A just and effective outcome for Copenhagen

We the undersigned groups, including development, environment, gender and youth organisations, faith-based communities, indigenous peoples, and social and economic justice movements in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and North America call on the rich industrialized world to acknowledge its historic and current responsibility for the causes and adverse effects of climate change, and to fully, effectively and immediately repay its climate debt to poor countries, communities and people.

Climate change threatens the balance of life on Earth. Oceans are rising and acidifying; ice caps and glaciers are melting; forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems are changing or collapsing. The existence of some communities is imperilled, while others face growing barriers to their development. Unless curbed, an impending climate catastrophe risks increasingly violent weather, collapsing food systems, mass migration and unprecedented human conflict.

Poor countries, communities and people have contributed least to the causes of climate change, yet are its first and worst victims. At greatest risk are women, indigenous peoples, poor people, small farmers, fisher-folk and forest communities, people relying on scarce water resources, youth and other groups susceptible to harm and health impacts.

A wealthy minority of the world’s countries, corporations and people, by contrast, are the principal cause of climate change. The developed countries representing less than one fifth of the world’s population have emitted almost three quarters of all historical emissions. Their excessive historical and current emissions occupy the atmosphere and are the main cause of current and committed future warming.

Developed countries have consumed more than their fair share of the Earth’s atmospheric space. On a per person basis, they are responsible for more than ten times the historical emissions of developing countries. Their per person emissions today are more than four times those of developing countries.

For their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, developed countries owe a two-fold climate debt to the poor majority:

For their excessive historical and current per person emissions – denying developing countries their fair share of atmospheric space – they have run up an “emissions debt” to developing countries; and

For their disproportionate contribution to the effects of climate change – requiring developing countries to adapt to rising climate impacts and damage – they have run up an “adaptation debt” to developing countries.

Together the sum of these debts – emissions debt and adaptation debt – constitutes their climate debt, which is part of a larger ecological, social and economic debt owed by the rich industrialized world to the poor majority.

Honouring these obligations is not only right; it is the basis of a fair and effective solution to climate change. Those who benefited most in the course of causing climate change must compensate those who contributed least but bear its adverse effects. They must compensate developing countries for the two-fold barrier to their development – mitigating and adapting to climate change – which were not present for developed countries during the course of their development but which they have caused.

Developed countries, however, intend to write-off rather than honour their debt. In their submissions to the climate negotiations they seek to pass on substantial adaptation costs to developing countries; evading rather than honouring their adaptation debt. And they seek to continue their high per person emissions; deepening rather than repaying their emissions debt, consuming additional atmospheric space, and crowding the world’s poor majority into a small and shrinking remainder.

We are concerned that continued excessive consumption of atmospheric space by the world’s wealthy at the expense of the world’s poor – who need access to energy and resources to build the schools, houses and infrastructure that the rich world already has and continues to benefit from – puts at risk the prospects of any viable solution to climate change and, with it, the safety of all nations and peoples, and the Earth.

As the basis of a fair and effective climate outcome we therefore call on developed countries to acknowledge and repay the full measure of their climate debt to developing countries commencing in Copenhagen. We demand that they :

Repay their adaptation debt to developing countries by committing to full financing and compensation for the adverse effects of climate change on all affected countries, groups and people;

Repay their emissions debt to developing countries through the deepest possible domestic reductions, and by committing to assigned amounts of emissions that reflect the full measure of their historical and continued excessive contributions to climate change; and

Make available to developing countries the financing and technology required to cover the additional costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change, in accordance with the Climate Convention.

Meeting these demands is a basic prerequisite for success in December 2009. Copenhagen must be a key turning point for climate justice – a major milestone on the journey towards safeguarding the Earth’s climate system and ensuring a future in which the rights and aspirations of all people can be realized.

‘I’d rather see my country refuse an agreement with such low ambition. The political will of rich countries to make up for their historic responsibility and to safeguard poor people’s lives, dignity and development is just not there. Things have to change dramatically.’

– Mithika Mwenda, Coordinator of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance.

As the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany wind up and delegates set off for home, they leave behind a very large pile of newly assembled legal and negotiating text and a much larger gap in political will.

Some progress has been made. The negotiating parties have tabled amendments and negotiating texts have been compiled representing all their proposals. Somewhere within all that text the shape of a potential Copenhagen deal is now on the table.

But if you look at the core elements of what have to be agreed – deep emissions cuts from developed countries, support from developed countries to developing countries to help them cope with climate change impacts and develop in new low-carbon ways, and credible and legitimate institutions to monitor and deliver this low carbon transformation – and we are a long way from dealing with climate change.

