 |
François Paulette, Dene Suline, Alberta, Canada Photo Ben Powless, Mohawk, Durban, South AfricaIndigenous Environmental Network |
Also today: Canadian youths ejected for turning their backs on climate negotiators
Introducing: Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life
TODAY: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PRAYER FOR MOTHER EARTH
Ceremony and Indigenous Voices on Moratorium on REDD Indigenous Peoples participating in the UNFCCC negotiations have called for a moratorium on REDD+. The Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life will have an indigenous ceremony for Mother Earth, open to the public
WHEN: 8:15 a.m. Wednesday, December 7
WHERE: Between the walkway between the DEC and ICC buildings
Contact:
Tom BK Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network/IEN-TI: 071 341 3622
Kandi Mossett, Indigenous Environmental Network/IEN-TI: 072 284 5454
7 December 2011
THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS REDD FAIRY TALE IS....
"REDD will support Indigenous Peoples"
Durban, South Africa - Global Forest Coalition has published a series of "Grimm REDD Fairy Tales" [1] to assist delegates in distinguishing truth from fiction regarding the controversial program of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and enhancing forest carbon stocks (REDD+). Challenging the ability of REDD+ and other market mechanisms to address the underlying causes of the climate crisis, Global Forest Coalition charges that REDD+ could well be a collection of modern fairy tales - fabricated stories intended to lure the unwitting into a complex web of deception.
At an event held yesterday at COP17 in Durban, Global Forest Coalition announced that, of all the myths about REDD, the four most outrageous 'fairy tales' are:
1) REDD will reduce poverty and bring economic benefits
2) REDD will benefit local communities and address deforestation
3) The $30 billion REDD funding that never came
4) REDD will support Indigenous Peoples
"Every one of these assertions is unfounded and outrageous, given experiences on the ground," said Simone Lovera, Director of Global Forest Coalition. "But unlike the UNFCCC, we have decided to submit our concerns to a transparent, democratic vote. "
The most outrageous of these fairy tales is promised the coveted Muddled Moose Award.
When delegates' votes were counted, the winner was announced: the most outrageous REDD fairy tale, and winner of the Muddled Moose, is the myth that 'REDD will support indigenous Peoples'!
This popular mandate is supported by a recent statement fromthe Indigenous Peoples' Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative (IPCCA) [2]. The vote was also supported by the formation of the Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life, which yesterday called for a moratorium on REDD+ [3] until numerous concerns are fully addressed and resolved.
Berenice Sanchez, a founder of the Global Alliance, said, "The supposed safeguards in REDD+-type projects are voluntary, weak and hidden. These projects are already violating Indigenous Peoples' rights throughout the world. We demand an immediate moratorium to stop REDD+"
As REDD continues to move forward through both global and subnational initiatives, resistance to the policy continues to grow.
Kate Dooley of FERN in Brussels said that "momentum is building for the creation of a new forest carbon market for REDD, despite widespread opposition and the collapse of carbon prices in Europe. As well as undermining the rights of forest peoples, carbon markets offer no hope to deliver finance for forest protection."
Wally Menne of Timberwatch South Africa said, "Despite the pathetic performance of UNFCCC sanctioned 'climate solutions', the system continues to churn out proposals for all kinds of cock-eyed schemes that carefully circumvent actually reducing the emission of greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel powered industrial activities. The best known of these crazy schemes is REDD+, which is more of a REDD 'herring', distracting global attention from the major sources of emissions, and placing the responsibility for emission reduction projects onto forest communities and Indigenous Peoples in developing countries."
For more information, contact:
Simone Lovera, Director, Global Forest Coalition: 072 255 6678
Jeff Conant, Media Coordinator, Global Forest Coalition: 073 623 0619
Kate Dooley, FERN: 071 411 5194
[1] See http://www.globalforestcoalition.org
[2] See http://climate-connections.org/2011/11/26/strong-new-indigenous-statement-against-redd-reducing-emissions-from-deforestation-scheme/
[3] See http://climate-connections.org/2011/12/06/indigenous-peoples-and-allies-call-for-a-moratorium-on-redd/
Global Justice Ecology Project
Media Advisory 7 December 2011
Global Leaders Denounce Green Economy as a Market Disaster on Steroids
More Land Grabs and Speculative Financial Bubbles on the Horizon, Social Movements Warn
Durban, South Africa--As COP17 draws toward a close, and in the run-up to the Rio+20 Environmental Summit, Global Justice Ecology Project, an international organization based in the United States, is convening global leaders from the climate justice, Indigenous Rights, peasant farmers and forest protection movements for a press conference at the Kosi Palm room in the ICC at 11:30am on Thursday, December 8, 2011.
Speakers will condemn the Green Economy as the maniacal, green-tinted regurgitation of a failed and unjust economic model predicated on the expansion of the controversial REDD offset scheme to every square meter of the Earth--including oceans, soils, agriculture, and biodiversity.
