Showing posts with label Peru. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peru. Show all posts

Friday, May 7, 2021

Proposals by Pedro Castillo, candidate in Peru

By Luis Fierro Carrión (*)

Twitter: @Luis_Fierro_Eco

In the novel "Conversation in the Cathedral", Mario Vargas Llosa puts in the mouth of its protagonist, Zavalita, the question "At what precise moment did Peru get screwed up?"

Sometime later, trying to find an answer to the same question, the author will say that there was no specific moment in which Peru was "screwed up", but there were several moments throughout its history.

If the polls of the second round of elections are reliable, now we will have a more precise answer: on June 6, 2021.

Pedro Castillo, the candidate leading the polls so far, belongs to the "Peru Libre" party. According to Vladimir Cerrón, the founder and leader of the party, it is a “Marxist, Leninist and Mariateguista” organization.

José Carlos Mariátegui was a Peruvian writer, politician and philosopher, founder of the Socialist Party, which would later become the Peruvian Communist Party. He advocated an Indo-American socialism, with a prominent role for indigenous peasants. In Ecuador, Dimitri Madrid and Leonidas Iza are leaders of a “mariateguista” movement.

The Pedro Castillo Program was drafted by Vladimir Cerrón, and it is of unusual radicalism for a party that seeks to win democratic and multi-party elections. Remember that even Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and Rafael Correa at the beginning said that they were not Marxists, nor did they have any intention of expropriating private property; instead, they claimed to be Christians and humanists.

On the other hand, the Government Program of Perú Libre (available on the website of the National Elections Jury of Peru, https://bit.ly/3vp3fUC) begins chapter 1 by stating “we recognize ourselves as Marxists, Leninists, Mariateguists”. It mentions Lenin (Vladimir, not Moreno), Fidel Castro, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa more than twenty times.

One of the occasions on which the document quotes them is to talk about freedom of expression, or, better said, to point out that they consider it necessary to restrict said freedom: it indicates that a "law regulating communication" must be passed to achieve "freedom from enrichment, blackmail, defamation, slander and above all lies ”(p. 28 of the PDF). It is curious that, in these attacks on the independent press, the communists are confused with the fascists (Hitler spoke of the lying press, while Trump spoke of the lying media and fake news).

The plan mentions the phrase "nationalize" 35 times, which is a euphemism for expropriating, that is, taking away the property from its owners. It talks about creating a "nationalizing state" and a "socialist state." It affirms that, if a “negotiation” is not accepted to impose onerous terms, “the Peruvian State must proceed with the nationalization of the deposit in question in the mining, gas, oil, hydro-energy, and communication sectors, among others” (p. 16).

It proposes changing the curriculum to form citizens "with national identity, supportive, dignified, autonomous and revolutionary." It would increase spending on education and health to 20% of GDP (the current total budget, for all categories of expense, stands at 21.3% of GDP). Despite this proposal to triple public spending, it proposes that 70% of the tax collection remain with local governments.

It points out that the "Catholic Church" is the "political, media and propaganda ally" of the sectors of power. The document adds that "the Concordat with the Holy See, a framework on which the Catholic Church is exempt from taxes, must be abolished" (p. 60).

It affirms that “The socialist state must… strengthen agriculture to achieve security in the face of an imminent foreign food blockade after declaring the character of the State” (that is, they anticipate that Peru will face a blockade from abroad after declaring itself a socialist State).

It mentions the revision or cancellation of Free Trade Agreements, specifically mentioning the Pacific Alliance and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) (p. 64). It also rejects the CONVEMAR.

It sharply criticizes the NGOs, stating that they are "thousands of mercenaries [who] have organized these institutions in order to control, manipulate, etc., the masses and orchestrate thousands of counterrevolutionary apparatuses." It seems they want to ban them.

Then on p. 72, gives the impression that they want to declare war on the United States: "it forces us to prepare socially, politically and militarily against the imperial decadence that is not willing to die without resistance."

Following the Chavista practice, it calls for a Constituent Assembly, which would draft a new “nationalizing” Constitution, to shape a “new economic regime”.

