European Parliament – Draft Motion for a Resolution for Brexit (29.03.2017)

Opinion: Everybody hates Governor Joho!

The Presidency and Regime under Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto, must have some grand issues with Mombasa and Coast Region as they every week for the last month has attacked with all sorts of tricks against the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) Deputy and Governor Hassan Ali Joho. That the Jubilee Alliance Party (JAP) and their cooperative measures to marginalize the opposition figure isn’t really working.

They have detained the man for wanting to see the first relaunch of the ferries as the Jubilee held rallies in his back yard as far back as the 13th March 2017. They have since then blamed his government for lacking accountability and transparency, like the Central Government haven’t had enough issues with corruption scandals.

So President Kenyatta should be cautious attacking fellow peers in midst of re-election rallies, but it isn’t like he cares. Since he feels like he is Teflon and cannot be touch. When they attack his educational background, as they have attacked him before his accountability as a Governor. Therefore, all we see is steady attacks on the character of Joho.

Also said he was meddling with drug-dealers and importers, as they we’re having drug cartels, like the sugar cartels supporting Jubilee and Kenyatta. But hey, not that anyone really looks into the donor funding to the Jubilee from the Sugar and Coffee Cartels to the Kenyatta government. Still, all problems of crime in Mombasa County is Joho’s fault. As the corruption of the Ports is Joho’s fault, not that this has been issue since the independence. That even Jomo Kenyatta was working against the corruption on the Ports of Mombasa, even President Daniel Arap Moi we’re complaining when needed about the graft at Mombasa.

So after decades upon end with independence and second generation Kenyatta, the problems are still there. If they seriously wanted it to change, than John Githongo would still have a job and not been kicked-out the door by former President Mwai Kibaki! But that is a story the ruling regime doesn’t want to eat, still they easily eats of state coffers and thinks side-stories of undressing leaders of opposition makes the world and Kenyan citizens forget that.

I am sure Cabinet Secretary for Interior Joseph Nkaissery is trying to find the next charge he can put on the ODM Governor, as he has tried to revoke his guns and take away his security guards. So, there aren’t that many tricks left in the basket of peddling nonsense into the public sphere. They have used all sorts of demagoguery and misused their place as key leadership. Instead of being noble and show character, they have gone straight for the heart and attacked the character instead of the polices.

So the Jubilee has misused their opportunity to gain and show that they are better than Governor Joho, they have lost on public display, they have used the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) looking into his tax-record, Kenya National Examination Council (KNEC) looking into his educational history and also the added accountability, where the leadership of Jubilee claimed his county got 40bn shillings instead of the 16 billions shillings Joho claims the Mombasa County received from the Central Government.

The Jubilee under Kenyatta and Ruto have used all tools and tried to destroy the legitimacy of the leadership of Joho. Just like they fear him more than Raila Odinga, Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka or Musalia Mudavadi. Since they are all walking around like kings, while all of business of Joho is on the front pages.

That the state and their top leadership continues to pound on Joho, shows how little character themselves have, that they have to go after a governor when themselves going into National Elections. That they are going after a local politician, when they should go against the faces who could be Presidential Candidates. Since they are not touching the NASA/CORD leadership, instead they pick Joho as prey, but instead of clearing the flesh of the bones. They are instead creating their own wounds. Peace.

Kenya: Monetary Policy Committee Meeting (27.03.2017)

European Commission registers two European Citizens’ Initiatives on the rights of Union citizens after Brexit and rejects one on preventing Brexit (22.03.2017)

Brussels, 22 March 2017

The European Commission has today registered two European Citizens’ Initiatives concerning the rights of Union citizens in the context of the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU and rejected a third proposal entitled ‘Stop Brexit’.

The first invites the Commission to separate Union citizenship from Member State nationality in light of the UK withdrawal from the EU (“EU Citizenship for Europeans: United in Diversity in spite of jus soli and jus sanguinis”), and the second calls on the Commission to uphold the right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the European Union (“Retaining European Citizenship”). At the same time, the Commission has rejected as inadmissible a third proposal calling on the Commission to prevent the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU (“Stop Brexit”).

The Commission’s decisions concern the legal admissibility of the proposed initiatives. At this stage, the Commission has not examined the substance of the initiatives.

The Commission found that the “EU Citizenship for Europeans: United in Diversity in spite of jus soli and jus sanguinis” and the “Retaining European Citizenship” initiatives meet the conditions necessary for registration under the Regulation on European Citizens’ Initiatives. Both European initiatives call on the Commission to protect the status and rights of EU citizenship, in the context of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The Commission attaches great importance to the underlying issue of providing certainty and security to the 4 million citizens (3.2 million EU citizens in the UK and 1.2 million UK citizens in the EU) who are unsure of their future as a result of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the EU. While the Commission cannot propose secondary legislation aiming at granting EU citizenship to natural persons who do not hold the nationality of a Member State of the Union, the rights of EU citizens in the UK and the rights of UK citizens in the EU after the withdrawal of the UK will be at the core of the upcoming Article 50 negotiations. The Commission will do its upmost to prevent EU citizens from being used as bargaining chips in the negotiations with the UK.

