PAIRVI

Indian NGOs bust the myth of climate smart agriculture

2011-12-06T10:55:00.002+05:30

While the negotiations remain deadlocked in Durban over the issues of fate of Kyoto Protocol and Green Climate Fund, NGOs strongly opposed the climate smart agriculture which is being proposed as triple win solution to the problems of climate change, food insecurity and low resilience of farmers due to climate change impacts. In a side event a collective of NGOs from India, argued that the climate smart agriculture is a myth and falsehood being propagated by the agencies who have commercial interest in mitigation in agriculture. Besides, developed countries who do not want to reduce their own emissions are shifting the burden of mitigation on the developing countries and especially farming communities who are already under huge burden of adapting to the climate change impacts as they are the worst affected.

Opening the panel discussion, Ajay Jha from Pairvi, an advocacy support organization based in Delhi said that UNFCCC negotiations are under huge pressure from developed countries like US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Japan etc. to include soil carbon sequestration in the Clean Development Mechanism. He said that it is being done at the behest of big agribusiness countries who will benefit significantly from it, and developed countries who will have another market based mechanism to fall back and escape their historical responsibility. Farmers fear that if soil carbon sequestration is approved as CDM, that will inevitably lead to land grabbing, and farmers losing the sovereignty on their land and produce. Ms. Anika Shroeder from MISEREOR, Germany talked about the false solutions being proposed in agriculture. She said that soil carbon sequestration is a methodology mired in inadequate scientific knowledge, inappropriate data and lack of countries capacity to measure soil carbon as it varies largely in different agro climatic zones and conditions. Many pilot projects being undertaken by World Bank etc. have even not been able to set the baseline, she reasoned. She also talked about how bio-char and no till agriculture being pushed as solutions to reduce emission in agriculture does not have much scientific basis or proven experience of reducing emission, and ultimately end up promoting increased fertilizer and pesticide use, which will benefit agribusiness companies and further increase the input cost in agriculture. She also added that farming communities in developing countries are being made to believe that they would financially benefit from these mitigation projects in agriculture, however, as a matter of fact these projects are so difficult and technical to commission that it is very unlikely that farmers would be able to do it. Few pilot projects have also revealed that the financial benefit going to farmer, if at all has been extremely insignificant, she added. Mr. Atul Kumar Singh Anjaan, Secretary of CPI said that climate criminals and industrialized countries having huge climate debt are devising new ways of fooling around farmers who are the worst victim of climate change impacts. However, more worrisome is lack of support to farmers in developing countries by their own governments. Globally public investment in agriculture is around 4% of the GDP while agriculture contributes to more than 25% in the GDP in the developing countries, unless that improves it would be difficult to bring resilience in agriculture and fight hunger in the world, he emphasized. More than 70% of farmers in India have a landholding of less than 0.2 ha, if they were to burdened with reducing emission in agriculture, it would severely affect the food security in these countries.

Mr. Anil Dave, Member of Parliament said that world are moving towards a system which is based on over exploitation of natural resources to optimize profit, and developed countries are harbingers and leaders of this political economy. They treat land, water, forests as dead objects created to benefit them, however, until we have respect for them, and try to harmonize our own existence with their existence, we cannot reach the goal of sustainable development, he underlined. Developed countries must provide financial and technological support to suffering millions and farmers in developing countries, in accordance with the climate debt they owe to them. Fast, just and adequate adaptation support is what farmers need in the developing countries, and it is highly unjust to allow polluting countries to continue polluting, and allow big agribusiness companies to fill their coffers in pretext of helping nature and agriculture. Mr. Soumya Dutta, convener of Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha said that developed countries talking about reducing emission in agriculture is a stupid idea, as developing countries agriculture is already very smart. Developed countries burn at least three times more energy in producing one unit of food as compared to developing countries, he added. He added that even the national action plan on climate change and state action plan on climate change in different states are also jumping on the bandwagon by proposing soil carbon sequestration, modern scientific agriculture, increased use of biotechnology, no till agriculture etc. The mitigation in agriculture is being aggressively pushed by agribusiness companies and their huge financial interests, developing countries unable to see through the design is highly unfortunate. He also challenged the figures reported on agricultural emissions and that developing countries contribute to 70% of agricultural emissions, as having very little scientific basis.

Reportedly agriculture is one of the important components being negotiated in the Durban climate change conference which has representation from governments of 194 countries. Umbrella group comprising Australia, New Zealand, Canada supported by the US, and many multilateral agencies including World Bank and FAO want SBSTA (Subsidiary Body on scientific and Technological Advice to undertake a work programme on agriculture and agricultural emissions, which developing countries and farming communities believe will pave the way for agriculture being used as carbon sink. A number of farming communities associations and civil society organizations are reported to be strongly against agriculture in climate change negotiations. African countries are keen to take the discussion forward on agriculture. President Mr. Jacob Zuma also sees agriculture as one of the major deliverables in Durban.

3^rd December 2011

From COP 17, Durban

Ajay. K. Jha

Binding mitigation targets for China, India etc - post 2020 ?

2011-12-05T16:50:00.004+05:30

The Kyoto protocol - worked out in 1997, and in effect from 2005 February -- do not include any targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the developing or poor countries -- only the 37 rich countries in the Annex I list are bound by the KP to reduce their emissions by over 5% between 2008-2012. Almost none of these major countries have done any substantial reductions, except Germany for the last 3 years, all of them have been demanding the large 'emerging economies' - like China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico etc -- take on binding commitments for reductions. Or else, these developed & rich countries are threatening to walk out of Kyoto Protocol (KP).

Just before the Copenhagen COP-15 in 2009, both the Governments of India & China declared their voluntary "Reduction of Energy Intensity of their Economies" by 20-25% and by up to 40% respectively, the pressure on these so-called emerging economies has increased since then.

Here in Durban, China is playing it’s cards very intelligently; by giving statements of intentions of emission reduction, by publishing and distributing huge amounts of material about what China is doing in terms of the shift to renewable energy etc. India -- in contrast - is hardly visible in the international scene, and even the press briefing that the Indian Govt. delegation (negotiating team) gave here was fuzzy and evasive. The heat is on these large emerging polluters, but India seems to have lost the mind space of the thousands of observers here and hundreds of millions out in the world.

------------------------------------------------------

From COP 17, Durban

Soumya Dutta

Beyond Copenhagen

List of corporations inside COP 17

2011-12-02T16:57:00.004+05:30

For the last several years, many big business & industry groups have floated NGOs, to have additional intervention space in all kinds of negotiations -- be it Trade, Climate change, Food security, water. The convoluted argument they put up is -- "aren't we also 'civil society’?". This completely negates the fact that as the moneyed groups, they already wield huge influences over governments and policy making. By floating these BINGOs (Business & Industry NGOs), they are deliberately & with clever designs -- encroaching upon the already shrunk democratic space left for various people's groups, social movements, progressive CSOs etc

Richard Polaris has compiled a list of corporations participating in this COP17 in Durban. This can be seen together with the fact that:

1. Big technology corporate solutions -- like the carbon Capture & Storage (CCS), Geo-engineering etc are being pushed as "solutions" for the emerging climate crisis, and
2. Even in the Climate finance issues, a hard push is visible for a part of whatever little climate finance is to emerge -- to go for financing private sector enterprises!!

Also to be noted, that many of the BINGOs masquerading as "civil society" are the big dirty-energy groups like Shell, Exxon, Sasol, Eskom etc, nuclear power vendors like Areva, many of which are extractive industry behemoths like Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton etc.

-----------------------------------------------

Soumya Dutta

Beyond Copenhagen Coalition

Will Durban COP17 effectively bury the Kyoto protocol?

2011-12-02T10:48:00.003+05:30

The indications were there right from the Copenhagen COP15 -- many developed countries were intending to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, unless the major developing countries take on significant mitigation responsibilities. Cancun COP16 only strengthened this trend, and in Durban - several developed countries are asking for a "DURBAN MANDATE" to "launch a process for a new global treaty" to address the deepening climate change crisis.

Lead by japan, Australia, even European Union -- developed countries are asking for a “new global and comprehensive legally binding (mitigation) framework” which will legally bind all “major economies”, including China, India, south africa, brazil, Mexico etc. into commitments of mitigation (and may be even climate finance). Japan & EU have demanded the setting up of a new working group to launch this process towards a new treaty !

All these means that the developed country parties are no longer feeling bound by their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol -- the only legally binding agreement in the area of climate change crisis. And the demand for a Durban Mandate to launch a process for a comprehensive treaty means essentially that the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto protocol will not be there, and some diluted, business friendly hotch-potch will be signed on, leaving the field wide open for unmitigated business profits as usual -- as the driving force, rather than the facts from science/ research & World opinion -- become the enabling environment for business & profit.

The wild dogs always hunt in packs. Similar is the case for the hunting developed countries. First they sucked the resources of the poorer countries hollow, locking them into a viscious cycle of deprivation. Then they dumped huge amounts of atmospheric & oceanic pollutants into the common atmosphere & hydrosphere -- creating the climate crisis . Now they want the poor to mitigate or take care of the problem of climate change, and also negate their international legal commitments . Its just one more year -- since 2012 - when the first commitment period of the KP ends, releasing all the rich polluting countries from doing anything under legal frameworks.

In true hunting dog fashion, the lead dog is identified here as Canada -- who have indicated that they will formally leave the Kyoto Protocol , and it might not be long before the rest of the pack show up to hunt the victims -- here the LDCs, the Small Island states etc. They (AOSIS) in turn have called for a "Durban mandate to secure a legally binding agreement to reflect the outcome of the work of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA)". They are also demanding that the KP continues. Though KP has delivered very little, its still the only legal architecture which recognizes climate change as being created by rich nations and fixes responsibility on them. That is the proverbial straw the poor are trying to hold on to.

Egypt, Saudi arabi, Nigeria etc, opposed the proposal for a new Durban mandate towards a new legal framework, and wanted the existing work under the Bali Action Plan (BAP) through the AWG-LCA to be completed and to deliver its outcome, in an open-ended consultation of Parties & observers. BUT with developing countries under some economic stress, and their opportunistic reluctance to follow on Kyoto Protocol's 2nd commitment period, it is quite likely that the Kyoto Protocol will be given an un-announced burial; in Durban.

So, the world will return to the "Might Is Right" framework in respect of the grave emerging crisis of cliamte change. Not a very good prospect for a world that claims to be civilised.
-----------------------------------------------
Soumya Dutta

Beyond Copenhagen Coalition

Discussion Paper_Myth of Climate Smart Agriculture; What is at stake at Durban?

2011-11-29T18:51:00.001+05:30

MYTH OF CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE; WHAT IS AT STAKE AT DURBAN
Discussion paper for COP 17 side event
Climate Smart Agriculture; Whether a Myth or Reality
Saturday, 03 Dec 2011, 11:30—13:00, Room 5

Organized by Beyond Copenhagen and MISEREOR

Feedback and comments are welcome at k.ajay.j@gmail.com

Why it is important to talk about agriculture in climate change; impacts and likely impacts of climate change on agriculture

Climate change is not only an environmental issue but a defining problem for generations to come which can slow down the pace of progress towards sustainable development either directly through increased exposure to adverse impact or indirectly through erosion of the capacity to adapt. It is estimated that developing countries will bear some 75 to 80% of the costs of the damages caused by the changing climate. Even if global warming is limited to 2DC (which is definitely not the case as of now), the costs of adaptation for developing countries are likely to be in the range of $ 75 billion to $ 100 billion a year in the period 2010 to 2050 (World Bank, 2009). It will have significant bearing on the sustainable development and poverty reduction in developing countries and their ability to attain Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015.

Globally, 1.7 billion farmers depend on agriculture, the proportion of which is substantially large in developing and least developed countries. The increasingly erratic climate variability & unpredictable extremes of weather are already having adverse impacts on agriculture & food security, which will increase - as it may alter the balance between food demand and supply. South Asia and Africa are projected to be particularly vulnerable to these changes due to their large populations and great dependence on agriculture for livelihoods. Majority of the developing countries and small island states are most likely to be affected by climate-change impacts. Even with a temperature rise of 1–2°C, the IPCC predicts serious effects, including reduced crop yields in tropical areas leading to increased risk of hunger, spread of climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria, water stress in Africa, increased risk of floods followed by drought and water scarcity for millions of people, inundation of coasts and threat of stronger tropical cyclones, complete submergence of some small island states and an increased risk of extinction of 20–30% of all plant and animal species.

With public spending of less than 4%, agriculture contributes 29% of developing countries GDP and provides employment to 20% of the global and 65% of developing countries populations. The impact on agriculture will have profound impact on livelihoods, food production and access to food. Even without climate change impacts, prices are expected to increase significantly as population and income growth outstrip productivity and increase in total land area in agriculture. Climate change will further exacerbate this trend with wheat prices increasing by an additional 94-111% and maize by 52-55%. South Asia, a net exporter of food, is expected to become net importer of food by 2050 in no climate change scenario and with climate change its imports are estimated to increase by 550%. Sub Saharan Africa’s imports are expected to increase by 270% depending on the scenario. Latin America and the Caribbean countries would gain substantially and might turn into net exporter of cereals.[1]

Agriculture and climate change connection
It is alleged that agriculture contributes to around 12% of total GHG emissions and it could be as high as 30% including land use changes and deforestation. The sector is responsible for 47% of the world methane emission and 58% of the nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Methane contributes of 3.3 Gt of CO2 eq per year through enteric fermentation in livestock, and nitrous oxide contributes 2.8% Gt CO2 eq as emissions from the soils as a result of application of nitrogen fertilizers and as nitrogen excreted in livestock feces and urine. Co 2 accounts to only a small proportion of agricultural emissions. Agricultural soils both emit and absorb large fluxes of Co2 resulting in small net emission of 40 Mt Co2 eq, less than 1% of global anthropogenic emissions.

It is alleged that more than 75% of these emissions originate in developing countries and can be easily mitigated through soil carbon sequestration. That by implication means that developing countries who are already under huge impacts of climate change brought about by the developed world will also have to take the burden of mitigation and adaptation also. The developing countries also have failed to see through the design, that under the pretext of agriculture and food takes the focus out of sources of emission in the developed countries and being lured by money that mitigation in agriculture can bring to them. While we later come back to what is being offered on the table through rosy pictures of soil carbon sequestration to developing countries, let us first understand the agricultural emissions in developed and developing countries.
There is no denying the fact that majority of the agricultural emissions come from developing countries. The argument is also being extended to show how inefficient developing countries are in managing their agricultural emissions. However, as a matter of fact developed countries use three times more energy in producing one unit of food as compared to developing countries. The agricultural emissions of developing countries are huge only because the area of agriculture and livestock headcount in developing countries is far greater than in developed countries, where agriculture is highly mechanized and is a purely economic activity engaging insignificant proportion of population (less than 1% of the population in the US is engaged in agriculture) and makes insignificant contribution to the GDP. In absolute terms agricultural emissions in developed countries far outstrip the emissions in developing countries. In fact, mitigation in agriculture is being promoted by countries who have significant proportion of their emissions coming from agricultural exports and should be addressed first.
Agriculture in the UNFCCC and climate change negotiations
The Convention places obligations on Parties that could directly or indirectly affect agricultural activities. The linkage between climate change and agriculture is addressed directly in Article 2 of the treaty which states:

stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system… should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

Under Article 4 of the Convention, developed countries have the specific obligation to “adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change by {…} protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.” Preambular paragraph 4 of the Convention also mentions the role and importance of sinks and reservoirs of GHGs in terrestrial ecosystems. When formulating Party obligations, the Convention, rather than focusing on specific mandatory obligations, focuses on general preparatory measures, such as to:

· Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of GHGs in all relevant sectors including {…} agriculture.
· Promote sustainable management, and to promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gasses {…} including biomass.
· Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to climate change; develop and elaborate appropriate and integrated plans

In climate change negotiations, agriculture appeared in draft decision “J” in the LCA text in Copenhagen under the umbrella of article “I.b.iv” of the Bali Action Plan referred to as “cross-sectoral approaches,” mainly promoted by the agriculture export dominated “Umbrella Group” countries of New Zealand, Canada, Australia, supported by Switzerland and the United States. Later on few developing countries including Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Philippines, Thailand, Bolivia have been participating in the debate. Saudi Arabia also remains engaged on this issue given that oil and energy are critical elements of “cross-sectoral” mitigation actions. In Bonn, India and African countries also engaged on this issue, with the concern of unilateral trade measures being imposed by certain countries in agricultural trade.

The entire focus in agriculture remained on mitigation and the LCA adaptation chapter had only a footnote reference to agriculture linking the sector to projects and programmes. The COP 15 at Copenhagen remained embroiled in power politics and the three page outcome text of Copenhagen did not have any reference to agriculture. Post CPH, responding to the call of Copenhagen Accord (CA) to inform UNFCCC of their quantified economy wise emission targets, 35 developing countries included agriculture in their NAMAs. Subsequent meetings (at Tianjin and Bonn) further included texts in LCA (mitigation in agriculture) on the proposals of G-77, Argentina and Bolivia, and requested Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the UNFCCC to develop a Work Programme on Agriculture to study the impacts of climate change in agriculture and come up with firm proposals on mitigation. In the meantime a Global Research Alliance on Agricultural GHGs was launched led by NZ, US and Japan also. The Cancun Cop failed to push work programme on agriculture and all the text from mitigation chapter in the LCA was dropped.

In Bangkok and Bonn inter sessional Conferences , the agenda fight also brought back the attention on agriculture on the issue whether agriculture should remain in the LCA or should be delegated to the SBSTA. New Zealand and Canada proposed a direct SBSTA work program or a broader discussion in the LCA outside of 1.b.iv, while the G-77 insisted that the framework of the Bali Action Plan be adhered to and thus agriculture should remain under 1.b.iv. They also pushed to address agriculture within the LCA in “additional matters” rather than under “cross-sectoral approaches” so as to remove references to trade in previous agriculture drafts. In the end, the G-77 fought hard to keep agriculture under cross-sectoral approaches, where they felt a general framework for cross sectoral approaches needed to be developed balancing all sectors, including bunker fuels. New Zealand and others wanted to launch the work program and/or deal with agriculture outside of cross-sectoral approaches to avoid a trade discussion. They also asserted that they wanted to address both adaptation and mitigation regarding agriculture.

As of now, agriculture is not on the SBSTA agenda but remains in “cross sectoral approaches.” However, there are pressures from other quarters as well. The Cancún Agreement, which form the basis of continuing negotiations, emphasize the role of carbon markets in climate finance, paving the way for an increase in agricultural offsets. LULUCF is being renegotiated as AFOLU to include most of the agriculture as Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use. It is mention worthy that under LULUCF reporting emissions from agriculture was optional which developed countries use to their advantage by not reporting. However, of late developing countries have shrilled the campaign on closing the gap in the LULUCF and hence developed countries want more market based mechanism to reduce their emissions and hence demand for including soil carbon sequestration under market based mechanism through REDD Plus. Originally REDD Plus allowed less than 1% carbon credits through soil carbon sequestration. Though REDD Plus is still being negotiated World Bank and FAO have already launched their pilot projects on soil carbon sequestration!

What’s the problem with soil carbon sequestration?
The soil carbon sequestration is a methodology mired in inadequate scientific knowledge, inappropriate existing data and capacity of countries to measure soil carbon given the large diversity in different agro climatic zones, and unsound techniques for evaluation. The technical difficulties and key uncertainties for carbon stocks accounting were strong enough reasons to dissuade the negotiators from including soil carbon sequestration in CDM originally. The Kyoto Protocol had ruled that soil carbon sequestration and avoided deforestation are not eligible for CDM credits. Now, economic and political powers (led by the World Bank, FAO, large agribusiness, and interested countries) are looking eagerly to rewrite the rules by expanding the eligibility of CDM projects to soil carbon sequestration mitigation activities, leaving aside the complexity and uncertainty of accounting for reductions in these sectors. However, new push for mitigation in agriculture shoves off all problems experienced and encountered till date. It is interesting to note that pilot projects launched for soil carbon sequestration does not have any baseline![2]

Climate smart agriculture and the associated evils
The climate smart agriculture being pushed down the throats of small farmers in the world is advocated as triple win, increased food production, cash for poor farmers and climate resilience in farming. It sounds impressive. However, there are no models yet to show that it can happen in the way which is being proposed. In fact what climate smart agriculture promotes is technical fixes in agriculture through no till conservation, increased use of GMOs and pesticide, agrofuels, industrialization and corporatization of agriculture. The hosts of solutions being offered have two certainties, one they will result in substantial profits for the agribusiness TNCs and secondly, they will be catastrophic for small farmers, which will not only be herded into large farm tracts to facilitate climate smart agriculture, but will also completely lose their sovereignty over seed, land, production and their autonomy to produce what they need and want.

Let us have a look at some of the proposals on the table, which are being proposed as a means to climate smart agriculture and sure shot formulae for sequestration of soil carbon (carbon transactions are today a US $ 300 billion market) and cannot in any way be a solution to the crisis either in agriculture or climate.

GM Crops: GM crops are not only dangerous for human and animal health and environment but also greatest threats to the seed sovereignty of small farmers. They are also increasing the danger of depleting the world’s seed-diversity, crucially important in a climate-challenged world. Only Du Pont has more than 40% of the patents registered for climate ready crops between 2008 to 2009. Together with Monsanto and BASF, it controls more than 66% of the patents registered.

No till or conservation agriculture: Monsanto has been lobbying since 1998 to get no till agriculture approved as CDM methodology. It claims that its round up ready products help tackle climate change, as they do not require tilling and control weeding by heavy dousing of round up herbicides. Approval to no till agriculture methodology will enable it to lure farmers with the dreams of accessing carbon credits and sale of its chemicals will result in unimaginable profits. However, it will be a sure disaster for small holders and poor farmers, with companies falling over one another to control larger tracts of lands.

