‘Zone of Peace’ Campaign Launched In 3 Countries to Build ‘People(s)-Centered Movement’ in the Americas

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in Unicorn Riot.

ATLANTA, United States—Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens announced Tuesday that the City of Atlanta and DeKalb County have reached an agreement regarding permitting issues that had previously slowed their plans to build an elaborate 85-acre police training facility in the middle of a forest in unincorporated DeKalb County, southeast of Atlanta. The training center, nicknamed “Cop City,” has sparked massive opposition; violent police repression of the movement against the project recently led to SWAT officers shooting and killing a protester.

Dickens’ announcement varied little from the Atlanta Police Foundation and the City of Atlanta’s previously stated plans. However, apparently responding to criticism from environmental groups and community members, the mayor attempted to reframe the project as environmentally beneficial to the South River watershed and surrounding forest.

“I know there have been questions about the environmental impact of this project, which is a focus of this agreement we’re announcing today with DeKalb County,” said Dickens. “The 85-acre facility will be constructed on a set of parcels owned by the city of Atlanta that totals more than 380 acres. The rest of the land, which is roughly 300 acres, will continue to be green space available to the public.”

Dickens claimed that the area slated for destruction by the city contains only “invasive species, soft woods, weeds, asphalt and rubble.” But those who have been to the forest, including several Unicorn Riot contributors, know that the 85 acres slated for destruction contain an actual, thriving ecosystem.

The mayor has deemed this new plan a “compromise,” but those protesting outside the press conference say no compromise has been reached with them.

“The city has lied about the Cop City acreage before,” wrote some of the protestors in a statement released by the Atlanta Community Press Collective. According to the group, the 85 acres includes only the footprint of buildings, not the entirety of forested acreage that will be destroyed by the project.

“In August 2021, when Atlanta City Council delayed their vote on Cop City, the APF claimed a similar ‘compromise:’ instead of clearing the 381 acres they are leased by the City of Atlanta, the APF would reduce the footprint of buildings and impermeable surfaces to only 85 acres, while more of the land would be cleared and turned into turf fields, shooting ranges, horse stables labeled ‘green space.’”

– Atlanta Community Press Collective

Jasmine Burnett, with Community Movement Builders, said that her group is not assuaged by promises of “green space” either.

“Our firm line is no cop city anywhere,” said Jasmine Burnett, Organizing Director at Community Movement Builders. “No destruction of the forest at all. I know, they’re trying to harp on the fact that it’s only 85 acres. And allegedly, the rest will be left for public use. But that’s 85 acres too much.”

“We are also calling for the charges to be dropped against all of the protesters who’ve been charged with any crimes, but especially the domestic terrorism charges,” said Burnett. “So yeah, ultimately, the fight to stop cop city continues beyond today, nothing has really changed except for the fact that they at the last minute made all of us come over here for a last minute press conference.”

Jaike Spottedwolf, who was also protesting outside City Hall during the press conference, echoed the concerns that the city continues to lie about the project. “We know how they operate,” they said. “We know that they’re going to get in there, start building and then take the whole thing down at that point, we won’t be able to fight anything.”

In the anonymous press release posted by the Atlanta Community Press Collective, the authors also pointed out that neither this current promise, nor past promises, have been legally binding. Those opposed to the project are concerned it could be nothing more than a ploy to distract opposition to the project.

“Nothing in the lease agreement was binding regarding this promise, and quickly the land disturbance permits shifted — nearly doubling to 171 acres,” the group wrote of the previous deal.

“Like all other points of ‘compromise,’ this has proved empty rhetoric to cover over the undemocratic railroading of this project on to un-represented, disenfranchised residents of Atlanta and Dekalb County. This is more backroom talk between powerful elites and their dark money contributors.”

– Anonymous Press Release by #StopCopCity Protesters

The announcement comes less than two weeks after police shot and killed forest defender Manuel “Tortuguita” Terán, claiming that Terán had shot an Georgia State Patrol trooper in the abdomen during a raid on the forest. Activist groups, however, have called that narrative into question, demanding the release of all information available on the incident to the family for an independent investigation. The trooper who killed Terán has not been named. Protest groups are demanding the release of his name.