In the case of the “Stop Brexit” initiative, the Commission found that the conditions for registration were not met. Article 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) explicitly allows any Member State to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. While the Commission regrets the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, it respects the outcome of the referendum.

Next steps

The formal registration of the “Retaining European Citizenship initiative” will take place on 2 May and the registration of the “EU Citizenship for Europeans” initiative will take place on 27 March. In both cases, this will start a one-year process of collection of signatures in support of the proposed European Citizens’ Initiative by their organisers.

Background

European Citizens’ Initiatives were introduced with the Lisbon Treaty and launched as an agenda-setting tool in the hands of citizens in April 2012, upon the entry into force of the European Citizens’ Initiatives Regulation which implements the Treaty provisions. Under the Treaty, every citizen has the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union by way of a European Citizens’ Initiative. The procedures and conditions required for the citizens’ initiative should be clear, simple and user-friendly. The commitment of empowering citizens to deliver a better Europe was reiterated by President Juncker in his State of the Union address in September 2016.

The conditions for admissibility, as foreseen by the Regulation n° 211/2011 on the European Citizens’ Initiative, are that the proposed action does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, that it is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious and that it is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union.

Once formally registered, a European Citizens’ Initiative allows one million citizens from at least one quarter of EU Member States to invite the European Commission to propose a legal act in areas where the Commission has the power to do so.

If – and only if – a registered European Citizens’ Initiative receives the signatures of one million validated statements of support from at least seven Member States within a period of one year from the time it was registered, the Commission must decide whether or not it would act, and explain the reasons for that choice.

KCCA letter: “Re: Installation of CCTV Cameras and re-organisation of the Boda-Boda Operations in Kampala” (23.03.2017)

Joint statement on behalf of the Government of Uganda and UNHCR: ‘Breaking Point’ imminent: Government of Uganda, UNHCR say help for South Sudan refugee inflow urgently needed (23.03.2017)

This year alone, more than 172,000 South Sudanese refugees have fled to Uganda, with new arrivals in March averaging more than 2,800 daily.

GENEVA, Switzerland, March 23, 2017 – The Government of Uganda and UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi today jointly appealed to the international community for urgent and massive support for the thousands of South Sudan refugees who continue to arrive to Uganda every day, fleeing brutal conflict, compounded by the limited availability of food.

Uganda currently hosts more than 800,000 South Sudanese refugees. Among them are some 572,000 new arrivals who have poured into Uganda in desperate need of safety and help since 8 July 2016. With present rates of arrival, that figure will surpass a million before mid- 2017. This year alone, more than 172,000 South Sudanese refugees have fled to Uganda, with new arrivals in March averaging more than 2,800 daily.

“Uganda has continued to maintain open borders,” said Rt. Hon. Ruhakana Rugunda, Prime Minister of Uganda. “But this unprecedented mass influx is placing enormous strain on our public services and local infrastructure. We continue to welcome our neighbours in their time of need but we urgently need the international community to assist as the situation is becoming increasingly critical.”

“We are at breaking point. Uganda cannot handle Africa’s largest refugee crisis alone,” said UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi. “The lack of international attention to the suffering of the South Sudanese people is failing some of the most vulnerable people in the world when they most desperately need our help.”

Chronic and severe underfunding has reached a point where critical life-saving help risks becoming dangerously compromised. Transit and reception facilities are rapidly becoming overwhelmed. Significant challenges are being faced in providing refugees with adequate food rations, health and educational services, and sufficient clean water; a dire situation further compounded by the onset of heavy rains. Currently, UNHCR urgently needs more than a quarter of a billion US dollars to support South Sudanese refugees in Uganda in 2017.

Uganda’s approach to dealing with refugees has long been among the most progressive anywhere on the African continent. Upon receiving refugee status, refugees are provided with small areas of land in settlements integrated within the local host community; a pioneering approach that enhances social cohesion and allows both refugees and host communities to live together peacefully. In Uganda’s Mid and South-West, land for these settlements is provided by Government. In northern Uganda, where the vast majority of South Sudanese refugees are being hosted, the land has been donated by the local host community, an outstanding display of generosity towards people fleeing war and conflict.

