The proposals developed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia bring together and build upon the progress made in the World Charter for Nature  (1982), the Rio Declaration (1992), the Earth Charter (2000), and the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (2010):

I. A DEEPER COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY

1. In this century, the central challenges of sustainable development are: on the one hand, to overcome poverty and the tremendous inequalities that exist and, on the other hand, reestablish the equilibrium of the Earth system. Both objectives are intrinsically linked and one cannot be reached independently of the other.

2. It is essential to recognize and affirm that growth has limits. The pursuit of unending development on a finite planet is unsustainable and impossible. The limit to development is defined by the regenerative capacity of the Earth’s vital cycles. When growth begins to break that balance, as we see with global warming, we can no longer speak of it as development, but rather, the deterioration and destruction of our home. A certain level of growth and industrialization is needed to satisfy basic needs and guarantee the human rights of a population, but this level of “necessary development” is not about permanent growth, but rather, balance among humans and with nature.

3. New technologies will not allow unending economic growth. Scientific advances, under some circumstances, can contribute to resolve certain problems of development but can’t ignore the natural limits of the Earth system.

4. The main challenge for the eradication of poverty is not to grow forever, but to achieve an equitable distribution of the wealth that is possible under the limits of the Earth system. In a world in which 1% of the population controls 50% of the wealth of the planet, it will not be possible to eradicate poverty or restore harmony with nature.

5. Sustainable development seeks to eradicate poverty in order to live well, not generate wealthy people who live at the expense of the poor. The goal is the satisfaction of basic human needs in order to allow for the development of human capabilities and human happiness, strengthening community among human beings and with Mother Earth.

6. To end poverty and achieve an equitable distribution of wellbeing, the basic resources and companies should be in the hands of the public sector and society. Only a society that controls its principal sources of income can aspire to a just distribution of the benefits needed to eliminate poverty.

7. The so-called “developed” countries must reduce their levels of over-consumption and overexploitation of resources of the world in order to reestablish harmony among human beings and with nature, allowing for the sustainable development of all developing countries.

8. Developing countries should realize their right to development following patterns and paradigms that are distinct from those of developed countries. It is not sustainable or viable for all countries to follow the example of developed countries without causing the collapse of our Earth system. The ecological footprint of the developed countries is between 3 and 5 times larger than the average ecological footprint that the Earth system can sustain without an impact on its vital cycles.

9. Sustainable development can only be achieved from a global perspective and cannot be achieved only in the national level. The wellbeing of a country is only sustainable if it also serves to contribute to the wellbeing of the entire Earth system. The so-called developed countries are still far from reaching sustainable development.

10. Sustainable development should ensure equilibrium among the three pillars – social, economic, and environmental – which are interrelated, preserving the fundamental principle of common but differentiated responsibility.

II. THE NEW EMERGING CHALLENGE: RESTORING THE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE EARTH SYSTEM

11. The emerging challenges of the 21st Century are the product of exaggerated ambition and accumulation of wealth concentrated in a few sectors, the exacerbation and combination of different contradictions that were present in the last century. The various crises that exist in the areas of food, energy, the environment, climate, finance, water, and even institutions have reached chronic levels and are feeding off of one another, in some cases to the point of no return.

12. We are living an environmental crisis that, as it deepens, threatens the existence of human beings and life as a whole.  The Earth is a living system and the source of life. It is an indivisible, interdependent and interrelated community comprised of human beings, nature, the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere. The Earth system has intrinsic laws that regulate its functioning, articulating the physical, chemical, biological and ecological elements in a manner that makes life possible. Through the term Mother Earth, we express this relationship of belonging to a system and respect for our home.

13. Human activity is altering the dynamics and functioning of the Earth system to a degree never before seen. The capitalist system is the principal cause of the imbalance because it puts the rules of the market and the accumulation of profit above the laws of nature. Nature is not simply a sum of elements, it’s not a source of resources that can be exploited, modified, altered, privatized, commercialized and transformed without any consequences.

14. Human beings and nature are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. It is essential to get beyond the anthropocentric vision. Until now, no species besides Man has been able to modify the characteristics of the planet in such a substantial way and in such a short period of time. It is essential to restore and guarantee the existence, integrity, interrelation, interaction and regeneration of the Earth system as a whole and of all of its components in order to achieve a sustainable development that is capable of confronting the multiple crises facing humanity and the planet today.

III. TOOLS FOR FIXING THE PERSISTENT GAPS AND ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

15. To reestablish harmony with nature, we must recognize and respect the intrinsic laws of nature and its vital cycles. Not only do human beings have a right to a healthy life, but so do the other components and species belonging to the system we call nature. In an interdependent and interrelated system like the planet Earth, it is not possible to recognize the rights of just the human part of the system without affecting the whole. Just as human beings have rights, the Mother Earth also has the right to exist, the right to maintain its vital cycles, the right to regeneration, the right to be free from structural alteration, and the right to relate to the other parts of the Earth system. In order to reestablish balance with nature, it is necessary to clearly establish the obligations of humans toward nature, and to recognize that nature has rights that should be respected, promoted, and defended.

16. We have to end the system of consumption, waste and luxury. Millions of people are dying of hunger in the poorest parts of the globe, while the richest spend millions of dollars are spent to combat obesity. Developed countries must change their unsustainable patterns of consumption, production, and waste through public policies, regulations, the conscious and active participation of society, This includes promoting ethics that value human beings for what they are, not what they have.

17. It is necessary to guarantee the human right to water, education, health, communication, transportation, energy and sanitation. The provision of these services must be essentially public and based on efficient social management, not private business. The principal goal should be common wellbeing and not private profit, in order to ensure that these services reach the poorest and most marginalized sectors in an equitable manner.

18. States should ensure the right of their populations to proper nutrition by strengthening food sovereignty policies that promote: a) food production by farmers, indigenous peoples and small agricultural producers; b) access to land, water, seeds, credit and other resources for family and community producers; c) the development of social and public enterprises for food production, distribution, and sale that prevent hoarding and contribute to the stability of food prices in domestic markets, thus halting speculative practices and the destruction of local production; d) the right of citizens to define and to know and have the proper information about what they consume, the way their food is produced, and its origins; e) the right to healthy, varied and nutritious food; f) the right to consume what is necessary and prioritize local production; g) practices that contribute to reestablishing harmony with nature, avoiding greater desertification, deforestation, and destruction of biological diversity; h) the promotion of the use of indigenous seeds and traditional knowledge. Food production and commercialization must be socially regulated and cannot be left to free market forces.