Uncle Sam and his team of economic clowns will also speak out on behalf of the Green Economy and the 1% global elite that it is designed to serve.
Contact: Jeff Conant--Global Justice Ecology Project Communications Director
;jc@globaljusticeecology.org; +27 (0)7 362 30619
[1] See http://www.globalforestcoalition.org
[2] See http://climate-connections.org/2011/11/26/strong-new-indigenous-statement-against-redd-reducing-emissions-from-deforestation-scheme/
[3] See http://climate-connections.org/2011/12/06/indigenous-peoples-and-allies-call-for-a-moratorium-on-redd/
New post on World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
New Negotiation text in Durban full of dangers Part 2: Carbon markets
One of the longest chapters in the Durban negotiation text (cf pages 35 - 52), and with most ‘new’ ideas in it -- in terms of legal text -- is the chapter on “Various approaches, including opportunities for using markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions, bearing in mind different circumstances of developed and developing countries” (Chapter 1bv).
Why such a long tittle, and why do I even bother to retake it completely?
Well, it is important to state what the Bali Action Plan was looking for: ‘various approaches, to enhance cost-effectiveness and to promote mitigation action’. Many consider this chapter to be on carbon markets. But in fact, carbon markets are just a means of financing mitigation actions, and in order to consider them to be included in the various approaches they should show to be cost-effective, and to be environmentally friendly in general. An interesting date is that under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM, the best-known market mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol), depending on the project type, only 2 to 20% of the price paid in carbon units, flows to investment and maintenance of mitigation projects.1
Problems with carbon markets
Furthermore, it has to be taken into account that developing countries still emit 4 times more per capita than developing countries. If we are seeking climate equity, the logical thing to do would be to reduce emissions where per capita emissions are high, and to permit slight increases, where they are low. Carbon markets, through offsetting, do just the opposite: they transfer emission rights from developing countries to developed countries. In that way, developed countries do not reduce domestically their emissions, and they are able to preserve their unsustainable lifestyles.
It has been extensively documented that the experience of the carbon markets under the Kyoto Protocol show they are a very unfair and ineffective way of promoting mitigation. The following issues have been raised:
• Additionality problems;
• Accounting problems, among which inflated baselines and double counting;
• Lack of cost-effectiveness,
• Lack of effective transfer of technology to developing countries and other co-benefits;
• Negative impacts of market based mechanisms, among which other environmental problems, and human rights abuses;
• Fraud in carbon markets and its impacts;
The pre-Durban text on 1bv, paragraph 68, demanded that the future consideration of new mechanisms should take into account the lessons learned and prevent repetition of reported problems, and therefore elaborate a work program considering all the above mentioned points.
In the new negotiation text, this paragraph just disappeared. It seems there is no political will to learn from the past, but on the contrary there is a lot of pushing to implement even bigger carbon market schemes.
It is here not the place to describe extensively all the intrinsic problems with carbon markets. Instead, let’s have a look in the problematic negotiation text which is being proposed.
What may come out of Durban?
The text actually has 4 working options:
Option 1: Decides to establish an enhanced mitigation mechanism and to ask SBSTA to implement a whole working program on it during the next year.
Even though it doesn’t explicitly say that this ‘enhanced mitigation mechanism’ will be markets, it is very clear that this would be the working direction.
The facilitator of this group presented it as representing the minimum common ground and being streamlined. Not all countries seemed to agree with that, but the remark gives an indication of what is expected as an outcome for Durban.
This ‘steamlined option’ is considered the alternative if the work in option 2 wouldn’t advance sufficiently. This option contains all the text that countries put in it, in other words it is the “wish list” of Parties. It is rather immature, but it gives a very good idea on what is really being envisaged as the future of carbon markets. It are the ideas expressed in this option that are analysed below.
Option 3 is a repetition of the mandate of the Bali Action Plan, which is another way of saying: let’s just keep on working, but up till this moment nothing is being decided on.
Option 4 is ‘nothing to be decided’, which is the option of those -- countries and civil society alike – that don’t want any new carbon markets to be developed.
What is being projected as the future for Carbon Markets?
Prolongation of Kyoto market mechanisms?
There is a big debate on this issue: some say: only those parties that ratify the second commitment period of the KP, can have access to the benefits of its market mechanisms. On the other hand, many countries, especially developed ones, want the KP mechanisms to be prolonged, no matter what happens with future commitment periods. Therefore they state:
50. [Building upon existing mechanisms means retaining the existing Kyoto Protocol mechanisms (CDM, JI and international emissions trading), (…)]
The same fight also happens within the chapter on ‘market mechanisms’ of the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol.