As a result Uganda was chosen as a role model for pioneering a comprehensive approach to refugee protection that complements humanitarian responses with targeted development action, benefiting both refugees and the communities hosting them. This was adopted as part of the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants at the UN General Assembly last year, and is now also being rolled out in other displacement crises – offering hope to millions of refugees worldwide. However, in the face of severe underfunding and the fastest-growing refugee emergency in the world, Uganda’s ability to realise a model that allows refugees to thrive now risks being jeopardized – and the future of the new comprehensive refugee response framework thrown into question.

REDD+ Kasigau Corridor Project: Lacking results and with questionable affiliations!

There are a December 2016 report written by Jutta Kill and published in parts by the European Union. The name of the Report are: “The Kasigau Corridor REDD+ Project in Kenya: A crash dive for Althelia Climate Fund”. This report tells a worrying story of how a project is a possible revenue source, instead of being there for climate change use or even local development. This sort of project and funding should be used for sort of projected land titles that saves the forests or create land that the owners can earn on instead of destroying the land. Something most of the REDD+ funds and projects is about, making sure the forest and the agricultural lands are kept and saved by the use of funding from donors and project builders.

One of the first hard-hitting quotes from the report are: “In addition, several reports document how land use restrictions imposed by the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project hit pastoralists and ethnic Taita and Duruma communities particularly hard while these groups receive very few if any of the benefits the REDD+ project provides to local communities” (Jutta Kill, P: 4, 2016).

So if there are donors who seems to be positive to projects and development projects that isn’t being there for the locals, than why are they offering the monies and using the time to facilitate the project in Kenya?

The Taita Hills REDD+ Project in Kenya has been marketed by Althelia, the project developer Wildlife Works Carbon, institutional funders like the EIB and media supporting market-based environmentalism as the Fund’s signature investment. Wildlife Works Carbon has been operating the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project in south-eastern Kenya since 2005” (Jutta Kill, P: 6, 2016). So with this in mind the Althelia has offered certain amount of money on the table, as this was the signature investment, even as it have no benefit for the local communities. The Althelia had done this: “For four of the projects, the Fund’s annual reports indicate that the investment is made in the form of loans whereas for the REDD+ project in Kenya, the 2015 audited financial report mentions an investment through an ‘Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement’ (ERPA). Four of the five projects are also covered by a US$133.8m loan guarantee that USAID has extended to the Althelia Climate Fund in 2014. As of 31 December 2015, investors had disbursed €18,36m of the €101m committed” (Jutta Kill, P: 5, 2016). So the development project are funded through loans that are guaranteed by the USAID, but extended into the Althelia Climate Fund, so the two are co-operating in the direct funding of the REDD+ Kenya. So they are rubber-stamping and giving faith to the projects.

The ‘Stand for Trees’ Initiative, a brainchild of Wildlife Works and supported by USAID, has become an important source of revenue – some say, a lifeline – for many private sector REDD+ projects” (Jutta Kill, P: 17, 2016). So that the Wildlife Works that works inside this REDD+ project, that are using the funds from USAID and EIB, are complicating it more as the other revelations that should worry the ones who cares about the environment and accountability of ones running it: “The Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project’s financial lifeline came from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank, and BHP Billiton, the mining company with a record of severe environmental damage and forced displacement of communities that stretches back decades and continues to this day” (Jutta Kill, P: 18. 2016). So why would a mining company cares about an environmental project in Kenya, unless they we’re earning funds and getting profits on the project?

You can really understand the issues of the IFC and BHP Biliton involvement, when the local communities gets no benefit or contributing to the projects.

So when you have the Althelia Climate Fund, which is funded with loans from the World Bank private corporation branch IFC and the USAID loans, together in corporation of BHP Bilition, as the REDD+ Project in Kenya is in works with both Wildlife Works, as the ‘Save the Tree’ brainchild. As this was the Althelia signature project. That there are problematic forces in play when the EIB are supporting the REDD+ projects as well, either directly through loans like USAID or like IFC. Therefore, the many actors are surely paying and donating favorable loans so the owners of the fund and the ones living of it makes this the lifeline for the Wildlife Works, even as this one doesn’t have the impact on local communities.

Just as one key observation:

One of the most striking observations was how locally, people referred to Wildlife Works as “the company”. The reasons for this seemed twofold. For one part of “the community”, Wildlife Works is “the company” that instructs guards to confiscate cattle and goats; that prevents the poorest community members in the area from collecting even dry branches for firewood when “the company” itself runs a charcoal production business on the REDD+ project area; that puts up water tanks on residents’ land without even asking permission, let alone paying for the use of the land; that claims to dedicate initially 1/3 of carbon revenue sales to local community projects, but does so in a way that means benefits from these “community” projects are captured by local elites. For example, ranch shareholders who receive 1/3 of the revenue from the carbon credit sales might also sit on the “community development committees” that decide how the 50% of the profit from carbon credit sales” (Jutta Kill, P: 21, 2016).