Biochar: Bio char methodology is based on the premise that applying charcoal to soils will create permanent carbon sinks and increase soil fertility and water retention. The concept originated from the discovery of organic carbon rich soil, or ‘terra preta’, in the Amazons. It entails huge tracts of lands being kept fallow for centuries, requires ½ to 1 billion ha for carbon sequestration, which would have to be uncultivated for long times to come. To have any significant contribution in reducing agricultural emissions, the land required is 1.5 to 3 times the area of India. Whether land can be available at such a scale, can be taken out of critically needed food production - are huge questions? The UN Convention for Combating Desertification has already proposed bio-char, however, it did not find favor with many countries as it has serious impacts on fertility of the soil, food security for the present and significant contribution to acid rains. No biochar methodology has been approved by the CDM board yet, but a charcoal methodology has been approved which can be easily used by TNCs for biochar. Besides Plantar (Brazil) which initiated the proposed methodology and has extensive Eucalyptus plantations in Brazil, and Arborgen (South Carolina, USA), which develops genetically-engineered eucalyptus, are likely to benefit from it in a huge way. A recent study by MISEREOR has showed that none of the pilot projects on bio-char have been able to demonstrate any substantial benefit, and many of them have been already abandoned by the promoters.[3]

Agrofuels: The CDM Board has approved (2009) a methodology for biodiesel production from dedicated plantations on ‘degraded or degrading land’. The definition of “degrading land” is so ambiguous that it covers almost all agricultural land and all ecosystems. Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill have benefitted directly and earned carbon credits. Other big biotech companies are also eyeing benefits from this methodology. It also needs to be noted that, with the spike in agro-fuel production in 2003-04, the amount of land under conflict, and the no of land conflicts – have also sharply increased. It is mostly the land belonging to the indigenous communities and the village commons which are being targeted for agro fuel plantations, leading to serious existential crisis for these already threatened societies. On top of that, agro-fuels have large water foot-prints, aggravating an already serious water crisis due to the changing climate.

Agriculture financing needs and finance inflow from mitigation to agriculture; peanuts to peasants of the world

Large investments are required in agriculture to meet the projected demands and sustain food security needs. Even without climate change impacts, it is estimated that global investments of the order of US$ 9.2 billion annually will be required by mid century (FAO, 2009). Asia accounts for the largest share of investment (57%), with China and India alone requiring 41% of the projected investment. Sub Saharan and East and North Africa require 23% and Latin America requiring remaining 20%.

However, the public spending in agriculture is 4% in agricultural economies (developing and LDCs), which has risen significantly in the aftermath of food crises to 6%. More than 2/3rds of the investment in agriculture has come from private sector. Through local investments and FDI. About US $ 14 billion has been committed to farmland and agriculture infrastructure investment globally among more than 50 firms Agribusiness TNCs (OECD, 2010). UN statistics show that FDI in global agriculture production tripled between 1990-2001 to US $ 3 billion annually from less than US41 billion. The geographical focus of the investment centred on South America (led by brazil) and Africa. These private investments are being deployed focused on production of major raw crops including oilseeds, corn, wheat and feed grains (83%), followed by in livestock production (13%). The trend shows a definite inclination towards forcing agricultural production to oil seeds, agro fuels and meat production. Low levels of public investment in agriculture have resulted in inadequate development in rural infrastructure, knowledge generation, and access to food and markets, which have kept the small farmers trapped in poverty.

Cancun agreement committed to mobilize US$ 30 billion from 2010-2012 to be scaled up to US$ 100 billion from 2020 onwards. There are significant uncertainties about from where the resources will be mobilized, and how it will be channelized. The apparent lack of money in agricultural finance has also provided an opportunity to advocates of market based mechanisms to ask for including agricultural mitigation in the CDM for look for new opportunities within market based mechanisms. However, as a matter of fact, even agricultural mitigation has awfully small money to offer to agriculture. Following financial channels are supposed to be main sources of finance for mitigation and a also adaptation in agriculture”

The global Environment Facility Trust Fund (GEF): The GEF operates the current financial mechanism of the Convention. For the period 2010–2014, a total of US$4.25 billion has been pledged, of which about US$1.35 billion is expected to be delivered to mitigation projects.[4] These figures are considerably lower than the funding generated under the CDM and the sums are expected to flow through the Green Climate Fund, the GEF Trust Fund remains one of the largest sources of grant-based finance for mitigation.[5]

UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol linked funds: The GEF also operates two other funds under the Convention: the Special Climate Change Fund, which focuses mainly on adaptation, and the Least Developed Countries Fund, which assists least-developed countries in preparing and implementing their NAPAs. Both funds provide adaptation funding for agriculture-related projects. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Adaptation Fund supports projects and program in developing countries and is financed through a 2 percent levy on the share of proceeds from CDM project activities. Most of the projects accepted and proposed for funding to date have agriculture as a component.[6]

The Green Climate Fund: The Cancun Agreements established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as a financial mechanism under the Convention, with the World Bank serving as an interim trustee subject to a review three years after the fund begins operations. It is likely that the GCF will be set up by 2012, although it remains unclear where the resources for the GCF will come from and how much time it will take until the GCF starts receiving and channeling these funds to developing countries. It is also not clear to what extent the GCF will replace the GEF as the financial operating entity under the UNFCCC. The fact that Parties agreed that a significant share of adaptation funding will flow through the GCF shows that they expect a stronger role for the GCF in climate funding, at least with respect to finance for adaptation measures.

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs): NAMAs are voluntary mitigation actions by developing countries in the context of sustainable development goals and objectives that reduce emissions below the business-as usual baseline. Many developing countries have listed a number of activities related to agriculture in their NAMAs, for which they require international financial support. However, the quantum and channel of support is indeterminable till date.

REDD+ and CDM: Though highly contentious, CDM and REDD Plus are being renegotied to include agriculture, if that happens some finance will be available through this channel. However, most of them are likely to go the countries and agribusiness companies given the fact that claiming carbon credits is highly resource intensive and technical, and farmers and farming communities will have minimal access to whatever finance is available.

The truth of carbon finance for farmers; story of World Bank pilot project on soil carbon sequestration
The World Bank's flagship Biocarbon Fund project is billed as a triple win for more food production, cash for the poor and climate resilience. Really? The reality is that Africa's first "soil carbon" project – which will involve 60,000 Kenyan farmers planting trees, manuring the land, and farming in "sustainable" ways to save around 600,000 tonnes of carbon over 20 years – also exhibits the sheer madness of the carbon markets.

The US-based Institute for Agriculture Trade Policy (IATP) has now analysed the fine print and found (PDF) that the project expects to earn $2.5m from the carbon markets. But to set it up, to employ advisers and consultants and to monitor it will cost $1.05m. The 60,000 farmers will then share the remaining $1.4m. This sounds good, but works out at a lowly $23.83 each over the 20 years, or just a little more that $1 per year. Moreover, they will only earn this if they change the way they farm and record precisely what they plant, burn and put on the land. Given that the poverty line in Kenya is around $1 a day, the chance for Africans to earn a tiny amount a year – while Swedish and other advisers earn massive amounts – is likely to end in tears.

Source: IATP

What is stake at Durban
Having failed at Cancun in their designs, advocates of climate smart agriculture have redoubled their efforts for Durban. World Bank has convinced African Governments about the only solution to agriculture, that is “climate smart agriculture” so much so that South African Govt. sees agriculture as one of the major deliverables at Durban. Reportedly, hosts have also organized a pre conference meeting of agriculture Ministers to reach a consensus.

Consensus in the run up to Durban or at Durban will likely be difficult. However, it is also clear that the World Bank wants to ramp up its engagement on agriculture by convincing African governments in particular, that agriculture could be a lucrative opportunity to attract carbon finance. With talk about “partnership,” “readiness” and “early action,” it appears that the World Bank and others would like to launch a similar process with agriculture as REDD. There seems to be a hope that, as in REDD, pilot projects can create a political momentum for carbon markets to include soil carbon. This is likely to be a tough sell to sound investors given the numerous difficulties the carbon market is facing today and with the carbon price crashing.[7]

What do farmers want
There is considerable difference of opinion among the farmers’ organizations and civil society organizations working with farmers on the role of agriculture in climate negotiations. While most of them, see inclusion of agriculture only as a ploy of developed countries and agribusiness companies to rake up profit through mitigation in agriculture and are strongly opposed to any reference to agriculture in climate negotiations; there are others like Beyond Copenhagen who believe that while keeping agriculture completely out of climate negotiations might not be possible under intense pressure from umbrella groups and campaigning by big TNCs, it would be a better approach to help set games of the rules based on focus on adaptation, capacity building and technology transfer for adaptation needs of small farmers. We are extremely convinced that farming communities do have sufficient resilience against climate change and in the absence of which agriculture would have been in complete disarray given the impacts on agriculture. We strongly believe that much of the desired investment in agriculture will have to be come from public finance. Private investment in agriculture will be motivated by controlling and monopolizing agriculture in developing countries at the hands of big agribusiness TNCS and it shall have to be tailored by national governments to suit the needs of agriculture and farmers. The current debate on agriculture in climate negotiations offering technological fixes not only do not offer credible solution to the multiple crises of climate change, agriculture and food, but will definitely accentuate the crises. The international climate change negotiations are influencing national policies and especially agricultural policies to follow the international prescription, which is highly dangerous. The climate negotiators must make a distinction between highly industrialized high input western agriculture and low input sustainable agriculture in developing countries and mitigation in agriculture, if at all has to begin in countries with high emissions in absolute terms. The developing countries need to understand that climate change and agricultural solutions will have to be small farmer friendly, which are in dire need to adaptation support without being further burdened by mitigation. Sustaining small farmers agriculture in developing countries can only sustain economic growth with equity and food production and security, and mitigate climate change.

[1] Addressing Agriculture in Climate change Negotiations, A scoping Report, Meridian Institute, 2011
[2] Turning farms into carbon sinks; agriculture and the COP 16 in cancun, Joanna Cabello, GIZ, January 2011
[3] Biochar-a climate smart solution, Almuth Ernsting, MISEREOR, July 2011
[4] UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/press/news_room/newsletter/items/5563.php
[5] World Bank. Making the most of public finance for low‐carbon growth. 2009,
[6] http://www.adaptation-fund.org/node/794
[7] Agriculture to feature as a key issue on the Road to Durban: opens up critical debates, Andrew Ranallo, June 2011

Call for the climate negotiators at COP 17, Durban

2011-11-29T10:51:00.004+05:30

Call for the climate negotiators at COP 17, Durban

Roundtable on Climate Crisis and State Response
2nd and 3rd November 2011, Delhi

We the members of Beyond Copenhagen Coalition, an umbrella organization of more than 40 organizations and networks, civil society organizations, women’s groups, agriculture workers unions, and individuals, having met at Delhi on 2nd and 3rd November , 2011 in Roundtable on climate crisis and state response, and having discussed the current state of play at climate change negotiations, position of government of India in climate negotiations, priorities of developing countries and national priorities in climate stabilization, also having discussed National Action Plan on climate change (NAPCC) of government of India and State Action Plans of various states in India, and other policies aimed at combating climate change in the country; express serious concern on the lack of ambition and development in the climate change negotiations, and trend of shifting burden of both mitigation and adaptation on developing and poor countries who have least or no contribution in brining climate crisis,

We also express serious concern on impacts of climate crisis and climate change response policies on poor communities, farmers and agricultural workers, indigenous populations, dalits, women, climate refugees and migrants in developing countries and South Asia in general and India in particular,

Noting significant climate change impact on agriculture and food security in the form of extreme variability and unpredictability in monsoon and weather pattern, increasing temperature and reduced precipitation, reduced number of rainy days and due formation, increasing costs of agriculture and livestock rearing, and reduced farm incomes, which have resulted in increased migration, distress sale of land and livestock, and increased agrarian distress and increased burden on women,

Recognizing that climate change policies must be based on the needs of rural poor communities and farmers in developing countries in South Asia, Africa and Latin America, and must meet the needs of small farmers, indigenous population, women, and climate refugees and victims
Also recognizing that national climate change policies must not be influenced by the trajectory of imperfect rules and proposals advanced by developed countries, neo-liberal policies and corporate interests in climate change,

Emphasizing that agriculture, rural development, livelihood and food security must be the pivot of global response to climate change and national policies, as must recognize the multidimensional role that agriculture provides in developing countries in providing sustainable solutions to the multiple crises of economies, food, climate change and sustainable development that world is facing today,

Recalling that food security has a central role in the UNFCCC, which is to avoid dangerous climate change within a time frame sufficient…to ensure that food security is not threatened (Art.4),

Recalling that UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol confirms the role of developed countries in bringing about the climate crisis by having “ largest share of historical and current global emissions” and the duty that they owe to the developing and countries, LDCs and small island nations in collective task of climate stabilization,

Also recalling that sustainable development will be achieved only to the extent of our having enabled the mother earth and nature to regain their regenerative capacity,

Recalling that IPCC and various other studies have identified India as one of the most vulnerable country, and South Asia to be severely affected by climate change impacts besides Sub Saharan Africa, and has projected a severe decline in agricultural and food production even to the extent of 40%,

Expressing serious concern that various scientific studies have projected an increase in temperature in the range of 3.5DC to 5DC unless the developed countries efforts are lifted to ambitious levels, and further that emission reduction pledges of Annex 1 countries are thoroughly inadequate to keep the rise in temperature below 2DC,

Emphasizing that annex 1 countries are trying to replace the science based, rules based and commitment based system of the Kyoto Protocol to pledge and review, which is completely not accountable and will result in further rise in emissions and global warming

Also emphasizing the urgent need to inform climate change negotiations of the impacts taking place in developing countries, LDCs and small island nations, need for more participatory, transparent and accountable, just and fair process to address the crisis and need for a farmer, affected community and civil society based approach to climate negotiations, demand

1. On agriculture and climate change
1.1 We demand that climate change negotiations, must pay due attention to the importance and multidimensional role of agriculture and must respect its linkages with livelihoods, food security, rural development, and equity, and treat agriculture as one of the central concerns in climate change negotiations.
1.2 The response policies should be designed in consultation with farmers, farmers organizations and affected farmers and must be responsive to the needs of small farmers in developing countries.
1.3 We strongly oppose the mitigation focus in agriculture and demand that negotiations must make a distinction between highly industrialized, mechanized, input intensive, and export oriented agriculture in developed countries and low input, low energy sustainable agriculture in developing countries
1.4 We also strongly oppose to use agriculture as a sink and undue emphasis on including soil carbon sequestration in approved mitigation technologies. We completely reject the technological fixes in agriculture those are being promoted by developed countries on the behest of agribusiness companies, which takes away the focus from source of greater emission in developed countries and puts undue burden of mitigation on developing countries and farmers. These methodologies will not only harm agriculture and farmers but also exacerbate the climate change.

2. On mitigation and emission reduction
2.1 We demand that developed countries must adhere to their legally binding reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and reduce their emission at source as per the demands of the science, acknowledge their historical role and undertake common but differentiated responsibility in mitigating climate change.
2.2 We also demand that Annex 1 countries as per the decision in Cancun must undertake second commitment period, and should not put any precondition to their going into second commitment period of the protocol.
2.3 We also reject the efforts of some developed countries to merge the two tracks of AWG LCA and WAG KP in the second commitment period in order to repudiate their binding commitments.
2.4 We also strongly demand that countries who decide not to go into second commitment period must have comparable reduction commitments.
2.5 We call upon the Annex 1 countries to address emission at source and at domestic level without having recourse to increased use of market based mechanisms. The market based mechanism should not be used to offset more than one-quarter of Annex 1 countries emissions.
2.6 We also call upon the developed countries to reform their highly industrialized and mechanized and high carbon footprint agriculture and agricultural subsidies. And we also demand an immediate closure of loopholes in the LULUCF which they have been using to hide their agricultural emissions.
2.7 We demand that developed countries not to resort to unilateral trade measures such as Border adjustment tax, subsidies, carbon labeling requirements, environmental payments and subsidies, which have the potential of making exports and agricultural exports from developing countries less competitive.

3. On climate change adaptation
3.1 We demand that developed countries to compensate developing countries for encroachment of their atmospheric space and current climate change impacts according to the principles of the CBDR laid down in the Protocol.
3.2 We emphasize that agricultural adaptation is the most important component in the adaptation and must be addressed forthwith through a variety of efforts including finance, technology, capacity building and research.
3.3 We call upon the Annex 1 countries to allocate at least 2.5% of their GNP for support to the costs of adaptation in developing countries and especially agricultural adaptation, which should be also supported through variety of other resources mainly through public sources.

4. On climate finance
4.1 We demand that climate finance architecture should be transparent, accountable, and easily accessible. We also support the G-77 demand that it should not be administered by World Bank.
4.2 We also demand that climate finance should be provided by public sources rather than through market based mechanisms and finance should be in addition to overseas development assistance, and should be provided as a grant rather than as loan. We also regret that finance being made available through 2010-2012 has been largely repackaged ODA rather than new and additional funding.
4.3 We also reiterate that climate finance administration mechanisms must co opt representatives from farmers and affected communities, besides having equitable representation from all country groups.
4.4 The climate finance must be human rights based, country led and democratically owned
4.5 We call on the GCF to support adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer and ask for a new fund in the agriculture sector to support adaptation.

5. On technology transfer
5.1 We reiterate the urgent need to scale up existing technologies and facilitate expedited transfer and knowledge to help small farmers adapt top climate change. The knowledge created must make due appreciation of the knowledge of farming community and create a synergy between scientific and technical knowledge.
5.1 We also call upon for immediate and full assessment of technology by civil society and farmer led approaches to ensure that technologies developed and transferred are appropriate, based on the needs of small farmers, environmentally sound and financially viable.
5.2 We also demand that UNFCCC prevent all agribusiness companies from acquiring patent of climate resilient plant and seed varieties invented, demonstrated and used by farming and traditional communities for years. We also strongly demand that IPR regimes should be reformed to facilitate easy access of technology at reasonable costs for countries and communities in need.

6. On compliance, enforcement and climate justice
6.1 We reiterate that costs of inaction on climate stabilization is being borne by poor communities in developing countries, who have no contribution in climate crisis, the rising number of climate refugees and migrants and increasing extreme climatic events along with subtle and chronic impacts of climate change is leading to social conflicts, inequity and poverty.
6.2 We express serious concern at repudiation of legal commitments by developed countries, and lack of legal framework for enforcing compliance and institutional mechanism for addressing climate change impacts
6.3 We underline the need for judicial mechanism, besides finance and technology, accessible to communities and countries and having expertise and powers to appraise and take action against state and non-state parties for climate crimes
6.4 We also express serious concern that existing legal, judicial and quasi-judicial institutions including PCA, ICJ, DSB of the WTO, or the UNCLOS are either restricted by jurisdiction or by expertise to deal with issues related to environment and climate justice.
6.5 We demand an International Tribunal on Climate and Environmental Justice to strengthen environmental and climate justice laws, identify the countries and communities at risk, state and non-state parties in violation of climate justice principles, lay down rules of state and non-accountability and liability for climate change impacts, award compensation and sanctions to state and non-state actors.
6.6 We also take note of the express appreciation for the demand of International Environmental Courts raised by civil society organizations, judicial bodies , countries and demand for International climate justice Tribunal (by Peoples Conference on Climate Change and rights of the Mother earth, Bolivia), and call upon the UNFCCC to take immediate steps for prompt realization of this

We express solidarity with farmers and civil society groups in South Asia, Sub Saharan Africa and Latin America and completely identify with their concerns with rise in temperature and its concomitant effects on agriculture. We call upon the developed countries to raise their level of ambitions at COP 17, to keep the rise in temperature below 2DC with the incremental goal of capping it 1.5DC. We also express our solidarity with the concerns raised by Peoples World Conference on Climate Change and Rights of the Mother Earth and express our confidence in the justice of nature and Mother earth.

What is new at COP 17 by BCPH?

2011-11-29T10:12:00.002+05:30

Beyond Copenhagen would be organizing virtual participation and /feedback of climate victims including farmers, women, indigenous and tribal populations, climate refugees etc. during the COP. Fooatge from different parts of the country like Rajasthan, Manipur, Assam etc. and from the neighbouring country of Bangladesh will be screened at the venue. They will be informed of the developments in the negotiations and will provide their reaction and feedback. The event will not only inform people of how affected communities react to the developments / proposals/inadequate progress in the negotiations, but also will be of significant interest to media, NGOs and negotiators.

Straight from Bonn, Germany : Day 1 at the COP 17 Preparatory Committee Meeting

2011-06-14T14:01:00.002+05:30

The Intersessional of UNFCCC is currently going on in Bonn, Germany. As a part of the first day's events i.e.6th.of June 2011, few topics of discussion seemed to have remained of utmost significance. One of the most crucial ones being the structure, constitution, and operation of the Green Climate Fund that is supposed to provide the big money for both climate change mitigation, and adaptation. A noticeable point of in this discussion was that the sources and processes of raising this fund are still in ambiguity with 'talks' mostly pointing towards the carbon market being a primary provider, rather than the polluting nations contributing directly.

In terms of REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation & forest Degradation plus quality enhancement), the 'Official' position of 'parties' from the developed world is exclusive focus on REDD+ without taking in the entirety of Forest issues. Significantly countries like Bolivia and few others have taken a strong exception with this regard. The contentious issue remains the same as to whether Agriculture should or should not be brought to the climate negotiations. Some of the developed countries, like Canada, New Zealand etc. have repeatedly pushed for this including agriculture’s role in mitigation as well. This has been sought through the way of carbon markets and through the CDM (also claimed as Clean Development mechanism). However, this is being strongly opposed some of the developing countries as well as by most farmers, forest people, & other movement groups present. The real fear here is that farmers will lose out completely to the corporate agriculture lobby, in this new game of soil carbon sequestration. Looking at the history of CDM till date, that is a very strong possibility.

Another most alarming trend observed - which started in Copenhagen (2009 - COP-15) itself, was that of the superseding multilateralism of the UN process, by the unilateral agenda of pushing by powerful countries & lobbies. Much time has already been exhausted in countering this trend by the official working groups - while developing countries are trying to point out and block these unilateral 'actions' and their acceptance by the 'Chairs' of these groups.

