By Dipu Moni and José María Figueres, Financial Times December 12, 2011
The global climate talks in Durban have demonstrated that those most responsible for climate change feel least responsible for the problem, despite possessing the greatest capacity to address it, writes Dipu Moni.
The flip side is that those worst affected are taking high degrees of responsibility for a problem they had little role in creating, and possess the least capacity to resolve.
In the lead up to Durban, many of the world’s large carbon emitters made the low level of their ambitions clear. Japan, Canada and Russia -pronounced their reluctance to carry the Kyoto protocol forward and, as yet, no new commitments on emissions have been agreed. There is also still no clarity on the levels of finance that would be available to support crucial climate actions in low-capacity developing countries over the next decade.
Sadly, the current policies on the table fall well short of any reasonable target
for reducing emissions, and put the world at risk of much higher warming than 2C. This would be catastrophic, in particular for vulnerable countries such as my own. Just as sad are the subtle efforts by some of the countries who bear the biggest responsibility for climate change to take advantage of divisions among the complex interests of other states who are desperately seeking solutions.
Let us not forget that low-lying countries, such as the Maldives, face the existential threat of total submersion from rising sea levels brought about by climate change, while Bangladesh faces a very real risk of about one-fifth of the country being flooded.
This is why the Climate Vulnerable Forum, which represents 19 countries from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific, recently put
forward a 14-point declaration that articulated a firm determination to do as much as possible to bring about a resolution to the climate crisis.
Just as major emitters pursued their low-ambition strategies in Durban, our members have reiterated their high ambitions. This includes a determination to undertake voluntary mitigation actions and to pursue parallel programmes for adaptation that are crucial for safeguarding the wellbeing of our communities.
For its part, Bangladesh has allocated $300m of taxpayers’ money to finance programmes under the national climate change strategy. Other vulnerable countries have taken similar steps.
We remain, however, marginalised and newly emerging economies with large pockets of poverty. Our ability to act continues to be constrained by our low capacity – chronically so, in some cases – compared with the developed nations.
In this sense, the call for climate finance is not just a brazen demand for cash by developing countries. Climate finance will actually make a very real difference in contributing to the additional reductions of CO2 that are crucial for the world to meet any target for limiting global warming. Furthermore, since capacities are so low among our vulnerable countries, we know that for every dollar of climate finance not forthcoming, human lives, infrastructure and livelihoods are put at greater risk.
The current situation is alarming, and sitting idle is not an option. Climate change implies too great a peril.
Bangladesh is ready to lead by example. We and the other members of the Climate Vulnerable Forum aim to catalyse change and action to mitigate this growing crisis, and call upon the world’s major carbon emitters to give manifest commitments to do their part to address the challenges of climate change.
Durban has not endorsed a robust agenda for change. But reason and justice inspire us to lead from the front. This gives us confidence that, in time, we shall prevail.
Source
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Rush for land a wake-up call for poorer countries, report says
By Claire Provost, The Guardian, 14 December 2011
Increasing investor demand for land in the global south could spur small farmers to secure control over their land, says a study published by the International Land Coalition
Population growth, the increasing consumption of a global elite, and an international legal system skewed in favour of largescale investors are fuelling a worldwide rush for land that is unfolding faster than previously thought and is likely to continue, according to the largest study of international land deals to date.
Researchers estimate that more than 200m hectares of land – over eight times the size of the UK – have been sold or leased between 2000 and 2010. But although the food price crisis of 2007-08 may have triggered a boom in international land deals, the study argues that a much broader set of factors – linked to population growth and the rise of emerging economies – is raising the prospect of "a new era in the struggle for, and control over, land in many areas of the global south".
Forty civil society and research groups fed into the global commercial pressures on land research project, co-ordinated by the International Land Coalition (ILC), which draws on a decade of data to identify and analyse trends in large land acquisitions, and highlights the role of governments in brokering deals that may marginalise rural communities and jeopardise the future of family farming in favour of big industrial projects. This is the most comprehensive study to date of international land deals, pulling together findings from investigations around the world.
Over the last year a number of reports have focused on cases of foreign investors "grabbing" large tracts of land in poor African countries to grow cheap food for their own populations. But, according to a study published by the ILC on Wednesday, rich national investors play a much larger role than previously thought, food is not the main focus of these deals, and African governments are not the only ones signing away large tracts of land.
Data collected by researchers show that around 40% of land acquired over the last decade is intended for biofuel production. In comparison, 25% is for food crops and another 27% for mining, tourism, industry and forestry. But the focus of land deals also varies by region: In Africa, 66% of land deals cross-referenced by researchers are intended for biofuel production, compared with 15% for food crops. Meanwhile, food production seems more significant in Latin America (27%), along with mineral extraction (23%).
The report also notes that regional dealings may be on the rise: in south-east Asia, for example, 75% of reported land deals have been struck by regional players, and South African investors have acquired an estimated 40.7m hectares of African land since 2009. The full data from the Land Matrix research project will be published in 2012.
Though policymakers seem to have recently warmed to the potential role of family farms, the report says enthusiasm for industrial-scale agriculture continues to sideline small farmers.
Many developing countries, under pressure from the IMF, the World Bank and a number of government aid agencies, are going to great lengths to attract and legally protect foreign investment in agriculture and extractive industries, setting up sophisticated specialised agencies to promote investment opportunities and offering benefits such as tax breaks and low prices, said the ILC.
This week the US aid agency, USAid is hosting an international conference to promote foreign investment in South Sudan. Research by the US-based Oakland Institute suggests that almost 9% of South Sudan's land had already been leased or bought by investors prior to the country's independence in July this year.
Wednesday's study argues that international trade regimes are overwhelmingly skewed in favour of international investors, while fewer and less effective international mechanisms exist to safeguard the rights of the rural poor. Meanwhile, the common lack of formal, legal titles to land is heightening the vulnerability of rural communities.
"As governments own the land, it is easy for them to lease large areas to investors, but the benefits for local communities or national treasuries are often minimal," said Lorenzo Cotula, of the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development. "This highlights the need for poor communities to have stronger rights over the land they have lived on for generations."