19. Without water, there is no life. Humans and all living things have the right to water, but water also has rights. All States and peoples worldwide should work together in solidarity to ensure that loss of vegetation, deforestation, the pollution of the atmosphere and contamination are prevented from continuing to alter the hydrological cycle. These cause desertification, lack of food, temperature increase, sea level rise, migrations, acid rain, and physical-chemical changes that could provoke the loss of genetic and species diversity, damaging the health of ecosystems.

20. Forests are essential to the balance and integrity of planet Earth and a key element in the proper functioning of its ecosystems and the broader system of which we are a part. Thus we cannot consider them as simple providers of goods and services for human beings. The protection, preservation and recuperation of forests is necessary in order to reestablish the balance of the Earth system. Plantations that are planted for profit and promoted as carbon sinks and providers of environmental services are not forests. Forests are not plantations that can be reduced to their capacity to capture carbon and provide environmental services. Native forests and woodlands are essential for the water cycle, the atmosphere, biodiversity, the prevention of flooding, and the preservation of ecosystems. Forests are also home to indigenous peoples and communities. The preservation of forests should be pursued through integral and participatory management plans that should be financed with public funding from developed countries or specific taxes on the sectors with the greatest consumption.

21. It is essential to guarantee a real and effective reduction of greenhouse gases, particularly on the part of the developed countries historically responsible for climate change, in order to stabilize the increase in temperature to 1°C during this century. We must therefore strengthen the Kyoto Protocol with a second period of commitments by developed countries, instead of replacing it with a more flexible voluntary agreement. It is necessary to eliminate carbon market mechanisms and offsets so that real domestic reductions are made within the countries with said obligations. South Africa should not be another Cancun, delaying once again the central issue of substantive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

22. All forms of violence against women are incompatible with sustainable development. Violence done to women in militarily occupied territories, domestic or sexual violence, and discrimination in the workplace and in public spheres are problems we must solve. We must link the issue of the economic role of women to the protection of nature.

23. In order for sustainable development to exist, it is essential to guarantee the full application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

24. Under the framework of common but differentiated responsibilities established in the 1992 Rio Declaration, the so-called developed countries must assume and pay their historical ecological debt for having contributed the most to the deterioration of the Earth system. The payment of this ecological debt by developed countries to developing countries and the sectors most affected among their own populations should replace to the greatest possible degree the ecological damage provoked. Developed countries should transfer financial resources from public sources and also the effective transfer of socially and ecologically appropriate technologies required by sovereign developing countries.

25. The enormous resources dedicated to defense, security and war budgets by developed countries should be reduced. These resources should instead be used to address the effects of climate change and the imbalance with nature. It is inexcusable that 1.5 trillion dollars in public funding are used on these budgets, while, to address the impacts of climate change in developing countries, they want to dedicate just 100 billion dollars from public and private funds as well as market sources.

26. A financial transaction tax should be created to help build a Sustainable Development Fund to attend to the sustainable development challenges faced by developing countries. This financing mechanism should generate new, stable and additional resources for developing countries. A tax of 0.05% applied on a global level has the potential to capture $661 billion per year according to ECLAC.[1] The mechanism of the international financial transaction tax can be built in a voluntary and gradual manner with the participation of those developed and developing countries that wish to participate.

27. The Rio+20 Conference should not create market mechanisms with regard to nature, biodiversity and the so called environmental services: a) The logic of the market and monetary valuation applied to environmental services and biodiversity will generate greater inequality in the distribution of those resources, which are essential for humanity and Mother Earth; b) The establishment of these market mechanisms will deepen the imbalance with nature because they are driven by the search for maximum profits and not harmony with nature; c) It will affect the sovereignty of our States and peoples by generating new forms of property rights over the functions of nature that will be in the hands of investors. These mechanisms are uncertain, volatile and the source of financial speculation given that the bulk of the money they mobilize will remain in the hands of intermediary actors.

28. Sustainable development requires a new international financial architecture to replace the World Bank and the IMF with entities that are democratic and transparent, that respect national priorities and national independence in the application of development strategies. These new institutions should have a majority representation by developing countries and should act according to the principles of solidarity and cooperation, rather than commercialization and privatization.

29. It is essential to create an effective Technology Transfer Mechanism that stems from the demand and needs of the countries of the South for technologies that are socially, culturally, and environmentally appropriate. Said mechanism should not be a “show room” for the sale of technologies by rich countries. In order to promote the exchange of scientific and technical knowledge, it is essential to remove intellectual property barriers so that there might exist a true transfer of environmentally friendly technologies from developed countries to developing countries.

30. Intellectual property rights over genes, microorganisms and other forms of life are a threat to food sovereignty, biodiversity, access to medicine and other elements that are essential for the survival of low-income populations. All forms of intellectual property over life should be abolished.

31. Gross Domestic Product is not an adequate means of measuring the development and wellbeing of a society. Thus it is necessary to create indicators for measuring the environmental destruction caused by certain economic activities in order to advance toward sustainable development in harmony with nature, integrating social and environmental aspects that are not aimed at the commercialization of nature and its functions.

32. Respect for the sovereignty of States is essential in the management and protection of nature under the framework of cooperation among States.

33. No identical solutions exist for all peoples. Human beings are diverse. Our peoples have their own unique cultures and identities. To destroy a culture is to threaten the identity of an entire people. Capitalism attempts to homogenize us all to convert us into consumers. There has not been, nor will there ever be, a single model for life that can save the world. We live and act in a pluralistic world, and a pluralistic world should respect diversity, which is itself synonymous with life. Respect for peaceful and harmonious complementarity among the diverse cultures and economies, without exploitation or discrimination against any single one, is essential for saving the planet, humanity, and life.

34. Peace is essential for sustainable development. There is no worse aggression against humanity and Mother Earth than war and violence. War destroys life, and it has a particularly strong impact on the poorest and most vulnerable. Nobody and nothing is safe from war. Those that fight suffer, as do those that are forced to go without bread in order to feed the war. Wars squander life and natural resources.