Another insulting observation:

A carbon offset provider offering carbon credits from the Kasigau Corridor REDD+ project writes on its website that “committees determine what projects to undertake, prioritizing them by need and feasibility. ‘So many people have problems with water, so water projects—water tanks, water pipelines—always come first,’ said Pascal Kizaka, a local chief and committee board member” (…) “Exploring the location of one of the “water pipelines” advertised as an activity of the Wildlife Works Carbon REDD+ project revealed that far from what was suggested by the large placard outside the building (a One Vision Center), it seemed that the Wildlife Works contribution to the “water pipelines” project had been just the guttering along the side of the building’s roof and piping to connect the gutters with a water tank constructed by others. People also commented about bore holes put in by “the company” that had never provided any water” (Jutta Kill, P: 23, 2016).

So the Company, the Wildlife Works are supposed to provide water and pipelines. Still, there aren’t any who has been provided with the water, even as the REDD+ Committee Board Member Pascal Kizaka claims, as the locals and community says otherwise. This together with the lacking proof of the help with carbon credit sales and the control of land. This whole development project seems sketchy and a lifeline for Wildlife Works instead of being there for the local Kenyan Communities. Therefore, the use of IFC and Althelia Climate Fund, seems like way of misusing Carbon Tax and Carbon trading, instead of developing the Kasigau project for the Taita and Duruma communities. That deserves better and also deserves that when people and organizations comes in that they does not earn on their misfortune, but actually comes with projects serving them. If not this is just a way of fraudulent development industry, that no republic deserves. Peace.

Alfa Bank letter retort on Trump Organization allegations (17.03.2017)

CERF approves $22 million loan to further scale up FAO action to prevent famine in Somalia (21.03.2017)

The funds will allow for increased livelihoods support to rural communities affected by repeated drought.

ROME, Italy, March 21, 2017 -FAO is further scaling up its  activities in drought affected regions of Somalia thanks to a $22 million loan approved this week by the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), which complements the loans already provided by FAO’s Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities.

This effort is part of the international response to prevent another famine in Somalia five years after the previous one devastated the country. FAO’s action aims to increase rural livelihood support and restore food production, while ensuring that families meet their immediate food and water needs.

Across Somalia, 6.2 million people will face acute food insecurity through June 2017. Of these, nearly 3 million people are in Phases 3 (crisis) and 4 (emergency) of the five-phase International Phase Classification for Food Security (IPC). This represents more than a two-fold  increase compared to six months ago. Phase 5 is famine.

The head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Under-Secretary-General and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Stephen O’Brien, said he was releasing the loan from CERF to FAO “as part of the efforts to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in Somalia.”

“More than 2.9 million people are at risk of famine and many will predictably die from hunger if we do not act now. CERF is one of the fastest ways to enable urgent response to people most in need. FAO is a key partner in ensuring that crucial support to livelihoods is reaching affected people. The loan will bridge a crucial gap and allow FAO to immediately save lives and livelihoods of farmers and herders until additional funds from donors are received,” O’Brien said.

“CERF has long been a supporter of FAO’s interventions to save and protect livelihoods and thus lives in crisis contexts. Livelihoods are people’s best defence against famine and this $22 million loan is critical to FAO’s famine prevention and drought response in Somalia, enabling the Organization to provide much-needed, rapid support to vulnerable rural households,” said FAO Deputy Director-General for Programmes, Daniel Gustafson.

Saving livelihoods, saving lives

Most of the 6.2 million people facing  acute food insecurity live in Somalia’s  rural areas where hunger levels have spiked primarily due to losses in crop and livestock production and other sources of food and income caused by repeated droughts.

Early warnings are loud and clear: In a worst-case scenario where the traditionally, main rainy season, the  Gu (April-June), will perform very poorly, purchasing power may further decline to levels seen in 2010/2011, and humanitarian assistance would not be able to reach populations in need, people may  suffer/face famine.

FAO’s work

FAO is scaling up the implementation of its Famine Prevention and Drought Response Plan, which combines lifesaving interventions with emergency livelihood support to address the distinct needs of rural people at risk across Somalia – a twin track approach that provides immediate assistance while offering livelihood support and income opportunities to reduce their dependency on humanitarian aid.

Measures implemented under the Response Plan include providing cash (cash-for-work and unconditional cash transfers), meeting immediate food and water needs; providing agriculture and fisheries based livelihood support in combination with cash (“Cash+”), and saving livestock assets and related food and income.

The loan from CERF complements FAO’s own funding mechanism, the Special Fund for Emergency and Rehabilitation Activities, and will help kick start operations supported by the Governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom.