This is clear to anyone that all these are attempts to turn their backs on their responsibility for the climate crisis and their obligations to the peoples of developing countries and even their own citizens.

In Durban they are trying to sell new words — “A Durban Mandate,” A New Treaty,” even “A New Protocol.” But these are all part of their effort to delay action, pave the way for lower ambitions and more loopholes, and further entrench the “pledge and review” system being pushed by the US as the basis for “legally binding agreements.”

We should not be deceived into thinking that pursuing a New Treaty will raise the chances for higher targets for emissions cuts. Governments who cannot be trusted to honor existing commitments and have sought loopholes at every turn, cannot be relied upon to forge agreements that will be more ambitious than the current.

We urge governments of developing countries to be steadfast in demanding the enforcement of existing agreements and higher targets for emissions cuts by developed countries to be met through domestic measures.

To governments of developed countries: No more delays, No more deception, No more evasion!

Jubilee South – Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development  and its members- BANGLADESH Equity & Justice Working Group (EquityBd), Unnayan Onneshan, VOICE, SUPRO, Bangladesh Krishok Federation, Jatiyo Sramik Jote, Community Development Library (CDL) Trust, Nabodhara INDIA River Basin Friends, mines, minerals and People (mmP), National Hawker Federation, Indian Social Action Forum, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Nadi Gati Morcha, Adivasi Mulvasi Astitva, Kerala Independent Fishworkers Federation INDONESIA Koalisi Anti Utang, Solidaritas Perempuan, Institute for Essential Service Reform, KRUHA, Debt Watch, WALHI (Friends of the Earth), Serikat Petani Indonesia, MALAYSIA Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation NEPAL Rural Reconstruction Nepal, Human Rights Alliance, Jagaran Nepal, GEFONT, All Nepal Women Association, All Nepal Peasants Federation PAKISTAN Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee, Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum PHILIPPINES Freedom from Debt Coalition, Kalayaan, Solidarity of Filipino Workers, Tambuyog Development Center, Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, Makabayan Pilipinas, Koalisyong Pabahay ng Pilipinas, Sanlakas, Philippine Movement for Climate Justice SRILANKA Centre for Environmental Justice REGIONAL – ARENA, LDC (Least Developed Country) Watch, South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication, Migrant Forum in Asia, Asian Migrant Center, SEAFISH for Justice

£150 million, the largest part of today’s announcement, will go to the World Bank’s Clean Technology Fund. UK money previously given to this fund helped finance private sector projects including a wind farm in Mexico which violates the rights of indigenous people and does not increase energy access, instead selling all of its electricity at a discounted rate to US multinational Walmart.

But campaigners welcomed the announcement that £10 million would be given to the UN Adaptation Fund, to directly help people in developing countries cope with the effects of climate change. The UK has until now given no money to the UN fund, which is threatened with closure if contributions from developed countries do not increase.

World Development Movement policy officer Murray Worthy said today:

Giving further loans to developing countries like Mozambique and Nepal will only increase those countries’ debt burdens, driving their people deeper into poverty. Richer countries like the UK are largely responsible for causing climate change, and we must take responsibility for ensuring that poor countries, which have contributed very little to global carbon emissions, are able to deal with its effects.

Chris Huhne’s announcement that £10 million will go to the UN Adaptation Fund is welcome, but this is a fraction of the amount he is planning to lend. In order to meet its responsibilities the UK should be giving all of its climate finance as grants, not as loans through the World Bank.

The extra money announced for the World Bank’s Clean Technology Fund, which has financed disastrous development projects that have only benefitted multinational companies, will also do little to help the world’s most vulnerable people deal with climate change.’

Read the World Development Movement’s media briefing on the Durban talks
For more information please contact:
Miriam Ross in London on (+44) (0)20 7820 4913 or (+44) (0)7711 875 345 or email miriam.ross@wdm.org.uk
Murray Worthy in Durban on (+27) (0)83 968 9917

DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA – Yesterday – Ministers from over 50 African countries met to reinforce their position, demanding an ambitious second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, effective action under the Bali Action Plan and scaled-up finance, ahead of the final week of the UN Climate Conference in Durban.