New kinds of mechanisms
New market mechanisms that are being proposed are the ‘sectoral trading’ and ‘NAMA crediting.
Contrasting the CDM mechanism, that accounted offsets project by project, sectoral trading accounts them for a sector as a whole, such as electricity, steel industry, cement, etc. NAMA crediting accounts for a country as a whole. This would imply developing countries emissions as a whole would become subject to carbon markets.
Apart from many of the other problems the CDM-offsetting scheme has, and which would only get worse in this scenario, for sectoral and NAMA crediting two additional problems are remarkable:
• Baseline setting; If the baseline is high, it is very bad news for the environment. Indeed, a high baseline means that everything under it, is or being emitted in the developing country, or being transferred as offset to a developed country. If the baseline is low, it is bad news for the developing country: it will have to make a lot of effort to go under it and to finally sell some credits.
• Result based mechanism; Developing countries will have to make substantial efforts to go under the defined baseline. But they will only be able to sell the credits after they have proven that they emit less. With which means will they do all the necessary investment to shift to a cleaner development path. And what if, after all those efforts, at the time of selling, the carbon credits are worth scratch? (quite a probability if we see the actual carbon markets develop).
Free design for markets
A new tendency is that several parties call for market mechanisms to be designed according to national circumstances.
66. Agrees that new market-based mechanisms should be built in a way that individual countries are also allowed to design, establish and implement their market mechanisms, reflecting their own national circumstances, following the basic principles directed by the COP. (…)
Those would be “Sustainable Development Approaches (SDAs)”. This implies that any party can propose any kind of mechanism, which would then have to be approved by a “Sustainable Development Approach Standards Board (SDASB)”. The approach is called the ‘bottom up’ approach, as it allows for any national initiative to be approved at the international level.
This tendency is most dangerous, as virtually any kind of mechanism can be approved. Generally speaking, a board is much less transparent, and less inclusive than the COP, and therefore a lot more flexible. As there would grow such a variety of different market mechanisms, the transparency and accountability of the mechanisms themselves would be extremely difficult to follow-up.
For comparison: the CDM has a fixed list of allowed project types. The amplification of this list is taking several years already, with no clear results, exactly because there are well-founded reasons for not including certain project types. One of the examples of not approved project types is nuclear energy. If this new bottom-up approach would be implemented, a board could approve in one session what the COP couldn’t decide on in several years.
Governance
Much attention is being paid to governance for the market mechanisms. The text calls for new governance bodies and structures. Any new body or structure is automatically derived from the COP, and gives only some report to the COP. This means that such important issues as the approval of new market mechanisms, their coherence with the UNFCCC system in general, and the environmental integrity specifically will be decided upon by a little group of people, and with few possibilities of reverting those decisions.
Readiness
As future carbon markets tend to be very complex in its structure, ways of applying, and especially ways of accounting, it will be very complicated for developing countries to participate. In order to prevent these difficulties, the text provides for “readiness”, which is help in capacity building and baseline measurement, in order for countries to prepare for their future market participation.
The most ironical point is that, while for climate change finance in general, it seems public funds will be hardly available, and developing countries will have to rely on private fund-raising and market funds, for readiness there will be public funding:
113. Recognizes the role of public sources of finance in the implementation of market readiness activities;
The worrying point is furthermore that all the funds that go to readiness activities, are climate change funds that don’t go to any direct mitigation action.
Voluntary participation
It is repeated all over the text that participation in carbon markets would be voluntary. In fact there is no need to state so, as any kind of mechanism established under the UN counts with voluntary participation and nothing can be forced on a sovereign state.
But this is not the point. The point is that, knowing that carbon markets are damaging our climate by offering false solutions, a country must be able to oppose such a system as a whole. Not because it does not want to participate, but because it wants to protect its own survival and ultimately the survival of Mother Earth.
1 - For most CDM projects: statistics available in: A quantitative analysis of the cost-effectiveness of projects in the CDM pipeline, , Gavin A Green, UNEP Riso Centre,
CD4CDM Working Paper series, Working Paper n° 4, september 2008
- For HFC projects: Green group accuses China of climate blackmail which says: "The EU has banned HFC-23 offsets because they are inefficient: the value of credits is 70 times the cost of destroying HFC-23 gases."
(*) Nele Marien was climate change negotiator for the Bolivian delegation from 2009 till November 2011
Admin | December 7, 2011 at 12:41 am | Categories: UN climate change negotiations | URL: http://wp.me/pNHgJ-HR
New post on World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
New negotiation text in Durban full of dangers — Part 1: mitigation again disregarded
by Admin
Last Saturday a new negotiation text was published in the Climate Change Negotiations in Durban.
The text presents a few interesting points, many of which come from the People Agreement of Cochabamba. See the article on those interesting points here. The problem is, it is quite probable that those proposals don’t get into the final COP decisions.
