26 November 2009

Dick Gold, from Canada, writes:

Thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments on the Commonwealth Secretariat. I am a strong supporter of your institution and I sincerely believe that it does very good work on a number of fronts, but for a variety of reasons does not always get the recognition it deserves. Its strengths lie, in my view, in its political programs and influence in this area as well as capacity building on the development side.

I personally think there should be more open debate on the climate change issue. The science has not been settled although the politics of this issue appears to have been. If the politics are wrong then there could be enormous costs to developing countries. But I appreciate the dilemma you are in.

Kamalesh Sharma, Commonwealth Secretary-General, replies:

Many thanks for your email, and welcome support for the Secretariat. We are in a very competitive market to achieve public recognition, and we can always do more and do better. But the quality of results on the ground for people is even more important, even if it doesn’t see the light of media day!

It is true that the science of climate change is a complicated discipline with numerable variables, many of which can only be measured over long periods of time. It is difficult to make completely accurate predictions without vast volumes of data, resources and time. However, scientists do largely agree on the general climate trends, causes and instability, and much of this is borne out by the everyday realities faced by people in developing countries.

Take Southern Africa. Climate variability there is already a source of economic vulnerability, particularly for the poor for whom even small variations in weather can spell disaster. Economic activities reliant on natural resources, such as rain-fed agriculture, are being badly disrupted by droughts and floods. If the climate change scientists are right, the increasing frequency and severity of such events will translate into increased vulnerability for scores of poorer countries.

If the predictions are correct on rising sea levels, many small island states in the Commonwealth and beyond face being wiped completely off the map. The stakes could not be higher. Therefore it would seem to me that the most responsible action would be to encourage and maintain the work of scientists and politicians, but also keep moving ahead with practical work to help those under threat.

This underlines why Heads of Government came together in Uganda in 2007 to agree the Lake Victoria Action Plan, which set out clear priorities for the Commonwealth, and why the Commonwealth Secretariat is an active participant in the climate change debate. It explains why we have funded research into the social and economic impacts of climate change, assistance for the climate change negotiators in small states, and a whole range of other projects. We must recognise that inaction, waiting for predictions of science to be confirmed, could have a terrible human cost, while the cost of early action is likely to be comparatively cheap.

I’m sure you know how important a topic climate change is at this CHOGM. Rather than expanding on it here, I direct you to our homepage. Watch out for a powerful declaration by a quarter of the world’s countries, and a commitment to more practical work for those who are most vulnerable, in the very week before the UN conference in Copenhagen.

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/news/191183/216429/216638/q3.htm