Commonwealth Civil Society Organizations discuss Climate Change and Poverty

This July, representatives of Civil Society Organizations met for Consultation organized at Guyana to discuss Climate Change and Poverty Reduction. Held from 18 – 20 July 2007 in the capital Georgetown, the objective of the consultation was to arrive at consensual commonwealth civil society priorities, issues and recommendations on developing an agenda for growth and livelihoods for presentation to the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting scheduled for 15-17 October 2007. AFPRO participated in the event and was represented by the Programme Coordinator, M. S C Jain. A total of 36 participants from 14 countries took part in consultation.

The phenomenon of Climate change was being accepted across the world as a reality, confirmed by various experiences and research. It becomes increasingly important to distinguish the issue and address it as a complex of negative impacts and relative opportunities. To this end the consultation drew on the collective experiences of Civil Society representatives to aim at adaptation strategies and measures for mitigation.

Keynote Papers

The special theme of the CFMM was introduced through two papers. The first lead paper, titled “Climate Change and its Implications: Which Way Now?”, by Professor Praveen Jha of the Center for Economic Studies and Planning. JNU, New Delhi, confirmed the active occurrence of climate change, visibly noticed and experienced all over the world.

The paper indicated changes such as change in species habitats and habits, rapid and continued loss of bio-diversity, acidification of oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs and increases in allergy-inducing pollen, among other occurrences, as definite symptoms of global climate change. The Ecological Footprint, which measures the extent of human demand on Earth’s ecosystems, has tripled since 1961, showing that the planet’s resources are being used at a rate 25% higher than their ability to regenerate. It was stated that at the given rate, many hundred millions would be deprived access to water, many tens of millions displaced by floods and rising sea levels, and an increase in the intensity of dangerous pests and wildfires.

The main recommendation of the lead paper was the prioritized mainstreaming of sustainable development for climate change on the national and global agenda. It also spoke of converging synergies between sound environmental policies, the framework of the international response to global warming, and the millennium development goals.

Participatory approaches including in the promotion of scientific understanding, negotiation capacities and resources, networking and broad consultation processes has been suggested as the best way forward. Inevitably, Civil Society actors will have to play a crucial role for the accomplishment of such processes.

The second lead paper, presented by David Singh, Iwokrama International Centre, Guyana was titled ‘Realizing the Economic value of forest resources’. The paper, based on a study, discussed the present system of valuation of forest resources in purely economic terms, without considering the environmental and livelihood costs. The forests play a major role in the reduction of climatic risks, at the same time providing direct livelihood support to dependant local communities. Thus the issue of according Carbon Credits under the Clean Development Mechanism to those countries contributing in terms of conserved forest resources was also raised. At present carbon credits are given for the promotion of appropriate technologies and measures that help in the reduction of emissions that cause the greenhouse effect.

Discussion Papers

Other presenters and discussions together raised a corpus of critical issues that would need to be addressed if the issue of climate change had to be dealt with.

The importance of recognizing climate change at all levels and addressing it systematically would require prioritized action for mainstreamed responses. Poverty Reduction Strategies and Country Level Development Plans would need to address the issue, including the aspect of significant financial allocations together with technical support. The response plan and communication strategy would require cross-sectoral and regional assessments, which would help in effective messaging, packaging and negotiation at various levels.

Promoting a model of good governance for addressing the issue would help in the speedy streamlining of policies. International civil society organizations needed to closely coordinate on achieving such national and global responses to climate change.

The issue was also connected to the issue of Gender, and the group recognized that women and children were most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and the shrinking resource base would increase their hardship. In addition the participants were also updated on the status of high level international discussions on financing for development.

Statement of Civil Society Organizations for CFMM

After the discussions, exercises for developing the statement for the CFMM were carried out. The themes for these group exercises focused on the economics of climate change for developing countries, tracking climate change in terms of mitigation, adaptation and the implications for finance ministers, and exploring innovative financial solutions. The finalized statement is presented below.

The statement was presented at the Special Theme Session of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting hosted by the Government of Guyana from 15 - 17 October. Governments of Commonwealth Nations have identified climate change as key issue for the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) set to take place in Uganda from November 23 - 25 this year.