35. An International Tribunal of Environmental and Climate Justice must be established to judge and sanction crimes against nature that transcend national borders, violating the rights of nature and affecting humanity.

36. To achieve sustainable development, it is necessary to promote public associations, public-public associations among actors in different States, public-social associations among different social sectors, and public-private associations.

37. The problems affecting humanity and nature require the exercise of global democracy through the development of mechanisms of consultation and decision-making such as referendums, plebiscites, or popular consultations so that the citizens of the world as a whole may speak.

38. Sustainable development is incompatible with all forms of imperialism and neocolonialism. In order to stop imperialism and neocolonialism, it is essential to end the imposition of conditionalities, military interventions, coups and blackmail.

39. The collective global response that is needed to confront the crisis we face requires structural changes. We must change the system – not the climate or the Earth system. In the hands of capitalism, everything is converted into merchandise: water, earth genomes, ancestral cultures, justice, ethics and life. It is essential to develop a pluralistic system based on the culture of life and harmony among human beings and with nature; a system that promotes sustainable development in the framework of solidarity, complementarity, equity, social and economic justice, social participation, respect for diversity, and peace.

IV. THE GREEN ECONOMY AND ITS DANGEROUS AND FALSE SOLUTIONS

40. At a global scale, the supposed objective of the Green Economy of disassociating economic growth from environmental deterioration is not viable. Those that promote the Green Economy promote a three-dimensional capitalism that includes physical capital, human capital, and natural capital (rivers, wetlands, forests, coral reefs, biological diversity and other elements). For the Green Economy, the food crisis, the climate crisis and the energy crisis share a common characteristic: the failed allocation of capital. As a result, they try to treat nature as capital – “natural capital.”

41. The Green Economy considers it essential to put a price on the free services that plants, animals and ecosystems offer to humanity in the struggle for the conservation of biodiversity, water purification, pollination of plants, the protection of coral reefs and regulation of the climate. For the Green Economy, it is necessary to identify the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity and assign them a monetary value, evaluate their current status, set a limit after which they will cease to provide services, and concretize in economic terms the cost of their conservation in order to develop a market for each particular environmental service. For the Green Economy, the instruments of the market are powerful tools for managing the “economic invisibility of nature.”

42. One of the examples most cited by the Green Economy is the initiative known as REDD (Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation), which consists of isolating and measuring the capacity of the forest to capture and store carbon dioxide in order to issue certificates for greenhouse gas emissions reductions that can be commercialized and acquired by companies in developed countries that cannot meet their mitigation commitments. In this way, the developing countries will end up financing the developed countries.

43. It is wrong to attempt to fragment nature into “environmental services” with a monetary value for market exchange. We should not put a price on the capacity of forests to act as carbon sinks, nor promote their commercialization as does REDD. The market for carbon credits based on forests will lead to: a) noncompliance with effective emission reduction commitments by developed countries; b) the bulk of resources being appropriated by intermediaries and financial entities and rarely benefitting countries, indigenous peoples and forests themselves; c) the generation of speculative bubbles based on the sale and purchase of said certificates; and d) the establishment of new property rights over the capacity of forests to capture carbon dioxide, which will clash with the sovereign rights of States and the indigenous peoples that live in forests. The promotion of market mechanisms based on the economic needs of developing countries is a new form of neocolonialism.

44. The postulates promoted under the Green Economy are wrong. The current environmental and climate crisis is not a simple market failure. The solution is not to put a price on nature. Nature is not a form of capital. It is wrong to say that we only value that which has a price, an owner, and brings profits. The market mechanisms that permit exchange among human beings and nations have proven incapable of contributing to an equitable distribution of wealth. The Green Economy should not distort the fundamental principles of sustainable development.

45. Not all that glitters is gold. Not all that is labeled “green” is environmentally friendly. We must use the precautionary principle and deeply analyze the different “green” alternatives that are presented before proceeding with their experimentation and implementation.

46. Nature cannot be subject to manipulation by new technologies without consequences in the future. History shows us that many dangerous technologies have been released in the market before their environmental or health impacts are known, or before their social and economic impacts on poor people and developing countries are understood. This is currently the case with genetically modified organisms, agrochemicals, biofuels, nanotechnology, and synthetic biology. These technologies should be avoided.

47. Geoengineering and all forms of artificial manipulation of the climate should be prohibited, for they bring the enormous risk of further destabilizing the climate, biodiversity and nature.

48. It is necessary to create public and multilateral mechanisms within the United Nations to evaluate in an independent manner and without conflict of interest the potential environmental, health, social, and economic impacts of new technologies before they are spread. This mechanism must involve transparency and social participation by potentially affected groups.

49. “Green” capitalism will bring about natural resource grabbing, displacing humanity and nature from the essential elements needed for their survival. The drive for profit, instead of reestablishing harmony within the system, will provoke even greater imbalances, concentrations of wealth, and speculative processes.

V. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTINABLE DEVELOPMENT

50. The institutional architecture of the United Nations for sustainable development should establish a structure to promote balanced and equal treatment of the three pillars: the economic, social, and environmental. This institutional architecture should articulate and coordinate the different authorities involved in order to avoid overlapping efforts and achieve effective coordination.

51. The Economic Pillar should determine the sustainable development agendas of economic and commercial organizations such as the WTO, the World Bank and IMF. Without an effective integration among these entities, the institutional framework will be unable to define the economic policies necessary to achieve sustainable development while respecting national priorities and national independence and with transparent and socially acceptable management.

52. The Social Pillar should coordinate entities such as ILO, WHO, UNESCO, UN-Women, the Indigenous Permanent Forum and others in order to improve their actions and impacts in the struggle for the eradication of poverty.

53. The Environmental Pillar should stem from a better coordination and implementation of the different Conventions (UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD) and the incorporation of all environmental issues including water.

54. The coordination of these three pillars should be under the auspices of a Council for Sustainable Development that is created on the basis of what is now the Commission on Sustainable Development. It should be at the level of a Council that would function as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, guaranteeing a fundamental role for States, coordinating with the Economic and Social Council, and with regular functioning to follow up on and implement the goals and mechanisms agreed and resolutions adopted.

55. Developing countries should have a majority representation in said Council, and its functioning should be democratic and transparent.

56. The Council for Sustainable Development should include mechanisms for the participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations especially organizations representing workers, indigenous peoples, farmers, small agricultural producers and fishermen, women, youth and consumers. The private sector cannot have the same amount of influence as the social sectors, given that, by definition, its goal is to create profit rather than social wellbeing. The linking of the Sustainable Development Council with the different social actors should occur through a Consultative Group.

[1] http://www.eclac.org/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/prensa/noticias/comunicados/3/44323/P44323.xml&xsl=/prensa/tpl/p6f.xsl&base=/tpl/top-bottom.xsl

The Climate Change Conference ended two days later than expected, adopting a set of decisions that were known only a few hours before their adoption. Some decisions were even not complete at the moment of their consideration. Paragraphs were missing and some delegations didn’t even have copies of these drafts. The package of decisions was released by the South African presidency with the ultimatum of “Take it or leave it”. Only the European Union was allowed to make last minute amendments at the plenary.

Several delegations made harsh criticisms to the documents and expressed their opposition to sections of them. However, no delegation explicitly objected the subsequent adoption of these decisions. At the end, the whole package was adopted by consensus without the objection of any delegation. The core elements of the Durban Package can be summarized as follows:
1)     A Zombie called Kyoto Protocol

• A soulless undead: The promises of reducing greenhouse gas emission for the second period of commitments of the Kyoto Protocol represent less than half of what is necessary to keep the temperature increase below 2°C.
• This Zombie (second period of the Kyoto Protocol) will only finally go into effect next year (COP 18).
• It is not known if the second period of the Kyoto Protocol will cover 5 or 8 years.
• United States, Canada, Japan, Russia, Australia and New Zealand will be out of this second period of the Kyoto Protocol.
• This will be known as the lost decade in the fight against climate change.

2)     New regime of “Laisser Faire, Laisser Faisser”

• In 2020 a new legal instrument will come into effect that will replace the Kyoto Protocol and will seriously impact the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
• The core elements of this new legal instrument can be already seen due to the results of the negotiations: a) voluntary promises rather than binding commitments to reduce emissions, b) more flexibilities (carbon markets) for developed countries to meet their emission reduction promises, and c) an even weaker compliance mechanism than the Kyoto Protocol.
• The new legal instrument will cover all the States, effectively removing the difference between developing and developed countries. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” already established in the Climate Change Convention will disappear.
• The result will be the deepening of the “Laisser Faire, laisser passer” regime inaugurated in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban which will lead to an increase in temperature of more than 4°C.

3)     A Green Fund with no funds

• The Green Fund now has an institutional structure in which the World Bank is a key player.
• The 100 billion is only a promise and will NOT be provided for by the developed countries.
• The money will come from the carbon markets (which are collapsing), from private investments, from credits (to be paid) and from the developing countries themselves.

4)     A lifesaver for the Carbon Markets

• The existing carbon markets will live regardless of the fate of the Kyoto Protocol.
• Also, new carbon market mechanisms will be created to meet the emissions reduction pledges of this decade.
• It is a desperate attempt to avoid the loss of the carbon markets, which are collapsing due to the fall of the carbon credits, from 30 Euros per ton to 3 Euros per ton of CO2.
• Developed countries will reduce less than what they promise because they will buy Emission Reduction Certificates from developing countries.

5)     REDD: a perverse incentive to deforest in this decade

• If you don’t cut down trees you won’t be able to issue certificates of reduction of deforestation when the REDD (Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism comes into operation.
• CONSEQUENCES: deforest now if you want to be ready for REDD.
• The safeguards for indigenous peoples will be flexible and discretionary for each country.
• The offer of funding for forests is postponed until the next decade due to the fact that demand for Carbon Credits will not increase until then because of the low emission reduction promises.

¡Amandla! ¡Jallalla!

In the actions and events of the social movements in Durban, two battle cries emerged: “Amandla” and “Jallalla”. The first one is a Xhosa and Zulu word from South Africa which means “power”. The second word is an expression in aymara which means “for life”. “¡Amandla¡ °Jallalla!” means “¡Power for life!”

This is the “power for life” that we must build, that transcends borders, from our communities, neighborhoods, workplaces and place of study in order to stop this ongoing genocide and ecocide.

(*) Pablo Solón, international analyst and social activist. Former Ambassador to the UN and Chief Climate Change Negotiator from the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

The official package deal of Durban consisted of 4 main documents, apart of several other decisions, most of them less critical, that have been adopted:

1. A decision on the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol 
2. The LCA outcome: the partial implementation of the Bali Action Plan and the Cancun Agreements
3. A Durban Platform for Enhanced Action: the decision to work towards a new “agreed outcome with legal force, applicable to all”
4. The green climate fund

The package was officially sold to the world as a success, but having a closer look, it’s easy to see it doesn’t do what it is suposed to do, and it does what it shouldn’t do.

Rather then having a look decision by decision, let’s have an overall look on what the “package”implies:

Postponing the urgent

Climate scientists are advising us insistently: the world just has a few years to start acting on climate change, if not we may enter in an irreversible spiral of climate disaster. So the most urgent issue is to start acting NOW on real mitigation.

Unfortunately, the Durban package doesn’t attend this at all. During the whole Durban negotiation, there hasn’t even been a real discussion on the issue.

Mid term reduction targets

The reduction pledges by developed countries that are on the table, are still the same, totally insufficient, 13-17% reduction rates (from 1990 levels) since Copenhagen. Increasing the ambition is again postponed indefinitely. Inscribing those pledges in a legally binding Kyoto Protocol doesn’t change anything to the fact that those pledges will cook the world.

But, the Durban package - despite announcing the contrary – didn’t even adopt the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. It just ‘took note” of the “proposed amendments” to do so. The actual decision is postponed until next year. (More extensive analysis on this here)

Even developing countries pledged to do more than developed, but lack the financial and technological means to go beyond what they promised already.

Long term reduction goal

The other issue that is postponed since Copenhagen, and once again forwarded to discussions for next year, is the global goal. That is to say, how much should the world reduce its emissions by 2050? This longer term targets are essential if we want to stabilize the climate. Planning for it now is indispensable. But the numbers aren’t even being discussed.