During the press conference, neither the politicians nor the police chief mentioned Terán’s killing.

Recently, more than 1,300 climate justice groups have signed a statement calling for the immediate resignation of Mayor Dickens amidst growing controversy over the cop city project and Terán’s killing, according to the Atlanta Community Press Collective.

The ‘green space’ and eco-management aspects of the plan are not new innovations or concessions, but were presented by engineers in an October 26, 2021 meeting of the Community Stakeholder Advisory Committee (CSAC). (Recordings of CSAC meetings were first obtained and released by the Atlanta Community Press Collective).

In the October 2021 meeting, Lily Ponitz, a former environmental engineer serving on the committee as a concerned local resident, told the committee that areas slated for use as public parks include contamination that the Atlanta Police Foundation and the city of Atlanta instructed environmental contractors to ignore – allegations that were not challenged by either hired engineers on the call or the leaders and police officials on the committee. Ponitz was later unceremoniously kicked off the advisory committee due to her dissent regarding elements of the project.

Advisory Committee Chair Alison Clark, who was instrumental in removing Ponitz for her critical comments, is also President of the Boulder Walk Homeowner’s Association.

Here are comments from an exchange from October 21, 2021 meeting of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center (APSTC) Community Stakeholder Advisory Committee (CSAC):

Bob Hughes [Project Manager working with Atlanta Police Foundation]: And I think it’s important to point out, because I know last time we there was some express about concern of making sure if there’s an environmental issue that needs to be cleaned up, that it’s addressed, that that this environmental study is not just inside the 85 acres that are the Police Foundation lease land, but we’re looking at everything outside of that so that, you know, if there’s something there, we want to know it.

And I think you all want to know, we all want to know that gets cleaned up. 

Lily Ponitz: So that’s just where I actually don’t think what you’re saying is true. And I would like to see on a map exactly what areas you are defining in your environmental site assessment and what areas are in the plan for the site plan.

Alan Williams [Project Manager, Atlanta Police Foundation]: Well, our Phase One is in the public right now.

Lilz Ponitz: Yeah, I know. I’ve read it. 

So what I’m saying is, there are areas in the site that you guys left out investigating and I understand APF [Atlanta Police Foundation] told you to do that or the city of Atlanta told you to do that. They’re your client. But what I’m trying to advocate for is a full assessment of the whole property to actually understand the contamination that has been put on the site by the City of Atlanta so that when you open up park spaces that have not been remediated we don’t have citizens who are coming into contact with contaminated soil and contaminated water like they already have been, honestly, with Intrenchment Creek. So that’s that’s just where, you know, really to prove what you’re doing, to prove that this is due diligence in the eyes of the concerned citizen. I’m asking for maps that show what areas did you leave out…?

Last month, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry visited India in an effort to bolster the United States’ bilateral and multilateral climate efforts ahead of the 26th Conference of Parties (COP26), which will be held in Glasgow in just a few weeks. Countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will attend the conference to deliberate as well as negotiate actions needed to combat the climate crisis.

Kerry’s visit to India also marked the launch of Climate Action and Finance Mobilization Dialogue (CAFMD). CAFMD is part of the U.S.-India Agenda 2030 Partnership Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Joe Biden announced in April at the Leaders Summit on Climate. The talks took place within the context of India’s membership within an alliance colloquially referred to as “The Quad.” The alliance comprises Australia, Japan, India and the United States, and is aimed at countering a growing China in the Indo-Pacific region.

Soon after Kerry’s visit to India, Quad leaders met at the White House for discussions on a host of issues, including climate change. They agreed to work on climate targets aimed at 2030 and pursue enhanced actions in the 2020s.  

But what tools are available to India—and other developing countries—to support them as they face climate-change impacts like eroding coastlines and droughts? And how will such tools be made available? 

Mobilizing finance is considered key to helping developing countries meet their emission-reduction targets and adapt to climate-change impacts. At COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries committed to a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.