STATEMENT

CIVIL SOCIETY MEETING
ON THE SPECIAL THEME OF THE
2007 COMMONWEALTH FINANCE MINISTERS MEETING

CLIMATE CHANGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR FINANCE MINISTERS

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA, 18-20 JULY 2007

PREAMBLE

We, representatives of civil society organisations from across the Commonwealth, convened in Georgetown, Guyana from 18-20 July 2007 to deliberate on the theme Climate Change and Poverty Reduction.

We note that civil society has been instrumental in putting the issue of climate change on the Commonwealth agenda. At the Commonwealth People’s Forum held on the eve of the 2005 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Malta, they called upon the Commonwealth Foundation, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Secretariat, to bring together all concerned to prepare a programme of action on climate change in the Commonwealth that can address this long-term and crucial issue, which affects us all. The Commonwealth Foundation went on to mobilise Commonwealth Associations and partners: firstly at an international conference held in collaboration with the Government of The Seychelles in October 2006, which identified the contribution that Commonwealth networks can make in preparing for adaptation to climate change. There is now a Commonwealth programme of work on climate change, which emphasises the importance of civil society and partnerships in addressing the multiple facets of climate change.

We recognise the position of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1994), that all countries should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We fully support the Convention’s policy that developed countries should take the lead in combating climate change and its adverse effects.

We note that both the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (2006) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (2007) highlight serious economic and social impacts of climate change, in addition to environmental impacts, and foresee increasing crises of a human, economic and environmental nature in the absence of an urgent global response.

In 1987 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Vancouver, President Gayoom of the Maldives described how unprecedented waves had caused great destruction in his country, a concern which found an echo in the December 2004 tsunami. Heads “expressed serious concern at the possible implications of man-made climatic change, especially for low-lying and marginal agricultural areas” and called on the Secretary-General to examine the implications of rises in the sea-level and other natural disasters, including flooding.

Of the Commonwealth member countries, 32 are small states of which 25 are island states characterized by small populations, lack of economic resources and vulnerability to ecological and economic shocks and disasters. They are looking to the Commonwealth to demonstrate practical leadership in helping small states to prepare for change.

We note that the report by M.W. Holdgate et al, Climate Change: Meeting the Challenge (1989), prepared following recommendations of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in 1987 recognised that the impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed and that it is the citizens of the poorest countries, who have contributed least to the problem, that will suffer the most from predicted increases in global temperatures, rainfall and extreme weather events such as drought and flooding. Climate change already poses a threat to the survival of several small island states, in the Commonwealth.

Climate change constitutes an external shock to economies of the developing Commonwealth that can seriously undermine current debt reduction efforts and other financial measures to reduce poverty. As the Stern Review points out, the benefits of immediate action on climate change can be obtained through expenditure of around 1 per cent per year of global gross domestic product (GDP), far outweighing the costs of inaction, which are estimated to be equivalent to losing 20 per cent of global GDP or more each year.

Commonwealth member nations are diverse and range from developed countries to newly industrialised countries (NICs), rapidly industrialising developing countries (RIDCs), developing countries and least developed countries (LDCs). They have vastly differing national ecological footprints ranging from 6.6 global hectares of bio-productive area per person in more developed countries, to just 0.5 ha in LDCs, well below the global average of 2.2 global hectares per person. In other words, some Commonwealth countries are already exceeding their ecological limits, which will eventually lead to destruction of ecological assets on which the earth depends such as groundwater, fisheries and forests, and aggravate carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere, while others have set development goals that will eventually take them along a similar, unsustainable path.

Recognising that the only pro-development strategy in the long term requires deep cuts in global carbon emissions, this situation provides a compelling case for developed countries, NICs and RIDCs to now develop along a low-carbon emissions growth pathway which will enable them to meet their development objectives while also lowering their ecological footprints. We also recognise standing forests (such as Iwokrama in Guyana, which has been supported by the Commonwealth) as valuable resources that must be included in pro-development strategies.