2010-12-07T15:20:00.002+05:30

Day 3: Update from the COP-16 climate summit at cancun, Mexico

A) COP-16 / Cancun Update day 3 : Host Mexican Govt attempts to Pick-and-Choose Country-Heads Who Are Invited To The Cancun Climate Summit – Repeating “Copenhagen Accord” model.

The UN decision making processes are supposed to be participatory with all member nations being able to express their view-points and take part in the debates and decision making – whatever their positions and size of economies are. In the last climate summit held in Copenhagen, the host Danish government tried to violate this sacred principle of collectivity, and secretly invited and involved a few heads of states from rich & ‘emerging’ economies to form a smaller group, and tried to justify that in the name of “efficient decision making” ! These small-group decision(s) were then pushed down the throat of the other nations – mostly poorer LDCs, threatened Island nations etc, and became the ill-famous “Copenhagen Accord”. This so called ‘accord’ has no legal standing as yet, but under the pressure of ‘big brothers’ and the lure of selectively getting some money, over 100 nations have joined in, with pledges of voluntary emission cuts / emission intensity reductions – and no mention of the demand for historical climate debt of the rich societies to poorer countries and no legally binding emission cuts even for the richest and most polluting countries.

In a repeat of the evil-designs of the Danish Govt in Copenhagen, the Mexican govt has selectively invited a few “chosen” heads of state to Cancun – for the concluding days of the summit when major decisions – if any – are generally negotiated / taken. They have carefully avoided the country-heads who have consistently raised progressive voices and demands, like the Plurinational govt of Bolivia. This amounts to a clear violation of the UN collectivity principle, and points towards sinister designs on the part of the host and its ‘controlling’ govts, for everywhere in Mexico, the overwhelming influence of the USA is visible with crystal clear view.

Several progressive govt delegations have raised an objection to this ‘selective invitation’, while even those heads of state who are planning to come on their own – have been excluded. The scene will unfold in the coming week, and the even limited agenda of the ‘summit’ will be determined by how the pulls & pushes pan out in the next few days.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A) In a welcome change, many country delegations are now talking about the necessity to continue the legally binding nature of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and the need for a second commitment period after 2012, without any break from the first commitment period.

Unlike what happened during the last few days of the Copenhagen climate summit (COP-15) last December, several small & big country representatives (‘parties’ in the COP or official negotiators) are seen talking – in their initial submissions – about the need to continue the Kyoto protocol (which has its mandate till 2012) with its commitments of binding emission cuts for the rich countries, with its acceptance of the principle of “historical emission debt”, and of the “common but differentiated responsibility” for different countries. Except Australia, Japan and few such big-rich-polluters – who were harping on bigger developing countries assuming proportional responsibilities, many negotiators stressed on the necessity of continuing KP without a break and of no diversion from its accepted principles. Though the KP has many limitations, having highly inadequate targets & relying on market mechanisms to address the mitigation targets being two of the major ones, this little positive change from the total regression of the ‘Copenhagen accord’ is a welcome positive change.

But these are early days of the climate summit. What happens in the second week when the negotiating process heats up, will determine the outcome of this highly (and deliberately) under-hyped climate summit, at a time when the worlds vulnerable populations are facing sharply increased risks from climate change induced hazards.

----------------------------------------------------

Climate Victims shared their testimonies before Jury

2010-11-16T20:44:00.003+05:30

Press release

Farmers, workers, migrants, fisher folk, and tribals seek compensation from the developed countries for climate crisis, ask COP to take note of their miseries

New Delhi, Nov 16. Narrating stories on how climate change has affected their lives, agriculture and food security, climate victims from all over the country participating in a National Peoples Tribunal on Climate Crisis held at India Islamic Cultural Centre (IICC) demanded justice from the national government and from the developed countries for creating this crisis.

The Chief Guest, Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya, Minister Industries and Commerce, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh addressing the Tribunal said that developed countries are responsible for bringing about this crisis and, therefore, they must address the rights and claims of these people immediately. He also said the government should make all the efforts possible to redress these impacts. He emphasized that policy planning needs to factor in climate change because it is now an established fact.

Ms. Nisha Agrawal from Oxfam India said that the crisis is irreversible and needs global collaboration, the developed as well as developing countries need to think and act collectively in a rights based manner to address climate change. She added that world over people have started bringing claims and suits against climate culprits and also national governments and are looking at litigation as a means to enforce climate justice and ask for stronger legal framework for climate stabilization.

“The poor in India depend on agriculture and are particularly vulnerable to the affects of climate change since they are largely dependent on rainfed agriculture and the vagaries of nature hit them the hardest. Give the urgency of this issue, Oxfam India is committed to working with all aspects of the state—the executive branch, members of the parliament, and today, the judiciary—to try and raise awareness about the need to act urgently on this issue. As a rights-based organization, we believe that the right to life and livelihood of poor people are getting adversely affected by climate change, and that we need to look for legal spaces and legal frameworks, nationally and internationally, where they can demand climate justice and adequate compensation for their losses,” she said.

Justice Pana Chand Jain (Retd.) the Convener of the Tribunal said that the Supreme Court of India has given such an expansive interpretation of the Art. 21 of the Constitution of India that protection of food security, livelihood and health of the people is the right of the citizens and can be enforced despite minimal legal framework on climate change. He also stated that there is an urgent need of the International Tribunal on Environment and Climate which can enforce the binding provisions in the Kyoto Protocol.

A number of victims from different states, occupations, agroclimatic zones gave evidence before the Jury consisting of Justice Panachand Jain, Justice V S Dave, Justice A K Srivastava, Dr. Syeda Hameed (Member Planning Commission), Prof. A R Nambi (MS Swaminathan Research Foundation), Prof. Jaya Mehta (Economist), Mr. Hari Jai Singh (former President Editors Guild of India) . Animesh Giri from south 24 pargana District, West Bengal said local ecology has been affected so much that indigenous fruits and products which were the main source of their food have completely vanished. Mrs. Kothabbai from Baran, Jaipur blamed climate change and developed countries for bringing the misfortune of losing their lands and becoming migrants.

Ms. Ajantha, representing fisherwomen from Negapattinam, Tamilnadu said that their lives have gone completely out of gear due to change in the weather cycle and frequent extreme climatic events. Mr. Nilo Malli from Koraput, Odisha deposed that marginal farmers who are already a victim of agrarian crisis have been further pauperized and turned into menial labour. Peasants have not only lost their food security and livelihood but their dignity also. Ms. Prabhati Deve described how climate change has severely affected lives of small farmers, and cattle breeders like her. She added that there is no fodder for the animal and no food for the people in home, and asked how she can take care of the family when her husband has migrated and she is the only one to take care of the children and aged and ailing parents.

The averments of the victims were corroborated by the specialists and experts before the Jury. Dr. Suman Sahai from Gene Campaign said that agriculture and food security is going to be hit hardest in the climate crisis and it is very unfortunate that production in the countries who have contributed to the crisis is likely to increase or remain unaffected while poor countries and communities who have hardly any contribution in bring the crisis will face the brunt. Mr. S Janakarajan from Madras Institute of Development studies said that increasing salinity of the soil and groundwater has severely affected the agricultural production and fisheries.

Dr. Alka Awasthi said that specially in the context of Rajasthan, the government needs to take multipronged strategy to revive agriculture and ensure food to people in the state. Mr. C P Sinha, from IWRS, Patna said that his research on rainfall and temperature variability in the last hundred years in the district of Darbhanga, Bihar has revealed an increasing trend in the temperature and decrease in precipitation. Mr. Anshuman from DCRC, West Bengal attested the fact of increasing climate variability and huge impacts on the life of small and marginal farmers.

After hearing the testimonies from the victims and the specialists, the Jury, in their verdict said that developed countries should own their responsibility in bringing about this crisis and must compensate affected countries and communities. Pointing out that there are different sets of obligations at different levels especially as a member of international community, as a nation and as an individual citizen, the jury said everyone has to take responsibility for solving the problem. The Jury acknowledged that the issues of causality and state responsibility are two big hindrances in development of jurisprudence on climate change, however, they added that global juridical opinion is moving towards accepting this fact that climate change is manifesting, it is irreversible and need to be addressed. Speaking on behalf of the Jury Justice V S Dave said that there is an urgent need for unambiguous legal framework to redress climate change impacts on the range of rights of people, many of which are already protected under the Constitution of India, International Covenant on Economic Social Cultural Rights and other important treaties on the rights of women, indigenous populations, environment, and bio-diversity. The Jury also pointed out that there was a need for a climate literacy movement.

The Tribunal ended with more than 300 participants from all over the country taking a pledge to protect the environment and mother earth. Ms. Moutushi Sengupta from Oxfam India said in the valedictory session that Oxfam will convey these sentiments and claims of people in the coming COP 16. Mr. Sharad Joshi from beyond Copenhagen who organized the Tribunal said that it is a pertinent time to intervene at the global and state level, and Beyond Copenhagen will definitely present these arguments and concerns before the official delegation of India, and the delegation of other South Asian Countries and the COP 16.

Invitation for National Peoples Tribunal

2010-11-14T18:05:00.006+05:30

Dear Friends,

We Cordially request your support

and invite your participation at the

National Peoples Tribunal on Climate Crisis

to be held on

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi

Objective of the National Peoples Tribunal on Climate Crisis

2010-11-02T15:25:00.002+05:30

The National People’s Tribunal will be akin to a moot court and will hear and record evidences on impact of climate change in order to ascertain the state responsibility and responsibility of developed countries to redress climate change impacts in developing countries. Based on the evidences recorded and opinion of expert witnesses, the Tribunal will award its verdict which will emphasize how climate change has impacted food security and livelihood and resulted in increased migration. It will also assess what substantive rights of people/victims have been affected and instruct the state to address those violations in the light of legal framework (the Constitution of India, case laws on environment and climate change, the law of tort, and the commitment made by the government of India in various international covenants related to civil and political rights, rights of women and children, rights against discrimination, and other covenants. Besides, it will also instruct the state to improve social security mechanisms and improve its implementation so that the adaptive capacity of the population which is affected the most can be enhanced.

Objectives of the Tribunal

To record evidences on impact of climate change on food security, livelihood and migration in rain fed areas and flood plains.
To examine community based coping mechanisms and share best practices of adaptation and mitigation efforts in the area of agriculture and food security.
To generate accountability of the state and non-state actors to address rights violations and climate change and contribute to prove that sufficient provisions exist to make the state and non-state actors liable.
To increase pressure on key national/ state agencies to take serious actions to mitigate climate change and contribute towards adaptation needs of all especially the most vulnerable.
To assess the liability and responsibility of developed countries and multilateral Institutions in addressing severe impacts of climate crisis on food security, livelihood and displacement.
To increase pressure on global actors to lay more emphasis on agriculture and food security in climate negotiations and conclude a just and equitable deal as the earliest.
The process and the verdict of the Tribunal will be also shared with the global audience through print and audio-visual medium and side events. Tribunal related Publications will be showcased and distributed at exhibit Booths of the organizers. Media attention will be ensured though formal and informal interaction with national and global media.

NATIONAL PEOPLES' TRIBUNAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

2010-10-19T12:47:00.005+05:30

November 16th, 2010

New Delhi, India

The National peoples Tribunal will develop Peoples jurisprudence on climate change. Despite the deficient legal framework on climate change laws, increasing number of action in courts in different countries prove that there are enough provisions in the Public and private international law and domestic legislations to attempt bring accountability on the national governments to protect people from the climate change impacts. The most popular case in point is Inuit’s case where indigenous people bordering USA and Canada brought an action in American Commission on Human Rights. The petition sought relief from violations of the human rights of Inuit resulting from global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the United States. Many similar actions on climate change might not succeed in the absence of proof of causation; however, they show a rising public and juridical opinion to seek legal redress to impacts of climate change. In the circumstances, it is only desirable that more such actions are brought to judicial, quasi judicial and peoples forum.

The National Peoples Tribunal will explore legal spaces available to generate state accountability to mitigate and protect people from climate change impacts. Besides, it would also send a strong message to the developed countries to conclude a fair and just climate deal.

To know more about the Tribunal please click on the links below :

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE - III

2010-10-18T18:15:00.001+05:30

RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING

Observed and projected climate change will affect the right to adequate housing in several ways. Sea level rise and storm surges will have a direct impact on many coastal settlements. Settlements in low-lying deltas are also particularly at risk, as evidenced by the millions of people and homes affected by flooding in recent years.

The erosion of livelihoods, partly caused by climate change, is a main “push” factor for increasing rural to urban migration. Many will move to urban slums and informal settlements where they are often forced to build shelters in hazardous areas. Already today, an estimated 1 billion people live in urban slums on fragile hillsides or flood-prone riverbanks and face acute vulnerability to extreme climate events.

Human rights guarantees in the context of climate change include: (a) adequate protection of housing from weather hazards (habitability of housing); (b) access to housing away from hazardous zones; (c) access to shelter and disaster preparedness in cases of displacement caused by extreme weather events; (d) protection of communities that are relocated away from hazardous zones, including protection against forced evictions without appropriate forms of legal or other protection, including adequate consultation with affected persons.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE - II

2010-10-12T14:45:00.000+05:30

RIGHT TO WATER

Loss of glaciers and reductions in snow cover are projected to increase and to negatively affect water availability for more than one-sixth of the world’s population supplied by meltwater from mountain ranges. Weather extremes, such as drought and flooding, will also impact on water supplies. Climate change will thus exacerbate existing stresses on water resources and compound the problem of access to safe drinking water, currently denied to an estimated 1.1 billion people globally and a major cause of morbidity and disease. In this regard, climate change interacts with a range of other causes of water stress, such as population growth, environmental degradation, poor water management, poverty and inequality.

RIGHT TO HEALTH

Climate change is projected to affect the health status of millions of people, including through increases in malnutrition, increased diseases and injury due to extreme weather events, and an increased burden of diarrhoeal, cardio-respiratory and infectious diseases. Global warming may also affect the spread of malaria and other vector borne diseases in some parts of the world. Overall, the negative health effects will disproportionately be felt in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and the Middle East. Poor health and malnutrition increases vulnerability and reduces the capacity of individuals and groups to adapt to climate change.

Climate change constitutes a severe additional stress to health systems worldwide, prompting the Special Rapporteur on the right to health to warn that a failure of the international community to confront the health threats posed by global warming will endanger the lives of millions of people. Most at risk are those individuals and communities with a low adaptive capacity. Conversely, addressing poor health is one central aspect of reducing vulnerability to the effects of climate change.

Non-climate related factors, such as education, health care, public health initiatives, are critical in determining how global warming will affect the health of populations. Protecting the right to health in the face of climate change will require comprehensive measures, including mitigating the adverse impacts of global warming on underlying determinants of health and giving priority to protecting vulnerable individuals and communities.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE-I

2010-10-09T18:20:00.000+05:30

RIGHT TO LIFE

A number of observed and projected effects of climate change will pose direct and indirect threats to human lives. IPCC AR4 projects with high confidence an increase in people suffering from death, disease and injury from heat-waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts. Equally, climate change will affect the right to life through an increase in hunger and malnutrition and related disorders impacting on child growth and development; cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality related to ground-level ozone.

Climate change will exacerbate weather-related disasters which already have devastating effects on people and their enjoyment of the right to life, particularly in the developing world. For example, an estimated 262 million people were affected by climate disasters annually from 2000 to 2004, of whom over 98 per cent live in developing countries. Tropical cyclone hazards, affecting approximately 120 million people annually, killed an estimated 250,000 people from 1980 to 2000. Protection of the right to life, generally and in the context of climate change, is closely related to measures for the fulfilment of other rights, such as those related to food, water, health and housing.

RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

As a consequence of climate change, the potential for food production is projected initially to increase at mid to high latitudes with an increase in global average temperature in the range of 1-3° C. However, at lower latitudes crop productivity is projected to decrease, increasing the risk of hunger and food insecurity in the poorer regions of the word. According to one estimate, an additional 600 million people will face malnutrition due to climate change, with a particularly negative effect on sub-Saharan Africa. Poor people living in developing countries are particularly vulnerable given their disproportionate dependency on climate-sensitive resources for their food and livelihoods. The realization of the right to adequate food requires that special attention be given to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, including people living in disaster prone areas and indigenous peoples whose livelihood may be threatened.

(Based on the Report Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights A/HRC/10/6, 15 January 2009)

UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS IMPACT

2010-10-08T11:57:00.000+05:30

The detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that an observed change is significantly different from what can be explained by natural variability. It does not necessarily imply that its causes are understood. The climate change can be attributed to anthropogenic causes and at the same time there are non-climate drivers such as land use, land degradation, urbanisation and pollution, affect systems directly and indirectly through their effects on climate.

The socio-economic processes that drive land-use change include population growth, economic development, trade and migration, which are proceeding at an unprecedented rate in India. Land-use changes hamper range-shift responses of species to climate change, leading to an extra loss of biodiversity. Additional land-use changes have been linked to changes in air quality and pollution taht affect the greenhouse process itself. It can also strongly magnify the effects of extreme climate events, e.g., heat mortality, injuries/fatalities from storms, and ecologically mediated infectious diseases.

There are also a large number of socio-economic factors that can influence, obscure or enhance the observed impacts of climate change and that must be taken into account when seeking a climate signal or explaining observations of impacts and even adaptations. For example, the noted effects of sea-level rise and extreme events are much greater when they occur in regions with large populations, inadequate infrastructure, or high property prices. The observed impacts of climate change on agriculture are largely determined by the ability of producers to access or afford irrigation, alternate crop varieties, markets, insurance, fertilisers and agricultural extension, or to abandon agriculture for alternate livelihoods. Demography (e.g., the elderly and the very young), poverty (e.g., malnutrition and poor living conditions), preventive technologies (e.g., pest control and immunisation), and healthcare institutions influence the impacts of climate change on humans.

HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK AND CLIMATE CHANGE

2010-10-04T14:51:00.000+05:30

(Based on the Report Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights A/HRC/10/6, 15 January 2009)

The physical impacts of global warming cannot easily be classified as human rights violations, not least because climate change-related harm often cannot clearly be attributed to acts or omissions of specific States.

Irrespective of whether or not climate change effects can be construed as human rights violations, human rights obligations provide imprtant protection to the individuals whose rights are affected by climate change or by measures taken to respond to climate change.

Under international human rights law, individuals rely first and foremost on their own States for the protection of their human rights. In the face of climate change, however, it is doubtful, for the reasons mentioned above, that an individual would be able to hold a particular State responsible for harm caused by climate change. Human rights law provides more effective protection with regard to measures taken by States to address climate change and their impact on human rights.

For example, if individuals have to move away from a high-risk zone, the State must ensure adequate safeguards and take measures to avoid forced evictions. Equally, several claims about environmental harm have been considered by national, regional and international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, including the Human Rights Committee, regarding the impact on human rights, such as the right to life, to heath, to privacy and family life and to information.

Similar cases in which an environmental harm is linked to climate change could also be considered by courts and quasi-judicial human rights treaty bodies. In such cases, it would appear that the matter of the case would rest on whether the State through its acts or omissions had failed to protect an individual against a harm affecting the enjoyment of human rights. In some cases, States may have an obligation to protect individuals against foreseeable threats to human rights related to climate change, such as an increased risk of flooding in certain areas.

While international human rights treaties recognize that some aspects of economic, social and cultural rights may only be realized progressively over time, they also impose obligations which require immediate implementation. First, States parties must take deliberate, concrete and targeted measures, making the most efficient use of available resources, to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards the full realization of rights. Second, irrespective of resource limitations, States must guarantee non-discrimination in access to economic, social and cultural rights. Third, States have a core obligation to ensure, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each right enshrined in the Covenant.

In sum, irrespective of the additional strain climate change-related events may place on available resources, States remain under an obligation to ensure the widest possible enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights under any given circumstances. Importantly, States must, as a matter of priority, seek to satisfy core obligations and protect groups in society who are in a particularly vulnerable situation.

LEGAL DISCOURSE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

2010-09-29T16:07:00.000+05:30

While the final outcome of the international negotiation on climate change is still being debated and anticipated, the impacts have started affecting millions of people in developing and least developed countries and extremely vulnerable countries. The government of Tuvalu is looking to settle its entire population to save them from submergence due to impacts of climate change. It is also contemplating legal action against Australia and other developed countries to claim compensation. Even in the developing countries, the change in precipitation patterns and increased frequency of extreme climatic events is severely affecting a range of rights of people including the right to life, for which there does seem to be absolutely no responsibility on the part of the state or the international community. The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol which are the main architecture of climate change law, does not provide any binding commitments on part of developed countries or developing countries to protect their populations from impacts of climate change. There is absolute dearth of legal entitlements even in the national and domestic legal framework of countries. This forms the major handicap in taking up legal action against the state of developed countries making them own the impacts of climate change.

However, despite the minimal legal framework there is an increasing number of actions in the realm of climate change being brought in courts of different countries against the national governments or foreign governments and even against non state actors. These legal actions are aimed at compelling the national governments to reduce GHG emissions; they are also seeking to hold state, foreign country and non state actors liable for the impacts, nuisance and negligence and rights violations. While in one large case victims of hurricane Katrina have brought action against oil and coal companies and chemical manufacturers for exacerbating climate change impacts, in Mss. vs. EPA a US Court admitted an action against the EPA and ruled that “harms associated with climate change are well recognized” and “causal connection between manmade GHGs and global warming” (Massachusetts, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al). In Canada, Friends of the Earth Canada has launched a landmark lawsuit against the Government of Canada for abandoning its international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Filed in Federal Court in Ottawa by Canada’s foremost environmental law organization, Sierra Legal, the lawsuit alleges that the federal government is violating Canadian law by failing to meet its binding international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Argentina, after the 2003 Santa Fe floods in Argentina which killed many people and caused millions of dollars of damage, citizens have successfully used Article 6 of the UN Framework Convention on Clima te Change to reveal official failure to adapt to climate change. The legal action has so far revealed that infrastructure changes needed to protect people had been drawn up but not acted upon by the authorities (Stuart M. Feinblatt and Monique Cofer, New Jersey Law Journal, March 13, 2007). In Nigeria, Communities in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria are suing the Nigerian Government and multinational oil companies (Shell, Exxon, Agip, Chevron and Total) over the continuous flaring of gas for over 40 years.