Women and men, due to their gender roles and existing unequal power relations between them, have different vulnerabilities and responses to the impact of critical and harmful condition of global climate change. They have differentiated capabilities and preferences regarding policies and measures to tackle the problems. The existing policy framework to tackle climate change, however, is ignorant of unequal power relations between men and women.

APWLD stipulates full integration of gender dimension in addressing climate change in accordance with international human rights, including women’s human rights. APWLD supports the most marginalised women in Asia and the Pacific who are among the most vulnerable to the negative impact of climate change, yet who have least contributed to the cause of climate change.

A research was conducted among rural, indigenous and dalit women in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Philippines who engage in small-scale farming, fishery and other subsistence activities. Although the political, social and economic context of each country in the region differs, the research revealed that impacts of climate change have aggravated gender inequities and worsened situation of women. Already saddled with unjust and discriminatory policies and existing gender norms, women face great difficulty coping with climate change impacts. The lack of clear land tenure system, lack of adequate social services on education, health, water, decent jobs and support for small scale agriculture, fishery and forestry are given factors that have only been worsened with the advent of climate change.

The research results also demonstrated that rural, indigenous and dalit women in those countries are gatekeepers of their ecosystem and communities, struggling to conserve diminishing resources for survival and adaptation. The strategies they have undertaken are family or community-based, low-carbon and more in harmony with natural ecological system. Women are ready to take leadership towards more resilient community building using their knowledge and skills.

APWLD therefore calls for climate change policies at global and national levels that will bring about the following:

§  Integrate gender perspective and ensure non-discrimination against and support for the most marginalized populations, rural, indigenous and dalit women;

§  Recognise the role of rural, indigenous and dalit women in small scale farming, fisheries, hunting and other activities;

§  Provide for  women’s access to and control of land, water and other natural resources as well as access to adequate social services and technology meaningful to strengthening their resilience;

§  Ensure women and their organizations and communities’ direct access to funds catering to their adaptive needs in every sector with adequate resources;

§  Ensure and promote meaningful participation, representation and leadership of women in decision making at all levels;

§  Provide consistent and timely information in relation to climate change science and policy including early warnings of extreme weather events and possible effects in a way that most vulnerable groups including rural, indigenous and dalit women can access in their own languages and other appropriate communication systems.

The briefs of five research reports are available on line.

http://www.apwld.org/latest-news/apwld-releases-climate-justice-briefs/#more-1592

https://twitter.com/#!/apwld

http://www.facebook.com/apwld.ngo

Please visit  http://bit.ly/uoB0tF  FB and Twitter for more updates on APWLD activities at the Durban Climate Change Conference.

1. A climate deal that will take meaningful steps to halt the climate crisis by cutting carbon emissions. Historical emitters who are responsible for 75% of GHGs must face trade and investment sanctions if they refuse to cut emissions, particularly from African governments, as Africa has contributed least to climate change, but is the worst affected.

2. We demand proper recognition of women’s critical role in fighting climate change and protecting livelihoods and the environment despite widespread violation of their equal right to land. Equal rights to land and natural resources is critical to fight climate  change. As the Rural Women’s Assembly we demand that governments implement the principle of 50/50 land to women through a radical programme of land redisribution and agrarian reform.

3. Women produce 80 per cent of the food consumed by households in Africa. Seventy per cent of Africa’s 600 million people are rural. Financial support for women farmers must be commensurate to their numbers and crucial role. We stress that adaptation strategies and building resilience starts at the household level. Governments must address the crisis in the care economy in order to build resilence to climate change. As women we demand that 50 per cent of funding training and other support to agriculture must go to women farmers secured by a special allocation within the Green Climate Fund and public budgets.