Last year, the G20 summit in Seoul encouraged all countries and companies to uphold a set of principles for responsible agricultural investment, developed by the UN and the World Bank. But critics argue that voluntary international agreements can amount to little more than window-dressing. Earlier this year African leaders gathered in Lusaka, Zambia, to discuss ways to regulate land-based foreign direct investment.
Resistance to large land deals is growing. In August, residents of Mukaya Payam, in South Sudan's Central Equatoria state, launched a campaign against what would have been the country's largest land deal – a 49-year lease of 600,000 hectares by an American company. Last month, hundreds of smallholder farmers and civil society activists converged on Selingue, in southern Mali, for the first international farmers' conference to tackle the global rush for land.
The ILC says: "Optimistically, it may even be hoped that rural communities in many parts of the world are able to finally achieve secure access to and control over their land through struggles catalysed by the increasing demand for it. It is to be hoped that the rush for land will act as a wake-up call, provoking a reconsideration of the path we are on."
Source
Increasing investor demand for land in the global south could spur small farmers to secure control over their land, says a study published by the International Land Coalition
Population growth, the increasing consumption of a global elite, and an international legal system skewed in favour of largescale investors are fuelling a worldwide rush for land that is unfolding faster than previously thought and is likely to continue, according to the largest study of international land deals to date.
Researchers estimate that more than 200m hectares of land – over eight times the size of the UK – have been sold or leased between 2000 and 2010. But although the food price crisis of 2007-08 may have triggered a boom in international land deals, the study argues that a much broader set of factors – linked to population growth and the rise of emerging economies – is raising the prospect of "a new era in the struggle for, and control over, land in many areas of the global south".
Forty civil society and research groups fed into the global commercial pressures on land research project, co-ordinated by the International Land Coalition (ILC), which draws on a decade of data to identify and analyse trends in large land acquisitions, and highlights the role of governments in brokering deals that may marginalise rural communities and jeopardise the future of family farming in favour of big industrial projects. This is the most comprehensive study to date of international land deals, pulling together findings from investigations around the world.
Over the last year a number of reports have focused on cases of foreign investors "grabbing" large tracts of land in poor African countries to grow cheap food for their own populations. But, according to a study published by the ILC on Wednesday, rich national investors play a much larger role than previously thought, food is not the main focus of these deals, and African governments are not the only ones signing away large tracts of land.
Data collected by researchers show that around 40% of land acquired over the last decade is intended for biofuel production. In comparison, 25% is for food crops and another 27% for mining, tourism, industry and forestry. But the focus of land deals also varies by region: In Africa, 66% of land deals cross-referenced by researchers are intended for biofuel production, compared with 15% for food crops. Meanwhile, food production seems more significant in Latin America (27%), along with mineral extraction (23%).
The report also notes that regional dealings may be on the rise: in south-east Asia, for example, 75% of reported land deals have been struck by regional players, and South African investors have acquired an estimated 40.7m hectares of African land since 2009. The full data from the Land Matrix research project will be published in 2012.
Though policymakers seem to have recently warmed to the potential role of family farms, the report says enthusiasm for industrial-scale agriculture continues to sideline small farmers.
Many developing countries, under pressure from the IMF, the World Bank and a number of government aid agencies, are going to great lengths to attract and legally protect foreign investment in agriculture and extractive industries, setting up sophisticated specialised agencies to promote investment opportunities and offering benefits such as tax breaks and low prices, said the ILC.
This week the US aid agency, USAid is hosting an international conference to promote foreign investment in South Sudan. Research by the US-based Oakland Institute suggests that almost 9% of South Sudan's land had already been leased or bought by investors prior to the country's independence in July this year.
Wednesday's study argues that international trade regimes are overwhelmingly skewed in favour of international investors, while fewer and less effective international mechanisms exist to safeguard the rights of the rural poor. Meanwhile, the common lack of formal, legal titles to land is heightening the vulnerability of rural communities.
"As governments own the land, it is easy for them to lease large areas to investors, but the benefits for local communities or national treasuries are often minimal," said Lorenzo Cotula, of the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development. "This highlights the need for poor communities to have stronger rights over the land they have lived on for generations."
Last year, the G20 summit in Seoul encouraged all countries and companies to uphold a set of principles for responsible agricultural investment, developed by the UN and the World Bank. But critics argue that voluntary international agreements can amount to little more than window-dressing. Earlier this year African leaders gathered in Lusaka, Zambia, to discuss ways to regulate land-based foreign direct investment.
Resistance to large land deals is growing. In August, residents of Mukaya Payam, in South Sudan's Central Equatoria state, launched a campaign against what would have been the country's largest land deal – a 49-year lease of 600,000 hectares by an American company. Last month, hundreds of smallholder farmers and civil society activists converged on Selingue, in southern Mali, for the first international farmers' conference to tackle the global rush for land.
The ILC says: "Optimistically, it may even be hoped that rural communities in many parts of the world are able to finally achieve secure access to and control over their land through struggles catalysed by the increasing demand for it. It is to be hoped that the rush for land will act as a wake-up call, provoking a reconsideration of the path we are on."
Source
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Indigenous Peoples Call for REDD Moratorium
By Stephen Leahy, IPS News
A new coalition of indigenous peoples and local communities called for a moratorium on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) programs, a key part of the negotiations for a new international climate treaty that took place over the last two weeks in South Africa
The new Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life issued a statement stating that based on "in-depth investigations, a growing number of recent reports provide evidence that indigenous peoples are being subjected to violations of their rights as a result of the implementation of REDD+-type programs and policies."
"Indigenous peoples and local forest communities will not place our lives and lands in the hands of corporate polluters," said Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, based in the United States.
Berenice Sánchez of the MesoAmerican Indigenous Women’s BioDiversity Network in Mexico added: "We demand an immediate halt to all REDD and REDD+ programs in the world. It is a new form of colonialism."