Curiously, in the only aspects in which the program has liberal aspects (decriminalization of abortion, women's rights), Pedro Castillo has declared that he is against abortion, gay marriage, gender equality, euthanasia or the legalization of marijuana.

Apart from the government program, there are links between Castillo and Peru Libre with MOVADEF, the political arm of Sendero Luminoso. Congressmen elected by Peru Libre were imprisoned for being members of Sendero (including Guillermo Bermejo and Alfredo Pariona). Castillo himself was supported by MOVADEF to reach the leadership of his faction of the teachers' union, CONARE-SUTEP.

According to testimony presented to the Truth Commission, Vladimir Cerrón's father "Professor Jaime Cerrón Palomino played the role of ideologist for the PCP-Shining Path organization within the University of the Center." The government plan of "Peru Libre" concludes with two pages of quotes (of Marxist content) from Cerrón's father.


(*) Note:  this is the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the views of any institution or entity. English translation of a column published on May 7, 2021 in Diario “El Universo” of Ecuador.  

https://www.eluniverso.com/opinion/columnistas/propuestas-de-pedro-castillo-nota/


Propuestas de Pedro Castillo

 Por Luis Fierro Carrión (*)

Twitter: @Luis_Fierro_Eco

En la novela “Conversación en la Catedral”, Mario Vargas Llosa pone en boca del protagonista de esta, Zavalita, la pregunta “¿En qué momento se había jodido el Perú?”

Tiempo después, tratando de buscar una respuesta a su misma pregunta, el autor dirá que no hubo ningún momento específico en que se haya “jodido” el Perú, sino que fueron varios momentos a lo largo de su historia.

Si las encuestas de la segunda vuelta electoral son fidedignas, ahora tendremos una respuesta más precisa: el 6 de junio de 2021.

Pedro Castillo, el candidato que lidera las encuestas hasta el momento, pertenece al partido “Perú Libre”. Al decir de Vladimir Cerrón, el fundador y líder del partido, es una organización “marxista, leninista y mariateguista”. 

José Carlos Mariátegui fue un escritor, político y filósofo peruano, fundador del Partido Socialista, que luego devendría en el Partido Comunista Peruano. Propugnaba un socialismo indoamericano, con un papel destacado para los campesinos indígenas. En Ecuador, Dimitri Madrid y Leonidas Iza son líderes de un movimiento “mariateguista”.

El Plan de Gobierno de Pedro Castillo fue redactado por Vladimir Cerrón, y es de un radicalismo inusitado para un partido que busca ganar las elecciones democráticas y multi-partidistas. Recuérdese que incluso Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez y Rafael Correa al inicio decían que no eran marxistas, ni tener intenciones de expropiar la propiedad privada; en lugar de ello, decían ser cristianos y humanistas.

En cambio, el Plan de Gobierno de Perú Libre (disponible en el sitio del Jurado Nacional de Elecciones del Perú, https://bit.ly/3vp3fUC) inicia el capítulo 1 indicando “nos reconocernos marxistas, leninistas o mariateguístas”.  Menciona a Lenin (Vladimir, no Moreno), Fidel Castro, Evo Morales y a Rafael Correa más de una veintena de veces.

Una de las ocasiones en la que los cita es para hablar sobre la libertad de expresión, o, mejor dicho, para señalar que consideran necesario restringir dicha libertad: indica que hay que pasar una “ley de regulación” de la comunicación para “evitar con ello la ‘libertad’ del enriquecimiento, chantaje, difamación, calumnia y sobre todo la mentira” (p. 28 del PDF). Es curioso que, en estos ataques a la prensa independiente los comunistas se confunden con los fascistas (Hitler hablaba de la prensa mentirosa, mientras que Trump habla de los medios mentirosos y falsos).

Menciona 35 veces la frase “nacionalizar”, que es un eufemismo para no decir expropiar, es decir quitar la propiedad a sus dueños. Habla de crear un “Estado nacionalizador” y un “Estado socialista”. Afirma que, de no aceptarse una “negociación” para imponer términos onerosos, “el Estado peruano debe proceder a la nacionalización del yacimiento en cuestión de los sectores mineros, gasíferos, petroleros, hidroenergéticos, comunicaciones, entre otros” (p. 16 del PDF).