It is estimated that more than 250 cases related to climate change and global warming are lying in different courts in the US. While there are still obstacles of causation and attribution in bringing legal action against the state; the increasing number of legal actions show that there are a number of provisions which can be invoked against the state to bring an end to its inaction on climate change, identify climate cange as a policy imperative and take initiatives to address violations of rights due to climate change impacts.

PEOPLE’S JURISPRUDENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

2010-09-28T12:45:00.000+05:30

The National People’s Tribunal will develop Peoples jurisprudence on climate change. Despite the deficient legal framework on climate change laws, increasing number of action in courts in different countries prove that there are enough provisions in the Public and private international law and domestic legislations to attempt bring accountability on the national governments to protect people from the climate change impacts. The most popular case in point is Inuit’s case where indigenous people bordering USA and Canada brought an action in American Commission on Human Rights (Petition to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights seeking relief from violations resulting from global warming caused by acts and omissions of the United States, ICC Petition, 7 December 2005). The petition sought relief from violations of the human rights of Inuit resulting from global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the United States. Many similar actions on climate change might not succeed in the absence of proof of causation; however, they show a rising public and juridical opinion to seek legal redress to impacts of climate change. In the circumstances, it is only desirable that more such actions are brought to judicial, quasi judicial and peoples forum.

In this regard a National Peoples' Tribunal is being organized collectively by a number of organizations under the coordination of Pairvi, CECOEDECON, Oxfam India, SADED and Beyond Copenhagen. The National Peoples' Tribunal will develop peoples' jurisprudence on climate change by exploring legal spaces available to generate state accountability to mitigate and protect people from climate change impacts. Besides, it would also send a strong message to the developed countries to conclude a fair and just climate deal. While the Tribunal will assert the rights of developing countries to seek assistance from developed countries on account of their historical role in bringing about climate crisis, it will also look into the possibility of invoking existing legal provisions and statute for restitution of critical rights of people in the national framework and advocate for an improved legal and regulatory mechanism on climate change.

Delegation of Bolivia: Climate Negotiations – Agriculture

2010-06-09T09:14:00.000+05:30

On the issues that need to be resolved for COP 16, it is essential that the policy framework for agriculture be appropiate for the purpose of addressing the climate crisis and to meet the interests of local communities, indigenous people and protect the environment.
This would require a change in provisions of trade agreements, loan and aid conditionality's.
As well as stopping the unlawful practice of illegal subsidies and dumping, which distorts food prices affecting the food sovereignty and increasing the vulnerability of developing countries to climate change.
A work programme on agriculture must be founded on the recognition and promotion of food sovereignty as a vital part for agricultural transformation required to address the climate crisis. The concept of food soveriegnty is to be understood as the right of people to control their own seeds, land, water and food production.
Finance on agriculture should not be directed to promote forms of agriculture that are harmful to nature or that only are linked with mitigation actions in certain type of regions in the world.
Technology: G77 and China
Technology Transfer is part of the climate debt of developed countries.
Technology transfer from developed to developing countries should be free from conditions or impositions. Instead, there must be a free exchange of information, knowledge and technologies, under the principles of solidarity, reciprocity, transparency and equity permitting an inter-scientific dialogue of knowledge and skills.
Developed countries should commit to share the complete technological cycle, namely enhancement, development, demonstration, deployment, diffusion and transfer of new and existing innovative technologies in favour of developing country Parties capacities in particular those listed in Art. 4.8 of the Convention.
The Technology Executive Committee should be the main entity under the COP for Transfer of Technology. One of its functions should be the development of a Technology Action Plan to support concrete programs and actions with short, medium and long terms actions and programs that covers all sectors.
A Multilateral Climate Technology window in the Finance fund that is going to be created should be established to meet the full and the full incremental costs of technology transfer in accordance with Article 4.3.
A compliance mechanism for measuring and verifying commitments of developed country Parties for technology transfer should be established.
Indigenous and traditional knowledge and technologies should be recognized as a form that contributes to address climate change issues.
Steps shall be taken to expand technologies in the public domain. Technologies and innovations that come from public financing should be located in public domain and not under a private patent regime, in such a way that they are of free access for developing countries.
Nothing in international intellectual property agreements shall be interpreted or implemented in a manner that limits or prevents developing countries from taking measures to address climate change issues.
Developing countries have the right to make use of the full flexibilities contained int the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, including compulsory licensing.
Patents on climate-related technologies should be excluded in favour of developing countries.
At last, Bolivia rejects the practices and technologies harmful to humankind and the environment, including agrochemicals, corporate-controlled seeds and intensive water use, genetic engineering, particularly genetic use restriction technology, biofuels, nanotechnology, and gio-engineering.
Courtesy: pwccc.wordpress.com

Is Bolivia taking the right steps?

2010-04-24T20:36:00.000+05:30

By Soumya Dutta, Cochabamba, 22 April 2010
On this Earth Day at the historic People's Conference on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth, standing at the Estadio Felix Capriles de Cochabamba (Felix Capriles Stadium of Cochabamba) full of enthusiastic crowd of climate justice activists, peasants movements, anti-mining groups, and all sorts of left-leaning social formations - numbering about 25,000 ad full of vibrant energy, it would probably not be right to have any negative thoughts about anything that is happening here in Bolivia. The spirit is all pervading - yes, we can reclaim the world from an exploitative system and get it back to the hands of its caring citizens.
Yet, the last five days at Cochabamba and Bolivia at large, gives rise to some questions, if not discomfort. The President of the self declared "Plurinational state" of Bolivia - Evo Morales Ayema has declared that people of this world will henceforth, determine the agenda of climate change discourse, and this unique World People's Conference is a bold step in that direction. But is Bolivia taking the right steps, turing in to the right path?
The city of Cochabamba has less than one million residents, and yet the number of cars - big and huge cars - on its roads is astounding. You can find single occupants in every third big car, and these are far in excess than the proportions seen even in the richest Indian city - and Bolivia is not a rich country - even by Latin American standards!!! Most cars run on gas - no doubt the cleanest of all the fossil carbon fuels, but the gas is very cheap - leading to large consumption, big driving around - even by the middle class. This also helps keep the taxi fares cheap, but just money was never the concern in the crisis of climate change. The sheer number of trips just the 9,00,000 odd Cochabambans do every year would be putting in a huge amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - and so unnecessarily. Most of the buses are old and ramshackle, and there are share taxis in fixed routes, which people prefer again, a policy which cannot claim to be climate friendly.
The so-typical glass-concrete-aluminium buildings seen in any other capitalist metropolis is seen here in abundance also. The spread of glittering shopping malls is still not visible in a scale being seen in big Indian metros, but innumerable shops selling imported and unnecessary consumer goods in a great variety - again an American consumerist trait - is an eyesore. Evo is an icon in the struggle against the capitalist system but Coca Cola does unhindered business, even copied by local bottlers with "Coca Cola" selling from hand carts all around the market places.
Whild the many market places, including the mind-bogglingly large "La Cancha" near the centre of Cochabamba are full of small shops run by small shop-keepers, the rule of dollars is seen everywhere. The goods bear an uncanny resemblance to things American - whether original or copies and the people feel so comfortable in "dealing in dollars".
The food consumption is glaringly dominated by very large amounts of meat that too mostly beef (and pork). Both are known to be the worst food items in terms of their climate change impacts - whether for energy consumption for producing the meat, for destruction of rich forest lands for industrial scale cattle farming, and for the huge water consumption and pollution from the cattle farming. Yet, there was no sign that these are even on the radar of the Bolivian climate movement leaders.
Being a favourite tourist destination of Europeans and Amricans, who come attracted by the Andean mountains, the unique Altiplano and the rich indigenous cultures, Bolivia has adopted all the evils of the consumerist, wasteful global north. Bottled water is staple drink - along with bottled fruit juices. Even the poor seem to follow this strange economic logic, though the juice presses are still seen in some numbers in peripheral areas. The markets are flooded with American-company names, whether these came from those US companies or are local copies is the less important question - the cultural preferences is very clear.
There are other questions about the mining policy, about the old tin mining that damaged the lake-planes, and the newly targeted Lithium mines. There are doubts about the Bolivian stand about market mechanisms as part of climate solutions - and one sincerely hopes that these doubts prove unfounded.
A beginning on a concept level has been made by the visionary leadership of Evo. But a nation runs on its peoples cultural lives, and unless the new revolution being visualised comes down to the people on the ground in letter and spirit, it is hard to see any real breakthrough. Great visions are those that transcend the rhetorical and can inspire spontaneous actions. That is yet to be seen in the fertile Bolivian grounds - which inspiringly, were the last battle ground of Che.
Let's hope that the dream and the vision quickly overcome the harsh realities, and this test will prove Evo to be history maker - or another one to try and wither away.

City of eternal spring carries the expectation of the world

2010-04-23T18:15:00.000+05:30

by Ajay K Jha, PAIRVI.

The city of epic struggle against water privatization, Cochabamba carries the expectation of the world for a just and equitable climate deal. Besides the warmth of the people from Cochabamba, one can definitely feel and poise and expectation in the air. More than 7 million people stranded at airports of northern Europe, many thousands among them definitely destined to the small tropical town and third largest city of Bolivia, has failed to dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of Bolivia to play a crucial leadership role in arriving at a just deal. A visit to the accreditation counter at Tiqipayya, a small village on the suburbs of Cochabamba, and Univalle (where the side events and plenaries take place when the Conference on the climate change and rights of the mother earth begin on Monday 19^th April) are swarmed by local people, students and people from neighboring Latin American countries gives enough hint to the aspiration of people, many of them have also children accompanying them. Though language remains a major handicap in conversation, the communication is clear-we must take a resolute step to ensure the rights of the mother earth and more than 4.5 million people living in the developing countries. The developed countries must understand that this is not a struggle between the rich and the poor neither between extreme deprivation and lavish consumptive lifestyle, it s a call of the mother earth. Its not only 15000 people from all over the world and 70 governments who are taking that call, but there are overwhelming sentiments for the rights of the mother earth world over. This includes millions of people on whom climate and economic injustice has been perpetrated historically and who cannot afford to come down the city of happening, but are very hooked on to happenings in the Bolivian city and expect all the fortunate ones who are here to send a strong, irrepressible and undeniable verdict against the impunity of the developed countries to have polluted and to continue to pollute the air, water, and the mother earth.

The peoples climate change conference has the huge task of bringing the ethics, justice, and equity in the climate change negotiations. Though seemingly unsurmountable, however, Copenhagen has already showed us how David can tame the Goliath. The Conference has the support of countries in Africa, Asia, AOSIS, Latin America, however, that needs to be expressed in unequivocal support and solidarity. The official website www.cmpcc.org, states that more than 70 governments have confirmed participation, it actually remains a question of fact how many of them really turn up to lend their support. Solidarity of latin American countries esp. Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela will be crucial for success of the conference. The participation of big developing countries like India, SA, S Korea, China, could have lend enormous strength but that seems highly unlikely. It is unfortunate that these countries have not responded to the peoples congress very enthusiastically. The clear signal emerging from their non participation is that these governments does not believe much in peoples, tribal and indigenous communities, civil societies capacity to participate in international negotiations. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests, was quite blunt in his remarks at Copenhagen, when responding to a delegation requests to keep certain facts in consideration in putting forward India’s stand in negotiations, when he said that negotiation was task of the government and civil society organizations should limit them to working on education and adaptation aspects at home. Disregard for civil societies capacity to understand esoteric aspects of international negotiations is too obvious in China. As for the response in other parts of the world especially North America the climate congress is being dubbed as “Clown’s Congress.” It is important for people in developed countries to understand that 20, 0000 people coming to participate in far off parts of the world are not fools. It is a more a matter of looking at people who might be individually poor but collectively hold most of resources, which the developed countries have appropriated in huge disregard to rule of nature, justice and equity.

In 2009 more than 1 billion people fell below the hunger line, and 600 million more are expected to join them in the losing battle against hunger by the end of the century. its not a question only of availability and access of food, it raises larger questions of ethics of development, where some have obviously more food, water, energy, and resources than they can consume, and majority does not have even a fraction of what is their right. In the circumstances, the centrality of agriculture especially small holders agriculture in providing answer to both the issues of providing food to growing population as well as preserving the planet. President Evo Morales has the huge responsibility of responding strongly to the false solutions provided at the Copenhagen in this context. Much more than that, he has the huge responsibility of reinstating the power of people and civil society from not so well off parts of the world in global politics on climate change, and sustaining the enthusiasm of poor people in all parts of the world. UN backed the proposal of Evo Morales to observe 22^nd April as International day for the Rights of Mother Earth. On this day we must commit that all of us belong to her.

Voice of Civil Society Loud and Clear in Cochabamba

2010-04-22T14:47:00.000+05:30

by Daniela Estrada - Tierramerica

The success of the climate change conference taking place in the central Bolivian city of Cochabamba will depend on how unified civil society ultimately is in its efforts to influence the United Nations Climate summit in Mexico, say Latin American Activists.
The bulk of the debate in People's Conference will be led by civil society, which tends to oppose the market-based mechanisms proposed by most of the governments to fight climate change, and this is fuelling doubts about just how much impact the Bolivian forum will have on the official climate talks taking place within the United Nations.
Itelvina Massioli, of the Brazilian Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST-Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra) and Via Compesina International, said in an interview with Tierramerica that the conference will not be a "trade fail" but rather "an important space for information, reflection, dialogue and coordination among peoples."
Mexico, which will host the COP 16 in December - an effort to reverse the failure of the Copenhagen meet, is represented in Cochabamba by delegates from at least seven environmental groups.
"Our general proposal is to say 'no' to the false solutions aganist climate change offered by nearly all governments, such as market mechanisms that do not have mitigating effects, "Miguel Valencia, an organiser of Klimaforum 2009, told Tierramerica.
"Cochabamba can be a democratic space for developing organisational capacity to build accord within civil society, " said Claudia Gomez, of the non-governmental Mexican Centre for Environmental Law.
Courtesy: pwccc.wordpress.com

Conflicts within Bolivia - even with the government of Evo Morales

2010-04-22T10:41:00.000+05:30

The "Plurinational State" of Bolivia has convened the World People's Conference on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth in the city of Cochabamba. The policies of this government are quite progressive in many terms, particularly when compared to many of the developing countries in our part of the world. The HISTORIC PEOPLES REBELLION AGAINST WATER PRIVATISATION, the toal and forceful rejection of the crooked Copenhagen accord, the recognition that the earth herself has rights and that has to get primacy - many such visionary advances in the state policy are coming out from this government lead by an indigenous (tribal) president who is a beacon of light to the dispossessed fighting against capitalist industrial system.
But even here in Bolivia, there are large scale conflicts continuing where the government is not always with the people most affected. One clear example is the mining industry, which gives good revenue to the state. Bolivia has large Lithium deposits, and Lithium is sometimes termed the green energy mineral of the future as it is used in making Lithium-ion batteries, which are in great demand in modern generation of electrically operated gadgets and in very large scale soon - for longer range electric vehicles that the western societies are proposing as a "solution" to the climate crisis, inspite of the fact that battery operated vehicles do not really cut down the emissions of GHGs, in fact they increase this - unless almost the entire electricity for charging those batteries come from zero-GHG sources, including the embedded energies involved.
But none of those serious questions have been given any negative voting power by the worlds profit crazy industries, nor by the revenue hungry governments. Though one would expect the present Bolivian government of Evo Morales Ayma to be an exception, that do not seem the clear case.
Large scale mining operations around Lago Poopo (Lake Popoo) and Lago Oruro have brought devastations to local communities. The government is helping the people by instructing the companies to follow all environmental regulations, but the primary questions of the development pathway or paradigm is not addressed. Neither is the question of whether a state can at will mine or extract or give encouragement for that for whatever it feels can give it revenue?
Whether that violates mother earths rights to what is hers - is also a big question for a "Plurinational State" and its president. In years to come, Bolivia and Evo Morales Ayma have to answer these questions.
Tin is another mineral that Bolivia has historically depended on for generation of foreign exchange through exports. But in the high altitude planes full of lakes, where the tin is also found in large amounts, its mining is causing enormous environmental damage as well as large health impacts on the people. The communities leaders voices do not always match the ordinary people at the ground. Many are affected very badly, like os the case back in India, but the "leaders" of these movements are not always demanding halts to these destructive projects. How these seeming disparities are to be handled - whether a government can overcome the trappings of state power and state control - are questions looming large in the horizon.
But for present, Evo Morales Ayma, the inspiring presiden of the poor Latin American State of Bolivia - have shown a way to the people of the world, who are struggling to break the shackles of the globalised industrial capitalist exploitation net, and facing the crises created by its dumped rubbish - including the greatest threat of them all, the climate crisis.

By Soumya Dutta (SADED), a delegate of Beyond Copenhagen Collective

Evo Morales’ message to grassroots climate talks – planet or death

2010-04-22T10:16:00.000+05:30

Bolivia's President opened the inaugural international 'People's Conference' at Cochabamba, with delegates from 125 nations.

"Planet or Death!" chanted Bolivia's leftwing president, Evo Morales, to a crowd of 20,000 people. "We will be victorious!" the crowds answered back, waving rainbow-coloured, chequered Andean indigenous flags.
Morales was officially inaugurating the first international "people's conference" on climate change - the grassrotts alternative to last year's failed United Nations talks in Copenhagen.
The meeting in the city of Cochabamba has attracted people from more than 125 countries, although many delegated from Africa, Europe and India were unable to come because of the travel chaos caused by the Icelandic volcano. The meeting has no direct bearing on the UN climate talks, which continue this year, but is billed as a venue for the grassroots movements to put pressure on governments to act on climate change.
"The positive thing here is that people have a space. Until now, the voice, the lead, was always given to governments. And now it is the turn of the people because the governments, particularly some governments from developed countries, did not understand that we are in the verge of a catastrophe and they are not assuming responsibility," said Juan Pablo Ramos, Bolivia's deputy environment minister.
His president will have raised some eyebrows though with bizarre comments in his opening address that baldness is the consequence of genetically modified chickens and potatoes and that Coca-Cola is "poison and sewage water". Bolivia's first indigenous president, a former Ilama herder and coca grower, added: "Either capitalism dies, or it will be Mother Earth."
Later this week, Morales and other Latin American leaders are expected to call for the establishment an international climate court, demanding compensation from rich countries to assist poor nations, and urging countries to open their borders to future waves of climate refugees.
"We are not part of the problem, we are part of the solution, we the indigenous peoples, the peasant communities, so let us offer you the solution because we are the ones suffering, "said Justo Cruz, an Aymara indigenous leader. "Ordinary people are never allowed to talk, [yet] we are the ones paying the price for what the rich are doing to our planet, to our Mother Earth."
The UN, which organised the Copenhagen talks is not popular here. The UN representative in Bolivia struggles to make her voice heard over a chorus of booing and during a presentation, the former president of the general assembly, Nicaraguan Catholic priest Miguel D'Escoto, declared that the "fraud, lie and dictatorship" that is the UN should be "re-invented".
"It is not that it wasn't important what governments were discussing in Copenhagen but the problem is that it was discussed from a corporate perspective and here we are dicussing it from an indigenous perspective we have a great deal of respoect for Mother Earth, we have a direct accountbility to her, something that developed nations seem not to have", says Vanessa Inarunekia, a Taino indigenous woman from Puerto Rico. "Human beings cannot survive without Mother Earth; Mother Earth can survive without us," she said.
Domingo Lechon, climate justice co-ordinator from Friends of the Earth Mexico, said: "Cochabamba represents a unique opportunity for popular demands to be adopted by governments. We will use this new people's agenda as a rallying call to mobilise movements of affected peoples, indigenous peoples, peasant farmers, trade unions and women to dismantle corporate power and force our governments into action."
Courtesy: Guardian News and Media Limited 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

Inauguration of the Cochabamba Conference

2010-04-21T16:18:00.000+05:30

by Soumya Dutta, SADED, a Delegate of Beyond Copenhagen Collective

Today on the 20th here in Cochabamba, Bolivia standing under the mighty Andes mountains, the conference was inaugurated by the Bolivian President Evo Morales Ayma, which was preceeded by presentations by people´s representatives from different continents.

Over 14-15 thousand people from all across the globe came in their colourful atires, with the lively & colourful Latin American people in large majority. The traditional Andean mountain community welcome was performed with a ring of fire and water, representing mother earth. The spirit here is high, sky-high, though not many governments of the world have responded with high enough priority, people were in no mood to regret that. calls for a new dawn, of a change in human values & culture reverberated throughout the Tiquipaya municipal stadium which was spilling over with people .

About the Cochabamba Climate Conference

2010-04-21T16:14:00.000+05:30

by Soumya Dutta, SADED, a delegate of Beyond Copenhagen Collective

People from around the world are attending the Peoples' Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia this week as a follow up to the failed UN Climate Talks in Copenhagen, Denmark last December.

Social movements have converged in Cochabamba to rally opposition to the push by the world's leading carbon emitters to promote unjust and false solutions to climate change such as carbon offsets, and to make a collective push for stricter binding carbon reductions, reparations for industrial-driven environmental destruction, and a human rights approach to climate policies.