4. We demand that climate change solutions put indigenous knowledge systems at the centre of policies to promote biodiversity, rehabilitate our ecosystems and rebuild the livlihoods destroyed by colonialism, apartheid and economic imperialism. Rural women are the holders of indigenous knowledge–our marginalisation from economic production, scientific knowledge generation and social systems has resulted in the steady loss of such knowledge to Africa, thereby making us more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

5. We demand an end to false climate solutions which are resulting in a deterioration of our environments, the destruction of marine life as well as land and resource grabs and the take over of food systems by corporations and speculators. We reject the participation of Africa in carbon markets, GMO projects and biofuels farming. Climate change can only be addressed by a change in our current economic system which encourages unsustainable resource extraction and consumption.

We commit ourselves to continue forward with the struggle against the injustices of climate change and build our movement to end the shameful marginalisation of rural women. We will continue to strive for the recreation of equitable vibrant, prosperous and healthy rural communities.

Signed on this day of 4 November 2011
Rural Womens Assembly

Contact details
Constance Mogale, Land Access Movement of South Africa
Tel: +27825590632
Mercia Andrews, Trust for Community Outreach and Education
Tel: +27823683429

Further contact details available from www.lamosa.org.za

But civil society groups in Durban are concerned that this vision for African agriculture will lead to land grabs, farmer poverty and food insecurity, and only worsen global climate change.

Teresa Anderson of the Gaia Foundation says “An agreement on Agriculture at COP17 would supposedly be a consolation prize to Africa for failure on legally binding targets – but the consolation prize is a poisoned chalice.  It will lead to land grabs and deliver African farmers into the hands of fickle carbon markets.”

“This is a diversion, and a betrayal of the real need to reduce emissions.  It will only worsen climate change and food insecurity.” Adds Helena Paul of EcoNexus.

Simon Mwamba of the East African Small Scale Farmers’ Federation explains: “Climate Smart Agriculture is being presented as sustainable agriculture – but the term is so broad that we fear it is a front for promoting industrial, ‘green revolution’ agriculture too, which traps farmers into cycles of debt and poverty.”

Anne Maina of the African Biodiversity Network adds “Climate Smart Agriculture comes packaged with carbon offsets.  Soil carbon markets could open the door to offsets for GM crops and large-scale biochar land grabs, which would be a disaster for Africa.  Africa is already suffering from a land grab epidemic – the race to control soils for carbon trading could only make this worse.”

The current collapse of carbon markets will mean that offsets will fail to provide money for African agriculture and farmers.

“There is no money for agriculture in Africa from carbon offsets.  The financial structure of Climate Smart Agriculture is built on evaporating carbon markets.  Carbon markets are in collapse, and projects will have unreliable and inadequate finance.” Adds Steve Suppan of IATP.

More than 100 African and international civil society groups have written to African ministers imploring them to reject agriculture carbon markets.  (View the letter at  http://nosoilcarbonmarkets.wordpress.com )

Contacts:

- Teresa Anderson, Gaia Foundation, teresa@gaianet.org, SA tel: +27 (0) 741 838 955

-Anne Maina, ABN, annenjiku@gmail.com, SA tel: +27 (0) 849 280 367

-Simon Mwamba, ESAFF, esaffzambia@gmail.com, Zambia tel: +260 977 828 109

-Steve Suppan, InATP, ssuppan@iatp.org, SA tel: +27 (0) 741 833 893

-Helena Paul, EcoNexus, h.paul@gn.apc.org. SA tel: +27 (0) 798 106 014

Groups belonging to the European Union, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) and Africa deemed it necessary and sufficient for a financial institutional agreement. The US, which has blocked the consensus on the draft instrument in the last meeting of the Transitional Committee in an effort to bring in its concerns that include incentives for private investments, expectedly called for further work on the design.

The group aligned with ALBA (Alianza Bolivariana de Nuestra America), seconded by Egypt,  raised alarm over the lack of certain elements in the draft instrument which would hinder democratic access to resources.  They cited the draft instrument’s lack of provisions for the fund to have an international legal personality, to work under the guidance of the Conference of Parties, and to be explicit that no conflict of interest between the fiduciary and executive trustee functions and country ownership of projects.