The biggest issue is the failure of developed countries – referred to as Annex 1 countries in the talks – to put forward adequate targets for their emissions cuts. According to original timetables, by this point in the talks parties should have agreed an aggregate target for Annex 1.

Rich countries aiming low

Christian Aid has called for Annex 1 countries to sign up to at least a 40% cut in their emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. The G77 and China grouping which includes all developing countries tabled a call for this number on the last day of the talks, although many of the countries most vulnerable to climate change have called for even more ambition from developing countries.

In contrast an analysis by the UNFCCC secretariat calculated that the pledged emissions reductions by those developed countries that had put forward possible commitments added up to between a 16 to 24 % cut.

This number leaves out many developed countries, including the US that have yet to suggest what targets they might take. Those targets may be even lower, as Japan demonstrated to widespread international condemnation. Japan suggested they would achieve an 8% cut by 2020 – only 2% more than the cut they are committed to achieve by 2012.

One of the reasons for the general lack of ambition and foot dragging from developed countries is the reticence of the US. The US is hiding behind the progression of the Waxman-Markey Bill – which aims to deliver US emissions cuts – through Congress, and so it is all but absent. In fact many of its key negotiators skipped Bonn to attend talks with the Chinese government in Beijing.

Show us the money

As far as the negotiations are concerned the US seems to be acting as a world leader – in a race to the bottom. Beyond failing to have a target to table the major US contribution has been to popularise amongst rich countries the ‘double counting’ of emissions cuts and financial support to developing countries through offsetting.

Apart from the funds that might be raised through offsetting its own target can the richest country in the world provide money and technology to help poor countries cope with the impacts of a global catastrophe it is more responsible than anyone else for causing? At the moment the answer looks like ‘No we can’t’.

Europe is no better. They set the terms of their engagement when, during the middle of the second week of the negotiations, finance ministers from European members states met in Brussels and announced… very little.

What they did do was set out how funds that they show no signs of contributing to might be spent and then indicate their opinion that almost everyone else, from the private sector to some developing countries, should be contributing funds.

Legal matters

Another major discussion at Bonn was around what legal shape any agreement in Copenhagen should take. The terms of the Kyoto Protocol include provision to amend it to add further commitments for Annex 1 countries. Parties are also discussing whether there need to be further amendments to the existing protocol, and whether there should be a new Copenhagen Protocol, which could either supplement or replace Kyoto.

For poor countries this is very simple… action on climate change needs to start with rich countries who caused the problem. Before anything else can happen those countries need to show they are serious about doing their fair share.

This is the logic behind the form of commitments agreed in Kyoto in 1997 – where developed countries have binding commitments to cut their emissions and developing countries act as they are able given their priority of poverty eradication, and with support from rich countries.

But most rich countries look unlikely to meet their commitments under Kyoto, so new, stronger commitments need to be agreed and discussions need to take place on improving the implementation of these commitments. So developing countries want an extension of the Kyoto Protocol, and then some limited new legal instrument for further commitments.

However countries like Canada, Australia and Japan, and to some extent the US are only willing to act if poor countries do too and are trying to ‘turn the page’ on the Kyoto protocol and replace it with a new protocol or agreement that sees rich and poor countries taking on the same kinds of efforts.

An insight into the mindset of some developed country negotiators was given when Canadian NGOs obtained official briefing notes from their government through a freedom of information request.

The notes showed that the Canadian strategy included pressing the EU to take on weaker targets, and seeking to ‘extract binding emissions reduction commitments from the emerging economies’. Just for reference, Canada’s target for 2020 is a 2% cut.

Responsibility, capacity, equity

The developing countries, both separately and through the various groupings like G77 and China have been assertively calling for Annex 1 to meet up to their responsibilities, and were notably the source of all the ideas around how efforts can be shared between countries on a fair basis.

One key concept that was much discussed was historical responsibility for climate change. While much of the emissions causing current climate change were emitted in ignorance industrialised countries are responsible for the vast bulk of them and have benefited significantly from this.

Developing countries argue that this must be taken into account in any agreement to cooperate on tackling climate change. Otherwise the burden of tackling climate change will be unfairly shifted on to them and they will be denied the space to develop freely.

There were a number of sessions that discussed this concept, and finding a way to deal with it that both rich and poor countries can agree with will be important to finding agreement in Copenhagen.

Climate justice?

There is now less than six months to go to Copenhagen. Despite the complexity of the hundreds of pages of negotiating text the lines of disagreement are clear. Will rich countries find the political will to commit to deeply cutting their emissions and providing the money to help poor countries, or won’t they?