In light of the above, a number of issues and concerns related to climate change and poverty reduction must be addressed:

KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Building on existing United Nations Climate Change Commitments

To address the issue of climate change and poverty reduction and noting the forthcoming conference of the parties of the UNFCCC in Bali, Indonesia in December 2007, we recommend that Commonwealth Governments endorse, implement and build on existing global partnerships and commitments specified in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol and call for new and more ambitious targets.

1.1 Mitigation

As mitigation is the primary means to address climate change, we recommend that:

• Developed countries within the Commonwealth should take the lead in pursuing deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions with the following targets – at least: 5 per cent by 2012, 30 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, based on 1990 levels.

• Efforts be made to ensure that average global temperature increases stay below 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels.

• A mandate be given for the introduction of subsequent commitments for developed countries (Annex I) in the Kyoto Protocol after the first commitment period ends in 2012.

• Commonwealth countries ratify the Kyoto Protocol and once developed countries have taken the lead in pursuing deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, newly industrialised countries and rapidly industrialising countries contribute to global efforts on climate change by decarbonising their economies.

• Subsequently the Commonwealth should examine the possibility of the development of a graduated or differentiated protocol which would inform mitigation and adaptation funding responsibilities among NICs and RIDCs.

• Commonwealth countries with vast forest be given the opportunity to take advantage of carbon offset schemes via standing forests.

1.2 Adaptation

Least developed countries and small island states within the Commonwealth should focus on adaptation to cope with unavoidable impacts of climate change. To enable this, we recommend that:

• Developed countries make financial contributions to and activate funds already provided for adaptation under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol frameworks, including the:
–Adaptation Fund
–Special Climate Change Fund
–Least Developed Countries Fund
–Two per cent adaptation levy on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects

• The Adaptation Levy currently imposed on CDM projects be extended to Joint Implementation (JI) projects (or voluntary carbon offset programmes between Annex I countries), international aviation, and national Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

1.3 Technology Transfer, Capacity Building and Education and Training

As most countries in the Commonwealth need support to shift to a low-carbon emissions pathway, we recommend that:

• Resources and support be provided by developed countries for the development of intra-Commonwealth programmes and partnerships between developed and developing countries and between developing countries for sharing climate-friendly technologies suited to the specific needs and circumstances of different countries, for capacity building in technical and planning disciplines, and for education and training programmes to raise public awareness on climate change. Governments should especially consider working in partnership with and supporting civil society organisations in education and training programmes.

2. Leveraging on Existing National and Global Instruments

2.1 Fiscal Incentives and Policy Directions

As Finance Ministers are responsible for formulating the annual budgets in their respective countries, we recommend:

• Immediate steps be taken to provide tax incentives or funding for utilising energy saving technologies and products; enhancing the quality of public transportation; and valuing and conserving natural resources such as forests.

• Climate change and its differential effects on various populations, be integrated into ongoing poverty reduction strategy papers and national poverty reduction plans. Civil society organisations should be involved in partnership with the government in the formulation of such strategy papers and plans.

• Governments must lead by example to promote a dramatic shift towards environmental sustainability in land use, construction practices, energy efficiency, agriculture and consumer choices.

2.2 Global Mechanisms

The scale of the challenge of climate change and poverty reduction requires access to global mechanisms in addition to the UN climate change-related instruments. They include use of profits of globalisation to work for global public good. In this regard, we recommend the Commonwealth:

• Join in the existing airlines solidarity levy to address urgent global health concerns such as HIV and AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, and extend its use as an instrument to generate a carbon tax.

• Implement a Currency Transaction Tax to raise additional resources to adequately fund mitigation and adaptation initiatives on a sustainable basis.

3. Millennium Development Goal on Climate Change

Given the gravity of the situation on climate change, we recommend the Commonwealth Finance Ministers to urge the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kampala, Uganda, to lobby for the introduction of a Ninth Millennium Goal on Climate Change, Mitigation and Adaptation.


CONCLUSION

We urge that action taken by Commonwealth nations on climate change and poverty reduction encompass the following principles:

Urgency – action should be taken now to positively affect future outcomes, as business-as-usual paths for emissions will increase risks of serious, irreversible impacts of climate change.