On the contrary, there is a big push to get all the bad ideas in the decisions. It is impossible to be exhaustive, but I will be reflecting on some of the major problems.
No real mitigation being projected
What the whole climate change negotiations should be looking for in the very first place, is for the necessary mitigation commitments by developed countries (responsible of 75% of all historical emissions, and still today responsible of 41% of the emissions, representing only 16% of world population, which makes they have with per capita emissions of 4 times more than the avarage in developing countries).
Actual mitigation pledges, as defined after Cancun, will make the world to warm by 4°C, making it inhabitable in most regions, if not everywhere.
Let's see if the problem is attended.
What does the chapter of mitigation realy talk about? It has three main sections:
1) Matters relating to paragraphs 36-38 of the Cancun Agreements
2) Biennial reporting guidelines for developed country Parties
3) Modalities and procedures for international assessment and review (IAR)
Let’s be clear: nor reporting, nor international assessment and review do really attend the climate problem. Leaving aside the injustice that what is demanded in this sections is almost less stringent then what is demanded to developing countries in the correspondent sections, those issues may be important to follow up the damage we are doing to Mother Earth, but do not define mitigation commitments nor mitigation actions.
So much attention to the measuring issue is like a group of firefighters spending all their energy to measuring the advances of the fire, without working to extinguish the fire itself.
So the real issues are suposed to be attended in section 1, on 'matters relating to paragraphs 36 to 38 of the Cancun Agreements'. Do they?
In the first place, this is a wrong starting point:
paragraph 36 just takes note of the totally insufficient pledges Annex I Parties made
paragraph 37 urges parties to increase their ambition
paragraph 38 asks the secretariat to organise workshops to “facilitating understanding of the assumptions and conditions related to the attainment of their emission reduction targets and comparison of the level of emission reduction efforts;” It doesn’t even ask to take conclusions and further actions based on those conclusions.
Now, what is the actual content of this section in the negotiation text?
Apart from recognising the urgent climate situation, and the emissions gap, in fact it just repeats what last year was decided:
Paragraph 7: explore ways to increase level of ambition
Paragraph 8 and 9: seeking further information and clarifying the pledges of developed countries
Paragraph 10: update last year’s pledges. Lets hope it will not be for worse as actually happened last year!
The rest of this short text just enters in requests for more tecnical assistance of the secretariat, workshops, and measurement issues.
So, the big problem of the mitigation text is not so much what is in it; it is the absance of all really important issues:
Clear mitigation commitments for developed countries that are not part of the KP
Comparability of efforts among all developing countries (KP parties and non-KP parties)
Assuring that the total mitigation comitments of all developed countries are sufficient to maintain the world under a secure limit. Therefor, the total emissions must stay within a carbon budget, calculated by scientists. It should also ensure it is fair and equitable towards developing countries
- Making sure countries commit to their future mitigation objectives, don’t just ‘promises’ or ‘pledges’
- Installing compliance mechanisms for those who don’t fullfil their promises. Therefor the Peoples Agreement proposed an International Court of Climate Justice.
Once again, we are seeing that the most important issue of all is not being attended, and is in fact being camouflaged by a lot of meaningless legal literature.
Dangers of the Durban negotiating text in other sections soon to be published.
(*) Nele Marien was climate change negotiator for the Bolivian delegation from 2009 – Nov 2011
Admin | December 6, 2011 at 3:52 pm | Categories: UN climate change negotiations | URL: http://wp.me/pNHgJ-HL
New post on World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
Press release of the Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life
by Admin
Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life
Calls for a Moratorium on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 17th Conference of the Parties
Durban, South Africa, December 5, 2011
The Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life calls for a moratorium on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) at the 17th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), until the following concerns are fully addressed and resolved. However, we reserve the right to expand these demands.
Our call for a moratorium is based upon the precautionary principle which says that, “when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not established scientifically.” The moratorium that we are demanding is the precaution that must be taken to ensure our rights and our environment because the majority of the forests of the world are found in the land and territories of indigenous peoples.
REDD+ threatens the survival of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities and could result in the biggest land grab of all time. Based on in depth investigations, a growing number of recent reports provides evidence that Indigenous Peoples are being subjected to violations of their rights as a result of the implementation of REDD+-type policies and programs, including: the right to life of objectors to REDD+, forced displacements and involuntary resettlement, the loss of lands, territories and resources, means of subsistence, food sovereignty and security, and the imposition of so-called “alternative livelihoods” that lead to separation of our people from their communities, cultures y traditional knowledge. Similarly, our rights to free, prior and informed consent, self-determination and autonomy consecrated i n theUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIPs) are also violated. It is worth noting that the United Nations itself recognizes that REDD+ could result in the “lock-up of forests”. Furthermore, REDD+ is portrayed as a vehicle for strengthening land tenure rights, but, in fact, is used to weaken them.