More than ever it is apparent that Copenhagen may represent an unprecedented opportunity to deliver global action on climate change, but it will need an unprecedented global movement to create the will to act required. Christian Aid and its partners across Europe and the world are working hard to be part of such a movement.

Janet Redman*

The second round of this year’s climate negotiations have wrapped up in Bonn, Germany, and government negotiators are digging in to their positions, making the chances of signing any global climate deal in Copenhagen this December – let alone a fair deal – increasingly slim.

A snapshot at the midpoint on the road to Copenhagen reveals that much has stayed the same since last time parties were assembled here in March. Two major hurdles block forward movement in reaching an agreement: the lack of political will by industrialized countries to commit to deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions, and resistance on their part to deliver comprehensive financing to help poorer countries deal with locked-in climate change and a shift to ecologically sustainable development.

What’s beginning to change with this round of talks is how developing countries and climate justice movements frame both of these issues.

The Climate Debt Must be Repaid

According to a growing number of governments and civil society organizations the developed world owes the developing world a twofold climate debt. The greenhouse gases that rich countries have released to date directly translate into physical impacts and financial losses in poorer countries. At a technical briefing arranged by UN officials on historical responsibility for climate change, Bolivian ambassador Angelica Navarro noted a loss of 4 to 17% of GDP each year in her country as a result of changing weather patterns. These impacts constitute an “adaptation debt.” And to pay it off, those who caused the problem must fully compensate developing countries for the effects of their emissions.

A second debt – an “emissions debt” – is a bit more complicated, but no less real. It’s based on the scientific fact that the atmosphere has a limited capacity to absorb greenhouse gases before reaching the tipping point of irreversible climate chaos – and on the principle that every person, no matter where he or she lives, has an equal right to the remaining atmospheric space.

The South Centre, a Geneva-based intergovernmental organization, estimates that the space left can hold up to 600 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions – and the people in industrialized countries have already used more than their fair share. With less than 20% of the world’s population, they have emitted almost three quarters of all climate change gases. According to Martin Khor, director of the South Centre, if rich countries don’t radically change course they will have used up 240 gigatons of the atmospheric space by 2050, although based on population their allocation should only be 125 gigatons.

In other words, developed countries have taken out a loan of 115 gigatons of carbon dioxide, and developing countries are asking for it back. As people in poorer nations continue to improve their quality of life, fight for access to electricity, and grow their domestic industry they will need this space. The idea that poorer countries shouldn’t use the atmospheric commons to develop is not only unjust, it’s unrealistic. Failing to take this reality into account at the negotiations will doom the people and economies of all nations.

How Low Can You Go?

The implications for developed countries here in Bonn and on the road to Copenhagen -where world leaders are supposed to reach an agreement that will pick up where the Kyoto Protocol leaves off in 2012 – are profound. To repay their emissions debt they must commit to drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries are calling for cuts of 45 to almost 80 percent from 1990 levels in the next 10 years. Some researchers are saying that to avoid a climate catastrophe reductions from rich countries actually have to plunge to 100 percent – and then go negative by the middle of the century.

Even with a clean energy and land use revolution, it’s close to impossible for countries like the U.S. to meet such ambitious targets. The balance of their climate debt, then, will have to be repaid in a transfer of money and clean technology to developing countries so that they can create new economies that are low-carbon and still meet the needs of their citizens. The price tag will be along the lines of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Industrialized countries have balked at the sum, but their obligation to deliver this support is already enshrined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a global agreement which even the U.S. signed. And if the bank bailouts have taught us anything, it’s that where there’s a political will, there’s a way to mobilize trillions of dollars.

Meena Raman, researcher and legal advisor to the Third World Network and former Chair of Friends of the Earth International, called the technical briefing and the introduction of the climate debt concept “one of the most important moments in the history of the Convention.” But if climate talks in Copenhagen are to yield a just and effective result, the conversation must move beyond concepts to commitments from nations with the greatest historical responsibility.

* Janet Redman is co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies where she provides analysis of the international financial institutions’ energy investment and carbon finance activities

Climate Justice Now! is a network of organisations and movements from across the globe committed to the fight for social, ecological and gender justice.

Climate Justice is based on the understanding that, while climate change requires global action, the historical responsibility for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions over the past 250 years lies with the industrialised countries of the North. Cheap energy – in the form of oil, coal and gas – has been the engine of their rapid industrialisation and economic growth.

Communities in the Global South as well as low-income communities in the industrialised North have borne the toxic burden of this fossil fuel extraction, transportation and production. Now these communities are facing the worst impacts of climate change – from food shortages to the inundation of whole island nations.