Of course, it is a very difficult discussion. Several important aspects determine it:

• The carbon budget: a scientific concept that calculates how many emissions the world can afford to do, without surpassing dangerous limits. Unfortunately, most countries don’t see even the relevance of the concept.
• How this budget, and thus the atmospheric space, is going to be divided, essentially between developed and developing countries, but also within those groups of countries
• In order to decide how to share the burden, a set of criteria for the division of responsibilities has to be decided upon. Some key criteria should be: equity, population, historical emissions. But, developed countries don’t even want to talk about such criteria.

So, without criteria for division of the burden, nobody actually wants to talk on the mitigation necessity. But, we can’t negotiate the carbon budget with Mother Earth: if we trespass it, she will act on us!

Again, the world is left waiting for the real answers, while the questions at stake become more urgent year after year.

Throwing away the valuable

Two basic principles, most valuable, embedded in the climate change convention, have always led the work up till now: the Science Principle, and the Equity Principle, which is known in negotiators jargon as “Common But Differentiated Responsabilities”. Both are being thrown away.

Of course, nobody says the science principle will be disregarded. Indeed, there are several references to science and to the work of the IPCC, in the different texts. But was is the use of stating “keeping in mind science, I will do just the opposite science is requiering”? And that’s exactly what this decisions are doing. There no link between the mitigation targets and the scientific requirements. But worse, we are now openly accepting that during the whole decade, this link won’t be made. It is the reign of the “voluntary pledges”, at least up till 2020.

Also equity is totally being undermined. An agreement to start negotiating an “agreed outcome with legal force” (probably a new Protocol), is forced upon developing countries, with the clear addition that it will be “applicable to all”. This contrasts strongly with all the previous decisions about climate change, which were always placed in the context of the ‘Common But Differentiated Responsabilities’.  The agreement to negotiate a new legal outcome not only omits all references to it, it has been consciously taken out. Someone tweeted from the final plenary that the principle US negotiator reportedly said: “if equity is in, then the US is out”. It seems the US’ wishes are being considered as the future of the new climate regime.

In the new climate regime, it seems the same legal commitment is being demanded from those who emit least as from those who emit most.

Boosting the bad

Up till the moment, existing carbon markets have proven to be the worse idea for environment and equity. Just some elements out of a fairly long list of why carbon markets don’t work: they essentially transfer emission rights from poorer countries (with low emissions per capita and needs to grow in order to lift population out of poverty)  to richer countries (with high per capita emissions and desires of not diminishing their unsustainable lifestyle). By doing so, the originally projected emission growth in developing countries is locked in: or the emissions will take place in the developing country, or through offsets, in the developed.

Worse is that there are so many problems with baselines, with projects that count for offsets but are not additional, with other environmental or human rights impacts, that carbon markets are regarded the biggest non-solution for the climate, and a collective lie to the public which is being told that in this way something is done.

But, the bad plans always seem to have priority, and the carbon markets are high on the agenda of most governments. Before the conference, one could hear a lot more worry from the governments and corporations side on “positive signals for the carbon markets”, than on “improving the level of ambition.” One of the main reasons the Kyoto Protocol hasn’t been killed completely, is precisely that this was necessary for the stability of carbon markets, especially the European system.

So, despite the abundant critiques on existing carbon markets, they have been  strengthened a lot through the Durban decisions. There has been a strong impulse for them in four areas:

1) In the “proposed amendment” on the KP, carbon markets are opened up for all parties, even for those that will not be a member of the second commitment period. Furthermore, the door is opened for “any new kind of market mechanism to be established under the convention” to be valid under the Kyoto scheme.

2) A separate discussion was made to include Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the Clean Development Mechanisms. This technique provides the illusion that we can keep emitting, as the gases will be stored later on, while in fact their storage is at high danger to escape again to the atmosphere at some point of time. At the same time, the market units based on CCS will give more emission rights to those buying the offsets.

3) In the text on LCA, markets are now definitely approved as an answer to deforestation and degradation of forests. (art 66). This is problematic in several ways:

* Only those who were used to deforest before, will now be compensated for not doing so!
* As previous deforestation emissions are the baseline for offsetting units, which are essentially the transfer of emission rights, the previous emission rates will be just transferred to those buying the offsets.
* The finance will only arrive after the results are proven, so, after several years! In the mean time, there are no funds to implement the policies that will lead to the reduced deforestation. As carbon market prices are very volatile, and with a severe tendency to crash, the final payment is not even secure.

4) There is a specific chapter (1bv) that now “defines a new market-based mechanism”, and establishes a work program to further implement them. This is a ball, that once it starts rolling, is very difficult to stop. The direction is a proliferation of all kinds of new market mechanisms.

Loosing sight of when we will finally do something about mitigation, putting in stand-by the Kyoto Protocol, trashing equity, and implementing the wishes of corporations: Durban didn’t make the world a happier place.

(*) Nele Marien is environmental politics analyst. She was negotiator for the Bolivian Climate Change team from 2009 till November 2011.
Original text: http://www.nelemarien.info/durban_not_success/

The new text proposal for the Kyoto Protocol states that a second commitment period will be established. That seems good news; it was what everybody was waiting for.

But, a second commitment period for what? For the sake of having it? For the sake of carbon markets? For calming public opinion?
Let’s see the good points and the bad points of the actual proposal.

It establishes a second commitment period for five years. That’s good. But will it be real? Or is it just another false promise?

Adopting amendments or taking note of proposed amendments

Paragraph 3 generates a big confusion:

3. Takes note of the proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol developed by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol as contained in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to this decision;

Indeed, in Annexes are the proposed amendments. But, will the Climate Conference approve those amendments this year? Then why should the CMP “Take note” of the proposed amendments? The only correct thing to do if it wants a ‘secure’ a second commitment period, is to adopt the amendments now. All the rest are just vague promises. Indeed, nobody is bound by something that was just “taken note of”!

Some general objectives or legally binding numbers?

Next doubtful point is that the text ‘takes note’ of the ‘economy wide emission reduction targets’, but they are not yet converted to QELROs¹. Legally speaking, the only basis of commitment is a QELRO, which is very well defined how to measure it. The ‘promise’ is to convert them during the next year in QELROs. Will this be done?