Other parties and groups however argued that reopening the discussion would be counterproductive. They also pointed out the urgency of operationalizing the financial mechanism in Durban.  The impasse was agreed to be resolved through consultations among the parties and groups in the Conference of Parties. A daily bulletin monitoring the negotiations likened the reopening of discussions on the fund to Pandora’s Box. Be that as it may, Philippine climate activists slammed these developments in the talks.

“These climate talks are ridiculous, as the US which has shunned a legally binding agreement to reduce emissions, is being allowed to openly sabotage what should be a science-based international agreement to save humanity and the planet. Venezuela and ALBA group have very good reason to open the discussion to refine the draft instrument, yet, the parties are hostaged by real threats to further water down the results of a climate funding mechanism that the developing world sorely needs,” said Frances Quimpo of the Center for Environmental Concerns-Philippines (CEC).

“Developing countries are not only being short-changed but also deceived in the proposed GCF. Capitalist countries like the US, UK and Japan continue to dangle the carrot to poor countries by promising to fund the GCF but actually are false commitments or just hot air,” says Clemente G. Bautista of International League of People’s struggle (ILPS) and Kalikasan PNE.

Since 2009,  the US, with its retinue of parties, have promised  in the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreement  that $100 billion will be distributed every year to developing countries through the Green Climate Fund, by 2020.  This was in exchange for the major shifts they have created in the processes and principles of the climate negotiations.

Bernarditas Mueller, a veteran negotiator of the Philippine delegation, has earlier lamented that the Cancun Agreement has made a fundamental shift in obligations, “weakening those of developed countries and turning over the main burden of mitigation to developing countries.”  She explained that attempts to deny developed countries’ historical  responsibility also negates the commitments of developed countries to provide financial resources and promote transfer of and access to environmentally sound technologies, as well as meeting costs of adaptation.

“Climate funds, especially for adaptation should be in the form of grants, and should be new and additional, predictable and adequate.  If at all funds for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) are forthcoming and private investors are allowed to have further roles in it, the climate change problems that our people are enduring will only be regarded as business opportunities to rake in profit, which would be nothing new to the onerous loans that have for decades driven developing countries to indebtedness and abject poverty,” explained Quimpo.

“Loans from international financial institutions for climate change projects have already come into the Philippines and other developing countries.  These loans have been used to fund projects that are environmentally destructive and aggravate global warming like large-hydro and coal power plants, such as the World Bank co-financed 600MW Calaca and Masinloc coal-fired power plants in the Philippines,” said Bautista.

“These are also the reasons why capitalist countries like the US wanted to increase the role of the private sector and financial institution to GCF. The climate fund would be an opportunity for them to do business and profit from mitigation and adaptation initiatives of poor countries like the Philippines,” Bautista added.

DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA, 2 December 2011 – Continued strong and united leadership by African governments is essential at the UN climate talks in South Africa if the world is to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, Friends of the Earth International warned today.

The global grassroots environmental federation condemned the inaction and intransigence of the industrialised world at the Durban climate talks, and the developed countries’ tactic of trying to escape their responsibilities for climate action by unravelling previous agreements and calling for a “new mandate” for the UN climate negotiations.

Friends of the Earth International’s assessment of the talks so far is:

- Led by the US, Canada and Japan, developed nations are trying to shift their responsibilities for deep and drastic emissions cuts onto developing countries in Africa and elsewhere. Developing countries are suffering the most from the climate crisis and have done the least to cause the problem.

- Developed countries are trying to kill the existing framework for legally binding emissions reductions – the Kyoto Protocol – and replace it with a disastrous ‘bottom-up’ voluntary approach.  The European Union has joined this push with a proposal for a so-called “new mandate” this week in Durban.

- Developed countries are trying to carve out new business opportunities for their financial elites and multinational corporations to access funds earmarked for climate action by developing countries. These funds are supposed to go fund sustainable development and urgently needed measures to protect poor and vulnerable communities from the devastating impacts of climate change.