We denounce that the safeguards contained in the Cancun Accords do not provide a framework that prevents or halts the violation of our individual and collective rights established by UNDRIPs; given that they do not establish legally binding obligations or mechanisms to guarantee our rights, present complaints, or demand reparations. The efforts we have made to strengthen human rights safeguards at COP 17 have been rebuffed by relevant Contact Groups of SBSTA and LCA within the UNFCCC process.
REDD+ and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) promote the privatization and commodification of forests, trees and air through carbon markets and offsets from forests, soils, agriculture and could even include the oceans. This could commodify almost the entire surface of Mother Earth, hurts our relationship with the sacred and violates the rights of Mother Earth. We denounce that carbon markets are a hypocrisy that will not stop global warming.
We also share our profound concern that the sources of financing for REDD+ carbon offsets come from the private sector and carbon markets, which extractive industries are involved in. Carbon markets and REDD+ convert our territories and forests into carbon dumps, while those most responsible for the climate crisis do not commit to legally binding reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and continue to make profits. The World Bank itself has reported that the “financial flows required for climate stabilization and adaptation, will in the long run be mainly private in composition.”
REDD+ not only harms Indigenous Peoples and local communities, but also damages the environment. REDD+ promotes industrial plantations and could include planting genetically modified trees. Perverse incentives are already increasing deforestation and the substitution of native forests with monocultures.
REDD+ jeopardize the human future and the balance of Mother Earth because it entrenches fossil fuel use, which is the major cause of the climate crisis. According to the Director of NASA, James Hansen, the world’s most distinguished climatologist, “industrialized countries could offset 24-69% of their emissions via the CDM and REDD… thus avoiding the necessary domestic cuts that are required to peak emissions around 2015.”
REDD+-type projects lead to conflicts within and between indigenous communities and other vulnerable populations. The loss of traditional use of forest, financial incentives, converting forests into commodities, financial speculation and land grabs undermine our traditional systems of governance, generate conflicts.
Furthermore, every time that a community signs a REDD+ contract in a developing country, which provides pollution credits for the fossil fuel industry and other entities responsible for climate change, it allows environmental destruction and hurts vulnerable communities elsewhere, including in the North. By favoring continued exploitation and burning of fossil fuels, REDD+ allows for the continuation of pollution in industrialized countries, further threatening communities in the North that are already overburdened by these impacts. It is not possible to reform or regulate REDD+ to prevent this situation.
Due to the problems of calculating baselines, leakage, permanence, monitoring, reporting and verification that policy makers and methodology designers are not willing and cannot solve, REDD+ is undermining the climate regime and violating the principle of common but differentiated responsibility established under the UNFCCC. Pollution credits generated by REDD+ obstruct the only workable solution to climate change: keeping oil, coal and gas in the ground. Like the carbon credits produced under the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM, REDD+ is not intended to achieve real emissions reductions, but merely to “compensate” for excessive fossil fuel use elsewhere.
Furthermore, biotic carbon – the carbon stored in forests – can never be the climatic equivalent to fossilized carbon kept underground. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels adds to the overall burden of carbon perpetually circulating between the atmosphere, vegetation, soils and oceans. This inequivalence, among many other complexities, makes REDD carbon accounting impossible, allowing carbon traders to inflate the value of REDD carbon credits with impunity.
Based on the above, we urgently call for the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and human rights organizations to investigate and document the violations from REDD+-type policies and projects, as well as
to prepare reports, issue recommendations and establish precautionary measures and reparations to guarantee the implementation of UNDRIPs and other instruments and norms.
In summary, REDD+-type policies and projects are moving too quickly, allowing crucial human rights and environmental concerns to be sidelined or dismissed. We reaffirm the need for the moratorium on REDD+. In conclusion, we emphasize that forests are most successfully conserved and managed with indigenous governance of the collective lands and territories of Indigenous Peoples.
Admin | December 6, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Categories: UN climate change negotiations | URL: http://wp.me/pNHgJ-HH
New post on World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
Key issues of the Peoples Agreement present in Durban negotiation text
by Admin
After one week of negotiations in Durban, a compilation of negotiation texts was presented, which essentially builds on work during the whole year. There are several very problematic issues in this text, but let’s start with the good news: several issues from the Peoples’ Agreement are present in the text, especially in the Shared Vision chapter1.
Stabilising the Climate in a fair and equitable way
First, the key issue: making sure the climate gets stabilised. The social movements in Tiquipaya established that the world should warm not more than 1 degree. And, in order to ensure that we wouldn’t surpass this dangerous limit, demanded that the developed countries, being responsible for the climate crisis – have to reduce 50% of their emissions by 2020, and more than 100 per cent by 2040.