Common but differentiated responsibilities – developed countries which have historically benefited most from the global commons should take the lead in combating climate change.

Ethics – all countries have an ethical obligation to act on climate change and to apply ethical dimensions as a basis for making decisions on climate change.

Equity – emphasis should be given to ensuring equity within developed countries and developing countries respectively; between developed and developing countries; and with special attention to vulnerable groups.

Additionality – funds for climate change allocated to developing countries must be “additional” to the Official Development Assistance international aid target of 0.7 per cent of gross national income.

Governance – Implementation of programmes on climate change, funding instruments or flexible mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism should be supported by governance structures which involve a multi-stakeholder consultative approach at national as well as international levels, with built-in provisions for ensuring transparency and accountability.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the support of the Commonwealth Foundation in convening civil society on this issue and thank the Commonwealth Finance Ministers for their commitment in engaging with Civil Society at their annual meetings.

International Coastal Clean-Up Day: Coastal Clean-Up and Hand Wash Campaign in Orissa

Marine debris and other waste that litter the sea coasts are posing a big threat to coastal environment and bio-diversity. The third Saturday of September is commemorated as International Coastal Clean-Up Day all over the world. Volunteers gather on beaches the world over and undertake campaigns to clean up beaches by collecting and disposing such debris.

AFPRO Bhubaneswar along with UAA, OTFWU, SAMUDRAM and Greenpeace, who form part of the Orissa Marine Resource Conservation Consortium kept time with the event and organized a Coastal Clean-up Drive on the 16th September 2007 at Gopalpur Beach in Orissa. Keeping in mind the need for awareness on sanitation in the area, a simultaneous hand wash campaign was also clubbed with it.

A remarkable number of 350 people participated in the event. They comprised fisher folk, school and college students from Gopalpur, and representatives of municipal authorities and other government agencies. Of this gathering, nearly 250 were students.

Dr. B. K. Sahu, Vice Chancellor of Berhampur University, inaugurated the campaign. Complimenting the effort, he recommended that similar events for coastal conservation needed to be conducted on a continual and regular basis; as a strong campaign was needed to influence individual behaviour and keep beaches clean. He suggested the setting up of a local committee who would monitor cleanliness at the beach and promote awareness on the issue.

After the inaugural session, the gathering split into two teams and scoured the one-and-half kilometer stretch of Gopalpur beach, extending from Palm Beach junction to Haripur creek, for debris.

On regrouping after an hour, the participants found that they had collected almost a quintal in debris.

This comprised mainly two categories – first, worn out fishing equipment like fishing lines, nets, plastic sheets, ropes, trapping bands, and secondly, consumer wastes like food containers and wraps, beverage bottles, tobacco wraps and cigarettes buds and a lot of plastic bottles, cups and plates.

The learning that settled into the participants and observers was very clear – a little effort would contribute in a big way to preserving coastal environment and aesthetic cleanliness.

This was followed by the hand wash campaign. Making a symbolic gesture, the participants washed their hands with soap to promote the issue. The group reflected the fact that the incidence of diarrhea could be reduced almost 50% if people merely adopted the habit of washing hands properly with soap after soiling them and before any form of food intake.

The students who participated were from PM High School, Saraswati Vidya Mandir, and UP school, the College of Fisheries, Gopalpur College, and Berhampur University all in Gopalpur. The others included fisherfolk, non-government organizations, interested public, and representatives of the fish workers’ trade unions, the Coast Guard, district government departments of Fisheries, Revenue and General Administration, and the Notified Area Council.

AFPRO is the Facilitating Agency for CDAP in Dhule District

Dhule District, Maharashtra is one of the pilot districts where Comprehensive District Agriculture Plan would be developed. AFPRO will facilitate the preparation of Comprehensive District Agricultural Plan in the District

A preliminary interface on the District Level Planning was organized on 13th and 14th September 2007 by the Planning Commission at Yashada in Pune for the western region comprised of four states viz. Maharshtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan. The purpose was to accelerate the process of preparation of district agricultural plans keeping in view the priorities emerging at the district level through participatory grassroots level planning signifying a major shift from top-down state-centric planning to bottom-up people-centered approach.