Deforestation currently contributes 15 to 20 percent of global emissions of the "greenhouse gases" that cause climate change, such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
According to the United Nations, REDD is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. REDD+ goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
"This is not a solution to climate change," Sánchez told Tierramérica. "The same extractive industries are involved and it allows them to continue raping Mother Earth."
Sánchez, Goldtooth and many other indigenous and other members of civil society spent the previous two weeks participating in the 17th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 17), which began in the eastern South African city of Durban on Nov. 28.
But as civil society representatives, they are only observers; it is the 193 countries here that negotiate all agreements.
The organisers of COP 17 decided to extend the talks for an additional two days, until Dec. 11, in a desperate attempt to make as much progress as possible towards a global agreement to combat climate change.
REDD is being promoted as a financial tool that could mobilise 10 to 30 billion dollars annually to protect forests from deforestation, and would be included in the elusive international agreement that will replace or extend the Kyoto Protocol, whose first commitment period ends in 2012.
The UN-REDD Programme, created to assist developing countries prepare and implement national REDD+ strategies, has approved a total of 59.3 million dollars for national programs in 14 partner countries.
Under the proposed REDD programs, countries and industries looking to reduce their carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels - the main cause of climate change - would pay to protect forests in tropical regions.
Trees take carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester or trap it for as long as the trees live. Under REDD, forest owners and communities offer carbon credits on an open market, and a steel, cement or coal-fired power company in the North could purchase those credits instead of reducing its carbon emissions.
Virtually all countries attending COP 17 want an international agreement on REDD to kick-start a flow of private and public capital they believe will protect forests and biodiversity, reduce carbon emissions and bring money and jobs to local people.
Seven Central African countries, seven donor partner countries and the European Commission issued a Joint Declaration of Intent in Durban to underscore the urgency of accelerating the implementation of REDD+ in the Congo Basin, the second largest tropical rainforest in the world.
Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo and Rwanda pledged their commitment to scaling up REDD+ implementation, with financial support from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Henri Djombo, minister of Sustainable Development, Forest Economics and Environment of the Republic of Congo, expressed the hope that "important financial resources" would be made available in early 2012.
And the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) announced on Dec. 8 that Guatemala has taken an important step by recognising "wider land rights for indigenous peoples and local communities."
"Originally, forest incentives only recognised officially registered properties, even though most community and indigenous peoples hold their land under traditional, customary land tenure arrangements," said Josué Morales, director of the National Forest Institute of Guatemala.
The newly proposed mechanism "now clarifies and recognises landholders through all types of law: historical documents, supplementary titles, property, land tenures and indigenous territories. This is very significant for REDD+, which in many countries is challenged because indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities face insecure land and tenure rights," added Morales.
But according to Heriberta Hidalgo, an indigenous representative from northern Chile, "It is an attractive fantasy that REDD will help indigenous people secure land tenure."
"REDD will promote plantations, we will lose our access to forests and their foods and medicines, and then we will lose our traditional knowledge," she said.
Land ownership is one factor that makes REDD extremely complex.
In addition, it is difficult to measure carbon in forests and determine whether emissions reductions are "real and verifiable." There is also a widely recognised need to include "safeguards", or legal requirements that will ensure local people, forests and biodiversity are protected.
"Without good safeguards, private investors won't invest. Without real, measurable and sustained emission reductions, investors won't invest," Peg Putt of the non-governmental Ecosystems Climate Alliance told Tierramérica.
Putt's organisation favors REDD+ but wants REDD+ done right, which means very strong safeguards. But countries like Brazil, Indonesia and others have argued against strong safeguards as impractical and expensive.
In preliminary REDD projects in Mexico, the safeguards are not being followed. Indigenous peoples are supposed to be informed and give their consent, but that is not happening, says Sánchez. "Some people and communities have been told they would get a lot money and went out and got loans. Now they are indebted - and what can they do but sell their land," she said. "REDD is a mask for giant land grabs."
"We aren't duped by this," said Marlon Santi, former president of the powerful Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE). "Indigenous peoples have 40 years of experience with big corporations like Texaco, Shell and Rio Tinto, who promised a good life for us and destroyed our lands and communities," Santi told Tierramérica.
But not all indigenous and community groups agree with the REDD moratorium. Some groups, like the Coordinator of Indigenous Organisations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA), still want to explore if there is a way to safeguard REDD and get the revenue, Goldtooth said.
"Some others are already participating. But the moratorium was a consensus decision amongst those of us who are here," he added.
Rich countries are pushing hard for REDD in Durban, but there is no carbon market for forests, said Kate Dooley of FERN, an NGO with offices in Belgium and the United Kingdom.
In fact, the entire carbon market is falling apart, Dooley said. "Carbon prices have collapsed in Europe. Banks have shut down their carbon credit desks."
The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) represents 97 percent of the global carbon market, and cannot trade in forest carbon until 2020 by law, she told Tierramérica.
For his part, Wally Menne of Timberwatch South Africa remarked that the UN climate talks "continue to churn out proposals for all kinds of cockeyed schemes that carefully circumvent actually reducing the emission of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-powered industrial activities."
Source
A new coalition of indigenous peoples and local communities called for a moratorium on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) programs, a key part of the negotiations for a new international climate treaty that took place over the last two weeks in South Africa
The new Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life issued a statement stating that based on "in-depth investigations, a growing number of recent reports provide evidence that indigenous peoples are being subjected to violations of their rights as a result of the implementation of REDD+-type programs and policies."
"Indigenous peoples and local forest communities will not place our lives and lands in the hands of corporate polluters," said Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, based in the United States.
Berenice Sánchez of the MesoAmerican Indigenous Women’s BioDiversity Network in Mexico added: "We demand an immediate halt to all REDD and REDD+ programs in the world. It is a new form of colonialism."
Deforestation currently contributes 15 to 20 percent of global emissions of the "greenhouse gases" that cause climate change, such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
According to the United Nations, REDD is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. REDD+ goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
"This is not a solution to climate change," Sánchez told Tierramérica. "The same extractive industries are involved and it allows them to continue raping Mother Earth."
Sánchez, Goldtooth and many other indigenous and other members of civil society spent the previous two weeks participating in the 17th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 17), which began in the eastern South African city of Durban on Nov. 28.