See the way it is represented in the Shared Vision text:
17. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040 by Annex I Parties; sustained by short-term mitigation by Annex I Parties of more than 50 per cent by 2017; ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius increase;
In fact, the big question is: will the world be able to keep within the limits we establish for ourselves? Therefore, scientists have to establish how many Gigatons of GHG emissions the world can emit up till 2020. This would give us a ‘Carbon Budget’.
Next step is to allocate in a fair way this Carbon Budget. Only setting fair criteria, and undoing historical injustices, can do this. That is why the Peoples’ Agreement calls for the repayment of the Climate Debt.
38. Determines that this global goal shall be achieved by Parties on the basis of equity, with developed countries taking the lead, and allocating the remaining carbon budget up until 2050 according to the criteria of (population) per capita accumulative historical emissions and the climate emissions debt of Annex I Parties, and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, equity shall be assured by having a fair sharing and equitable allocation framework wherein developed coun tryParties commit to the retribution of their historical climate debt, by returning over-consumed atmospheric space to developing countries, and by providing finance, technology and capacity building to developing countries in order to assist them in 3 mentions in the text of Climate debt Intellectual property issues in relation to technology.
Rights of Mother Earth
The World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, had of course as its name says, as one of its main objectives, the implementation of the Rights of Mother Earth. The conference itself prepared a proposal for the Universal Declaration, and the issue was talked about in the General Assembly of the UN. Still there is a long long way to go before the world will recognise and respect the Rights of Mother Earth, as well as Harmony with Nature.
Mother Earth’s Rights are disrespected in uncountable ways, but the damage climate Change is doing is probable the major expression of the need for this Universal Declaration. Therefore, within the UNFCCC, Bolivia has been calling for the defence of the Rights of Mother Earth:
74. Ensure respect for the intrinsic laws of nature.
75. The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature, and that their will be no commodification of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose.
Rejection of Carbon Markets
The idea of protecting the Rights of Mother Earth counterpose directly to the philosophy of commodification of Nature, and particularly of Carbon Markets, which at some points seems to be a major objective for the Climate Convention, much more important than the stabilization of the climate.
Rejection of the carbon markets -- and especially its worst form which is offsetting-- is present:
76. The assurance that in all actions related to forest land, the integrity and multifunctionality of the ecological systems shall be preserved and no offsetting or market mechanisms shall be applied or developed.
In the 1bv chapter:
29. Ensuring that offsets shall not be allowed;
42. Ensuring that ecological functions of Mother Earth will not be commodified in order to guarantee the rights of nature;
Forests
It seems most negotiators can’t see the forests through the trees, and the only thing they are interested in is the exact amount of carbon the trees can sequester, and then trade it.
This vision is totally rejected by the Peoples Agreement, which sees the forests as integral and multifunctional ecosystems, and fights the commodification of the forests, putting emphasis in the rejection of the REDD-offsetting scheme.
76. The assurance that in all actions related to forest land, the integrity and multifunctionality of the ecological systems shall be preserved and no offsetting or market mechanisms shall be applied or developed.
Human rights, Indigenous Rights and migrants
The Peoples Agreement calls in several places for respect for Human rights, Indigenous Rights and the Rights of Climate Migrants.
69. Climate change related actions should fully respect human rights;
70. The adverse effects of climate change have a range of direct and indirect implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights; climate change related actions can have implications on human rights and the effects of climate change will be felt most acutely by those segments of the population that are already vulnerable owing to geography, gender, age, indigenous or minority status, or disability;
71. Indigenous people ensuring the full respect of human rights, including the inherent rights of indigenous people (A broad range of stakeholders engagement, including of indigenous people, is necessary for effective action on all aspects of climate change;
72. Migrants ensuring the full respect of human rights, including the inherent rights of migrants;
73. The full respect of human rights, including the inherent rights of women, children, migrants and indigenous peoples established in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
Finance
Without adequate funding, developing countries won’t be able to adapt in the necessary ways to the climate problem that developed countries caused, and even less they will be able to mitigate in the necessary degree. Therefore, the Peoples Agreement demanded that substantial financial means should be transferred to developing countries. This is no development aid, but a part of the above mentioned climate debt.
Developed countries spend 6% of their GDP on defence, security, and warfare, which is not only very harmful for humanity, but also for the environment. Therefore Tiquipaya demanded that all funding allocated to military purposes should be redirected to climate change.
47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties;
Warfare
War is extremely damaging, for Mother Earth and for the 99% of the people. Stopping warfare, and military related actions, is a major objective if we want to save Mother Earth.
80. Stopping wars, defending lives and ceasing destructive activities will protect the climate system; conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.
81. The guarantee that all Parties shall cease destructive activities that contribute to climate change, in particular the activities of warfare, production of materials and services that support warfare, and to divert associated financial resources and investments into the shared global effort to combat a common enemy: climate change.