But while COP15 set a clear target of $100 billion, it allowed flexibility in terms of what forms of financial support qualify as climate finance. The Paris Agreement, the successor to the Copenhagen Accord, reiterated the $100 billion per year commitment, but it also allows a wide range of financial instruments.

Developing Countries’ Perspective

Developed and developing countries have different perspectives on climate finance. Chandra Bhushan, a public policy expert and founder/CEO of International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology (iFOREST), explained when developing countries speak of climate-finance requirements, they largely mean public grants from developed countries. But when developed countries talk about climate finance, they mean “everything from loans to grants to bilateral and multilateral funding,” Bhushan said. 

Bilateral funding refers to financial support from one country to another. Multilateral funding involves agencies such as the World Bank, which derives its source of funding from multiple countries.

India’s official position on climate finance is only grants and grant-equivalent elements of other instruments, like loans and guarantees, ought to be recognized as climate finance. For example, in a recent interview to CarbonCopy, Rajni Ranjan Rashmi, a former principal negotiator for India at the UN climate change negotiations, said it is “logical” to include only the grant portion, or the concessional part, of the loans in the definition of climate finance.

Publicly available information about CAFMD does not reveal what exactly “financial mobilization” would entail. This reporter filed a Right to Information (RTI) request with the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) for minutes of meetings held between Kerry and the ministry. However, the request was denied.

Bhushan also expressed skepticism, noting how pre-COP launches of dialogues, like CAFMD, are not uncommon. But he said their progress is rarely tracked to ascertain achievements.

Unpacking “Finance Mobilization”

In general, “finance mobilization” can happen on both concessional and commercial terms. Arjun Dutt, program lead at Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) said concessional capital typically is channeled through grants and soft loans to market segments that are not commercially viable to catalyze investment. And as for finance on commercial terms, Dutt noted it typically flows into sectors that have achieved commercial viability and large-scale deployment, such as utility-scale renewable energy.

Elaborating on what India needs, Dutt said if the world wants India to decarbonize at an accelerated pace and commit to net-zero goals, the country “would likely require greater international [climate-finance] flows on both concessional and commercial terms.”

Through financial instruments such as guarantees, concessional capital could help lower the risk of loan defaults with new clean-energy technologies, which could catalyze more private-sector investments, Dutt explained. And as for commercial international capital, it would be needed because of the sheer scale of India’s decarbonization requirements.

Pays to note, in her meeting with Kerry, Indian Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitaraman also underscored a need for enhanced climate finance for developing countries, or funding beyond the $100 billion commitment made at the Copenhagen summit.

Recently, even African nations called for a 10-fold increase to the $100 billion climate finance target.

Climate Finance’s Track Record

Developed countries have largely failed in fulfilling their climate finance obligations, a September 2021 report shows. Out of 23 developed countries that have a responsibility to provide climate finance, only Germany, Norway and Sweden have been paying their fair share of the annual $100 billion goal. More specifically, it states that the United States has the biggest shortfall in paying its fair share of climate finance, based on historical emissions and national income.

And closer examination of delivered climate finance reveals other issues. According to a report by Oxfam, the share of grants in global public climate finance was only 27 percent in 2019, whereas loans—both concessional and otherwise—totaled 71 percent. The remaining 2 percent comprised finance mobilized from private sources. Oxfam referred to this reliance on loans to fulfill climate-finance obligations “an overlooked scandal.”

Recently, a climate negotiator from a developing country, who anonymously wrote for The Guardian, pointed out how climate finance in the form of loans is creating a debt trap for countries in the Global South, where the COVID-19 pandemic has hit economies.

Interest rates on concessional loans are unequal, too. “The rate of interest in developed countries is around 2 percent and in India, it is around 14 percent,” said Bhushan of iFOREST. “So, if the United States gives a loan for 6 percent, will you consider it as a loan given on concessional terms?”

Funding Mitigation Versus Adaptation

Climate finance usually aids two solutions: Mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation refers to efforts aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions like investments in renewable energy technologies or even making existing energy generation more efficient. Adaptation means remodeling and reorganizing society and the physical environment to address risks posed by climate change. Climate adaptation includes enhancing the resilience of coastal communities with nature-based solutions like restoration of mangroves and providing food security with climate-resilient agricultural practices.