Working Group 17: Agriculture and Food Sovereignty

2010-04-21T09:49:00.000+05:30

Courtesy: http://pwccc.wordpress.com

a. We declare and denounce that agribusiness and the inherent logic of production of foods oriented towards the market and not for the right to food, is one of the main causes of climate change through changes in the use of land (deforestation and the expansion of the agricultural frontier), monocrops, the excessive use of products derived from the petrochemical industry, food processing, and all the logistic involved in the transportation of food towards the consumer and also through the model of society, economy and culture of production and consumption.

b. Denounce that climate change, through the migration generated in rural areas, represents a threat to indigenous, peasant and farmer peoples around the world who are the most affected when their livelihoods and ancestral agricultural practices are destroyed, and, in this sense, their identity.

c. To question all practices and logic of production of foods in conventional agropecuaria that generates climate change making Mother Earth loose capacity of productivity against erosion, salinization, acidification, soil compactation and the destruction of natural and biological diversity.

d. Prohibit the technologies that provoke and accelerate climate change as are: agrofuels, Genetically Modified Organisms, nanotechnology and all those that under the supposition of helping climate change, in fact undermine food sovereignty.

e. Promote state policies that control agricultural production to avoid harming Mother Earth.

f. We demand that governments commit themselves to uphold the model of agriculture of peasant farmers and indigenous/originary practices, and other ecological models and practices that contribute to solving the problem of climate change and ensure food sovereignty, understood as the right of peoples to control their own seeds, lands, water and the production of food, ensuring, through agro-ecological, local, and culturally appropriate production, the peoples access to sufficient, varied and nutritious foods complementary to the Mother Earth emphasizing autonomous (participative, communitarian and shared) production of all nations and people.

g. That intensive conventional agriculture progressively implement agro-ecological production, bearing in mind the production of food for all, considering local knowledge and the innovation of technology complementary to Mother Earth.

h. Agriculture must focus on improving their productive practices in complementation with indigenous communities and peasant farming.

i. States and peoples shall control, regulate and plan the efficient and rational use of water in food production systems in terms of mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

j. Emphasize that Food Sovereignty is a way towards climate change adaptation and mitigation, while generating resilience in communities.

k. We must recognize that part of the solution to climate change lies not only in changing the logic of production oriented to satisfy the market and profit, but also changing the philosophical view that assumes that land is a resource or right only for the satisfaction of humanity.

l. We must censor any political-military strategy that undermines food sovereignty of peoples, making humanity as a whole vulnerable to climate change.

m. Condemn any commercial strategy or mechanism (FTAs, partnerships) that threatens food sovereignty and encourages climate change.

n. To call upon industrialized countries to stop the unlawful practice of illegal subsidies to their agricultural sectors and dumping which distorts food prices affecting the food sovereignty and making undeveloped countries vulnerable to climate change.

o. We must implement social safety nets based on food sovereignty with financial resources from those who produce climate change.

p. We declare that the impacts of climate change on food sovereignty should be inserted within the framework of negotiations on climate change.

For Media Persons

2010-04-21T09:47:00.000+05:30

Historic First World People’s Summit on Climate Change in Cochabamba, Bolivia, called by President Evo Morales after the failure of UN Climate talks in Copenhagen, has attracted more than 130 countries and more than 12,000 delegates. It is likely that the North American mainstream media will ignore it. However, the Summit can be followed live on internet TV, on alternative media rabble.ca and Democracy Now and in European media Guardian UK.

Bolivia pushes for climate crimes tribunal

2010-04-21T09:44:00.000+05:30

Courtesy: JEFF MCMAHON

Diplomats from the 17 largest economies are meeting behind closed doors for a second day today in Washington D.C. to work out their differences on climate change. As the name suggests–the Major Economies Forum–all the major players are there: the U.S., the European Union, Japan, China, India, Brazil, South Africa…

But 4,000 miles to the south, as many as 15,000 people are expected to gather at the municipal coliseum in Tiquipaya, Bolivia, to open the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Many who have been excluded from the major forums will be there–not just less influential nations, but also indigenous peoples, activist groups, non-governmental organizations.

“Everybody is invited: individuals, scientific, civil society, NGOs, 192 countries. Everybody. Everybody can come to Bolivia, give their view, debate,” said Bolivian Ambassador Angelica Navarro. ”We think democracy is key. The wisdom is in the people, the wisdom is in those that are suffering or that are willing to help.

“We hope that together, those of us that were excluded can have a stronger say in the formal setting and come back and say (to governments), this is what civil society is asking. Can you deliver or not?”

Bringing Agriculture to the centre of Climate Change Negotiations

2010-04-19T15:19:00.000+05:30

by Soumya Dutta. SADED, a Delegate of Beyond Copenhagen collective.

The Climate Change talks in COP 15 conference at Copenhagen could not reach much of the desired goals, but no doubt it had paved the way for more and more Climate talks. Now the time has come to look beyond Copenhagen conference. After making its presence felt in the COP 15, PAIRVI, CECOEDECON and SADAD (Representative of Beyond Copenhagen Coalition) once again has joined hands to promote and to highlight the adverse affect of climate change on agriculture, in the World People's Conference on Climate Change in Bolivia as agriculture is the least debated issue and it is important to focus on agriculture in the Climate Change Negotiation.

The 'Beyond Copenhagen' coalition is organizing a side event in Cochabamba on
Bringing Agriculture to the centre of Climate Change Negotiations
on 19th April 2010 from 18:30 to 20:30 at
Sala Informatica, Sala Idiomas, Univalle, Cochabamba.

Curtain Raiser – Cochabamba Conference: World People’s Conference on Climate Change & Mother Earth’s Rights

2010-04-19T15:06:00.000+05:30

by Soumya Dutta – South Asian Dialogues on Ecological Democracy (SADED), 'a delegate of Beynd Copenhagen Collective’.

The by now ill famous climate summit in Copenhagen – COP 15, held from 7^th to 19^th December last year in the Danish capital became the butt of ridicule by the people of the world, instead of taking bold steps to address one of the greatest crises that humanity has ever faced – that of a human induced climate change and the resulting upheavals. The 190 odd governments who gathered in Copenhagen in the cold north-European winter, failed not only to ‘seal the deal, the mother of all Deals’ – to save the Earth’s living environment from being violently disturbed by the ruthless attacks of the all-destructing capitalist industrial economic culture, but they also miserably failed their own people. The very nature of the relationship between people and their governments, of being trustees and the trust givers – though in question since long – was ruthlessly violated by the actions of most of the governments, who chose to accept a few ‘silvers’ for their betrayal. Only a handful of governments stood out from this crowd of betrayers and trust sellers, and the so-called “Pluri-national” state of Bolivia was unquestionably one of the boldest and most visionary amongst these.

Amidst the ruins of Copenhagen, the indigenous President of Bolivia, Evo Morales Ayma, gave the call for a paradigm change in human – nature relationship, to follow up on his bold demand of reparations by the rich polluter states,who for over the two-centuries has plundred and privatized the global common atmosphere. He not only forcefully put forward the concept of adaptation debt that the rich polluters owe to the poor in addition to the historical climate debt for centuries long forceful occupation and dumping in the global atmosphere, but introduced what indigenous people all over the world has known & practiced for millennia – that the Earth is the Mother of us all, and we cannot take from her as we wish, the mother has to be placed at the centre of the cycle of life. It is only proper that it took a President of a Nation who is from the indigenous communities, to bring this realization, this wisdom of ages gone by – to the world stage. Standing in front of the conniving leaders of many governments of the world in Copenhagen – Morales gave the call for people to reclaim their sovereignty from these crafty, scheming, dishonest and courage-less actors who took control of the ‘fate’ of the earth till now.

It is this reclaiming of our people’s rightful sovereignty that this world people’s conference being organized in Cochabamba in the eastern parts of the climate impacted Andean mountains in Bolivia – is all about. We now know and understand that we cannot just put the affairs of the earth in the hands of a select few who conspire & connive to ‘mine’ the earth dead, for their quick capitalist profits of a few ‘silvers’ (or a few trillion dollars / euros / Yuans/ Reals / Yens /Rupees/ Roubles / Krones /….. ). This knowledge and understanding now has to be reflected in how the human world lives in harmony with all other elements within nature. This is about reasserting that this sovereign people fully recognizes and respects that the Mother Earth has the first rights over all that we have on this planet, that the blinding greed that brands everything and even all life on this earth – as “resources” (mineral resource, biological resource, human resource, …) to be plundered , cannot be tolerated or continued any longer. It is about taking power back from the hands and minds of the profit hungry corporate and their dictat-following, subservient governments – not by the ‘barrel of the gun” but by un-wavering reassertion of the truth that earth is the only mother and cradle and sustenance that we all have, that it is not only the single species of humans, the HomoSapiens who has the basic rights for a dignified survival & ‘humane progress’, and that time is not only running out – but has already reached the edge of the abyss, and there will be no second chance, no other Planet B, for us to “exploit & experiment with”. This conference is about a capital change – that of the fundamentally flawed, corrupt, greed driven system of the capitalist industrial empire that is consuming the very mother on whose sustenance all life lives.

The World People’s Conference in Cochabamba is starting on the 19^th of April – hence forth to be marked in the calendars of the world as a red-letter day, and will continue till what is now largely practiced as mostly a ritual – The Earth day on April 22^nd. In this four days, a seemingly small but vanguard section of the mother-Earth’s human children will push for – under the bold leadership of the President of the Pluri-National state of Bolivia - Evo Morales Ayma – the restoration of sense, of natural-order, of real humanity. It is upon this band of pioneers – who nonetheless represents the overwhelming majority of the dispossessed, deprived and suffering humanity – to initiate this process of change, and let mother-Earth restore the living environment with equitable care and concern for all that is on this earth.

On the part of earth’s human children, all of us will work towards these goals, by initiating work on the four directions that this conference aims to address –

1) To come out with a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth’s Rights ,

2) To demand that all nations & people return to the collective plat form of the United

Nations, to re-commit themselves to real & drastic reductions of GHG-emissions with

A time-table dictated by honest science;

3) To start the process of setting up a world Climate Justice tribunal, and

4) To strengthen the demand for justice & equity, and ensure that the historical polluters

Pay-up for the non-polluting sufferers to cope with the crisis, and also to address the

Long historical injustices,

No one here is under the illusion that the road ahead is short or easy. No one is suffering from the megalomania – so typical of the capitalist-industrial-technological ‘civilization’ – that what they are doing here is the ultimate. But all share the common understanding, the all-pervading sense that these few days and months have all the potential of turning out to be the beginning of new history. In the entire history of life on this shared planet of ours, there were a few ‘occasions’ when one or more life form(s) have ‘created’ conducive living conditions for other species – the cyano-bacteria releasing enormous amounts of oxygen and thus ‘creating’ an oxygen atmosphere on the earth billions of years ago, and the first plants / trees hundreds of millions years ago – are examples. But at no time in the history of the earth before this, any life form(s) or species has consciously attempted to understand and improve the living condition of all other life, of mother nature herself. Just on that recognition, a new dawn seems to be on the horizon

Bolivia creates a new opportunity for climate talks that failed at Copenhagen

2010-03-20T14:16:00.000+05:30

Courtesy: The Guardian taken from http://pwccc.wordpress.com/
BOLIVIA WILL HOST AN INTERNATIONAL MEETING ON CLIMATE CHANGE NEXT MONTH BECAUSE IT IS NOT PREPARED TO "BETRAY ITS PEOPLE"
By Pablo Solon Romero

In the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference, those who defended the widely condemned outcome tended to talk about it as a 'step in the right direction'. This was always a tendentious argument, given that tackling climate change cannot be addressed by half measures. We can't make compromises with nature.
Bolivia, however, believed that Copenhangen marked a backward step, undoing the work built on since the climate talks in Kyoto. That is why, aganist strong presure from industrialised countries, we and other developing nations refused to sign the Copenhagen accord and why we are hosting an international meeting on climate change next month. In the words of the Tuvalu negotiator, we were not prepared to 'betray our people for 30 pieces of silver'.

Our position was strongly criticised by several industrialised countries, who did their brazen best to blame the victims of climate change for their own unwillingness to act. However, recent communications by the European Commission have confirmed why we were right to oppose the Copenhagen accord.

In a report called International climate policy post-Copenhagen, the commission confirmed that the pledges by developed countries are equal to between 13.2 per cent and 17.8 per cent in emissions reductions by 2020 - far below the required 40 per cent - plus reductions needed to keep global temperature rise to less than 2C degrees.

The situation is even worse once you take into account what are called "banking of surpls emissions budgets" and "accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry". The Copenhagen accord would actually allow for an increase in developed country emissions of 2.6 per cent and above 1990 levels. This is hardly a forward step.

This is not just about gravely inadequate commitments, it is also about process. Whereas before, under the Kyoto protocol, developed countries were legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percentage, now countries can submit whatever targets they want without a binding commitment.

This is dangerous approach to climate negotiations is like building a dam where everyone contributes as many bricks as they want regardless of whether it stops the river.

The Copenhagen accord opens the dam and condemns millions. Various estimates suggest that the commitments made under the accord would lead to increases of between three to four degrees celsius - a level that many scientiests consider disastrous for human life and our ecosystems.

For Bolivia, the disastrous outcome of Copenhagen was further proof that climate change is not the central issue in negotiations. For rich countries, the key issues in negotiations were finance, carbon markets, competitiveness of countries and corporations, business opportunities along with discussion about the political makeup of the US Senate. There was surprisingly little focus on effective solutions for reducing carbon emissions.

President Evo Morales of Bolivia observed that the best way to put climate change solutions at the heart of the talks was to involve the people. In contrast to much of the official talks, the hundreds of civil society organisations, communities, scientists and faith leaders present in Copenhagen clearly prioritiesed the search for effective, just solutions to climate change against narrow economic interests.

To advance an agenda based on effective just solutions, Bolivia is therefore, hosting a People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April, and inviting everyone to participate. Unlike Copenhagen, there will be no secret discussions behind closed doors. Moreover the debate and proposals will be lead by communities on the frontlines of climate change and by organsiations and individuals dedicated to tackling the climate crisis. All 192 governments in the UN have also been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society and together develop common proposals.

We hope that this unique format will help shift power back to the people, which is where it needs to be on this critical issue for all humanity. We don't expect agreement on everything, but at least we can start to discuss openly and sincerely in a wa that didn't happen in Copenhagen.

(Pablo Solon is Ambassador to the UN for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. He is sociologist and economist, was active in Bolivia's social movements before entering government, and is an expert on issues of trade, integration, natural resources and water.)

Expressions at COP15

2009-12-16T20:15:00.000+05:30

COPENHAGEN HIGHLIGHTS

2009-12-16T20:13:00.000+05:30

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, said the presence of so many distinguished guests shows promise for an ambitious, fair and effective climate deal. He noted that “the world is literally holding its breath” and called on world leaders to translate the current political momentum into “a decisive moment of change.” He invited all world leaders to adopt a deal that will affect all aspects of society and includes decisions under both tracks.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon noted the long road to this “defining moment” and said that “we are here today to write a different future.” He called for a fair, ambitious and comprehensive agreement, specifying that this means: more ambitious mid term mitigation targets from industrialised countries; more action by developing countries to limit emissions growth below “business as usual;” an adaptation framework for all countries; financing and technology support; and transparent and equitable governance. He stressed financing as a key, welcoming the emerging consensus among developed countries to provide approximately US$10 billion annually for the next three years to the Copenhagen Launch Fund. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon underlined that the goal is to lay the foundation for a legally-binding climate treaty as early as possible in 2010, and said that until such an agreement is reached “the Kyoto Protocol remains the only legally-binding instrument that captures reduction commitments” and that “as such it must be maintained.”
Highlighting the potential for failure if parties keep repeating positions and slowing progress with formalities, COP President Hedegaard identified “compromise” as the key word for the coming days. She called on countries to take big steps and commit to delivering a deal, reminding delegates that “we are accountable for what we do, for what we fail to do.”
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer noted that Tuesday was the second anniversary of the adoption of the Bali Roadmap and stressed that “now it is time to deliver.” He said there had been some progress but “not nearly enough to celebrate success.” He noted that groundwork has been laid for prompt implementation of action on mitigation, adaptation, technology cooperation, finance, REDD and capacity building. Highlighting that 115 world leaders are not coming to Copenhagen to leave “empty handed,” he called on parties to resolve outstanding issues.
His Royal Highness Charles, the Prince of Wales, stressed that “a partial solution to climate change is no solution at all.” He underscored the benefit of partnerships between government, business, NGOs and civil society, and said the quickest and most cost-effective way to address climate change is to protect tropical forests.
Wangari Maathai, Nobel Peace Laureate and UN Messenger of Peace, noted that no conference ends with “a perfect document” and stressed the need to find common ground based on fairness, honesty, transparency and responsibility. She called on delegates to overcome “a legacy of mistrust,” highlighting the need for a Copenhagen agreement to provide a governance structure based on accountability between donors and beneficiaries.
Courtesy: iisd, cop15, #9

AGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

2009-12-16T20:10:00.000+05:30

A crucial principle embedded in the Convention on Biological Diversity is expressed in article 8(j):
"Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices.”
This makes it clear that indigenous and local communities have knowledge and practices that can make a major contribution to ensuring the resilience of ecosystems and the protection of biodiversity. This includes agricultural biodiversity – the selection, breeding and conservation of biodiversity that underpins human wellbeing. However, the replacement of natural ecosystems with plantations and industrial monocultures has already had very serous impacts on Indigenous People’s and local communities, displacing them, destroying the ecosystems they have often helped to enrich and maintain and above all, undermining their own resilience.

The FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF AGRICULTURE
A fundamental aspect of the interaction between indigenous peoples, local communities and biodiverse ecosystems is of course agriculture, which at his level consists of many different cultures that in a sense codify the inter-relations between communities and the ecosystems they inhabit and interact with. Agriculture has so far been neglected in the climate discussions. It is now in serous danger of entering them in the wrong spirit, as the basis for trade and offsets, particularly in the case of soils.
This must not be allowed to happen. Instead we need to apply the principles outlined above and ensure that the small farmers of the world are properly respected for their crucial role, not just in feeding many of us, but in maintaining the resilience of the ecosystems on whose integrity we all depend if we are literaly to weather the storms of climate change.
To translate this into negotiation text would mean at minimum:
- keeping agriculture and soils out of market mechanism, and
- adding in compliance with the CBD to the shared vision.

Further Information:
1. Agriculture and climate change: real problems, false solutions. EcoNexus, Biofuelwatch, Grupo de Reflexion Rural, NOAH-Friends of the Earth Denmark, and The Development Fund Norway, Copenhagen, December 2009. www.econexus.info
2. Small Farmers can cool the planet: A way out of the mayhem caused by the industrial food system, November 2009 by GRAIN. www.grain.org/o/?id=93
3. Small Scale Sustainable Farmers are Cooling Down the Earth, December 2009 via Campesina. http://viacampesina.net/downloads/PAPER5/EN/paper5-EN.pdf
4. Earth Matters – Tackling the Climate Crisis from the Ground Up, October 2009 by GRAIN. www.grain.org/seedling/?id=643
5. The International Food System and the Climate Crisis, October 2009 by GRAIN. www.grain.org/seedling/?id=642
Courtesy: Convention on Biological Diversity Alliance (www.cbdalliance.org)

SOME CRUCIAL BIODIVERSITY PRINCIPLES FOR THE CLIMATE DEBATE

2009-12-16T20:09:00.000+05:30

If we are to tackle climate change, we urgently need to instil values established in the Convention on Biological Diversity into the climate debate. As well as the fundamental importance of biological diversity, these values include the ecosystem approach and the maintenance of the knowledge and practices of indigenous and local communities.

ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
The ecosystem approach is particularly important, yet not always well understood:
“The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the three objectives of the Convention. It is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focussed on levels of biological organisation which encompass the essential processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognises that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems.”
The ecosystem approach recognises the fundamental interactivity of all planetary processes and of the many levels of organisation among living creatures. It also reminds us that human beings are an integral component of ecosystems with the ever increasing power to undermine or enrich them.
It is also important to note how the application of science is described here: as appropriate scientific methodologies, with the work appropriate and also the words scientific methodologies rather than leaping straight to the work technologies. The language of any new climate agreement should reflect this, because we are only just beginning to understand how the processes that underpin our lives actually function: how soils are built, who water operates within the planetary ecosystem and the vital importance of primary forests, wetlands, coral reefs and other complex systems threatened by climate change.
Courtesy: Convention on Biological Diversity Alliance (www.cbdalliance.org)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

2009-12-16T20:08:00.000+05:30

In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated that about 20% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions during the 1990s resulted from land use change, primarily deforestation, although 25% of total emissions are also estimated to have been absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems. Depending on the age of the forest, the management regime, and other biotic and abiotic disturbances (insects, pests, forest fires), forests can act as reservoirs, sinks (removing greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere) or as sources of GHGs. Forests also provide a number of vital services, notably as repositories of biodiversity and regulators of the hydrological cycle. Reducing deforestation and land degradation and improving forest cover are vital for both mitigation and adaptation. However, including emissions reduced from forest-related activities in a carbon accounting system is complex undertaking, given the non-permanent nature of carbon uptake by trees and the potential for “leakage” as deforestation moves elsewhere. There are also critical environmental and social considerations that have to be taken into account.
Forests are addressed under the UNFCCC as both sinks and sources of emissions and all countries are expected to count their emissions and removals from land use change and forestry in their national inventories. Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries with emissions reduction commitments (known as Annex 1 countries) may count towards their reduction target the emissions and removals of GHGs deriving from certain direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, including removals from afforestation (defined as planting of new forests on lands that have not been forested for a period of at least 50 years); reforestation (limited in the first commitment period to those lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989); emissions from deforestation; as well as possible emissions and removals from forest management, cropland management, grazing land management, and re-vegetation.
In addition, project based activities under two flexible mechanisms created by the Kyoto Protocol – Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – may also result in removals by sinks that can count towards an industrialized country’s reduction commitments. Joint Implementation refers to projects undertaken jointly by two Annex 1 countries; all projects undertaken in developing countries fall under the CDM. Afforestation and reforestation projects are allowed in the Protocol’s first commitment period under the CDM, and project activities have to address a number of issues such as non-permanence, uncertainty, the risk of leakage and others. Moreover, there is a ceiling on the maximum number of credits that an Annex 1 party can gain in this way.
At COP11 in Montreal, Canada, in 2005, forests were taken up under the UNFCCC itself under a new agenda item on “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action,” as proposed by Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and eight other countries. As negotiations have progressed on a financial mechanism to compensate developing countries for recovery and maintenance of forest carbon stocks, three labels have emerged for what such a financing mechanism should cover: reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD); conservation, sustainable management of forests and stock enhancement in addition to REDD (REDD+); and all terrestrial carbon in addition to REDD+ (REDD++).
Courtesy: IISD Reporting Services

FOREST DAY 3 AT CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS

2009-12-16T20:07:00.000+05:30

The third Forest Day event convened in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 13th December 2009, in parallel with the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, which convened from 7-18 December 2009. The event was co-hosted by the Centre for International Forest Research (CIFOR), the Government of Denmark and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), a partnership of 14 forests-related international organisations formed in 2000 to enhance cooperation on forest issues.
The first Forest Day was convened on 8 December 2007 in Bali, Indonesia, during UNFCCC COP13, to reinforce the momentum and inform the discussions related to forests under negotiation at COP13. It brought together over 800 participants and considered crosscutting in estimating forest carbon; markets and governance; equity versus efficiency; and adaptation.
The Forest Day 2 brought together nearly 900 participants in Poznan, Poland, on 6 December 2008, during COP14, to discuss: adaptation of forests to climate change; addressing forest degradatio through sustainable forest management (SFM); capacity building for REDD; and options for integrating REDD into the global climate regime.
On Forest Day 3, R K Pachauri, IPCC Chair, said REDD is the most cost effective mitigation method; highlighted the disruptions that could occur if the goods and services that forests provide were to be lost; challenged the forestry profession to reclaim the space that it has yielded to other disciplines over the years; and noted that carbon dioxide emissions would need to be removed from the atmosphere to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celcius, with forests being the most viable option for achieving this.
Courtesy: IISD Reporting Services

CLIMATE CHANGE AND BUSINESS ISSUES

2009-12-16T20:06:00.000+05:30

The Copenhagen Business Day event convened at the headquarters of the Confederation of Danish Industry, in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 11 December 2009. Organised by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), together with the Confederation of Danish Industry, Copenhagen Business Day met in parallel to the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. This even was the third Business Day, and featured more than 40 speakers and panellists.
Climate change is considered to be one of the most serious threats to sustainable development, with adverse impacts expected on the environment, human health, food security, economic activity, natural resources and physical infrastructure. While the global climate varies naturally, scientists agree that rising concentrations of anthropogenically-produced greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s atmosphere are leading to further changes in the climate. These increasing GHG emissions are caused or influenced by factors such as economic growth, technology, population and governance. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of climate change are already being observed, and scientific findings indicate that prompt action is necessary.
Certain sectors of the business community have long been recognised as significant producers of GHG emissions. Increasingly, the business community is also being recognised as important for identifying business-led solutions to climate change challenges. A growing number of corporations acknowledge the importance of corporate social responsibility, risk mitigation and performance dimensions associated with the sustainable production and use of energy. As a result, issues relating to clean technology, carbon markets, energy efficiency and demand-side management, sectoral approaches, voluntary emission reduction commitments, adaptation and forestry are of increasing interest to the business community.
The first Business Day, called the Bali Global Business Day, was organised in parallel with COP13 of the UNFCCC in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia on 10 December 2007. The Bali Global Business Day included panels on energy efficiency, zero-carbon technologies, large scale carbon control, and clarity in climate policy. Business participants at that event made clear that they favoured the successful completion of a new global climate change policy framework, valid beyond 2012, which promotes urgent and sustained mitigation and adaptation plans.
The second such event, “Business Day at COP14,” convened in Poznan, Poland, on 9 December 2008. This event featured panel sessions on: a shared long-term vision; mitigation; adaptation; technology; and financing and investing. Participants sought to contribute to the UNFCCC negotiation process by interrelating the themes of the Bali Action Plan, which charted the course for a new negotiating process designed to tackle climate change, with business capability and initiative: energy efficiency and demand side management; technology development and deployment; carbon markets and financing; and sectoral approaches.
Courtesy: IISD Reporting Services

BRINGING AGRICULTURE IN CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS

2009-12-16T16:50:00.000+05:30

By Claudia, Beyond Copenhagen Volunteer at COP15
11th December 2009, ‘Bringing Agriculture in Climate Change Negotiations’

During the meeting, it has been highlighted the relevance of agriculture in Copenhagen negotiations. In the agreements, agriculture is usually considered as an industrial agriculture, while the role of traditional agriculture is not taken into account. Only in Klima Forum agriculture has a main role, but in COP15 it is considered just from trade and commodities point of view. COP15 considers only industrial agriculture characterized by high costs and high tech and all the negotiations concern market and profitability. The role of technology in COP15 is only for certain countries and only agriculture related to genetical engineering and mechanization is considered. The only solution is listening to the farmers.
During the last years, the agriculture industry has been changed in order to be more productive and to satisfy market needs: farmers have been pushed to produce in a more intensive way, through bioagriculture. Thus, agriculture has been mechanized and the consequences are negative both for the soils and for the global warming.
Regarding agriculture in developing countries, it is hard finding data, especially at the local level: the only information available is based on anecdotal evidences and testimonies. Since agriculture is based on tradition from generation to generation, it is becoming more and more difficult to predict the environment conditions (e.g. monsoons).
A further point that has been discussed regards connections between North and South of the world. Through monoculture, North is affecting South: forests are converted into agricultural lands, the product system is changed, the transport cost and related emissions are growing. According to data from Netherlands, the national agriculture system of such a small country is contributing for pollution for a level of 11%. Thus, the consequences of this system are affecting the environment and the socioecological situation: agriculture should be sustainable.
Emissions from 1999 are 17% more, especially in developing countries. This is due to increased population, non appropriate agricultural technologies, non appropriate trade policies. A sustainable agriculture should be based on biodiversity and soil feed. In order to achieve this objective, it is important how adaptation funds are used: they do not have only to promote sustainable agriculture, but also to sustain it. It is important what is decided and how it is applied, whether it respects or not the land. For instance, in some African lands nitrogen fertilize has been used: even though it was promoted by the EU, it poisoned the lands and soils changed and got addicted to it.
A panel in Philippines shows that biofuel can be considered as a solution to climate change, and they are also important for the biofuel business. However, foreign corporations interested in biofuel production took the land from the population and now there are two main consequences: people are landless and they perceive less safety, and lands are used for monoculture.
Finally, it has been discussed how adaptation and agriculture are related. In order to let population adapt to climate change, it is important to consider farmers knowledge and to involve farmers in the decision process. Each land has its own tradition and knowledge, thus there will be different strategies for different lands. Moreover, farmers should be aware of what is happening and because their traditional knowledge cannot be used anymore due to climate change.

RENEWAL ENERGY

2009-12-16T16:43:00.000+05:30

By Stefania, Beyond Copenhagen Volunteer at COP15
12th of December, Niels Bohr: Renewable energy – the key solution to mitigate climate change
Participants: EREC, European Renewable Energy Council, Greenpeace
How can we establish a sustainable energy policy to fight climate change?
It is fundamental to go from principles to practice, focusing on energy efficiency, structural change, and energy efficient transportation, by investing in electric vehicles.
The 20-20-20 EU policy by 2020 forecasts to reduce energy demand and consumption together with greenhouse gas by 20%, and to increase, by the same percentage, the use of renewable energy.
To this regard, EREC has shown some positive data. In 2008 the first energetic source to be installed in Europe was the wind; moreover in the same yeas 57% of the all energy generated was renewable. However, there are still things to be done: the electricity market needs to be reformed and it’s important to invest more in the research and development of renewable energy, instead of fossil and nuclear.
At the beginning the set up costs will be high, but they will drastically diminish during the years. Furthermore, renewable energy will not only benefit the environment, but also the population, since it has been forecasted that it will generate about 2 millions jobs by 2020.

False Premise of Nuclear Energy

2009-12-16T16:40:00.000+05:30

by Ambra, Beyond Copenhagen Volunteer at COP15
Today the 12th of December 2009, a presentation was held by witnesses and experts from Australia, Russia, Kazakhstan and US on the topic of: FALSE PREMISE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY.

The Australian biologist started the panel discussing about the issues that nuclear stations bear, she said that nuclear energy is the most dangerous and unhealthy form of energy; radiations are cumulative and they constantly cause cancer. Moreover she pointed out that the people who are living in the surrounding stations areas are more at hazard, especially children.
The other witness was from Russia, she described all the same problems defined by the Australian Lady, adding the fact that the Russian government is giving 2$ to the families who are living in the nuclear sites if they remain staying in the same place.
The Kazakhstan lady declared how useless energy power is in dealing with global warming and GHG emissions; there are other healthier technologies and renewable resources that are more effective and less costly. The last speaker was from US, she said that US is committed to reduce the radioactive “mess” they have produced over time and that they are looking for alternative energy resources. At the end, she focused on the fact that there’s no need for nuclear resources, describing it as expensive, dangerous and unhealthy.

Negotiations Undate

2009-12-16T16:37:00.001+05:30

The African Group has blocked the negotiations in the morning, protesting against attempts of the developed country to "kill" the Kyoto Protocol. They ended the temporary boycott only after assurances that rich nations were not conspiring to reduce their commitments to cutting greenhouse gases. Informal talks resolved the impasse. "The vast majority [of countries] want to see a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol," Yvo de Boer said. Norway and Mexico join forces and propose a model for climate funding at the negotiations in Copenhagen. The model establishes a Green Fund for financing of climate actions in developing countries.Contributions to the Green Fund should come both from public budgets and from auctioning of emission allowances. According to the proposal, the scale of the Green Fund could start around 10 billion dollars per year by 2013 and increase to 30-40 billion dollars by 2020.Norway's proposal is a model where a certain percentage of the total UN-allowances should be set aside for international auctioning to finance climate actions in developing countries. Mexico has proposed to establish a Green Fund that draws funding based on each country's emissions, GDP and population. The joint model uses both sources of income. Environment Minister of India Jairam Ramesh has declared that an agreed text on a global deal reaching beyond the Kyoto protocol has to be worked out in the night of Tuesday, in order to ease the following negotiations between the world leaders. On his side, India has offered to adopt the international guidelines under the UNFCCC, meaning that India will allow verification of the results of internationally funded projects, while insisting on the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. The White House on Monday announced a new program drawing funds from international partners to spend 350 million US dollars over five years to supply developing nations with clean energy technology. The program will contribute to distribution of solar power alternatives for homes, including sun-powered lanterns, supply of cleaner equipment and appliances and a push to fund and put in place renewable energy systems in the world's poorer nations.

China's Position on Negotiations

2009-12-16T16:35:00.001+05:30

China has accused developed countries of backsliding on what is said are their obligations to fight climate change and has warned that the UN climate talks in Copenhagen have entered a critical stage. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Tuesday there had been "some regression" on the part of developed countries, who had "put forward a plethora" of demands on developing countries. Beijing's view is that the US and other rich nations have a heavy historical responsibility to cut emissions, and any climate deal should take into account a country's development level. There have been rumors that the EU and Japan are not going to sign an agreement on climate aid funding that combines short-term and long-term aid numbers if the US are not going to be clear on their contribution. The problem is the long-term funding: if a total amount of transfers is decided, but without assigning the relative shares between the developed countries, an agreement may fail.

PEOPLES CLIMATE ASEMBLY - RECLAIM POWER ACTION ON 16TH DEC

2009-12-16T16:29:00.000+05:30

by Soumya Dutta, 15th December 2009
The Official climate negotiations are becoming more and more exclusive, with thousands of people from the civil society being progressively barred from even entering the official negotiation venue - the Bella Centre in Copenhagen. The people's climate convention - the KLIMAFORUM 09, on the other hand, is getting more active, with clear calls to the governments of the world to respond to people’s voices and demands.On the 16th of Dec., a large number of environmental activists will peacefully march to the Bella Centre, and try to force their way in - in a "Reclaim Power Action", where a large number of those inside the Bella centre - including possibly some small LDC government representatives, will walk out in a coordinated "Inside - Outside Reclaim Power action". Thousands of activists will try to take over the official venue - Bella Centre, and turn it into a people’s climate summit, on the 16th of Dec., to mount pressure on the world’s governments.
The plan of the climate justice activists is as follows:
- RECLAIM POWER - Pushing for Climate Justice! 10:00am - Get to the Fence
- Disruptions begin on the inside12:00pm
- People's assembly startsBlue block
The Blue block will carry the people's assembly, it will make it's way tothe Bella Centre along the police approved route, it will then push intothe UN Area to hold the assembly.
- Start Point: Tarnby station, 8am (get to the area as early as possible)
- Green Block:The Green Block will be fast and mobile. It will make it's way to anotherpoint on the fence, near the South West, and try to break through.
- Start point:Orrestad station, 9am
For more information on the Bike Block, actions inside the Bella Center, and autonomous groups actions come to the final action council, tonight 7pm, Ragnhildgade.
Tomorrow we, the movements for global justice, will take over theconference for one day and transform it into a Peoples Assembly. Our goal is to disrupt the sessions and open a space inside the UN area tohold the Assembly. The assembly will give a voice to those who are notbeing heard, it will be an opportunity to change the agenda, to discussthe real solutions, to send a clear message to the world calling forclimate justice.
Reclaim Power! is a confrontational mass action of non-violent civildisobedience. We will overcome any physical barriers that stand in ourway, including police lines and fences, but we will not respond withviolence if the police try to escalate the situation, nor create unsafesituations; we will be there to make our voices heard!

Climate Change Negotiations and proposals

2009-12-16T16:25:00.000+05:30

On Friday a draft proposal was sent to 192 nation conference, although it set no concrete goals on cutting the emission rate or the funding of finances. The document forced countries to hold on long-held posturing and focus on primary issues of global importance. Many countries voiced reservations about the structure of the document or some of its clauses. The United States and China — the worlds top two carbon polluters — even got into a battle of words. The former said the draft as "constructive" but singled out the section on helping poor countries lower their growth of carbon emissions as "unbalanced." It called the wealthier countries to help poor nations to adapt to changing climate, but mentioned no figures. The EU announced in Brussels 3.6 billion US $, but are still awaiting answers from wealthier nations, such as the US and Japan. Nevertheless the COP 15 summit awaits the arrival of the world's leaders.

Changes in Climate change negotiations

2009-12-16T16:24:00.000+05:30

The approaching D-Day in the climate change negotiations has created giant strides. Thousands of people joined in a peace rally for two days to demonstrate for action on climate change. The main demonstration was led by dancers, drummers and banners proclaiming: "There is no planet B" and "Change the politics, not the climate." Some activists were dressed as penguins with signs reading: "Save the Humans!" The rally took a violent turn when demonstrators smashed windows and set fire to cars. The police detained more than 900 people around the Danish capital. Connie Hedegaard, the President of the UN climate conference said "You don't have to use that kind of violence to be heard". This incident called a day off in COP15.

OUR WORLD IS NOT FOR SALE - ACT NOW FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE

2009-12-16T16:20:00.000+05:30

Soumya Dutta, Dec 14, 2009

Sunday 13th December, the official centre of the COP15, the Bella Centyre was closed for most business, BUT the peoples climate summit venue - the KLIMAFORUM, was a bee-hive of activities. Long and serious sessions on Debt, Trade, Financing etc, on the Cubak energy revolution, on rights to seeds & other BD for farmers, - many such lively programmes kept the huge but disorganized crowd of climate activists, farmers groups, indigenous peoples groups etc busy throughout the day. From around 3:30 pm, the People’s Assembly of Climate Justice Now - started with around 600+ participants and via Campesina presented a wonderful touching inaugural piece. Everyone in the assembly responded spontaneously to the 5 min film on the struggles of the Indian tribal people - K P Sashi's "gaon chhorob nahi, jangal chhorob nahi, maa maati chhorob nahi, larhai chhorob nahi".But undoubtedly, the highlight of the peoples assembly was the Nigerian poet Nnimmo Bassey, leading the indigenous peoples struggle against the Oil Multi national, whose foot-stomping song "WE THOUGHT IT IS OIL, BUT IT WAS BLOOD" put the whole assembly on fire.Movement after movement asserted their right to determine their own future, free of market control, and free of capitalistic controls and manipulations and exploitations.

Copenhagen police accused of violating human rights at UN climate summit

2009-12-16T16:15:00.000+05:30

Danish police have indiscriminately arrested hundreds of climate justice activists during a climate change protest made up of 100,000 people that took place today in Copenhagen. Questions have been raised about the fact that the arrests occurred in a different time and place to where some trouble had momentarily flared earlier in the day. Journalists have been restricted from reporting at the site of the arrests since 1800hrs.
It’s estimated that 100 people are still being held on the road in extremely cold weather, cuffed and forced into seated positions in lines. They have expressed severe physical discomfort and have no access to water, medical attention or toilet facilities since 1530hrs. Many activists are reported to have urinated themselves while detained on the ground.
An estimated 200 have been removed from the site and taken away in coaches. Several people are reported to have fainted around 1945hrs.
Helga Matthiassen, who was detained for an hour before being released due to an injury she had recently sustained, said, “Of course we’re angry – people all over the world are angry about being lied to by governments who are making a corporate deal at the climate talks, and now when we try to protest against this on the streets we are randomly held by police.“Not only have we been denied the right to protest, but our basic human rights have also been ignored in this ludicrous, staged police exercise. It seems Danish Police have a new motto: why just criminalise protesters, when you can dehumanise them too?”

Copenhagen police accused of violating human rights at UN climate summit

2009-12-16T16:02:00.000+05:30

WATCH OUT SOME OF THE VIDEOS FOR YOURSELF
Click on the following links or type it on address bar of your internet explorer

1. Courtesy: Climate Justice Action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivh5whWtAOo

2. Unprovoked police charges and mass arrests of activists during dec 12 demo COP15, Copenhagen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIjRHCy3FN8
http://indymedia.dk/videos

Some Photographs of the Protest on 12 December 2009 at COP15, Copenhagen

2009-12-16T15:52:00.000+05:30

Courtesy: Indymedia.dk

MARCH ON TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM NOT THE CLIMATE

2009-12-12T22:41:00.000+05:30

Click the picture to view the slide show of the photographs of the protest march at Copenhagen on 12th December 2009 (Pictures taken by Soumya Dutta)
For high resolution pictures contact soumyadutta.delhi@gmail.com

THOUSAND RALLIED IN COPENHAGEN DEMANDING SYSTEM CHANGE NOT CLIMATE CHANGE

2009-12-12T21:32:00.000+05:30

First Week of Climate Talks: A Predictable Failure
At the end of the first week of the climate talks at Copenhagen, thousands of activists from the Climate Justice Action and Climate Justice Now! Networks are joining the climate march under the banner of System Change Not Climate Change to denounce the climate negotiations as a predictable failure. The protesters are demanding radical changes in economic and political systems in order to address the climate crisis. The coming together of the Climate Justice Action and Climate Justice Now! is an unprecedented coalition of social movements, NGOs and grassroots climate activists from around the world to demand alternatives to the failed market solutions being pushed by governments and big business.The System Change contingent has been tipped as the largest and loudest section in the march and includes people from 50 different countries. It will include a flat bed truck broadcasting music and speeches from prominent activists from the global south.Josie Riffaud from La Via Campesina a global coalition of peasant movements, said – “We have seen this week in Copenhagen that governments are turning the climate chaos into commodities. Farmer’s men and women – are taking to the streets today because we are so outraged by the ineffective targets and false solutions such as agro fuels being peddled by business lobbyists and governments that listen to them.”Lidy Nacpil from the Jubilee South Coalition said – “All week we have heard a string of excuses from northern countries to make adequate reparations for the ecological crisis that they have caused. We are taking to the streets to demand that the ecological debt is repaid to the people of the South.” Lars Fredikssen, an activist from Climate Justice Action said – “At the root of the climate crisis is an economic and political system that puts profit above people and the long term sustainability of this planet. Unless we address these root causes, climate change will devastate people around the world. These talks are a predictable failure and that is why we will be taking action next week to create a Peoples Assembly. We want the voices of ordinary people who are already being affected by climate change to be heard and listened to.”Both networks will continue to work together on 16 December, where they are planning to bring the energy from the streets into the Centre where the talks are being held. A massive Peoples Assembly will take place when thousands are expected to march to the Bella Centre to expose the false solutions and to propose positive alternatives and at the same time, hundreds of people inside the talks are expected to walk-out and join. (ENDSs activists from the Climate Justice Action & climate Justice Now networks, indigenous peoples networks etc.There is an unprecedented police presence today morning all over Copenhagen, at all main bus and metro stations. We had to face repeated checks of our 'credentials'. Police are revealing the contours of Unitarian state systems. The atmosphere is charged.

RESISTANCE getting STRENGHTHEN

2009-12-12T21:30:00.000+05:30

By Soumya Dutta
As the Copenhagen conference is expecting the arrival of the Big players – the heads of states and their high power ministers - in the next few days, pressures from various quarters are also building up. As the various business lobbies are pushing for more and more "incentives" (like the controversial and as yet untested CCS - Carbon Capture and Storage commercial interests lobbying hard for its inclusion as a CDM entry), various peoples groups, resistance struggles, indigenous people etc. are also strengthening their voices of protest. Many forest peoples alliances have made their opposition to REDD, REDD+ etc very clear, and there were very lively demonstrations . Today's most intense, heart-rending, protest and appeal to the international community was by the indigenous people from Canada, who clearly brought out the devastation of their communities health and forcible occupation of their reserves - by the Tar sand oil industry. "WE DONT WANT YOUR DIRTY OIL" ,'I HAVE SURVIVED, BUT MANY OF MY RELATIVES ARE LYING BURIED UNDERGROUND - DYING OF INCRAESED CANCER AND OTHER DISEASES', many such real stories came from the Indigenous peoples reserves - which also houses some of the largest reserves of dirty tar sand oil. The story of victimization of the already marginalized, by the insatiable greed of the rich and over consumers continues, BUT ARE BEING CHALLENGED WITH INCRAESING STRENGTH at Copenhagen and BEYOND.