Securing the second commitment period, or trying to do so?

10. Requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) to aim to deliver the results of its work pursuant to decision 1/CMP.1 in time to complete its work by the eighth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

That sounds pretty much like the 1/CMP1 itself, which stated that the AWG-KP “shall aim to complete its work and have its results adopted (…) as early as possible and in time to ensure that there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods;”

Well, that was promised 6 years ago, and its fulfilment has been postponed so many years by now, and so many deadlines have been passed, that repeating the same language doesn’t sound very credible right now.

Why do we need a second commitment period?

The world doesn’t need a second commitment period of the KP just for the sake of it. It needs it, because ambitious and binding mitigation commitments are terribly needed. The IPCC stated in its last report that developed countries in aggregate should reduce between 25 and 40% of their emission level of 1990. That was back in 2007, since then climate change symptoms have worsened at unpredicted speed.

One of the major benefits of the Kyoto Protocol, is that it had a ‘top down” approach: first define what is the aggregated level of mitigation needed, and then see how to share the task among the developed countries. That is why article 3.1 of the Protocol states that parties shall “reduce their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels”. It is striking that the proposed amendment just fills out this number with a big X. The Peoples Agreement of Cochabamba demanded that this number should be 50. If that is impossible, it should at least be something within the IPCC range.

So, pledging to reduce 13-17%² is not an answer to the world’s needs. Stating you pledge to this, with a 1,5 degree or even a 2 degree goal in mind, is just fooling the public opinion. Those pledges lead to a 4-degree increase.

But it becomes even worse checking the proposed amendment to Annex B, where all pledges should be listed, and verifying that several countries are not offering their pledges for this KP process: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Russia, and of course the US will not be part of the second commitment period.

Carbon markets in the KP decisions

More than offering a climate solution to the world, the ‘signals’ for the carbon markets have been a main reason why, despite so much anti-Kyoto feeling amongst developed countries, they are now kind of implementing a second commitment period.

It is known already that in one of the complementary decisions to the CMP there will be an expansion of projects eligible for the carbon markets. “Carbon capture and storage” (CCS) projects will be one of them. Those are projects with huge costs, which will generate an enormous amount of carbon credits, which will make the carbon prices sink even further, thus lowering incentives for domestic reductions in developed countries. But the worst is that CCS is a very insecure system: storing greenhouse gases under the ground, but with tremendous risks that those will escape sooner or later.

The escape for those who don’t like Kyoto, but do like its markets

During the first commitment period, only KP-parties could make use of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs, that is, market units) in order to comply with their commitments. The definition of “Party” in the Protocol itself made that so: “Party” means, unless the context otherwise indicates, a Party to this Protocol. And then, the rules for acquiring CERs where only applicable to “parties”, according to article 3.12.

But now, in the “proposed amendments” an article 3.12 bis and 3.12 ter will be introduced. In those articles it becomes explicitly possible for all Annex I parties to the convention, to acquire CERs in order to comply with their commitments.

Furthermore, those articles speak on “Any units generated from any market-based mechanisms to be established under the Convention”. In other words, the whole discussion that is stuck under the 1bv chapter in the AWG-LCA, is being resolved here in one line.

And of course, the winners are those who don’t commit to mitigate, but do want the benefits.

A second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol: a victory or a deception?

It seems the actual proposal resolves various anxieties of developed countries:

• they can tell their constituencies they are keeping the so demanded KP
• they can blame developing countries if they don’t accept this
• they can extend the markets into time, expand the eligible project types, give the possibility for non-KP parties to buy carbon credits, and start organizing a whole new set of market mechanisms
• and finally, they escape from giving the real answer to the imperative question the world is posing on them: ‘What about the NECESSARY mitigation commitments?’

Would it be that fulfilling the wish of developing countries and social movements to implement a second commitment period, the totally insufficient mitigation commitments are just considered “a detail”?

(*) Nele Marien is environmental politics analyst. She was negotiator for the Bolivian Climate Change team from 2009 till November 2011
Original text: http://www.nelemarien.info/kp_victory_or_deception/

^{1 Quantified Emission Limitation or Reduction Objectives. Note as well that original KP language defined it as QELRCs: COMMITMENTS instead of Objectives.
2 and it are indeed the same old ‘pledges’ that have been on the table since Copenhagen. In footnote to the proposed annex B, it states: “Further information on these pledges can be found in document FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1/Rev.1.”, which is the document with pledges produced after Cancun.}

After this morning a set of 2 negotiation texts, giving the “bigger picture” for the Durban outcome were presented, and later rejected by the G77, now a second trial has been presented.

Let’s see what it says.

1) It takes note of a decision — still unknown — under the CMP which would “secure a ratifiable second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol” Well, or you just adopt a new commitment period. Or you don’t, and you can’t secure what parties will do in the future. Seeing the list of unfulfilled promises, and the amount of announces that developed countries have made stating they don’t want a second commitment period, it is quite doubtful that a 2nd commitment period can be ‘secured’.

2) It decides to brings into life a new ad hoc working group, responsible for developing a Protocol or another legal instrument applicable to all Parties . On this, several problematic issues:

• There shall be a new protocol or legal instrument. Many have been calling for this since long time. But:
• How to make sure it will be RATIFIED by the US, if they didn’t do with the first Protocol?
• How to make sure it will have COMMITMENTS in it, not just voluntary pledges?
• How to make sure there will be a COMPLIANCE REGIME in it? Without compliance, anything ‘legaly binding’ is just worthless!
• It is to be ‘applicable to all Parties’ This implies: no more “Common but Differentiated Responsabilities”, one of the basic principles of the Convention. It means: those countries which emit 2 tons of GHG per capita per year, and suffer all the impacts of climate change, have to take commitments as well as those which emit 20 tons per capita per year!

3) It extents with one year the AWG-LCA, looking for an outcome for the Bali Action Plan, which is on: mitigation, adaptation, finance and transfer of technology. But then, the new AWG, responsible for the new Protocol, has the responsibility to work on “inter alia mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer and capacity building”. So, we will have two AWGs, essentially with the same tasks. Quite probable the new one will just absorb the work of the old one!