Technology Transfer and IPR
Tiquipaya demands a real transfer of technology, and states that “Knowledge is universal, and should for no reason be the object of private property or private use, nor should its application in the form of technology. Developed countries have a responsibility to share their technology with developing countries.” Therefore the People Agreement rejects the protection of environmentally friendly technology by Intellectual Property Rights.
66. Consistent with the principles of the Convention and to enable meaningful mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries, the flexibilities of the international regime of intellectual property as articulated by the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights may be used to the fullest extent by developing country Parties to address adaptation or mitigation of climate change, in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base; accordingly, consistent with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights, each Party retains its right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted; specific and urgent measures shall be taken by developed country Parties to enhance the development and transfer of technologies at different stages of the technology cycle covered by intellectual property rights to developing country Parties.
67. The removal of all obstacles, including intellectual property rights and patents on climate-related technologies to ensure the transfer of technology to developing countries.
The issue is also in the ‘transfer of technology’ chapter:
10. The relevant members of the Network, in undertaking actions, at the request and under the guidance of the Climate Technology Centre [approved by TEC], will, inter alia:
(…)
(m) Identify, suggest and promote actions in all relevant forums to exclude from intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and revoke existing IPR protection in developing countries and least developed countries on environmentally sound technologies to adapt to and mitigate climate change, including those developed through funding by governments or international agencies;
The International Climate Court of Justice
Any international agreement, without a compliance system, is kind of useless. The responsibilities for Climate Change are so high, that what is at stake is nothing less than the survival of humankind, and of many of the living beings of Mother Earth. Up till this moment, who commits an ecocide can’t be trialled for it, but it is urgent this issue is addressed. Therefore, that the International Climate Court of Justice should be developed:
79. Requests the Conference of the Parties to develop, by its eighteenth session, an International Climate Court of Justice in order to guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision, which are essential elements in the obtaining of the global goal;
The future of the Tiquipaya proposals
It is definitely very good news that those important ideas worked all their way up to a negotiation text in an almost-final stage. The big question now is: will they be allowed into the final decisions? Will there be any real debate around these issues? Or will they be just brushed aside at the last moment?
In the past, they were never allowed even to be discussed. The reason? “They are not politically realistic”. Should we interpret this as “The 1% doesn’t want those ideas”? Then let’s show the world is changing, and we need the ideas of the 99% to be present, not only in a draft version of negotiation texts, but in the real decisions that will define our future world.
Soon to be published: New negotiation text in Durban full of dangers
1. All reflected paragraphs are from the Shared Vision chapter, unless otherwise stated.
Admin | December 6, 2011 at 1:10 pm | Categories: UN climate change negotiations | URL: http://wp.me/pNHgJ-HC
30 November 2011
join African activists to target Shell
Indigenous Environmental Network
Durban, South Africa--In Durban, Canada and the United Kingdom, Indigenous activists and their supporters targeted Shell today for violating agreements made with Indigenous communities in Canada. In Durban, site of the ongoing UN climate talks, activists from Canada joined activists from Africa to denounce Shell and their repeated violations of human rights and environmental regulations. Appearing outside a Shell refinery, a number of Indigenous activists joined with youth from Canada and Africa to support the community of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), who recently announced their lawsuit against Shell.
"Shell has left a trail of broken promises and ravaged eco-systems. They have been pushing their dirty fossil fuels plans on every country they can bully. It's time to stand up and say get the Shell out of there, we don't want your broken promises anymore," declared Eriel Deranger, a community member of ACFN and director of Sierra Club Prairies.
"We're drawing the line, and taking a strong stand against Shell. ACFN wants no further developments until Shell is brought to justice and our broader concerns about the cumulative impacts in the region are addressed," stated Allan Adam, Chief of ACFN.
"The destructive tar sands operations by Shell and other big oil companies are destroying the land and violating our people's rights to hunt, trap and fish. Canada is a willing partner in these crimes and other human rights abuses caused by fossil fuels and climate change," noted Daniel T'seleie, an Indigenous youth from northern Canada, and a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation.
"Shell has a history of devastation across the African continent that we are well aware of. Our peoples and our environments have been turned into a colony for companies like Shell, who profit from our suffering. Knowing full well the extent of brutality that Shell has delivered to my fellow Nigerians, we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Canada standing up to say 'get the Shell out of here'," emphasized Nnimmo Bassey, director of Environmental Rights Action (Nigeria) and winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize.
"Ironically, Durban, the site of this year's international climate talks, has struggled against the aging Shell refinery that is the symbol of climate change and environmental injustice. Shell has been responsible for crimes against local citizens, where refinery accidents are common and where rusting pipelines have leaked more than 1 million litres of petrol. We strictly oppose plans to bring Tar Sands oil to South Africa, and agree that Shell must be held accountable for its violations against communities," claimed Bobby Peek, director of Groundwork in Durban.
