Australia as a “global pariah,” going against the
tide of progress in the drive to tackle climate change.
Cutting funding to UNEP also comes amid a growing international campaign to
upgrade UNEP from its current status as a U.N. “program” to a more
powerful and better-funded “specialized agency.” Some activists even want
it empowered to impose sanctions on countries that don’t implement
environmental agreements.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported Tuesday that the government
will cut A$4 million ($3.4 million) in funding for UNEP over the next four
years, reducing this year’s contribution from A$1.2 ($1.01 million) to just
A$200,000 ($169,000).
It quoted Environment Minister Greg Hunt as saying UNEP was not a budget
priority for the government, and defending the decision by pointing to
greater funding being directed at environmental challenges in the region.
“I would imagine that most Australians would think that putting [A]$12
million into coral reef protection within our region, and combating illegal
logging of the rainforests of the Asia Pacific would be a pretty good
investment, rather than [A]$4 million for bureaucratic support within the U.
N. system,” he said.
Set up in 1972, the Nairobi, Kenya-based UNEP describes itself as “the
voice for the environment within the United Nations system.”
Since it is a U.N. program and not a specialized agency, UNEP has relied on
voluntary donations from member-states rather than “assessed contributions
” (the formula that sees the U.S. liable for 22 percent of the budget of
agencies like the Worod Health Organization.)
UNEP executive director Achim Steiner told ABC he was disappointed at the
decision, as member-states contributions enable the organization “to fulfil
its mandate and be of service to the global community.”
Big contributors to UNEP include European countries and the United States.
The State Department’s fiscal year 2015 request for UNEP is $7.55 million,
although the actual amount U.S. taxpayers will likely account for is higher,
as the State Department is only one of several agencies through which
funding is channeled.
(According to the most recent Office of Management and Budget report to
Congress on U.S. contributions to the U.N., $22.9 million was directed to
UNEP in 2010, including contributions from the Departments of Commerce,
Interior and State, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA.
The OMB reporting requirement expired in 2011, and some lawmakers want it
reinstated.)
At a major U.N. sustainability conference in Rio de Janeiro in late 2012,
delegates failed in a bit to upgrade it into a fully-fledged specialized
agency, but did agree that it would receive “secure, stable and increased
financial resources from the regular budget of the U.N.”
For some activists this was not nearly enough.
In a paper two months later, senior Greenpeace International officials said
the advance was inadequate. Executive director Kumi Naidoo and political
director Daniel Mittler wrote that governments must “move urgently to
complete the upgrading process,” ensure that UNEP gets significant
additional funding – and grasp subjects like giving UNEP power to monitor
implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and “impose
sanctions on those breaking the rules.” |
|