And what it doesn’t say.

The new version of the text doesn’t state a date in which the new Protocol would get into force. Well let’s see… the Kyoto Protocol took eight (8!) years to get into force. Finishing this negotiations in 2015, this would imply entry into force by 2023. Or shall the new one have better luck?
It doen’t say anything on level of ambition. It is very clear that the actual ‘pledges’ are totally insufficient. But in the actual circumstances, there doesn’t seem to be much possibility to actually raise those pledges, before the new Protocol enters into force, which is loosing a decade. A decade of time which, believing scientists, we don’t have.
The new text gives us a new mandate,… on all the issues of tha Bali Action Plan. The way this was framed in the Bali Action Plan took two years to negotiate. Can they now decide in one night how to frame the future decision? Or will it be “free design” next year?

The end of an era

If this is approved, it would mean the end of an era, the end of a climate regime that started in 1992 and was based on science and responsibility.
Hereby we would enter in a new era… of insecure voluntary pledges, … of evading historical responsibilities,… of not responding to science. It would be the new era of climate chaos.

(*) Nele Marien is environmental politics analyst. She was negotiator for the Bolivian Climate Change team from 2009 till November 2011
Original text: http://www.nelemarien.info/durban_text_end_era/

Chairs Proposal

INDABA: THE BIGGER PICTURE

Friday, 9 December 2011 @ 23:00

The Conference of the Parties,

Recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires to be urgently addressed by all Parties, and acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerate the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions;

Noting with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregated effect of Parties mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emissions pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding warming below 2°C or 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels;

Recognizing also that fulfilling the ultimate objective of the Convention will require strengthening the multilateral, rules-based regime under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

1.  Noting decision 1/CMP.7 [Amendments and related decisions to secure a ratifiable second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol];

2.  Also noting decision 1/CP.17 [Implementation of the Bali Action Plan, including operationalisation of the Cancun Agreements];

3.  Decides to extend the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention for one year in order for it to continue its work and reach the agreed outcome pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 (Bali Action Plan) through decisions adopted at the 16th, 17th and 18th sessions of the Conference of the Parties, at which time the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action shall be terminated;

4.  Decides also  to launch a process to develop a Protocol or another legal instrument applicable to all Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on XX;

5.  Decides  that the process shall begin immediately and be conducted as a matter of urgency and that the Ad Hoc Working Group on XX shall report to the intervening sessions of the Conference of the Parties on the progress of its work;

6.  Decides that the Ad Hoc Working Group on XX shall complete its work as early as possible but no later than 2015 in order to adopt this legal instrument at the 21st session of the Conference of Parties;

7.  Also  decides  that the Ad Hoc Working Group on XX shall plan its work in 2012, including, inter alia, on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer and capacity building, drawing upon submission from Parties, and relevant technical, social and economic information and expertise;

8.  Decides that the process shall raise levels of ambition and be informed, inter alia, by the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the outcomes of the 2013-2015 review and the work of the Subsidiary Bodies;

A few moments ago we found out the decisions that they have been cooking behind the scenes. In Durban they won’t approve a second period of commitments of the Kyoto Protocol. This will happen at the end of next year: in COP18.

In Durban they will only take note of the draft amendments and the “intention” of rich countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol will lose its heart. The promises of reductions by rich countries will be incredibly low until 2020 and will lead to a temperature increase of more than 4 degrees C. The Kyoto Protocol will turn into a Zombie without a global figure for reduction of emissions by industrialised countries, and will carry on walking until 2020 just so that carbon markets don’t disappear.

In 2020 “a new legal framework appliable to all” will enter into effect. “To all”,  means diluting the difference between developed and developing countries, between countries responsible for climate change and those who are victims. The US managed to eliminate any mention of a “binding” agreement. That means the “new legal framework” will be an empty gesture without any effect. The European Unions is permitting that the Kyoto Protocol is converted to a Zombi. This will become known as the lost decade of the fight against climate change. Genocide and ecocide will reach proportions that we have not yet seen. The Great Escape by the Rich has turned into the Great Swindle.

(*) Pablo Solon is an international analyst and social activist. He was chief negotiator for climate change and United Nations Ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia (2009-June 2011). http://pablosolon.wordpress.com/

I. Draft Decision for the COP

Chairs Proposal

INDABA: THE BIGGER PICTURE

Friday, 9 December 2011 @ 08:00

The Conference of the Parties,

Recognizing the need to meet present and predicted climate change imperatives through

full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention with a view to reducing

global greenhouse gas emissions so as to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C above preindustrial levels, and to consider strengthening this goal in relation to a global average temperature rise of 1.5°C;

Recognizing also that meeting this goal will require strengthening of current  implementation efforts as well as crafting a future multilateral rules-based response under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change framework after 2020;

1.  Noting decision 1/CMP.7 [Giving effect to Kyoto amendments/elements/rules in time to avoid the gap];

2.  Also noting decision 1/CP.17 [Implementation under the Convention, including making the Cancun Agreements operational];

3.  Decides in order to achieve the full effective and sustained implementation of the Convention to complete the agreed outcome pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 (Bali Action Plan) through a set of decisions to be adopted at the 18th session of the Conference of the Parties, at which time the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action shall be terminated;

4.  Also decides to launch a process in order to develop a legal framework applicable to all under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change after 2020, through a subsidiary body under the Convention to be established at the 18th session of the Conference of the Parties and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on [XX];

5.  Decides  that the process shall begin immediately and be conducted as a matter of urgency and that the Ad Hoc Working Group on [XX] shall report to the intervening sessions of the Conference of the Parties on the progress of its work; 

6.  Decides that the sessions of the Ad Hoc Working Group on [XX] shall be scheduled  to ensure completion of the work as early as possible but no later than 2015 in order to adopt the legal framework at the 21st session of the Conference of Parties;

7.  Also decides to further elaborate the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on [XX] in 2012, including on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer and capacity building, drawing upon submission from Parties, and relevant technical, social and economic information and expertise;

8.  Decides that the process shall encourage increasing levels of ambition and be informed, inter  alia, by the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the outcome of the 2013-2015 review and the work of the Subsidiary Bodies.