Inside the global climate negotiations, rich industrialised countries have put unjustifiable pressure on Southern governments to commit to emissions reductions. At the same time, they have refused to live up to their own legal and moral obligations to radically cut emissions and support developing countries’ efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts.

Climate Justice Now! will work to expose the false solutions to the climate crisis promoted by these governments, alongside financial institutions and multinational corporations – such as trade liberalisation, privatisation, forest carbon markets, agrofuels and carbon offsetting.

We will take our struggle forward not just in climate talks, but on the ground and in the streets, to promote genuine solutions that include:

leaving fossil fuels in the ground and investing instead in appropriate energy-efficiency and safe, clean and community-led renewable energy

radically reducing wasteful consumption, first and foremost in the North, but also by Southern elites.

huge financial transfers from North to South, based on the repayment of climate debts and subject to democratic control. The costs of adaptation and mitigation should be paid for by redirecting military budgets, innovative taxes and debt cancellation.

rights-based resource conservation that enforces Indigenous land rights and promotes peoples’ sovereignty over energy, forests, land and water.

sustainable family farming and peoples’ food sovereignty.

We are committed to building a diverse movement – locally and globally – for a better world.

Climate Justice Now!

Download CJN Flyer [3Mb]

CJN! Call Notes
Wed., 1. July 2009
15:00 BST (GMT+1)

Persons on call

Tom Kucharz
Simone Lovera
Clemente Bautista
Lidy Nacpil
Payal Parekh
Meena Raman
Tim Jones
Eliot Whitington
Irene Velez
Dottie Guerrero
Nicola Bullard
Mariana Paoli
Christophe Aguiton
Maureen Santos
Maite Llanos
Reede Stockton
Irene Velez
Tom Goldtooth (last 10 minutes)

Thanks to Lidy for facilitating.

We discussed two agenda points

Activities in Bangkok

Activities in Copenhagen

The two major decisions made:

There  will be a 2 day CJN! Strategy meeting during the  Bangkok Intersessional, most likely during the middle weekend. Dottie, Clemente and Nicola have volunteered to work on organizing the meeting. They will send a call out soon for other volunteers.

A committee is being formed to organize our events in Kopenhagen and facilitate cooperation with Klimaforum.  Christophe, Sabrina ( and hopefully Tom, whose idea this was) will coordinate. They will send a message spelling out more clearly what is needed and will look for more volunteers for the committee.

Other interesting tidbits:

For the informal in Madrid – Spanish groups are organizing events (ask Tom for more details.

In Nov/Dec. Speaking tour being organized in Europe (Tom K., Tim J).

Expect next meeting later in July after groups have met in Bangkok to discuss plans for the intersessional.

Below you will find more details regarding specifics

Bangkok

Dottie: Last Monday Thai Working Group on Climate Justice had a meeting. Approximately 30 people from various local groups and national networks attended. They are aware that many people see the Bangkok Interssesional as an important meeting because it will be the only negotiating conference to be held in the South before Copenhagen. During the Bonn meeting CJN people see the importance of having a good turn-out and mobilisation in Bangkok, as this could be a sort of rehearsal for our outside strategy and  preparation for the COP.

want to accommodate everyone’s interests for workshops, discussions, side events, actions,/protest marches, etc.

for many local groups it is the first time to connect their work with  climate issues – they see the Intersessional as a possibility  to consolidate the network and to strengthen themselves

want to be connected to global/regional groups, facilitate for a space where CS events can be held and be inclusive

organizing a strategy meeting to discuss plan and possibilities for coordination for Bangkok Intersessional in mid-July. Either 15/16 or 18/19.

Venue of September/October meeting will be near the UN buildings at a university.

Not sure how many will be in Bangkok in September/October, but expecting large numbers (because Asian networks will mobilise).

Lidy: The meeting in mid-July  was originally to be a regional network meeting, but now happy to expand to have reps from national and international networks attend so that coordination/planning can begin.  An invitation letter is being circulated, the letter will be sent to CJN! List.

Simone: Great plans. GFC is planning Workshops on REDD, indigenous peoples’ rights and biodiversity just prior to Bangkok meeting in September.  Working with International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples  of the Tropical Forests. Swati and Roberto organizing. Could bring 15-20 people from region and would like to coordinate with the other plans happening in Bangkok.

Dottie: Thai WG is planning to organise a three-day  activitiy for local groups (teach-ins, workshops, displays/booths about local initiatives, including a protest march) a few days before the intersessional and will welcome non-Thais to join them too.

Lidy: during intersessional would be better, because people may not be able to stay in Bangkok so long.