- Only the Africa Group of countries – one of the regions already facing the worst impacts of the climate crisis – is showing leadership in the negotiations and holding industrialised countries to their previous commitments.

“We are already one week into the talks and still there has been no discussion on the most important issue here in Durban: when and with what level of urgency the rich industrialised countries who are responsible for the climate crisis are going to reaffirm their commitment to legally binding emissions cuts in line with science and equity.  So far, developed countries acted in the interests of their multinationals and financial elites. The world’s eyes are  now on the governments of Africa to show leadership where the rich governments have abjectly failed,” said Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International.

“On Saturday thousands of people will march on the streets of Durban to demand climate justice.   African leaders must hear their call and stand strong in the interests of our peoples and the people of the world,” he continued.

“Developed countries are busy trying to rearrange the deckchairs as the planet is about to sink. By opening the door to a deregulation of the UN climate agreement, they will begin a race to the bottom whose first victims will be the billions of people in the poorest and most vulnerable countries of Africa and the small islands,” said Asad Rehman of Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

“The EU must ensure that Durban does not lock the world into an ineffective global agreement that will give a green light to polluters to continue putting their economic interests before the people and the planet. The EU must stop its talk of new mandates and deliver in Durban under the existing mandate it is committed to: the continuation of the Kyoto protocol and its binding emissions cuts,” he added.

“South African President Jacob Zuma must stand with Africa and be uncompromising on what Africans have agreed must happen if our continent is not going to burn. We need deep and drastic binding emissions cuts by the rich countries and real, public climate finance, not a mandate for a new wave of financial colonialism through a private sector “facility” in the new Green Climate Fund,” said Bobby Peek of Friends of the Earth South Africa.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Rich developed countries are responsible for three quarters of all emissions historically whilst hosting only 15% of the world’s population. Africa’s historical contribution to global emissions is negligible.

The most fractious issue in the negotiations is the future of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.  Whilst the targets in the current commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol are extremely weak and full of dangerous loopholes like carbon trading, the Protocol itself provides the only existing international framework for legally binding targets for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The first period of emission cuts agreed under the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012. A new round of emission cuts must be agreed in Durban to avoid gaps between the first and second periods.

Canada, Japan and Russia are determined not to commit to a second period of emission cuts under the Protocol unless all major economies – including China and the United States – agree to the same legal terms.

The US is reneging on its promise to take on comparable binding emissions reductions and instead pushing for a complete dismantling of the framework of legally-binding emissions reduction targets and its replacement with a totally inadequate voluntary pledge and review system where countries would decide their own emissions cuts on a national basis.
FOR MORE INFORMATION

Friends of the Earth International media line: +27 791 097 223 (South African number valid only until Dec.10) or +31-6-5100 5630 (Dutch mobile) or email: media@foei.org

Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International: +234 803 727 4395 (Nigerian mobile) or  +27 (0) 71 63 92 542 (South African mobile valid only until Dec.10), email: nnimmo@eraction.org

Bobby Peek, Director of Friends of the Earth South Africa / groundWork: +27 (0) 824 641 383 or email: bobby@groundwork.org.za

Asad Rehman , Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland: +27 (0) 76 67 94 011 223 (South African number valid only until Dec.10)

The Green Climate Fund was created to support people in developing countries – people who are the most affected by the climate crisis but are the least responsible for it.

But at the climate negotiations this week, developed countries are trying to allow multinational corporations and financiers to directly access GCF financing.

This means companies could bypass developing country governments and their national climate strategies to get to public money.

“Turning the Green Climate Fund into a Greedy Corporate Fund would be shameful, yet this is what is being attempted at the Durban climate talks,” said Meena Raman from Third World Network.

“Led by the US and the UK on behalf of Wall Street and The City, this attempt to hijack developing countries’ funding is outrageous. Communities need this money to address climate change and to finance their own development – without repeating the same mistakes that the rich countries have made,” said Karen Orenstein from Friends of the Earth US.