————-

II. Draft decisión for the CMP (Kyoto Protocol)

Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its sixteenth session

Version of 9 December 2011 @ 05:00

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,

Recalling Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol,

Also recalling Article 20, paragraph 2, and Article 21, paragraph 7, of the Kyoto Protocol,

Further recalling decisions 1/CMP.1, 1/CMP.5 and 1/CMP.6,

Noting with appreciation the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol,

Noting also the importance of developing a comprehensive global response to the problem of climate change,

Recognizing the importance of ensuring the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol,

Cognizant of decision -/CP.17 {title of decision on AWG-LCA},

Emphasizing the role of the Kyoto Protocol in the mitigation effort by Parties

included in Annex I, the importance of  ensuring continuity in mitigation action by those Parties and the need to start the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol without delay,

1.   Welcomes the agreement achieved by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol on its work pursuant to decisions 1/CMP.1, 1/CMP.5 and 1/CMP.6 in the areas of land use, land-use change and forestry (decision -/CMP.7), emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms (decision -/CMP.7), greenhouse gases, sectors and source categories, common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks, and other methodological issues (decision -/CMP.7) and the consideration of information on potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including spillover effects, of tools, policies, measures and methodologies available to Annex I Parties (decision -/CMP.7);

2.   Takes note of the draft amendments to the Kyoto Protocol developed by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol as contained in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to this decision;

3.   Takes note also of the quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets communicated by Parties included in Annex I and presented in Annex 1 to this decision and of the intention of these Parties to convert them to quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol;

4.   Invites Parties included in Annex I and listed in Annex 1 to this decision to submit information on their quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol by 1 May 2012 for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its thirty-sixth session and requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to deliver the results of its work to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol with a view to the Conference of

the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol adopting them as amendments to Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session, while ensuring coherence with the implementation of decision {title of decision on AWG-LCA};

5.   Decides to adopt the amendments contained in Annexes 2 and 3 to this decision in conjunction with the adoption of the amendments referred to in paragraph 4 above;

6.   Requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to assess the implications of the carry-over of assigned amount units to the second commitment period on the scale of emission reductions to be achieved by Annex I Parties in aggregate for the second commitment period, with a view to preparing a draft decision for adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session;

7.   Decides, on the basis of the outcomes and results described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, that the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol has completed its work in accordance with decision 1/CMP.1;

8.   Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to assess and address the implications of the implementation of decisions -CMP.7 referred to in paragraph 1 above on the previous decisions on methodological issues related to the Kyoto Protocol adopted by Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol including those relating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol, with a view to preparing relevant draft decisions for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session, and noting that some issues may need to be addressed at subsequent sessions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

Annexes:

Annex 1. Draft amendments to Annex B to the

Kyoto Protocol

Annex 2. Draft amendments to Annex A to the

Kyoto Protocol

Annex 3. Draft amendments to the Kyoto Protocol

Separate -/CMP.7 decisions:

Decision -/CMP.7: LULUCF 

Decision -/CMP.7:  mechanisms 

Decision -/CMP.7: methodological issues 

Decision -/CMP.7: potential consequences 

Talks at the United Nations Climate Change Conference are in their second to last day, but little progress appears to have been made on the key issues of extending the Kyoto Protocol or forming a Green Climate Fund. The United States is refusing to accept any deal involving binding emissions cuts before the year 2020 despite dire warnings that the world can’t afford to wait. We get analysis from Pablo Solón, Bolivia’s former ambassador to the United Nations and former chief negotiator on climate change, and from Patrick Bond, a South African climate activist, professor and author. “The main issue is the figure of emission reductions of rich countries is not really being raised,” Solón says. “It is very, very low… You cannot be silent when you see the genocide and ecocide that is going to happen because of this kind of decision.” Solon also says the U.S. “blackmails” developing countries into dropping demands for binding cuts by threatening to withdraw climate aid. Bond says the next round of climate talks should include the idea of sanctions against major polluters, like the United States, that reject binding cuts.

Recent collapses in carbon markets and widespread opposition from forest peoples and non-governmental organisations have not stopped governments gathered in Durban from trying to build momentum for the creation of a new forest carbon market as part of the response to deforestation and climate change.

The Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change, a coalition of around 100 civil society and indigenous peoples organisations from 38 countries, called on governments in Durban to reject forest carbon trading after a new draft decision [1] related to REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) specifically includes “market-based” sources of financing, which opens the door for as forest carbon market allowing developed countries to ‘offset’ emissions reductions.

“By selling carbon offsets from our forests, we would be abandoning the solution to the climate crisis”, said Cecile Ndjebet, President of the African Women’s Network for Community Management of Forests. “Developed countries have the historical responsibility for climate change and trading carbon forest offsets would shift the burden to developing countries, and would prolong the heavy polluting industries that created the problem”.

At the same time, existing carbon markets are in a state of crisis. The carbon price in Europe is at its lowest in almost 3 years [2], and credits traded in the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol have fallen to an all time low [3], unable to cover basic project costs. “We’ve seen financial markets crash in recent years, and a forest carbon market would also be volatile and liable to boom and bust. Still rich governments insist this is the best way to finance forests” said Nat Dyer of Rainforest Foundation UK. “Forest carbon markets are an extremely inefficient way to get money to where it’s really needed. The largest part is captured by carbon traders and by expensive external consultants.”

“Any decision in Durban that opens the door to the use of offset trading to fund forests would be a disaster for the climate, the forests and the people who depend on them,” said Belen Paez of Fundacion Pachamama in Ecuador. “Agreeing to fund forests from carbon trading gives the illusion there is money being offered for forest protection, when what is really needed is predictable and sustainable investment to combat the drivers of deforestation.”

Notes to editors:

1. Work of the AWG-LCA Contact Group, Agenda item 3.2.3. Version 2 December 2011, @ 09.35

2. European Union carbon permits (EUAs) fell more than 3 percent early on Thursday December 7^th, trading at 7.09 euros a tonne.

3. Prices for UN Certified Emission Reductions, or CERs,for December delivery settled at 5.03 euros ($6.52) a metric ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange on December 6 2011, the second-lowest closing price since they began trading in 2008. CER credits have lost 80 percent from their peak of 25 euros in July 2008 and down about 56 percent this year.