Clemente: Organizing event for 28. Sept. To 3. Oct. I apologize ( missed the details, as i couldn’t hear properly). Having a 1 day conference on 2. October. Wants to coordinate with the larger group.

Dottie: Lidy, already volunteered  to collate and make a matrix of all events being planned for the Intersessional so we can have  anoverview.

Irene – FoE is organizing a skill share on climate/finance/trade issues in Bangkok. There should be participants form the South. This group happy to participate in other events in Bangkok. Good to share agendas and strategies. Stephanie from FoE Australia organizing (she will attend meeting Bangkok in mid-July). 23-26. September.

Simone – does anyone know whether international youth movement planning to come to Bangkok? We Should find out to coordinate actions with them.

Lidy – During the CJA meeting in Bonn, some of us that were there discussed that it would be a good opportunity to hold a CJN! Strategy meeting – 2 days, perhaps on weekend in the middle of the intersessional. Many people have arrived by this time. Good chance that many participants from the South can attend. Chance to discuss strategy/plans for Copenhagen and longer term plans of CJN!.

Also discussion to hold event on climate and finance at the beginning of the intersessional (Mon, Tue).

Christophe – agreed that middle weekend would be a good time for strategy meeting.

Meena  – would be better to have it the weekend prior, so that once the intersessional starts, people can lobby around these points. Also pointed out that Saturday is a workday during the intersessional, so people involved with TWN and others lobbying could not attend the full strategy meeting, but understands that it is not possible to accommodate everyone’s schedules/plans.

Simone – same point about timing of climate/finance meeting. Suggested that CJN! Strat. Meeting be Fri/Sat, so people have a break on Sunday!

Dottie – there will be a mobilization if regional and international groups agree to help support.  Should coordinate date of mobilization with CJN! Strategy meeting.

Tom – for those that can’t travel to Bangkok, would be good to have the possibility for people to participate remotely via skype. Thus, good internet connection needed.

Lidy: Can we put together a committee together of 3-4 people to organize the strategy meeting?

Dottie, Clemente, Nicola volunteered. An invitation will be sent out to the CJN! List to also get other volunteers.

Who? – the UNFCCC venue Bangkok has no space for side events. We will have to find our own space for events.

Dottie -  The Thai Working Group will find a place and negotiate so there will be a place for all groups to hold their respective events. Their local event and those that we will organized can be in same place. (Thammasat University if possible)

Copenhagen

Tom  -

Groups organizing for the Barcelona informal.

Our world is not for sale is working to link trade and climate change; linking mobilization against WTO in Geneva end of Nov. And climate change .

Organizing a speaker tour.  Need information from us about groups working on these issues.

Will send out a matrix for folks to fill out.

Would like to invite people that can be in Europe in Nov and Dec for speaking and lobby tour.

Klimaforum – Lots of logistical and technical questions need to be worked out. Propose that we set up a CJN! Working Group to prepare our engagement there, keep in close contact with the folks on the ground in Copenhagen.

Perhaps we could send people (1-5) from CJN! Network 1 to 2 months in advance to help prepare our activities in Copenhagen. Would need to look for funds for this.

Christophe from Attac France – a great space in Copenhagen has been found for the Klimaforum and work space also available.  Now work focusing around setting agenda – next meeting in mid-Oct. Important to have voices from the South. Currently only one part of movement active in the planning – the direct action wing.

Payal – Oscar Reyes of Carbontrade Watch/TNI, Janet Redman of IPS and I having been discussing a newspaper for CJN!. We are working on details/funding and will send something out to get comments/ideas from CJN!.

Simone – likes all the ideas.  Working on agrofuels, carbon offsets – wants to organize a speaking tour and would like to be involved in a larger effort., May send someone earlier to Copenhagen.

Tim – WDM, Foe England, Jubilee Debt are also planning speaking tour in UK in Nov.

Irene – FoE Int. Working on a project to bring in voices of people directly affected by climate., Time capsule idea. will record their messages using photos, written papers, videos.  There will be an installation in Copenhagen – working with Klimaforum folks.

Are there folks from CJN! That want to help with coordinate Tom’s proposal to have a Copenhagen WG?  Payal suggested that we ask Tom to write an email to the list spelling out more clearly what he envisions and participate in the WG.

Christophe from ATTAC happy to help, but wants to ensure that Southerners  (such as reps from Via Campesina, x) also participate, as their voices are needed.  Jubilee South can help –  Sabrina.

Final Details

Who will be in Bonn III?

Meena/TWN, Simone and Payal may be there.

Organize another call in mid-July after the meeting in Bangkok has occurred.