Jairam Naresh addressing Indian Media and CSOs

2009-12-12T20:48:00.000+05:30

By Soumya Dutta

India’s official delegation finally addressed the mounting concern and criticism from the poorer developing nations, the Small Island States and the African States, and in his first address to the Indian media and Indian civil society, Minister of Environment & Forests Mr. Jairam Ramesh told that – 1) We are with G77, and no question of breaking away, 2) We are talking with the African countries, and that the 'BASIC' draft jointly circulated by the large developing countries matches very closely with the African draft, and India will make all efforts to closely coordinate its negotiating stand with the African countries, 3) that India is closely coordinating with China on its negotiating position, though he was clear that by total emissions, by per capita emissions, and by financial strength - China is a league ahead of India.On the question of why India had to endorse the G8 position of limiting global temp rise to 2 deg Centigrade, and not support the Small Island States and African position of limiting to 1.5 Deg C, Jairam was evasive and took shelter behind the excuse that science is evolving and targets changing.The arrogance with which the minister brushed aside the extreme concern of the threatened-with-submergence Small Island States - by stating brashly "the Maldives President is repeatedly phoning me, but I am not picking up the phone" - shocked many of us present at the briefing at Asger Jorn Room at the Bella Center, from 7 to 8 PM on Dec 11.The youth climate activists from India heckled Jairam Ramesh for his fuzzing statements about uncertainty of Himalayan Glaciers melting and their "apparent lack of connection with global warming". He was again evasive, not giving any concrete answer, but loudly claimed that there is no "Conclusive proof'.Ramesh also asserted that there is no question of India accepting absolute and internationally binding emission cuts, but our voluntary action will be to reduce emission intensity by 20-25% by 2020, and that we will be accountable to our own parliament. He also strongly reiterated Indian Government position of not accepting Monitoring, Reporting, Verification of national mitigation efforts where no outside funding is received.Overall, there was hardly any positive change from the somewhat regressive stand that India and large developing economies have come to be identified with, except his assertions that India will stand together with poorer countries in G77+China.

Politics at Play - III

2009-12-11T18:27:00.000+05:30

A view of dias during COP-MOP Plenary
By Bhaskar Goswami
One cannot help but feel a sense of pity for Yvo de Boer, the UN Climate Chief whose cup of woes seems to be overflowing. First came “Climategate” which was followed by the leaked “Danish Text”, though it is debatable whether de Boer personally had much to do with drafting the text since it aims to strip his organization from most of the functions it has historically performed at the COP negotiations. Instead, the Danish proposal intends to rest it with the OECD countries.

With Denmark refusing ownership (or authorship!) of the text, de Boer has been left alone facing the ire of developing countries and civil society organization; the latter’s numbers as well as vociferous demonstrations at the Bella Center swelled manifold today.

No wonder de Boer looks gloomier than the overcast city.

Adding to his woes is a development that has brought negotiations to a grinding halt. A small island nation in the Pacific has stood up to the might of the world. Tuvalu earned the world’s respect by demanding binding and immediately actionable emission cuts yesterday and the Chair had no choice but to put it on record that the negotiations are “suspended”. However, the negotiations resumed soon after and everyone presumed that it is business as usual.

Tuvalu achieved the impossible by causing a suspension of COP negotiations yet again today. And this time round it is a suspension for real. Further, the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) group has claimed that it has the support of 100 member countries that are against the provisions of the Danish text. In this melee, one country that has lost credibility and trust is India.

A small island nation of around 12,000 inhabitants achieved where negotiators and leaders of an emerging power - India - failed miserably. Yet again India broke bread with the sole super power of the world and sacrificed the interest of developing countries to secure a seat at the high table. It however remains to be seen whether that seat (on the UN Security Council as per Jairam Ramesh’s leaked letter a month back) actually materializes. What does matter is that India today stands isolated at Copenhagen. No wonder India’s Chief Negotiator, Shyam Saran, had to rush back to New Delhi to seek counsel and fresh instruction on how to get out of this mess.

There is however another viewpoint that is holding fort: the Tuvalu proposal is a fallback option of developed countries after the failure of the Danish Text. The next few days would possibly clear the fog on this issue.

Multilateral negotiations are always an opportunity for sharing “authentic and exclusive news”. One such news doing the rounds today is that the Danish Text was drafted with full knowledge of and consultation with India. This is quite possible given that Jairam Ramesh had proposed something similar a month back. What is puzzling is the list of other countries that are now emerging as co-authors – Brazil, China, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Algeria. The tentacles of climate betrayal seem to have spread across continents that have virulently opposed any concessions for developed countries.

Meanwhile, newspapers today reported that the police confiscated paint bombs, shields and other gear from an empty property in the city next to which hundreds of activists are staying. While it is not clear whether any arrests have been made, Bella Centre and COP participants may not get to watch multicolored walls… or blackened faces of negotiators who seem to have betrayed the cause for preventing further global warming. The big day however is Saturday when 60,000 demonstrators are expected to take to the streets marching from the Parliament to Bella Centre to demand a fair climate deal.

Proceedings at COP15

2009-12-11T18:19:00.000+05:30

Tuvalu intervenes in the COP/MOP plenary and calls for establishing a contact group to discuss proposed amendments to the Protocol

TUVALU, supported by Grenada, for AOSIS, stressed the Protocol’s importance now and in the future and elaborated on its two proposals to amend the Protocol. He highlighted, inter alia, proposals on: the second commitment period and new commitments in Annex B; extending the share of proceeds; giving legal authority to the Compliance Committee; and including new greenhouse gases, as well as international aviation and maritime emissions.

AUSTRALIA emphasized that her country needs more than a Protocol amendment from Copenhagen. She said a unified protocol would have certain advantages but that an outcome with two protocols is possible if they are linked as a package. The EU stressed its commitment to safeguarding the Kyoto Protocol’s key elements. He said the AWG-KP process allows for comprehensive consideration of issues raised by the amendment proposals and underlined that a decision on Protocol amendments must be taken in the context of an overall agreement.

JAPAN outlined its proposed draft protocol, saying it relates to the Protocol’s deficiencies, including that the Kyoto Protocol only covers 30% of global emissions. He stressed that a “simple” Protocol amendment would not be an effective post-2012 legal framework, expressing preference for a single new Protocol.
JAPAN emphasized that the intention is not to ignore and bury the Kyoto Protocol, but “expand the scope of responsibility and construct on the Kyoto foundation an expanded and more durable vehicle.”

ETHIOPIA, for LDCs, said the issue is a controversial one as it is being discussed under both the AWG-KP and the COP/MOP. He expressed willingness to consider the issue in a contact group to see if the proposals contain ambitious targets and promote LDCs’ interests.

BRAZIL, supported by many developing countries, noted a proposal by 35 countries to amend Protocol Annex B based on the mandate in Protocol Article 3.9 (Annex I parties’ further commitments). He said the proposal reflects the high end of the 25-40% range in the IPCC AR4 as well as Annex I countries’ historical responsibility. Many developing countries stressed that the most important task of COP/MOP 5 is to adopt a Protocol amendment to inscribe new commitments for developed countries in Annex B based on the mandate in Protocol Article 3.9. Many developing countries also highlighted the Kyoto Protocol as the only legally-binding instrument to mitigate climate change, urged continuing it in the second commitment period and opposed attempts to “kill” or supersede it, or make it redundant. Many also underscored continuation of the Protocol as a condition for an outcome in Copenhagen.

EGYPT, supported by several developing countries, said elements of the proposed Protocol amendments have also been submitted under the Convention and the AWG-LCA, lamenting this “triplication” of efforts and urging focusing on “the real thing.”

NEW ZEALAND said her country’s preference would be a single and unified post-2012 legal outcome avoiding duplication of efforts and institutions. Without prejudice to this, she said her country has proposed Protocol amendments, envisaging the Kyoto Protocol as part of a fully integrated package with a legally-binding outcome under the Convention.

BOLIVIA outlined a proposed Protocol amendment, emphasizing that developed countries have “expropriated more than their fair share of the earth’s environmental space.” She said repayment of this “climate debt” is simple: those who became wealthy while causing climate change are responsible for compensating those who are poor. She called for strong efforts by developed countries to reduce their over-pollution and over-consumption.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA agreed with the focus on Protocol Article 3.9 but, supported by others, called for also considering forest issues and REDD. COLOMBIA also noted her country’s proposals to amend other aspects of the Protocol and expressed interest in discussing other countries’ proposals.

TUVALU emphasized that unlike the AWG-KP’s mandate, this agenda item relates to Protocol Article 20 under which any party may propose amendments. He stressed that if unable to reach consensus, the COP/MOP may take a decision by a three quarters majority of parties present and voting.

PALESTINE highlighted their unique situation and said he is looking forward to becoming an official Protocol party.

PAN-AFRICAN CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE stated that warming of 2°C is a “death sentence” for Africa. She accused rich countries of stealing the shared atmospheric space, which amounts to “climate colonialism” and said the proposed adaptation funding would not be sufficient even for “buying their coffins."

TUVALU, supported by GRENADA, KIRIBATI, EL SALVADOR, COSTA RICA, the COOK ISLANDS, the MARSHALL ISLANDS, PALAU and BELIZE, stressed the importance of the issue, urged its proper substantive consideration through a contact group and said delaying the issue until Saturday will not allow this.

CHINA, supported by VENEZUELA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, BRAZIL, NIGERIA and BAHRAIN, expressed sympathy for Tuvalu’s proposal, but opposed discussing such proposed Protocol amendments that “do not enhance the Protocol.” He said issues such as share of proceeds and compliance could be discussed further, and suggested that: proposals related to Protocol Article 3.9 be referred to the AWG-KP; and a “limited number” of other proposals be selected for discussion under this agenda item. The EU opposed limiting issues for further consideration, identifying the need to reflect all proposals.
(Courtesy ENB, #5)

From the Corridors

2009-12-11T18:11:00.000+05:30

Much of the talk in the corridors on Thursday afternoon and evening was focused on the suspension of both the COP and COP/MOP, pending consultations on whether to establish contact groups to consider proposed new protocols under the Convention and proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol. As on Wednesday when the COP was suspended, Tuvalu led a group of African, Latin American and AOSIS parties in urging a formal contact group to consider the proposed Protocol amendments, and resisted proposals to move the procedural question to an informal setting with a review of progress in plenary on Saturday.
Many noted that these disputes were closely related to the question concerning the legal form of the outcome: “We have still not resolved the critical question of the legal outcome of these negotiations,” noted one old hand in the process. “Developing countries want to preserve and strengthen Kyoto, while most Annex I countries are seeking a comprehensive legal framework that also engages the US and developing countries in mitigation efforts.” Differences were also detected among developing countries as to whether the outcome from the AWG-LCA should be legally-binding.
The wisdom of suspending work under COP and COP/MOP and its implications were also being discussed around the Bella Center. Some viewed the request to also suspend the COP/MOP as a good strategic move, while others feared it could delay work on other issues. “It hasn’t slowed the informals under the AWG-LCA,” said one NGO who was supportive of AOSIS’ stand. “I’m just not sure how they’ll break the deadlock,” she added.
(Courtesy ENB, #5)

Protests at COP15

2009-12-11T18:01:00.001+05:30

Agriculture and Rural Development Day at COP15

2009-12-11T17:39:00.000+05:30

With the theme The road after Copenhagen: priority strategies and actions for ensuring food security and rural development in the face of climate change, the Agriculture and Rural Development Day will bring together policy makers and negotiators, rural development practitioners, producers, civil society and the agricultural and climate change scientific community to highlight the importance of agriculture in climate change and to identify the ‘no-regret’ priorities for agriculture and food security where the world needs to take action. The overall goal of the event is to develop a work plan with strategies and actions to fully incorporate agriculture into the post-Copenhagen agenda. The event will consider, among others, areas such as:
1. the role of agriculture and farmers, both women and men, in adaptation and mitigation strategies;

2. future scenarios for agriculture, rural development and food security; 3. climate change as a development issue; and

4. innovations in the agricultural sector of relevance to the climate change agenda.

Climate Change: A Human Rights Issue

2009-12-11T17:11:00.000+05:30

By Justice Pana Chand Jain, India
The Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter state that “poverty any where is a threat to prosperity everywhere”. Almost all the developed and developing countries in their constitution have provided for fundamental rights. These rights are divided in two categories – political and social and economic rights. Human Rights Council has recognized climate change as a Human Right issue. In fact all fundamental rights are part of Human Rights.
It is India’s views that the planetary atmospheric spaces are a common resource of humanity and each citizen of the globe has an equal entitlement to that space. We are all equal partners in the benefits given by the mother earth.
The industrialized countries are responsible for the bulk of the green house gases in the atmosphere. They are, therefore, under an obligation to compensate to the other countries who are sufferers for their hazardous acts. It is thus, a case of environmental economic justice.
Right to life is the fundamental right of every human being including indigenous persons. Right to life means meaningful and dignified life. Right to equality is another right and every person has a right to be treated fairly and without any discrimination. These rights are fundamental basic human rights. They are recognized by way of United Nation’s Commitment to the work of UN development agencies, the entire UN has strengthened its institutional commitments to promote human rights. Its recognition finds place especially in the International Covenant on Civil, Political, Social, Cultural and Economic Rights, 1966.
It cannot be disputed that the global warming has affected the humanity adversely. It is responsible in depriving various persons from the livelihood. It has the direct bearing on the right to safe drinking water and food sovereignty or shelter and protection. It has affected women adversely. It is responsible for 100 million people sleeping hungry every night. Agriculture has been affected badly. It has also challenged our culture. Thus, the issue of global warming is the issue of violation of human rights.
It is a settled law that when an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which causes a potential threat to the health and safety of a person; it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm results to any one on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate for such harm. The rule of strict liability is attracted. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity can be tolerable only on the condition that the enterprise indemnifies for the loss to the sufferers.
Human Rights Council has recognized climate change. The Human Rights and climate change working group in the meeting held on 10th December 2009 on Human Rights Day at Copenhagen has passed a resolution to take steps towards the action on climate change at the international level.
In the totality of circumstances every person is concerned with the decision making process. In the Adaptation Action this right should be recognized, mechanism may be developed for financing the sufferers on account of the ill effects of global warming. Human Rights as discussed above should be made enforceable by an international Covenant or an Environment International Tribunal may be constituted for resolving the disputes.

Recognising and Protecting Human Rights within the Copenhagen Agreement

2009-12-11T16:22:00.000+05:30

Speakers representing small island nations pointed out that the lower the emission reduction targets are, the more protection we are going to need for human rights. The 10 billion USD pledged as assistance is woefully inadequate for the 134 developing countries. The demands made were: 1. higher emission targets; 2. support for adaptation; and 3. rights of people who are going to be displaced by climate change impacts.

It was stated that even in current texts we are not mentioning human rights; we are only pressing for emission targets. It was also pointed out that all island nations are not going to lose all their land due to rising sea levels. In some countries people will lose their coastal lands, their fisheries and inhabitable land, and all the people may migrate to other nations. But some land may still escape submergence. What will be the sovereign rights over their original land for people who have migrated?

The representative from the High Commission of Human Rights said that the Commission is very clear that all decisions taken here should be informed by human right norms and standards. He mentioned that the Commission has also adopted a resolution on human rights implications of climate change. He said that disasters make it difficult for people to enjoy a range of human rights. He felt that the current debate is centered on science of Climate change and less on human well being. He also said that climate change implies obligations not only between nations but also towards individuals.

Ms. Sheela representing the Inuit people said that both climate change and persistent organic pollutants (POPS) threaten food security and cultural survival in the arctic. Speaking about the rate of climate change she said that in the arctic people have to adapt within a single generation. She said that there is need for them to be able to practice an ancient culture that is respectful of the environment. If we focus only on western science, the climate train is going to be derailed. Whatever science predicts, the indigenous people are ground truthers as they are the best source of information for what is happening on the ground. Policy makers should hear their voices about what impacts are seen over the last several years.

We should demand ethical and moral responsibility from our leasers. Negotiating states must recognize human rights. They have obligation to protect human rights violation of affected people. Lastly she demanded inclusion of all people in the decisions.

Mr. Joseph Simel said that indigenous people are excluded from governance and policy making. He further added that mitigation actions may bring more problems for the indigenous people. E.g., growing plantations for credits may undermine human rights of indigenous peoples.
Mr. Martin Wagner said that climate change is definitely a human rights issue. The face of climate change is not only the graphs and tables that indicate GHG increase; it is about the people and ecosystems that are affected. He enumerated the human rights in the context of climate change:
1. Right to Means of Subsistence
Considering the effects of climate change such as droughts, salinisation of water due to rising sea levels, and melting of ice interfering with travel of Inuit sot their hunting grounds – it means that the right to life, physical integrity and security is being undermined by climate change.

2. Right to Water
This is a fundamental right. It is indispensable for life with dignity. It is a prerequisite for realization of other rights. E.g., melting of glaciers is undermining the right to water for the mountain communities.

3. Right to Property and to Use of Traditional Lands
Melting of ice and erosion of land, destruction of houses due to permafrost melting are undermining the right to property.

4. Right to Preservation of Health
This right is violated due to climate change as less food is available or food is less nutritious in nature.

5. Right to be Free from Discrimination
Giving the example of heat waves in Los Angeles it was explained how highest mortality was seen among minority populations. Therefore, in environmental disasters the minorities, the poor or marginalized may be more vulnerable to climate change impacts.

6. Rights of Women
As women depend more on environmental resources their rights are increasingly violated with the climate change.

7. Right to Culture
Particularly for indigenous people who depend on environmental resources for traditional practices. It is hard for them to maintain their culture.

8. The Right to Participate
It was mentioned that even now people do not have access to government decision making. They do not have access to information and remedies when their rights are violated.

What are the implications of the human rights approach for the climate change negotiations?
The approach takes moral elements and makes them legal obligations. It increases the emphasis on mitigation to achieve 1.5 degree temperature increase and 350 ppm of CO2. It reinforces the principle of equity and differential responsibility.

FAO session on IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FOOD SECURITY

2009-12-11T16:09:00.000+05:30

FAO organized a session on the Impact of Climate Change on Food security on 10th December 2009. It was heartening to see that the chairwoman of FAO considers poor farmers as part of the solution and that subsistence farming is a saving grace. She also emphasized on the urgency of the need of technology transfer for sustainable agriculture. FAO’s lack of position on GM food was disappointing and scary; on the one hand they promote organic agriculture and on the other GM foods.
Brazil came across as better prepared strategy to deal with impact on climate change; the strategy is more focused yet comprehensive; supported with research; they have fourfold strategy – reduce deforestation, expand technology transfer, increased use of bio-fuels and global land information systems.
The IFAD presentation came across as expected as it was farmer-oriented. IFAD raised the issues like – threat to bio diversity, requiring larger resources for pest management, not just physical but socio economic impacts of climate change to be taken into consideration, need of incentives for sustainable agriculture, arrangements to enable small producers, avail carbon credits, involving industry, government and farmers in risk management and not acting in crisis management mode etc. He also raised issues of IPR that developing countries need flexibility in adopting indigenous species;
The US presentation was not very convincing as it accounts for world wide food insecurity. The US agriculture ministry representative said that US is food surplus but how and whether they care to fill the food gap for 1 billion hungry was left ambiguous. Their programme titled “Know your Food” explains the consumers as to where their food is coming from. Hence it seemed more centered towards the consumers rather than the farmers.
(By Seemantanee Khot)

Impressions of the day:

2009-12-11T15:44:00.000+05:30

By Seemantanee Khot

Indian delegations are dispersed, as NGO sector. There is a need to bring them together at a common platform in the cop15 meeting.
Indian Youth are absent, how can we have them in bigger numbers for such sessions? Children of Indian origins are there, but they are representing other nations.
Cultural expressions are powerful, we could have staged a powerful display of how issues of developed and developing countries are different and how India and China and Brazil etc. need to come together to take pro-poor stand.

New Proposals received from Five Countries

2009-12-11T15:41:00.000+05:30

COP15 President Hadegaard indicated that proposals relating to adoption of new protocols under the Convention had been received from five countries: (i) Australia (ii) Costa Rica (iii) Japan (iv) Tuvalu and (v) the US.
TUVALU outlined its proposed protocol, which he said would complement but not replace the Kyoto Protocol. He indicated that his draft protocol follows the elements of the BAP closely, sets out a shared vision and the goals of limiting temperature increase to well below 1.5º C and stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at 350 ppm at the most. He said parties in Copenhagen should adopt two legally-binding agreements: a Protocol amendment and a new “Copenhagen Protocol.” He proposed a contact group to work on this agenda item.
COSTA RICA described its proposal for a Copenhagen Protocol and supported a legally-binding agreement.
JAPAN outlined its proposal, which includes reducing global emissions by at least 50% from current levels by 2050, provisions for developed country commitments, developing country action and financial and technological cooperation. He said it requires all major economies to participate in a single new legally-binding protocol.
AUSTRALIA said a new treaty is the best way to achieve a collective outcome and the US outlined its proposal for a legally-binding agreement under the Convention.
INDIA, CHINA, SAUDI ARABIA, SOUTH AFRICA and others opposed a new protocol. CHINA urged a focus on implementing the existing commitments under the Convention and Protocol and adopting an ambitions outcome under the Bali Roadmap and BAP.
Climate Action Network (CAN), for ENGOs, urged a fair, ambitious and legally-binding deal in Copenhagen. She called for agreement on Annex 1 targets for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol and said the US should commit to similar targets as other Annex 1 parties in a legally-binding form. YOUTH expressed concerns that some of the new proposals being tabled would be “tantamount to carbon colonialism.” She urged respect for the UN process, recognition of historical responsibility, and upholding and enhancing the Kyoto Protocol.
INDIA underscored that the CDM market depends on deep emission reduction by Annex-1 countries in the post-2012 period. Supported by BRAZIL, INDIA opposed sectoral approaches, saying they could lead to benchmarking and adversely affect developing countries’ economic growth.
INDUSTRIAL FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS stressed that farmers should have direct access to the Adaptation Fund.
INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ FORUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE urged respect for indigenous peoples’ rights at all stages of activities related to the Fund.
GENDER CC-WOMEN FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE said adaptation requires hundreds of billion of dollars per year and called for earmarking a “significant proportion” of funding for gender sensitive spending.
YOUTH NGOs stressed that 25 cents a day per Annex 1 country citizen would be sufficient and urged wealthy governments to give at least US$ 100 billion dollars per year to an accessible, democratically-run adaptation fund that is accountable to the UNFCCC.