Dice que pagaría la duplicación del sueldo a los maestros (recuérdese que Pedro Castillo es profesor de primaria y líder sindical), mediante el producto de estas “nacionalizaciones”. Propone cambiar el currículo de estudios para formar ciudadanos “con identidad nacional, solidarios, dignos, autónomos y revolucionarios”. Aumentaría el gasto en educación y salud a 20 % del PIB (el presupuesto actual total, para todos los fines, asciende a 21,3 % del PIB). No obstante esta propuesta de triplicar el gasto público, propone que el 70 % de la recaudación tributaria se quede en los gobiernos locales.

Señala que la “Iglesia católica” es el “aliado político, mediático y propagandístico” de los sectores de poder. Añade que se debe “abolir el Concordato con la Santa Sede, marco sobre el cual la Iglesia católica está exonerada de los impuestos” (p. 60).

Afirma que “El Estado socialista debe… afianzar la agricultura significa seguridad frente a un inminente bloqueo alimentario exterior al declarar el carácter del Estado” (es decir, anticipan que el Perú enfrentará un bloqueo del exterior por declararse un Estado socialista).

Menciona la revisión o anulación de los Tratados de Libre Comercio, mencionando específicamente a la Alianza del Pacífico y el Acuerdo de Asociación Trans-Pacífico (TPP) (p. 64). También rechazan la CONVEMAR.

Critica acremente a las ONGs, indicando que son “miles de mercenarios [que] han organizado estas instituciones con el fin de controlar, manipular, etc., a las masas y orquestar miles de aparatos contrarrevolucionarios.”  Parece que quieren prohibirlas.

Luego, en la p. 72, da la impresión de que quiere declarar la guerra a los Estados Unidos: “nos obliga a prepararnos social, política y militarmente contra la decadencia imperial que no está dispuesta a morir sin resistencia”.

Siguiendo la práctica Chavista, convoca a una Asamblea Constituyente, que redactaría una nueva Constitución “nacionalizadora”, para plasmar un “nuevo régimen económico”.

Curiosamente, en los únicos aspectos en que el plan de gobierno parece tener ribetes liberales (despenalización del aborto, derechos de la mujer), Pedro Castillo ha declarado que está en contra del aborto, del matrimonio igualitario, de la igualdad de género, de la eutanasia o de la legalización de la marihuana.

Aparte del programa de gobierno, existen vínculos entre Castillo y Perú Libre con MOVADEF, que es el brazo político de Sendero Luminoso. Congresistas electos por Perú Libre estuvieron presos por ser miembros de Sendero (entre ellos Guillermo Bermejo y Alfredo Pariona). El mismo Castillo fue apoyado por MOVADEF para alcanzar el liderazgo de su facción del sindicato de maestros, CONARE-SUTEP.

Según un testimonio presentado ante la Comisión de la Verdad, el padre de Vladimir Cerrón "el profesor Jaime Cerrón Palomino ejercía el papel de ideólogo de la organización PCP- Sendero Luminoso dentro de la Universidad del Centro". El plan de gobierno de “Perú Libre” concluye con dos páginas de citas (de contenido marxista) del padre de Cerrón.

(*)  Versión más extensa de la columna publicada en el Diario "El Universo" el 7 de mayo, 2021:

https://www.eluniverso.com/opinion/columnistas/propuestas-de-pedro-castillo-nota/

Monday, June 20, 2016

Presentación sobre Cambio Climático, Acuerdo de París y Desarrollo Sostenible

Presentación sobre Cambio Climático, Acuerdo de París y Desarrollo Sostenible

VIII Foro “Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente”, Organización IDEAS PERU

Cusco, Perú

18 de Junio, 2016

Luis Alberto Fierro
Asesor en Financiamiento Climático
Latin American Finance & Consulting, LLC