Here, too, disparities exist between the needs of developing countries and what the developed world actually delivers.

Little doubt remains that climate change disproportionately impacts the Global South, given pre-existing conditions like food insecurity and lack of adequate healthcare. And so, countries in this region need as much financial support, if not more, for adaptation as they do for undertaking mitigation measures to arrest the global temperature rise. Even the Paris Agreement recognizes developing countries need equal amounts of funding towards mitigation and adaptation. But funding flows largely towards mitigation.

Oxfam points out 66 percent of global public climate finance supported mitigation while only 25 percent went toward adaptation. “Profitability drives the flow of money,” Dutt said, noting how climate finance goes toward mitigation efforts—like enhancing deployment in the renewable energy sector—and not to adaptation. But this is where public finance—or that which is provided by taxpayer money—can flow.

It also is unclear if developing countries have undertaken climate-change impact assessments and drafted clear policies aimed at mitigation, which could then be implemented using international climate financing.

Developing Homegrown Climate Technology

Article 4.5 of the UNFCCC states developed countries have undertaken a commitment to 

“take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to environmentally sound technologies and knowledge to other Parties, particularly developing country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention.” 

But little clarity is available on what “practicable” entails, what “as appropriate” means and what “environmentally sound technologies” encompass.

More rudimentary questions exist about whether developing countries like India need technology transfers.

“Renewable energy technologies like modules and inverters are produced at a mass scale across the world and even in India. These technologies are well-understood,” Dutt said. The only challenge, Dutt added, is India has not been able to produce renewable-energy equipment at globally competitive rates.

Expressing similar concerns, Bhushan spoke of how technologies like solar photovoltaic (PV) panels have hundreds of parts and algorithms that could have hundreds of intellectual property rights (IPRs). “Many of these IPRs are from developing countries themselves,” he noted. These IPRs are then packaged together and sold to companies to manufacture solar PV modules and panels. “Technology transfer is not like giving a formula to someone to produce a chemical. It is a combination of hundreds of formulas, many owned by Indians themselves,” Bhushan said. “The bottomline is, if you have money, you can buy whatever technology you want.” And so, the issue is not about freeing technology, like with the COVID-19 vaccines.

India has largely handled its own mitigation pathway because the country has access to renewable-energy technologies—both imported and domestically produced. Bhushan said talk of technology transfer is largely rhetoric without substantive demands detailing what exactly developing countries need.

Rishika Pardikar is a freelance journalist in Bangalore, India.

This article was produced by Peoples Dispatch/Globetrotter News Service.

As Afghanistan’s economy continues to spiral, as many as 34 million Afghans are living below the poverty line, says a new UN report. The “Afghanistan Socio-Economic Outlook 2023” report released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on April 18 highlights the impact of cuts in international aid to Afghanistan since the Taliban took power.

The report notes that the number of people below the poverty line in Afghanistan has increased from 19 million in 2020 to 34 million today. It also adds, “Even if the UN aid appeal for international assistance to reach $4.6 billion in 2023 succeeds, it may fall short of what is needed to improve conditions for millions of Afghans.”

The UNDP report comes after the UN said that it was “reviewing its presence” in Afghanistan following the Taliban’s ban on Afghan women from working for the international organization earlier this month. The UN statement suggested that it may be planning to suspend its operations in the country.

The report also notes that Afghanistan is currently facing a severe fiscal crisis after the ending of foreign assistance “that previously accounted for almost 70 percent of the government budget.” A severe banking crisis also continues. In 2022, Afghanistan’s GDP contracted by 3.6 percent. The report adds that the average real per capita income has also declined by 28 percent from the 2020 level.

On May 1, the UN began holding crucial talks regarding Afghanistan in Doha. The participants include the five permanent UN Security Council members, countries in the region such as Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, and key players such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Notably, the de facto Taliban government of Afghanistan was not invited to participate. “Any meeting about Afghanistan without the participation of the Afghan government is ineffective and counterproductive,” said Abdul Qahar Balkhi, Taliban foreign ministry spokesman.