But as civil society representatives, they are only observers; it is the 193 countries here that negotiate all agreements.
The organisers of COP 17 decided to extend the talks for an additional two days, until Dec. 11, in a desperate attempt to make as much progress as possible towards a global agreement to combat climate change.
REDD is being promoted as a financial tool that could mobilise 10 to 30 billion dollars annually to protect forests from deforestation, and would be included in the elusive international agreement that will replace or extend the Kyoto Protocol, whose first commitment period ends in 2012.
The UN-REDD Programme, created to assist developing countries prepare and implement national REDD+ strategies, has approved a total of 59.3 million dollars for national programs in 14 partner countries.
Under the proposed REDD programs, countries and industries looking to reduce their carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels - the main cause of climate change - would pay to protect forests in tropical regions.
Trees take carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester or trap it for as long as the trees live. Under REDD, forest owners and communities offer carbon credits on an open market, and a steel, cement or coal-fired power company in the North could purchase those credits instead of reducing its carbon emissions.
Virtually all countries attending COP 17 want an international agreement on REDD to kick-start a flow of private and public capital they believe will protect forests and biodiversity, reduce carbon emissions and bring money and jobs to local people.
Seven Central African countries, seven donor partner countries and the European Commission issued a Joint Declaration of Intent in Durban to underscore the urgency of accelerating the implementation of REDD+ in the Congo Basin, the second largest tropical rainforest in the world.
Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo and Rwanda pledged their commitment to scaling up REDD+ implementation, with financial support from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Henri Djombo, minister of Sustainable Development, Forest Economics and Environment of the Republic of Congo, expressed the hope that "important financial resources" would be made available in early 2012.
And the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) announced on Dec. 8 that Guatemala has taken an important step by recognising "wider land rights for indigenous peoples and local communities."
"Originally, forest incentives only recognised officially registered properties, even though most community and indigenous peoples hold their land under traditional, customary land tenure arrangements," said Josué Morales, director of the National Forest Institute of Guatemala.
The newly proposed mechanism "now clarifies and recognises landholders through all types of law: historical documents, supplementary titles, property, land tenures and indigenous territories. This is very significant for REDD+, which in many countries is challenged because indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities face insecure land and tenure rights," added Morales.
But according to Heriberta Hidalgo, an indigenous representative from northern Chile, "It is an attractive fantasy that REDD will help indigenous people secure land tenure."
"REDD will promote plantations, we will lose our access to forests and their foods and medicines, and then we will lose our traditional knowledge," she said.
Land ownership is one factor that makes REDD extremely complex.
In addition, it is difficult to measure carbon in forests and determine whether emissions reductions are "real and verifiable." There is also a widely recognised need to include "safeguards", or legal requirements that will ensure local people, forests and biodiversity are protected.
"Without good safeguards, private investors won't invest. Without real, measurable and sustained emission reductions, investors won't invest," Peg Putt of the non-governmental Ecosystems Climate Alliance told Tierramérica.
Putt's organisation favors REDD+ but wants REDD+ done right, which means very strong safeguards. But countries like Brazil, Indonesia and others have argued against strong safeguards as impractical and expensive.
In preliminary REDD projects in Mexico, the safeguards are not being followed. Indigenous peoples are supposed to be informed and give their consent, but that is not happening, says Sánchez. "Some people and communities have been told they would get a lot money and went out and got loans. Now they are indebted - and what can they do but sell their land," she said. "REDD is a mask for giant land grabs."
"We aren't duped by this," said Marlon Santi, former president of the powerful Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE). "Indigenous peoples have 40 years of experience with big corporations like Texaco, Shell and Rio Tinto, who promised a good life for us and destroyed our lands and communities," Santi told Tierramérica.
But not all indigenous and community groups agree with the REDD moratorium. Some groups, like the Coordinator of Indigenous Organisations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA), still want to explore if there is a way to safeguard REDD and get the revenue, Goldtooth said.
"Some others are already participating. But the moratorium was a consensus decision amongst those of us who are here," he added.
Rich countries are pushing hard for REDD in Durban, but there is no carbon market for forests, said Kate Dooley of FERN, an NGO with offices in Belgium and the United Kingdom.
In fact, the entire carbon market is falling apart, Dooley said. "Carbon prices have collapsed in Europe. Banks have shut down their carbon credit desks."
The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) represents 97 percent of the global carbon market, and cannot trade in forest carbon until 2020 by law, she told Tierramérica.
For his part, Wally Menne of Timberwatch South Africa remarked that the UN climate talks "continue to churn out proposals for all kinds of cockeyed schemes that carefully circumvent actually reducing the emission of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-powered industrial activities."
Source
What States Want From Rio + 20: The Ocean
By Joanna Benn, Pew Environment Group, December 13, 2011
The Ocean as a Priority
Sustainable use of the ocean and precautionary, science-based management of marine resources and biodiversity are essential for achieving sustainable development. During the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20), restoring the health and economic viability of ocean ecosystems arose as prominent issues among all stakeholders. Political groups, States and non-governmental organizations identified ocean issues as critical in submissions to the compilation document. Additionally, the UNCSD Bureau has indicated that management of the ocean will be one of the seven priority areas addressed.
Momentum is mounting for leaders to agree to a strong ocean outcome as a critical part of meeting the objectives of UNCSD and fulfilling the promise of sustainable development.
Threats to the Ocean
Overexploitation of fish stocks, destruction of marine ecosystems and a steady trend of biodiversity loss threaten food security, economic stability and the livelihoods of millions. Many threats to the ocean are consequences of harmful anthropogenic activities including, in particular, industrial fishing. In their submissions to the compilation document, political groups and States provide specific reference to ocean threats which should be addressed in the outcome document of UNCSD.
What follows is an analysis of submissions from political groups and States on threats to the ocean and the ramifications for sustainable development. The Pew Environment Group has attempted to highlight commonalities and to offer recommendations to address these threats to ensure a healthy ocean for future generations.