1.Contexto y Antecedentes
2.El Cambio Climático
3.El Acuerdo de París
4.Los compromisos nacionales de mitigación y adaptación
5.Estrategias de Desarrollo Bajas en Emisiones y Resilientes al Clima


Nota:  Agradezco los insumos y las enseñanzas de mis ex-colegas de la Unidad de Apoyo de AILAC:  Isabel Cavelier, Alexa Kleysteuber, Giannina Santiago e Irene Suárez.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2keH2NAJ6iOblppb3YwYU5jbDg/view?usp=sharing

Versión revisada, actualizada agosto 2017:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2keH2NAJ6iOS2dwVUFha3J2cjA/view?usp=sharing

English version, translated and updated on September 2017:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2keH2NAJ6iOSzlOaHdTMzdfUGM/view



Monday, October 13, 2014

Gearing up for the COP20 in Lima - Progress in Climate Finance

By Luis Fierro Carrión, Climate Finance Advisor for AILAC (*)


In recent months, there has been ​​significant progress on the issue of funding for mitigation and adaptation to climate change; but much remains to be done to cover the financing needs of developing countries, which exceed $ 500 billion per year.

Green Climate Fund
After Germany pledged to provide 750 million euro to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) during the Petersberg Dialogue in July 2014, during the Climate Summit of the United Nations held in September in New York, France announced a commitment of US$ 1 billion, and other countries also announced their pledges: South Korea ($ 100 million), Switzerland (at least $ 100 million), Sweden ($ 45 million), Denmark($ 70 million), Norway (at least $ 33 million in the first year), Mexico ($ 10 million), Luxembourg ($ 6.8 million), and the Czech Republic ($ 5.5 million).

In October, Sweden announced an increase in its pledge to the equivalent of US$560 million, which is thus far the most generous in terms of per capita contribution.
Of these announcements, we can highlight the cases of South Korea and Mexico, which although part of the OECD, are not part of "Annex 1" of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of "developed countries". Previously, Indonesia had also announcing a contribution of $ 250,000, and some other members of AILAC and the Pacific Alliance have also reported that they are considering making a contribution.

For his part, the Secretary of State of the United States, John Kerry, said that his country will announce its contribution during the Pledging Session for GCF Resource Mobilization, to be held on 19 and 20 November in Berlin. It is also expected that the United Kingdom, Japan, and other developed countries will announce their contributions in Berlin. The BRICS countries, although they announced that they will capitalize their "New Development Bank" at $ 50 billion, have not yet announced any contributions to GCF (see position of the BASIC group).

Meanwhile, the Board of the GCF has complied with the pre-requirements for the operation of the Fund, and held its 8th meeting in Barbados from 14 to 17 October, where, among other issues, governance, contribution policy, and operational programming issues were discussed (Decisions were reached on accreditation and other policies required for contributions to come in).  See a summary here.  Furthermore, the Directors for Norway and Peru were elected Co-Chairs of the Board.