SMALL Island Nation – Stalls BIG Negotiations

2009-12-10T22:00:00.000+05:30

Small Island nation Tuvalu, in imminent danger of getting obliterated from the map by the rising waters of the Pacific Ocean – comes out with strong demands and proposals for binding emission cuts by ALL Large emitter nations, and succeeds in stalling the climate negotiations.
On the end of the 3rd day of the international climate negotiations – COP15, at Copenhagen, a bold and ‘controversial’ proposal by the very small island nation of Tuvalu located in the Pacific Ocean, managed to create a huge flutter, increased the rift between developing countries, and finally brought the negotiations to a halt.
What Tuvalu is basically asking is for internationally (legally) binding emissions reduction targets by ALL BIG Emitting Countries, including those in the developing country block. And this created a lot of unrest amongst the big-developing polluters, including China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. None of these “emerging economies” are willing to accept legally binding emission reduction targets – rather preferring only Energy Intensity targets determined by national goals. But many small & poor developing countries, the LDCs (Least Developed Countries), and particularly the Island nations (AOSIS – Association of Small Island States) along with Bangladesh have supported the Tuvaluan proposal.
Tuvalu’s proposals got tremendous support from a large number of Climate Justice Movements from all over the world (the India-climate-justice forum holds somewhat similar view), the very active and vocal youth climate groups etc. Tuvalu demanded that the negotiations be halted till they get clear answers about their (and other island nations) right to exist. The negotiations had to be brought to a halt.
As the rich nations and along with them, the corporate lobbies and the big developing countries are slowly moving away from a justice & equity focused climate deal, the small island states, African nations etc – are taking the leadership of pushing for a just agreement on climate. India, China etc. are being seen to slowly move away from any frontline leadership position in this, and increasingly – the poorer developing countries are questioning their (govt.) positions.
(by Soumya Dutta)

Copenhagen Negotiations in One Illustration

2009-12-10T20:03:00.000+05:30

(Courtesy www.diplomacy.edu/climate)

Politics at Play-II: Update on COP15 developments for 09 Dec 2009

2009-12-10T20:00:00.001+05:30

There was a buzz of something impending in the air at the Bella Centre as Todd Stern, the US Chief Negotiator arrived. Not much to mince words, he fired a broadside at China, “We expect China to make considerable cuts in its carbon emissions despite being a developing country”. Taking a swipe at developing countries, he made a pointed reference that the current climate negotiation is not about morality; it’s about mathematics! Further, China will also not be eligible for any assistance from the US on climate mitigation and adaptation. Stern feels that a country sitting on trillions of dollars ought to fend for itself. How fundamental can things get, one wonders.

The forceful insistence on China to make emission cuts did not come as much of a surprise to most since India seems to have already played into the US’ hands by floating a timid version of an agreement at the G77+China meeting. One might recall the leaked letter of Jairam Ramesh a month back where he had made a similar proposition. The proverbial dots are thus now being joined at Copenhagen.

One would recall a similar power play during the WTO mini-ministerial at Geneva in 2008. The negotiations supposedly collapsed on the issue of Special Safeguard Measures and India was singled out as the deal-breaker. This was despite the fact that India had already conceded to the US’s demands on SSM. The talks collapsed because the US did not want to face the next issue (its cotton subsidies) which would have anyways brought down the talks.

This is exactly what seems like being re-enacted at Copenhagen on the Climate negotiations. The US is unwilling to bring down its emissions despite using the right vocabulary by President Obama. This time round, it seems China’s turn to be painted the deal breaker. As of now, Xie Zienhua, China's chief negotiator, has seemingly ignored Stern’s outburst and has indicated that he will wait for President Obama to take a final call on the issue when he gets to Copenhagen.

Meanwhile, the leaked Danish text is causing considerable embarrassment to the UN what with the Climate Chief Yvo de Boer issuing a weak defense: “it is an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultations”. The G77 sure is not buying any of this and the slam game is on!

Meanwhile, a summit of EU leaders will be held on 10-11 December at Brussels. Informal talks with a delegate indicate that the EU will remain steadfast on immediate action on the climate front by 2010 although its commitments will be conditional on what others place on the table. It is also likely that the EU will seek a six month roadmap after COP 15 is over before a final deal is agreed upon - this is a fresh development.

Amidst all this, there has been not a word coming from the Indian team. Indian delegates, including the Chief Negotiator Shyam Saran, have not held a single Press Conference till date. There are speculations rife about Saran's abrupt trip back to New Delhi. One hopes that the Delegation speaks to the Press and Indian CSO representatives once Saran rejoins the negotiations the day after tomorrow, ostensibly with a fresh brief in light of the complete goof up on the G77+China coalition.
(By Bhaskar Goswami)

Proceedings at the Plenary

2009-12-10T19:50:00.000+05:30

According to Su Wei, China’s lead negotiator, "the main task of this (conference) is to adapt an agreed outcome from the Bali Action Plan [agreed in 2007] and we should very much focus on that. We have a very valid system to combat climate change. But the existing agreement is not tough enough for the smaller, more vulnerable members with more to lose from rising sea levels and less to lose in terms of the economic constraints of a tough treaty.”
"This is the first time we've seen the island nations make such a splash," said Malini Mehra of the India-based Centre for Social Markets.
"The AOSIS call for a new protocol and the way it was denounced by Saudi Arabia, China, and India show that the G77 has now come asunder and the island nations are leading," she told BBC News
"As they must - they have seized the high moral ground."

Mr. Fry called for the Conference of the Parties - the official name for the full gatherings here of all countries - to be suspended if its proposal for full-scale discussions on the issue of a tough new protocol was not accepted.
Chairwoman Connie Hedegaard had to agree, moving on to other items to allow time for discussions behind the scenes. During the same session, China - and other countries - re-iterated calls for industrialized nations to pledge bigger cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. But that has been a familiar call here; the rift between members of the formerly solid developing country bloc is a much less common happening, and may indicate that hopes held out by some countries of signing only a political commitment here may not be enough to placate the poorest and most vulnerable nations.
(Courtesy BBC News Website)

Developing Countries split is widening

2009-12-10T19:16:00.000+05:30

In today’s plenary session on CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), many small developing countries criticized India and China. Thus, the developing country split is widening, and the chance for pressurizing the developed country blocks for a legally binding reduction is also receding. Small island states and poor African nations vulnerable to climate impacts laid out demands for a legally-binding deal tougher than the Kyoto Protocol. This was opposed by richer developing states such as China, which fear tougher action would curb their growth.
Tuvalu demanded - and got - a suspension of negotiations until the issue could be resolved. Tuvalu's negotiator Ian Fry made clear that his country could accept nothing less than full discussion of its proposal for a new legal protocol, which was submitted to the UN climate convention six months ago.
"Tuvalu is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change, and our future rests on the outcome of this meeting."
The call was backed by other members of the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), including the Cook Islands, Barbados and Fiji, and by some poor African countries including Sierra Leone, Senegal and Cape Verde.
Several re-iterated the demand of small island developing states that the rise in the global average temperature be limited to 1.5C, and greenhouse gas concentrations stabilized at 350 parts per million (ppm) rather than the 450ppm favored by developed countries and some major developing nations.
Fast-growing economies such as China, India and South Africa oppose the lower target of 350ppm because they feel that meeting it would retard economic development.
Here, they also opposed Tuvalu's call for a new legally-binding protocol to run alongside the existing Kyoto Protocol, arguing that the existing convention and Kyoto agreement are tough enough.
The split within the developing country bloc is highly unusual, as it tends to speak with a united voice.
(By Mr Soumya Dutta)

SAVE CLIMATE USE BICYCLE SUPPORT BRT

2009-12-10T18:39:00.000+05:30

Parallel to the UNFCCC COP15 Meeting at Denmark, in New Delhi (India)a bicycle week is being organised from 7th-13th December 2009 to raise collective voices to save the world's ecology. On the last day of the Bicycle week, a BICYCLE RALLY and PUBLIC MEETING will be organised i.e. on 13th December 2009 at South of Moolchand Flyover. Ms Medha Patkar, Com Abani Roy, K B Saxena and Ms Geetam Tiwari will address the meeting.

Side Event: Indigenous Peoples Assessment of the Current Negotiation: Issues and Ways Forward

2009-12-10T18:24:00.000+05:30

The subject was introduced by short story and film which voiced in many different ways that in whole development issue voice of local people is unheard. The case study from Philippines demonstrated how degradation of forests associated with many other industrial activities and other larger human interventions are sole cause of cyclone, typhoons, drought and other natural causes. All the speakers voiced in more or less same tone putting greater emphasis on human rights.
One speaker from Norway who was also the chair of a sub-committee indicated that concerns of indigenous people and references to human right are not likely to find a place in the negotiations.

Model for reducing Carbon Footprint

2009-12-10T18:21:00.000+05:30

City of Heisenberg in Sweden was awarded the best Municipalities for its operating in solid waste disposal and productive use of urban solid and liquid waste. The Chairman of Heisenberg and company which is looking after the environmental issues presented the case study on the productive use of waste to energy. Following points explain the model:
1. Recovery of methane for landfills
2. Biogas is upgraded and can be used to drive buses. At present 40% of public transport is dependent on this fuel.
3. Biogas is liquefied and can be transported to any desired locations
4. With combination and multiple uses, the city of approx. 127,000 residents has reduced carbon footprint to great number.
(by Mr Prakash Chhangani)

Why Danish Political Agreement Must be Rejected

2009-12-10T17:51:00.000+05:30

Proposed Political Agreement by Denmark belies the intention of Annex-1 countries and Europe in particular on COP15. It is clear that Europe has failed in its climate change leadership. The document proposes a long term emission reduction target by 50% of 1990 levels by Annex 1 Parties by 2050. However, IPCC and Africa have been calling for emissions reduction target of at least 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Four Reasons why the Danish Political Agreement must be rejected
1. It proposes emission cuts and targets for developing countries
2. It proposes to divide developing countries into new categories, e.g. “the most vulnerable”;
3. It proposes to weaken the financial role of the UN in climate change and proposes traditional ‘beggar my neighbour approach’;
4. It suggests to cap emissions from developing countries to not more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Philippines

Historical Responsibilities

2009-12-10T17:50:00.000+05:30

It is clear that the reason developing country Parties are running away from the Kyoto Protocol and pushing for a political settlement is because they do not intend to take any responsibility for global warming and climate change. this has been particularly evident in the run up to COP15 in Bangkok, and Barcelona. Ambassador Mumumba Di-Aping, Chair of the G77 has noted that “it is clear now that the rich countries want a deal outside the Kyoto agreement. It would be based on a total rejection of their historical responsibilities. This is an alarming development. The intention of developed countries is clearly to kill to protocol.”

Happy Human Rights Day

2009-12-10T17:46:00.000+05:30

Sixty years ago today the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was born. Let us all pledge to contribute our bit in ensuring a dignified life for all the humans.

Hope at COP

2009-12-09T21:00:00.000+05:30

Excerpts from the Speech of Ricardo Navaro, CESTA Friends of the Earth El Salvador

2009-12-09T20:57:00.000+05:30

"Climate change is the result of a global political and economic system where profits are more important than people and the planet. It is a problem created by the exploitation of the world’s resources to benefit the wealthy, living mostly in the global North. Therefore, the responsibility to solve the climate crisis lies with Northern countries. They must stop appropriating the earth’s atmosphere for a small minority of the population.
Climate change will not be solved by negotiating an agreement behind closed doors. Secret meetings that exclude affected peoples voices only perpetuate the system of injustice - and is nothing less than criminal. We will not be able to stop a profound climate catastrophe if we do not include the voices and the interests of those who have been historically marginalized.
We demand that Northern countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50%, with no offsets, by 2017, and pay reparations for the atmospheric space they have already used - as the Bolivian government is proposing. What is at stake here is the future of humanity."
Delivered by Ricardo Navaro, CESTA Friends of the Earth El Salvador

YOUTH ACTIVISTS TAKE UP THE LEADERSHIP IN COP15 OUTSIDE ACTIONS

2009-12-09T20:56:00.000+05:30

One notable feature of the 2nd day’s events is the tremendous enthusiasm of the large number of young people from all parts of the world, but specifically from the northern countries - protesting side by side with Africans, Asians, Latin Americans... Jack Morton from Wales UK, was seen - with a large bunch of leaflets in hand demanding that rich countries immediately start paying reparations to the poor ones for the climate exploitation - talking to each of the hundreds of delegates coming in to the Bella centre through the gate where he was standing, and trying to convince them about the urgency of the situation. Jack has worked as a volunteer with community groups in Tamil Nadu in India for some time, and Rajen from India from the organization PAD struck an instant friendship with him through this. Many hundreds of others young people like Jack are convinced that THEY have to take up the fight if the Earth is to be saved from catastrophic climate disaster.

POLITICS AT PLAY

2009-12-09T20:52:00.000+05:30

The BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) tabled a diluted version of demands on developed countries ostensibly to align with the USA. This has caused severe cracks in the G77+China group. In a move, that appears as retaliatory, the Association of Small Oasis States (AOSIS) that are most vulnerable to rising sea levels due to global warming are likely to come out with their own declaration that may be in variance of the G77+China communiqué. The UK is trying to exploit this crack by trying to whip up support for AOSIS to demand emission cuts from emerging economies like China and India. The likely winner would be the USA due to this distrustful move by India and the rest of the BASIC bloc. (By Bhaskar Goswami)

Protesting TOGETHER

2009-12-09T20:50:00.000+05:30

Groups from Africa, Asia & Europe protesting TOGETHER against the exploitation of tropical forests by big MNCs / TNCs in the name of CDM etc - getting carbon credits for their dirty steel & power plants in other southern countries.

G77 Disappointed for Denmark Secret Draft

2009-12-09T20:44:00.000+05:30

The COP15 summit has seen its first twist with the leakage of a secret agreement draft proposed by Denmark.
The draft suggests that developing countries should accept binding agreements on reducing CO2, something they are not required to do under the current Kyoto agreement. The draft also suggests that the World Bank, an institution under the influence of Western countries (especially USA), rather than the United Nations should control the flow of funding from rich to poor countries.
This incident has disappointed the G-77 countries, whose Chairman Lumumba has severely criticised Denmark’s Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen: “Your prime minister has chosen to protect the rich countries. It’s not on.”
He also says that it is a major problem that there is a parallel process being run beside the United Nations process and that the Danish government with its draft has damaged Denmark’s reputation in Africa.

Day II started with a Bang

2009-12-09T20:41:00.000+05:30

The second day opened with a bang as Michel Jarraud, Chief, World Meteorological Organization, announced that by early next year when the final data is analyzed, 2009 is likely to emerge as the fifth warmest since 1850. Pointing out the extremes of weather witnessed in 2009, Jarraud cited China's worst drought in five decades, Australia's third warmest year and the hottest temperature ever recorded in Vancouver, Canada (not a word about the situation in India... perhaps the report will carry more details).
Meanwhile, the much talked about "Danish Text" was leaked to the world by Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/ copenhagen-climate-change). This caused a major furore as the text is a major departure from the Kyoto protocol and seeks to shift power away from the UN to a chosen few industrialized nations. Few outraged delegates from developing countries were seen mingling with civil society groups while the latter went about the Convention Centre periodically rocking things around a bit with peaceful demonstrations and sloganeering.

2009-12-08T20:30:00.000+05:30

Exhibit Booth of Collective at COP15

Local Volunteers along with the delegates of the Collective

Delegation of the Collective arrives CPH

2009-12-08T18:26:00.000+05:30

Day 1 : Delegation of the Collective at COP15

At the Bella Centre, Copenhagen, it would not be out of place to feel being part of a mammoth international carnival. With a capacity of hosting 15,000 people, the convention centre has been overwhelmed by around 34,000 participants having applied for accreditation to the 15th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This is by far the biggest meeting on this issue, attended by 192 countries, that is affecting billions worldwide. The media too has turned up in such overwhelming numbers that their accreditation was suspended after reaching the figure of 5,000 on the opening day yesterday!

A Delegation of 19 representatives from a wide spectrum of activities and skills has been registered at COP15, Copenhagen. The delegation includes policy makers, media representatives, scientists, lobbyists, and representatives from the communities affected directly. The delegation is led by Mr Sharad Joshi (CECOEDECON), Mr Vijay Pratap (SADED) and Mr Ajay K Jha (PAIRVI). Other members of the delegation includes: Mr. Chandra Shekhar Sahu (Minister of Agriculture, Labour, Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, Government of Chhattisgarh), Mr. Soumya Dutta (Bharat Jan Vigyan Jattha), Mr Anil Dave (Member of Parliament), Mr Pana Chand Jain (Retd. Justice, High Court of Rajasthan), Mr. Prakash Chhangani (HYDROLOGIST and alternative energy expert from CECOEDECON), Mr Om Thanvi (Senior Editor, Jansatta), Mr. Bharat Bhushan (PANI), Mr. Bhaskar Goswami (Forum for Food and Biotechonogy), Ms. Alka Awasthi (CECOEDECON), Mr. Tej Singh Bhandari (UDI), Mr. Bhagirath Mal (Farmer from Rajasthan), Mr. Puran Singh Ranwa (Farmer from Rajasthan), Mr. Nikhil Agrawal (CDM Consultant), Mr. Nalinikant (MANAVI), Mr. Vivekanand Pandey (CECOEDECON), Mr. Vinod Koshti (PAIRVI).

Members of the Collective

2009-12-08T17:52:00.000+05:30

(in Alphabetical Order)
Arthik Anusandhan Kendra, Uttar Pradesh
ASHA, Madhya Pradesh
Bharat Jan Vigyan Jattha, Delhi
CECOEDECON, Rajasthan
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh
Chhattisgarh Citizen's Initiative, Chhattisgarh
Development Support Team, Maharashtra
Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, Delhi
Gene Campaign, Delhi
Gram Vikas Navyuvak Mandal Laporia, Rajasthan
Gramin Swabhiman Sansthan, Rajasthan
Institute of Development Studies, Rajasthan
Jagriti Seva Sanstha, Chhattisgarh
Jamin Adhikar Andolan, Maharashtra
Kalptaru Vikas Samiti, Madhya Pradesh
Kisan Sewa Samiti, Chaksu and Phagi, Rajasthan
Kisan Sewa Samiti, Malpura, Rajasthan
Kisan Sewa Samiti, Newai, Rajasthan
Kisan Sewa Samiti, Shahbad, Rajasthan
Lokayan, Delhi
Mahila Sanchetna, Madhya Pradesh
Maldhari Rural Action Group, Gujrat
MANAVI, Jharkhand
Oxfam-India, Delhi
PAIRVI, Delhi
Parmarth Samaj Sevi Sansthan, Uttar Pradesh
People's Action for National Integration (PANI), UP
Rural Development Centre, Maharashtra
Samarpan Jan Kalyan Samiti, Uttar Pradesh
Samarthan, Madhya Pradesh
SANSAD, Delh
Satya Path, Bihar
Seva Mandir, Rajasthan
SADED, Delhi
Uttaranchal Development Institute, Uttarakhand
Van Panchayat, Uttarakhand
Vasudev Kutumbkam, Delhi
VSSSESS, Bihar
Vikas Anusandhan Avam Shekshanik Pragati Sansthan, MP
Wada Na Todo Abhiyan, Delh
YUVA-RURAL, Maharashtra

Our Demands with International Community on Climate Change

2009-12-08T16:56:00.000+05:30

1. The Collective reaffirms the principles enshrined in the Rio Declaration and the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, in particular, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respectice capabilities having regard to national circumstances, and, the precautionary principle.

2. Indian Government must stand united with other developing countries, G77, and more specifically, the most threatened people and nations - the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the Small Island States(AOSIS).

3. COP15 negotiations are likely to develop a framework to sustain global efforts to contain climate change beyond 2012. it is likely to have a timeline for longer period say 2050. Therefore, India government along with other developing countries must ensure that agriculture gets due importance in climate change negotiations.

4. The Collective demands that governments of all countries must bring into its climate negotiating positions, the enourmous amounts of strife and hardship already faced by its poor, and amend its position from that articulated and demanded by its ruling elite.

5. The Collective insists on Mitigation First, demanding quick, large, binding and verifiable cuts in GHG emissions from the developed countries with legal recourse for failure to do so, and properly empowered monitoring mechanisms.

6. COnsidering that many of the adverse impacts are now unavoidable, for decades to come - inspite of any mitigating actions by the world community, all countries must seriously prepare for adaptive responses - keeping more vulnerable communities in focus. The recent accounting tricks of showing existing social sector spending as 'adaptation expenditure' in social sector.

And finally, the question of JUSTICE and EQUITY must be brought back in all their dimensions, transcending barriers of nations, generations and species into the centre-stage of Climate Change Negotiations.

A Collective Against Climate Change

2009-12-08T16:31:00.000+05:30

The Collective is a joint collaboration between a number of CSOs having different skills and expertise and working with a ranghe of primary stakeholders, policymakers, grassroots organisations, NGO networks and media. The intervention recognises the urgency to work in collaborative action on climate, sustainable agriculture and food security issues and proposes to address these issues through a variety of actions at local, state, national and global level. The collective involves a number of organisations with varying experience ranging from grassroots works with farmers and peasant communities, policy analysis, advocacy and lobbying, media and education, scientific exploration in climate change, sustainable agriculture and food security.
The collective recognises the critical importance of COP15, in terms of achieving decisions and commitments for with long term and medim term objectivves with regard to combating climate change at local, national, and global levels.
However, it also underscores the need to sustainable collaborative intervention beyond COP15.