Source
The Ocean as a Priority
Sustainable use of the ocean and precautionary, science-based management of marine resources and biodiversity are essential for achieving sustainable development. During the preparatory process for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20), restoring the health and economic viability of ocean ecosystems arose as prominent issues among all stakeholders. Political groups, States and non-governmental organizations identified ocean issues as critical in submissions to the compilation document. Additionally, the UNCSD Bureau has indicated that management of the ocean will be one of the seven priority areas addressed.
Momentum is mounting for leaders to agree to a strong ocean outcome as a critical part of meeting the objectives of UNCSD and fulfilling the promise of sustainable development.
Threats to the Ocean
Overexploitation of fish stocks, destruction of marine ecosystems and a steady trend of biodiversity loss threaten food security, economic stability and the livelihoods of millions. Many threats to the ocean are consequences of harmful anthropogenic activities including, in particular, industrial fishing. In their submissions to the compilation document, political groups and States provide specific reference to ocean threats which should be addressed in the outcome document of UNCSD.
What follows is an analysis of submissions from political groups and States on threats to the ocean and the ramifications for sustainable development. The Pew Environment Group has attempted to highlight commonalities and to offer recommendations to address these threats to ensure a healthy ocean for future generations.
Source
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Canada formally withdraws from Kyoto Protocol
By Michel Comte, AFP December 13, 2011
Canada on Monday became the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, saying the pact on cutting carbon emissions was preventing the world from effectively tackling climate change.
"We are invoking Canada's legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto," Environment Minister Peter Kent said following a marathon UN climate conference in South Africa, at which nations agreed to a new roadmap for worldwide action.
The landmark pact reached in 1997 is the only global treaty that sets down targeted curbs in global emissions.
But those curbs apply only to rich countries, excluding the United States, which has refused to ratify the accord.
"Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution to climate change," Kent said. "If anything, it's an impediment.
"We believe that a new agreement with legally binding commitments for all major emitters that allows us as a country to continue to generate jobs and economic growth represents the path forward."
Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but its emissions of the gases blamed for damaging Earth's fragile climate system have instead increased sharply.
Saying the targets agreed to by a previous Liberal administration were unattainable, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government last year unveiled its own measures aimed at curbing emissions, in line with US efforts.
Pulling out of Kyoto now allows Canada to avoid paying penalties of up to CAN$14 billion (US$13.6 billion) for missing its targets.
Kent also cited major impacts on Canada's economy that will be avoided by withdrawing from the treaty.
"Under Kyoto, Canada is facing radical and irresponsible choices if we're to avoid punishing multi-billion-dollar payments," Kent said, noting that Canada produces barely two percent of global emissions.
"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car, and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory, and building in Canada."
For Kyoto supporters, the Canadian pullout was expected to be a symbolic blow and badly damage a UN climate process already weakened by divisions.
The UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa on Sunday approved a roadmap towards an accord that for the first time will bring all major greenhouse-gas emitters under a single legal roof.
If approved as scheduled in 2015, the pact will be operational from 2020 and become the prime weapon in the fight against climate change.
But environmentalists have called it porous.
Kent said that in the meantime, Canada would continue to try to reduce its emissions under a domestic plan that calls for a 20 percent cut from 2006 levels by 2020, or as critics point out, a mere three percent from 1990 levels.
The latest data last year showed that Canadian carbon emissions were currently up more than 35 percent from 1990.
Source
Canada on Monday became the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, saying the pact on cutting carbon emissions was preventing the world from effectively tackling climate change.
"We are invoking Canada's legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto," Environment Minister Peter Kent said following a marathon UN climate conference in South Africa, at which nations agreed to a new roadmap for worldwide action.
The landmark pact reached in 1997 is the only global treaty that sets down targeted curbs in global emissions.
But those curbs apply only to rich countries, excluding the United States, which has refused to ratify the accord.
"Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution to climate change," Kent said. "If anything, it's an impediment.
"We believe that a new agreement with legally binding commitments for all major emitters that allows us as a country to continue to generate jobs and economic growth represents the path forward."
Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but its emissions of the gases blamed for damaging Earth's fragile climate system have instead increased sharply.
Saying the targets agreed to by a previous Liberal administration were unattainable, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government last year unveiled its own measures aimed at curbing emissions, in line with US efforts.
Pulling out of Kyoto now allows Canada to avoid paying penalties of up to CAN$14 billion (US$13.6 billion) for missing its targets.
Kent also cited major impacts on Canada's economy that will be avoided by withdrawing from the treaty.
"Under Kyoto, Canada is facing radical and irresponsible choices if we're to avoid punishing multi-billion-dollar payments," Kent said, noting that Canada produces barely two percent of global emissions.
"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car, and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory, and building in Canada."
For Kyoto supporters, the Canadian pullout was expected to be a symbolic blow and badly damage a UN climate process already weakened by divisions.
The UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa on Sunday approved a roadmap towards an accord that for the first time will bring all major greenhouse-gas emitters under a single legal roof.
If approved as scheduled in 2015, the pact will be operational from 2020 and become the prime weapon in the fight against climate change.
But environmentalists have called it porous.
Kent said that in the meantime, Canada would continue to try to reduce its emissions under a domestic plan that calls for a 20 percent cut from 2006 levels by 2020, or as critics point out, a mere three percent from 1990 levels.
The latest data last year showed that Canadian carbon emissions were currently up more than 35 percent from 1990.
Source
Durban became a procrastinators’ paradise
By Nnimmo Bassey
As the climate talks crept to an end early Sunday morning, it was clear that leaders had once again displayed their expertise in procrastination.
As things stand, leaders now have up to 2015 to agree a new deal that would not come into effect until 2020. Durban could be dubbed the procrastinators’ paradise.
The world’s polluters have blocked real action and have once again chosen to bail out investors and banks by expanding the now-crashing carbon markets – which like all financial market activities these days, appear to mainly enrich a select few.
The originally scheduled end of the talks was Friday 9 December. As night called the negotiators seemed nowhere near a conclusion.