Other announcements and commitments at the Climate Summit in New York

Apart from the GCF contribution announcements, during the Climate Summit held on September 23, 2014 in New York, other initiatives and commitments in the field of climate finance were presented:
  • Peru announced a partnership with Norway and Germany to improve national forest management (with a contribution of $ 300 million from Norway)
  • Chile announced a new carbon tax of $ US5 / tCO2, and that the country will generate 45% of its energy from renewable sources by 2025
  •  The Multilateral Development Banks (which include 6 institutions, among them the World Bank and the IDB) announced that they awarded $ 23.8 billion in climate finance in 2013.
  • The International Development Finance Club (IDFC), which brings together 20 regional and national development banks, including the CAF and KfW of Germany, announced that it provided $ 99 billion in "green finance" in 2013 This includes flows of $ 15 billion from institutions in OECD countries to developing countries.
  • According to the Climate Bonds Initiative (Climate Bond Initiative) in 2014 it is expected that $ 45 billion in "green bonds" will be issued globally. With emissions of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for $ 1 billion and the German Development Bank (KfW) for $ 1.5 billion in October, the total has reached $ 32 billion to date. At the summit, it was announced that private banks expect to issue $ 30 billion this year.
  • This is part of a broader "Climate Related Bonds", which includes some bonds that are not rated as 'green', but they are intended, for example, to finance renewable energy, public transportation and energy efficiency. These were estimated at $ 502 billion. A significant portion corresponds to national bonds issued to finance railways in China, so it is not clear if they would have been classified as "green bonds" (given that much of the power generation in China uses fossil fuels).
  • The commitment of institutional investors to reduce their carbon investments by $ 100 billion by the end of 2015 and to measure and report the carbon footprint of at least $ 500 billion in investments.
  • Insurance associations pledged to increase their green investments to $ 84 billion by December 2015 and reach $ 420 billion in climate investments by 2020;
  • Three large pension funds in Europe and North America indicated that they will accelerate low-carbon investment to more than $ 31 billion by 2020.
  • The German government said it would stop providing concessional financing for new power plants based on coal. Other countries (including the United States) had already announced that they will no longer provide concessional financing for high emission technologies, and have pressured the MDBs to also cease such financing.
  • The European Union reiterated its intention to donate three billion euros to help developing countries reduce their emissions over the next seven years (2014-2020).
  • Similarly, the United States government offered to provide to the World Bank $15 million to help fund a new pilot program to reduce methane emissions.
  • The World Bank coordinated an initiative of 74 countries and over 1,000 companies in favor of "putting a price on carbon", i.e. establishing a tax or a market system for exchange of emission rights.
Some summaries of the results of the Summit can be viewed at the following links: http://goo.gl/ejuviHhttp://goo.gl/WsxluVhttp://goo.gl/CmPVH7, and http://goo.gl/zHxVBR.

Standing Committee on Finance of the UNFCCC


From 1 to 3 October in Bonn, the Eighth Session of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) met, to review a number of documents to be presented to COP20 in Lima (more info here). These included the first report of "Biennial Assessment and Review of Climate Finance Flows" (BA), in which the total climate finance flows derived from various sources are estimated.

According to preliminary figures published in the draft Summary and Recommendations on the UNFCCC website , these flows are estimated as follows:
  • Annual flows from developed countries to developing countries through public institutions (bilateral, multilateral funds, multilateral, regional and national development banks) are estimated between $ 35 and $ 50 billion. This includes amounts previously mentioned for the multilateral, regional and national development banks.
  • Additionally, it is estimated that private flows from developed countries to developing countries reach between $ 25 and $ 125 billion per year (the uncertainty in the range is due to different sources and methodologies used). The "green bonds" used to finance projects in developing countries would be included here.
Progress was made ​​toward identifying elements for a definition of climate finance, with this base definition:

"Climate finance is finance that aims to reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases, and that aims to reduce vulnerability of, and to [maintain/] enhance the resilience of human and ecological systems to, climate change impacts."

Progress was also made ​​in defining the work program for "measurement, reporting and verification" (MRV) of the financial support provided by developed countries to developing countries. This will be critically important to determine whether the goal of "mobilizing $ 100 billion a year" by 2020 of climate finance will be achieved; and, within this total, what amount of private resources were directly mobilized or leveraged by public resources.

According to the GCF, it is estimated that to achieve the goal of keeping global warming to below two degrees C above the pre-industrial level, this will require that developing countries receive annual funding for mitigation of at least $ 350 billion; while that for adaptation, the World Bank has identified requirements of at least $ 70-100 billion a year. Given the magnitude of resources required, a greater commitment by developed countries (and others in the ability to do so) to provide public resources is necessary; but it is also necessary to boost the channeling of private resources. 

Large institutional investors (pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, etc.) manage resources for $ 83 trillion. Therefore, if they devoted at least 1% of those resources to climate finance, this would come close to the required number (considering that this is a stock, not an annual flow).