Preparatory meeting with District officials at Dhule

The meeting was called by the district Collector for the HODs of all the line departments on 18th September 2007 at the Agricultural College, Dhule. This was mainly to draw a broad framework for preparing the district level agriculture plan for the eleventh five year plan where AFPRO also participated as a facilitating Agency.

During the meeting AFPRO made a presentation about the organization and the role to be performed as a facilitating agency. A brief note on the proposed strategy/steps to be followed for evolving the plan was also circulated and discussed in context of the district Dhule. Based on the reflection of the participants, tentative activity plan is prepared

It was also discussed during the meeting that as a first step there is need to set vision and objectives of the plan at the district level and in this line it was decided to form sector-wise small groups to reflect and discuss on the critical issues and finding out the gaps. This will be a sort of visioning process which will also help to have a common understanding on the planning process and the target to be achieved

Strategy for CDAP

A Startup and sensitization Phase

§ Meetings and consultation with the district officials to develop common understanding for the preparation of plan

§ Formation of sub Groups for visioning process
Based on the outcome of first meeting it was decided that in order to have more clarity for plan preparation sector wise subgroup would be formed and the group will come up with sector wise specific database and vision. The findings will be incorporated in CDAP after due consultation with all the stakeholders. A total of nine subgroups related to NRM, credit in agriculture, processing etc will be formed to work out the details

§ Sensitization workshop at District Level
Once the subgroups come out with sector specific vision, a common meet, tentatively in the first week of October would be organized to develop common understanding on the proposed decentralized planning approach for CDAP among the various stakeholders. This process will also help in setting up Bench Mark for the district.

§ Understanding of Ongoing schemes
Detail understanding of the Agriculture related ongoing schemes and programs (Macro-Micro) in the district. Emphasis will be on finding the gaps and indicative strategy for those.

§ Sensitization workshop at block Level
Once the common understanding is developed for CDAP at district level, the sensitization workshop would be organized for four blocks viz.Dhule, Sakri, Shirpur and Shindkheda.

B-Data collection for situational analysis

§ Block level team would be constituted to carryout the village level planning exercises through participatory methods.
§ Capacity building input would be provided to block level team by conducting demonstration in few villages.
§ The situational analysis would be carried out based on agro-ecological situation. However it will be ensured that villages from each block are represented.

C-Developing Plans
§ Based on the findings of villages level exercises, consolidation of plan will be carried out first at bock level where due consideration would be given to the available plans, schemes and other secondary data.
§ Compilation of bock level plans to finalize the comprehensive district agriculture plan (CDAP).

Consultation at AFPRO Head Office on District Level Planning Initiatives of GoI

A consultation was organized at AFPRO Head Office on 10th September 2007 to discuss the Planning Commission’s initiatives for District Level Planning – the Special District Livelihood Plan (SDLP) Pilot Project and the Backward Regions Grant Fund.

Those present included
Dr. Jimmy Dabhi, Director, Indian Social Institute (ISI), Treasurer of the AFPRO Governing Body
Dr. N R Jagannath, Project Officer, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
Mr. George Mathew, Director, Institute of Social Sciences
Dr. Sudhirendar Sharma, Environmental Journalist
Dr. M. Maitra, Project Officer, Indo-Canadian Environment Facility
Mr. Pradipto Roy
Ms. Archana, ISI
Mr. D K Manavalan, Executive Director, AFPRO
Mr. S C Jain, Programme Coordinator, AFPRO