Frustration raged inside and outside the international conference centre where the talks were going on. Hundreds of climate activists staged a standoff in the corridors close to one of the plenary rooms, demanding ‘Don’t kill Africa!’. They occupied COP17 for over three hours. In the end, security agents expelled some activists including Bobby Peek of Friends of the Earth South Africa, Desmond D’Sa of South Durban Community Environmental Alliance and Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace. On the outside, people defied the rain to gather at the Occupy COP17 space – also dubbed the Speakers Corner. This had become the self-organising space for voices of the people to be raised and messages to be freely sent without having to deal with the security maze at the talks. Friday night was the vigil for the Conference of Parties (COP). Very fitting because the official talks had turned more or less into funeral rites.
Citizens of KwaMashu displaced from their land for a Durban makeover took time here to tell the stories of their travail. They came under the auspices of a group called Abahlali BaseMjondolo, the shack dwellers movement. Kids from the community staged a drama depicting how they were initially evicted when South Africa hosted the FIFA world cup, how they picked up pieces of their lives after the soccer fiesta and how they were again evicted to make the COP sit pretty. They demanded to know why they had no rights as South Africans to shelter, dignity and decent treatment.
Back inside, the talks went on the whole of the next day and eventually closed early Sunday morning. Policy analysts see the talks as an unmitigated disaster.
‘Ordinary people have once again been let down by our governments,’ says Sarah-Jayne Clifton, Climate Justice Coordinator at Friends of the Earth International. ‘Led by the US, developed nations have reneged on their promises, weakened the rules on climate action and strengthened those that allow their corporations to profit from the climate crisis.’
Clifton explains that the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding framework for emissions reductions, survived in name only. ‘The ambition for those emissions cuts remains terrifyingly low,’ she added. ‘The Green Climate Fund has no money and the plans to expand destructive carbon trading are going ahead.
‘Meanwhile, millions across the developing world already face devastating climate impacts, and the world catapults headlong towards climate catastrophe. The noise of corporate polluters has drowned out the voices of ordinary people in the ears of our leaders.’ For Mohamed Adow of Christian Aid, the outcome of the talks is profoundly distressing. ‘This is the worst I have ever seen from such a process. At a time when scientists are queuing up to warn about terrifying consequences if emissions keep rising, what we have here in Durban is a betrayal of people across the world.’
‘The Durban outcome is a compromise which saves the climate talks but endangers people living in poverty,’ Adow concludes. At the closing press conference, the UN was keen to put a positive spin on the result.
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres described the talks as ‘a landmark’, saying that the decisions made there ‘have really marked a completely new trajectory for the climate regime.’ ‘It has guaranteed a second commitment period,’ she went on, ‘but it has also laid the path for a broader regime applicable to all in a legal way, and provided mechanisms for developing countries to address their needs of mitigation and adaptation.’
Not everyone interprets the outcome in those terms. ‘It is false to say that a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has been adopted in Durban,’ says Pablo Solón, former lead negotiator for Bolivia. ‘The actual decision has merely been postponed to the next COP, with no commitments for emission reductions from rich countries. This means that the Kyoto Protocol will be on life support until it is replaced by a new agreement that will be even weaker.’
Meanwhile, as more COPs roll by, millions of people will be swept away by climate impacts while corporations and their shoe-shine-boy politicians smile on their way to the bank or swing in cosy hammocks, as though they inhabited a different planet.
And yet, despite the failure of the talks, I leave Durban this Monday morning with much optimism. I saw the power of the coming together of ordinary people, sharing of stories and building of new linkages. Perhaps a People’s COP may be the way forward. I remember the seeds of such a conference sown in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2010.
Source
As the climate talks crept to an end early Sunday morning, it was clear that leaders had once again displayed their expertise in procrastination.
As things stand, leaders now have up to 2015 to agree a new deal that would not come into effect until 2020. Durban could be dubbed the procrastinators’ paradise.
The world’s polluters have blocked real action and have once again chosen to bail out investors and banks by expanding the now-crashing carbon markets – which like all financial market activities these days, appear to mainly enrich a select few.
The originally scheduled end of the talks was Friday 9 December. As night called the negotiators seemed nowhere near a conclusion.
Frustration raged inside and outside the international conference centre where the talks were going on. Hundreds of climate activists staged a standoff in the corridors close to one of the plenary rooms, demanding ‘Don’t kill Africa!’. They occupied COP17 for over three hours. In the end, security agents expelled some activists including Bobby Peek of Friends of the Earth South Africa, Desmond D’Sa of South Durban Community Environmental Alliance and Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace. On the outside, people defied the rain to gather at the Occupy COP17 space – also dubbed the Speakers Corner. This had become the self-organising space for voices of the people to be raised and messages to be freely sent without having to deal with the security maze at the talks. Friday night was the vigil for the Conference of Parties (COP). Very fitting because the official talks had turned more or less into funeral rites.
Citizens of KwaMashu displaced from their land for a Durban makeover took time here to tell the stories of their travail. They came under the auspices of a group called Abahlali BaseMjondolo, the shack dwellers movement. Kids from the community staged a drama depicting how they were initially evicted when South Africa hosted the FIFA world cup, how they picked up pieces of their lives after the soccer fiesta and how they were again evicted to make the COP sit pretty. They demanded to know why they had no rights as South Africans to shelter, dignity and decent treatment.
Back inside, the talks went on the whole of the next day and eventually closed early Sunday morning. Policy analysts see the talks as an unmitigated disaster.
‘Ordinary people have once again been let down by our governments,’ says Sarah-Jayne Clifton, Climate Justice Coordinator at Friends of the Earth International. ‘Led by the US, developed nations have reneged on their promises, weakened the rules on climate action and strengthened those that allow their corporations to profit from the climate crisis.’
Clifton explains that the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding framework for emissions reductions, survived in name only. ‘The ambition for those emissions cuts remains terrifyingly low,’ she added. ‘The Green Climate Fund has no money and the plans to expand destructive carbon trading are going ahead.