Lima Climate Finance Week (LCFW)

From August 26 to 28, the Lima Climate Finance Week took place, as well as the Informal Dialogue on Finance (some presentations are available here ). The Presidency of COP20, the Government of Peru, identified as key issues for the Ministerial High Level Dialogue of Lima (to take place during the second week of COP20) the transparency and enabling environment of climate finance. These issues, among others, were discussed during the week and the Informal Dialogue.
The week opened with high-level speeches by ex-President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, and the Ministers of Economy and Finance (Luis Miguel Castilla), and Environment (Manuel Pulgar-Vidal) of Peru. Minister Castilla said that the countries of the Pacific Alliance (Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and Peru) are exploring making a contribution to the GCF. Calderon said that the economy cannot develop without protecting the environment. He said there are rising costs of natural disasters associated with climate change. He called for the removal of subsidies to fossil fuels and to establish a carbon price. He stressed that in the coming decades, the world must invest $ 90 trillion in infrastructure, so it is preferable to develop new low carbon technologies.

Abyd Karmali, Director of Climate Finance for Bank of America & Merrill Lynch, said there is the capital required to finance mitigation and adaptation, mobilizing additional $ 120 billion per year. However, this requires dealing with the risks and other impediments:improving policies and regulations, reducing costs, and aggregating projects to achieve liquidity. He cited as examples the Green Bonds, structured finance to reduce risk, insurance mechanisms, and aggregation structures for small-scale opportunities.

David Wilk, from the IDB, said that currently 25% of IDB operations are related to climate change (CC), renewable energy and the environment, with a volume of approvals between USD $ 1,200 and USD $ 2,100 million a year. The Bank manages two grant funds for Sustainable Energy and Climate Change (SECCI). Loans have been approved to support the reform of environmental policies in several countries, including Colombia, Guatemala and Peru.
Several speakers highlighted the importance of creating an atmosphere or environment conducive to receiving resources (investment, concessional loans, grants). This includes:
  • development of climate change strategies and  policies;
  • clear and stable regulatory policies;
  • incentives and risk reduction for a proper relationship between risk and return;
  • development of institutions capable of handling resources (e,g, through accreditation of national implementing entities for multilateral funds);
  • development of a list of "bankable" programs and projects, i.e. able to receive external funding.
  • establish policies and procedures in domestic financial institutions (policies for environmental and social safeguards, audit, risk management, transparency, monitoring and evaluation of operations, etc.).
Mohamed Nasr, from Egypt, said that finance is a key to advance to the 2015 Climate Agreement.  He said that clarity is needed about the scaling-up and the trajectory required to reach $ 100 billion in annual climate finance agreed for 2020 -as well as with respect to the initial capitalization of the GCF. He said there has been a long process of negotiation in terms of "Long-Term Financing" (LTF), and what is required is to have predictable, adequate and accessible financial resources. He added that Finance must be one of the elements anchored in the 2015 Agreement, which is required to advance in the transformation of production and energy.

In the closing session, the Vice-Minister of Environment of Peru, Gabriel Quijandría stressed that public resources are required to create the enabling environment for private investment. He noted that the Summit of the Secretary General of the United Nations and the COP20 will be opportunities to signal that climate finance will increase. He said GCF capitalization should continue. He stated that developing countries have to deal with many challenges, to which climate change is added. Adjustments are needed to ensure economic, environmental sustainability, and to deliver social benefits.The long-term horizon requires funding, and efforts to generate bankable projects. He concluded that a transition is needed towards a low carbon and resilient economy.
Summaries of the Week have been prepared by IISD and Thomas Kerr from IFC.

Conclusion

There has been progress in the provision of financial resources to developing countries, to carry out activities to mitigate and adapt to climate change. About $ 50 billion a year are being mobilized through public, bilateral, multilateral and development banks sources. similar figure is being provided through private resources, which could increase if several of the initiatives announced at the summit come to fruition. However, there is still a gap to achieve the financing required by developing countries to achieve the objectives of mitigation and adaptation, which goes far beyond the $ 100 billion per year committed in Copenhagen and Cancun, and exceeds $ 500 billion per year. 


(*) The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not compromise the AILAC Group or any of the countries that are part of the group. Originally published in Spanish at: http://climatefinance.info/profiles/blogs/avances-en-el-financiamiento-climatico-2014