The following is a summary of the issues or concerns discussed:
· How would plans be evolved in States like Jharkhand where Panchayati Raj Institutions are not in place as yet?
· Secondary data regarding resource status, livelihood options, agriculture and other options available at the local and district levels should be made available to Panchayats.
· District level planning requires facilitation from subject matter specialists as sector-wise requirements need to be identified and converged with plans.
· Block level teams need to be instituted for facilitation of village planning exercise. Therefore, these teams need to be provided proper orientation and skill development.
· AFPRO can demonstrate planning methodology in villages. However, upscaling these models is the responsibility of local institutions.
· Intensive training orientation and sensitization will be required for all stakeholders who will participate in the district level planning exercise.
· There is need for flexibility in time plans to adapt local situations.
· AFPRO may have to provide specialized input in the area of land, water and other livelihood generation activities.
· Regional variations are there across the States with regard institutional arrangements, local systems and structures etc. Hence a common approach to evolve plans may not be appropriate and recognition of local and traditional systems is imperative.
· This is a good opportunity for organizations to contribute to the Planning Commission’s initiative. At the same time caution should be exercised in the delivery of services so that quality documents emerge from this large-scale participative endeavour.

AFPRO gets involved in District Level Planning of GoI

AFPRO has sent in proposals for supporting district level planning under 2 projects of the Government of India, the Special District Livelihood Plan (SDLP) Pilot Project and the Backward Regions Grant Fund.

Special District Livelihood Plan (SDLP) Pilot Project

AFPRO is among selected institutes that would be called upon to provide capacity building and handholding support for conduct under the Special District Livelihood Plan (SDLP) Pilot Project for 25 selected districts. AFPRO will be working in 3 of these districts. This is an initiative of the Planning Commission to for “re-orienting agricultural planning at the district level and below to address productivity and livelihood issues and participatory planning through convergence strategies in these rainfed districts spread across varying agro-climatic conditions.”

Backward Regions Grant Fund

In addition, AFPRO has also been invited to take up more districts under the Backward Regions Grant Fund, and has accordingly sent in its proposal for supporting 14 more districts.

The Planning Commission of the Government of India has initiated this process for District Level Planning, with a view to make these plans an integral bases of State level Eleventh Five Year Plans (2007-11) and Annual Plans (2007-08). The Ministry of Panchayati Raj had constituted an Expert Group in consultation with the Planning Commission in 2005 to plan this process.

In this initiative of the Planning Commission, district plans are also taking into account the activity plans of non-governmental sector of the local economy i.e. community-based initiatives, financial institutions, international NGOs, and private organizations.

A Brief Background of District Planning in India

The concept of District Level Planning is not new. Integrated local area plans based on specific endowments and needs of each area have been made stressed upon from the beginning of planned development in 1950s, but efforts made were few, irregular and isolated. 73rd and 74th Amendments to the constitution made it mandatory for District Level Plans to be consolidated out of local plans derived at the village, intermediate and district panchayats and urban local governments. However, though constitutionally validated, little progress has been made in the direction of the objectives.

Thus development activities were carried out with the inevitable segregation of sectors and programmes. The result was too was obvious in terms of incongruent processes, resource wastages, and limited outcomes.

What are District Plans?

Essentially a district plan will comprise consolidated plans of local government within a district. Each of these plans, whether rural or urban, would allocate the resources available with the district in terms of natural base, human potential and finances against sectoral activities and schemes that are assigned to the district level and below and those implemented by local governments in a State.

The each District level plan would contain the following plans:

1. Plan to be prepared by the Rural Local Bodies for the activities assigned to them and the national/state schemes implemented by them with their own resources and those earmarked for these purposes;
2. Plan to be prepared by the Urban Local Bodies for the activities assigned to them and the national/state schemes implemented by them with their own resources and those earmarked for these purposes;
3. Physical integration of the plans of Rural and Urban Local Bodies with the elements of the State Plan that are physically implemented within the geographical confines of the district.

All the three aspects would be considered and consolidated by the District Planning Committee (DPC) into a District Plan. The expected activities of the non-government sector in the local economy must also be taken into account and responded to. These would include the following:
1. Plan emerging from activities of people’s groups like SHGs, Co-operatives etc.
2. Plan emerging from the financial institutions like the local branch(es) of Commercial banks (both in the public and the private sector), NABARD, Co-operative Banks and the like.
3. Plans of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs)/NGOS and Bilateral Agencies operating in the District.
4. Plans of other private agents that would either have an impact on the activities of the government or would need the government to respond to those developments in so far as its own areas of functioning/service delivery are concerned.