‘Meanwhile, millions across the developing world already face devastating climate impacts, and the world catapults headlong towards climate catastrophe. The noise of corporate polluters has drowned out the voices of ordinary people in the ears of our leaders.’ For Mohamed Adow of Christian Aid, the outcome of the talks is profoundly distressing. ‘This is the worst I have ever seen from such a process. At a time when scientists are queuing up to warn about terrifying consequences if emissions keep rising, what we have here in Durban is a betrayal of people across the world.’
‘The Durban outcome is a compromise which saves the climate talks but endangers people living in poverty,’ Adow concludes. At the closing press conference, the UN was keen to put a positive spin on the result.
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres described the talks as ‘a landmark’, saying that the decisions made there ‘have really marked a completely new trajectory for the climate regime.’ ‘It has guaranteed a second commitment period,’ she went on, ‘but it has also laid the path for a broader regime applicable to all in a legal way, and provided mechanisms for developing countries to address their needs of mitigation and adaptation.’
Not everyone interprets the outcome in those terms. ‘It is false to say that a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has been adopted in Durban,’ says Pablo Solón, former lead negotiator for Bolivia. ‘The actual decision has merely been postponed to the next COP, with no commitments for emission reductions from rich countries. This means that the Kyoto Protocol will be on life support until it is replaced by a new agreement that will be even weaker.’
Meanwhile, as more COPs roll by, millions of people will be swept away by climate impacts while corporations and their shoe-shine-boy politicians smile on their way to the bank or swing in cosy hammocks, as though they inhabited a different planet.
And yet, despite the failure of the talks, I leave Durban this Monday morning with much optimism. I saw the power of the coming together of ordinary people, sharing of stories and building of new linkages. Perhaps a People’s COP may be the way forward. I remember the seeds of such a conference sown in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2010.
Source
Agreement for New Global Treaty To Reduce Emissions
By Stephen Leahy, December 11, 2011
The world is increasingly committed to dangerous levels of global warming with yet another failure by nations of the world to agree to needed reductions in carbon emissions here in Durban. However, as the 17th Conference of Parties ended early Sunday morning, members did agree to talk about a new global treaty to reduce emissions.
After two weeks and an additional 29 hours of intense and even bitter negotiations, the 193 nations participating in the United Nations climate talks agreed to a complex and technical set of documents called the “Durban Platform.” These include the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, a formal structure for a Green Climate Fund, new market mechanisms, and more.
The biggest development reached at dawn Sunday is an agreement to negotiate a new global treaty to reduce emissions by 2015. While this may look like simply agreeing to more meetings, it is the first time all nations have agreed to be governed by a new global emission reduction treaty under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Currently the promised emission reductions by industrialised countries and those of China, Brazil, South Africa, India and others under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord guarantee a world that is at least 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer on average according to climate science. It will be double that over large parts of the world. Some analysis says this global average could be even higher rising to four or five degrees Celsius threatening our species with annihilation.
Despite the political posturing by the United States, Canada and even the European Union, the fact is that developing countries’ promised reductions are greater than the industrialised world that are responsible for 75 percent of the total human emissions in the atmosphere.
“There are still no new pledges on the table and the process agreed in Durban towards raising the ambition and increasing emission reductions is uncertain in its outcome,” said Bill Hare, Director of Climate Analytics, a non-profit climate science advisory group based in Germany.
COP 17 President, South Africa’s Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, and others pleaded with countries to put their self-interest aside “for the greater good of the planet and its people.” Rich countries like the U.S., Canada and Saudi Arabia blocked progress and numerous fronts leaving smaller nations bitter and frustrated.
“The grim news is that the blockers lead by the U.S. have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding,” said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.
Even if a strong legally binding treaty is agreed to in 2015, it will have to ratified by governments before going into force. It took several years to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that the U.S. backed and then failed to ratify following the election of George W Bush.
Waiting until 2020 to make major cuts means those cuts will have to be far deeper and far more costly to have any hope of keeping temperatures below two degrees Celsius, Hare previously told IPS.
“The world’s collective level of ambition on emissions reductions must be substantially increased, and soon,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Various analysis show that global emissions should peak between 2015 and 2020 to earn a reasonable chance of less than two degrees Celsius at doable cost. If the peak and decline comes later costs and risks of exceeding two degrees Celsius skyrocket.
“Powerful speeches and carefully worded decisions can’t amend the laws of physics. The atmosphere responds to one thing, and one thing only – emissions,” said Meyer.
It was clear that our governments these past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the people, Naidoo said in a statement.
The “Durban Platform” includes a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that will begin January 2013, avoiding a gap at the end of the first commitment period finishing next year. The length of the second commitment period is to be decided at COP 18 in Qatar.
Developing countries insisted on this condition because Kyoto is the only legally binding emissions reduction agreement. However, it only asked for small reductions from industrialised countries like those in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and a few others. The U.S. opted out and Canada ignored its obligations and increased emissions 24 percent. And now Canada, Japan and Russia have said they will take not take part in the second commitment period.
The continuation of Kyoto “is highly significant” said Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary. Participating countries are to submit their emission reduction offers by May 2012.
There is no formal adoption of a second commitment period based on the actual wording of the documents, said Pablo Solón, former lead negotiator for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. “The actual decision has merely been postponed to the next COP.” Kyoto remains on “life support” he said.
The only progress on the Green Climate Fund (GFC) was on its design and governance. The GFC is supposed to funnel 100 billion dollars in assistance annually starting in 2020 to help developing nations to reduce emissions and help them adapt to climate change. There were no commitments on where the money would come from. What was agreed is to set up a “work plan” to mobilise significant climate funds from both private and public sources.
Private sources explicitly include carbon markets as governments from the rich countries frequently cited the financial crisis has tied their purse strings. Civil society and some developing nations noted that governments have made trillions of dollars available for the bank and financial sector and that world’s military budget is more than 10 times what is needed for the GFC.
Even though the carbon market has crashed the private sector is considered by the U.S., EU, New Zealand, Japan and other countries to be a key partner in mobilising money for climate change. Creating private markets for the buying and selling carbon offsets remains highly controversial and very complex in terms measurement, ownership carbon in soil or forests and more. Then there the ethics of rich countries offsetting their own emissions by buying up forests or land in poor countries.