"We are here in Durban to look for climate solutions, meanwhile countries like Canada are promoting dirty oil from the Tar Sands, backed by large corporations like Shell. While our communities are suffering from the impacts of climate change, groups like Shell have been found to be lobbying governments to weaken their positions. This has to be the time when we begin to hold companies and countries alike responsible for their actions against our communities," declared Tom Goldtooth, director of the Indigenous Environmental Network in North America.
For more information:
Eriel Deranger, ACFN Member/Sierra Club Prairies Director: +1-780-903-6598
Ben Powless, Indigenous Environmental Network: +27-(0)-72-581-2102
All photos by Jeff Conant/GJEP
For High Resolution Photos : http://wp.me/pDT6U-3c3 please contact Ben Powless listed above.
CANADIAN YOUTH EJECTED FROM COP17
TURN THEIR BACKS ON CANADIAN GOVERNMENT DURING OPENING SPEECH
TURN THEIR BACKS ON CANADIAN GOVERNMENT DURING OPENING SPEECH
PRESS RELEASE
December 7, 2011
CONTACT Emilie Novaczek
Media Liaison, Canadian Youth Delegation to COP17
emilie@ourclimate.ca
Durban: 076.772.4054
International: +27.76.772.4054
December 7, 2011
CONTACT Emilie Novaczek
Media Liaison, Canadian Youth Delegation to COP17
emilie@ourclimate.ca
Durban: 076.772.4054
International: +27.76.772.4054
Durban, South Africa – Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation were ejected from COP17 today as Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent delivered his opening address at the United Nations climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa. Just as Kent began his speech, six youth stood and turned away from the Minister revealing the message “Turn your back on Canada” prominently displayed on their shirts.
“Our so-called Environment Minister entered these talks by going on record that he would be defending the tar sands. I have yet to hear him say that he’s here to defend my future,” said James Hutt, one of the youth delegates who participated in the action.
The six youth, including Brigette DePape (the “Rogue Page”) received an ovation from the crowd watching the Minister’s address. They were escorted out of the International Convention Center’s plenary hall and removed from the premises at 12:30 p.m local time. Their accreditation was revoked upon their removal.
“This extraction-happy government hasn’t limited their reckless behaviour the climate talks here in Durban,” said Tasha Peters. “Canada has been called out for lobbying to lower EU fuel quality regulations to allow the expansion of world’s largest and most destructive mega-project – the Alberta tar sands.”
As the negotiations have progressed in Durban, Canada has won 12 ‘Fossil of the Day’ awards due to their action in Durban. Over the past week and a half youth have challenged Canada’s irresponsible Canadian negotiation strategies, indicative of the close relationship between Canada’s climate policy and dirty fossil fuels.
“By stalling international progress, the actions of this government put the future of our country and our generation in danger; we won’t take that sitting down,” said James Hutt. “As long as Canada is at the negotiation table promoting industry over human rights, we will never see the climate agreement the world needs. It’s time to leave Canada behind.”
-30-
The Canadian Youth Delegation to COP17 is a united front of youth from across Canada tackling the biggest challenge of our generation: the climate crisis. Acting locally, provincially, federally, and internationally, we combine our forces to educate and empower youth. We represent the voice of Canadian youth at the UN Climate Negotiations. For more information, see cyd-djc.org.
The six youth, including Brigette DePape (the “Rogue Page”) received an ovation from the crowd watching the Minister’s address. They were escorted out of the International Convention Center’s plenary hall and removed from the premises at 12:30 p.m local time. Their accreditation was revoked upon their removal.
“This extraction-happy government hasn’t limited their reckless behaviour the climate talks here in Durban,” said Tasha Peters. “Canada has been called out for lobbying to lower EU fuel quality regulations to allow the expansion of world’s largest and most destructive mega-project – the Alberta tar sands.”
As the negotiations have progressed in Durban, Canada has won 12 ‘Fossil of the Day’ awards due to their action in Durban. Over the past week and a half youth have challenged Canada’s irresponsible Canadian negotiation strategies, indicative of the close relationship between Canada’s climate policy and dirty fossil fuels.
“By stalling international progress, the actions of this government put the future of our country and our generation in danger; we won’t take that sitting down,” said James Hutt. “As long as Canada is at the negotiation table promoting industry over human rights, we will never see the climate agreement the world needs. It’s time to leave Canada behind.”
-30-
The Canadian Youth Delegation to COP17 is a united front of youth from across Canada tackling the biggest challenge of our generation: the climate crisis. Acting locally, provincially, federally, and internationally, we combine our forces to educate and empower youth. We represent the voice of Canadian youth at the UN Climate Negotiations. For more information, see cyd-djc.org.