“Keep the targets lose the markets” Oscar Reyes of the Friends of the Earth UK urged negotiators in in the final days of COP 17. “We’re worried that when the GCF has money it will lend it to the private sector to drive carbon markets,” Reyes told IPS.
“Durban is a disaster” for a fair and functional Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) programme said experts with Ecosystems Climate Alliance, a coalition of forest NGOs. REDD is by far the biggest potential carbon market.
“From looking at past conferences (climate COPs) it would be more effective if members of the conference would come outside and plant trees for the two weeks. They’d probably make a bigger impact,” said 14-year-old Felix Finkbeiner of Munich, Germany. Finkbeiner launched an organizaton of children called Plant for the Planet that is now working in 70 countries and have planted nearly four million trees in past four years.
Their motto: “Stop Talking. Start Planting.”
Source
The world is increasingly committed to dangerous levels of global warming with yet another failure by nations of the world to agree to needed reductions in carbon emissions here in Durban. However, as the 17th Conference of Parties ended early Sunday morning, members did agree to talk about a new global treaty to reduce emissions.
After two weeks and an additional 29 hours of intense and even bitter negotiations, the 193 nations participating in the United Nations climate talks agreed to a complex and technical set of documents called the “Durban Platform.” These include the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, a formal structure for a Green Climate Fund, new market mechanisms, and more.
The biggest development reached at dawn Sunday is an agreement to negotiate a new global treaty to reduce emissions by 2015. While this may look like simply agreeing to more meetings, it is the first time all nations have agreed to be governed by a new global emission reduction treaty under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Currently the promised emission reductions by industrialised countries and those of China, Brazil, South Africa, India and others under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord guarantee a world that is at least 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer on average according to climate science. It will be double that over large parts of the world. Some analysis says this global average could be even higher rising to four or five degrees Celsius threatening our species with annihilation.
Despite the political posturing by the United States, Canada and even the European Union, the fact is that developing countries’ promised reductions are greater than the industrialised world that are responsible for 75 percent of the total human emissions in the atmosphere.
“There are still no new pledges on the table and the process agreed in Durban towards raising the ambition and increasing emission reductions is uncertain in its outcome,” said Bill Hare, Director of Climate Analytics, a non-profit climate science advisory group based in Germany.
COP 17 President, South Africa’s Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, and others pleaded with countries to put their self-interest aside “for the greater good of the planet and its people.” Rich countries like the U.S., Canada and Saudi Arabia blocked progress and numerous fronts leaving smaller nations bitter and frustrated.
“The grim news is that the blockers lead by the U.S. have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding,” said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.
Even if a strong legally binding treaty is agreed to in 2015, it will have to ratified by governments before going into force. It took several years to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that the U.S. backed and then failed to ratify following the election of George W Bush.
Waiting until 2020 to make major cuts means those cuts will have to be far deeper and far more costly to have any hope of keeping temperatures below two degrees Celsius, Hare previously told IPS.
“The world’s collective level of ambition on emissions reductions must be substantially increased, and soon,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Various analysis show that global emissions should peak between 2015 and 2020 to earn a reasonable chance of less than two degrees Celsius at doable cost. If the peak and decline comes later costs and risks of exceeding two degrees Celsius skyrocket.
“Powerful speeches and carefully worded decisions can’t amend the laws of physics. The atmosphere responds to one thing, and one thing only – emissions,” said Meyer.
It was clear that our governments these past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the people, Naidoo said in a statement.
The “Durban Platform” includes a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that will begin January 2013, avoiding a gap at the end of the first commitment period finishing next year. The length of the second commitment period is to be decided at COP 18 in Qatar.
Developing countries insisted on this condition because Kyoto is the only legally binding emissions reduction agreement. However, it only asked for small reductions from industrialised countries like those in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and a few others. The U.S. opted out and Canada ignored its obligations and increased emissions 24 percent. And now Canada, Japan and Russia have said they will take not take part in the second commitment period.
The continuation of Kyoto “is highly significant” said Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary. Participating countries are to submit their emission reduction offers by May 2012.
There is no formal adoption of a second commitment period based on the actual wording of the documents, said Pablo Solón, former lead negotiator for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. “The actual decision has merely been postponed to the next COP.” Kyoto remains on “life support” he said.
The only progress on the Green Climate Fund (GFC) was on its design and governance. The GFC is supposed to funnel 100 billion dollars in assistance annually starting in 2020 to help developing nations to reduce emissions and help them adapt to climate change. There were no commitments on where the money would come from. What was agreed is to set up a “work plan” to mobilise significant climate funds from both private and public sources.
Private sources explicitly include carbon markets as governments from the rich countries frequently cited the financial crisis has tied their purse strings. Civil society and some developing nations noted that governments have made trillions of dollars available for the bank and financial sector and that world’s military budget is more than 10 times what is needed for the GFC.
Even though the carbon market has crashed the private sector is considered by the U.S., EU, New Zealand, Japan and other countries to be a key partner in mobilising money for climate change. Creating private markets for the buying and selling carbon offsets remains highly controversial and very complex in terms measurement, ownership carbon in soil or forests and more. Then there the ethics of rich countries offsetting their own emissions by buying up forests or land in poor countries.
“Keep the targets lose the markets” Oscar Reyes of the Friends of the Earth UK urged negotiators in in the final days of COP 17. “We’re worried that when the GCF has money it will lend it to the private sector to drive carbon markets,” Reyes told IPS.
“Durban is a disaster” for a fair and functional Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) programme said experts with Ecosystems Climate Alliance, a coalition of forest NGOs. REDD is by far the biggest potential carbon market.
“From looking at past conferences (climate COPs) it would be more effective if members of the conference would come outside and plant trees for the two weeks. They’d probably make a bigger impact,” said 14-year-old Felix Finkbeiner of Munich, Germany. Finkbeiner launched an organizaton of children called Plant for the Planet that is now working in 70 countries and have planted nearly four million trees in past four years.
Their motto: “Stop Talking. Start Planting.”
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)