“The role of private investment in financing climate activities must be decided at the national and sub-national levels in line with countries’ priorities, not corporate bottom lines. The move to allow the private sector to go directly to the Green Climate Fund for money undermines the possibility of a democratic, participatory process for meeting the needs of communities struggling to fight climate change,” said Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development.

Few adaptation measures in developing countries will be attractive to the private sector, as they will not generate revenue. Some key mitigation programs may also not be financially lucrative.

Groups also warned against closed door negotiations on the Green Climate Fund by South Africa, the US, and other developed countries.

“Whatever happens in Durban must be fully transparent. We are deeply concerned by reports that South Africa is informally consulting behind closed doors on the Green Climate Fund decision,” said Bobby Peek of groundwork / Friends of the Earth South Africa. “This will greatly undermine the legitimacy, and ultimately the effectiveness, of the Green Climate Fund.”

The concerns expressed in the letter come on top of the long-held rejection by many in civil society of any role for the World Bank in the Green Climate Fund.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Meena Raman, Third World Network, Mobile: + 27 (0) 72 26 18 870 (valid only until Dec. 9)

Lidy Nacpil, Jubilee South Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development, Tel: + 27 (0) 767342705 (valid only until Dec. 9)

Karen Orenstein, Friends of the Earth US: Tel: + 27 (0) 72 04 32 655 (valid only until Dec. 9)

Bobby Peek, groundWork/Friends of the Earth South Africa, Tel: +27 (0) 82 46 41 383

Murray Worthy, World Development Movement, Tel: +27 (0) 83 96 89 917

Janet Redman, Institute for Policy Studies, Tel: +27 (0) 713861216 (valid only until Dec. 9)

NOTES:

[1]

A copy of the letter is online at

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/b8/c/895/2/12-1-11_priv_sect_facility_GCF_lett_FINAL_w_sigs.pdf

A background briefing highlighting key considerations for the debate on the Green Climate Fund is online at:

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/c4/5/896/2/GCF-COP17-key-considerations.pdf

Sponsoring organizations include:

ActionAid, Campaign to Reform the World Bank, Friends of the Earth International, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Jubilee South – Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development, Institute for Policy Studies, World Development Movement.

African countries, united in the talks as the African Group, intend to use this opportunity to chart a course towards holistic outcomes that curb the growing threat posed by climate change to the African continent, implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, and advance the interests and aspirations of all African countries and peoples.

The UN talks continue under the UN Convention on Climate Change and are based on the ‘Bali Roadmap’ agreed in 2007. The key elements are: cutting emissions (‘mitigation’); preparing for and responding to climate impacts(‘adaptation’); compensating loses and paying for action (‘finance’); sharing and transferring technology and capacity building. These were agreed in tandem with negotiations over a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (the existing system of binding emission targets).

This note details the African Group perspective on some of the key issues on the table in Durban including:

1. The severe threat climate change poses to Africa and its food security
2. Addressing the ‘mitigation gap’
3. Addressing the ‘finance gap’
4. Building a strong legal architecture to support a global approach

The African Group of Negotiators is committed to outcomes on all of the issues in the negotiations, not just those listed here. For further information, interviews, briefings or quotes on these topics or others from representatives of African nations at the Durban Climate Summit please contact: Seyni Nafo, +27738235823, mimikaseyni@gmail.com   

For the official documents outlining the African Group of Negotiators’ common position please see:

• African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) Decision on Climate Change
• Bamako Declaration by AMCEN
• AMCEN Key Messages on Climate Change

1. The Situation in Africa

 Africa continues to face numerous severe negative impacts arising from the adverse effects of climate change. Such impacts are hampering Africa’s efforts to attain its development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals.

Therefore adaptation is an essential priority for the African Group and there is an urgent need for immediate and adequate support for the implementation of adaptation measures and actions through the provision of grant-based public resources.

The African Group proposes that adaptation activities should be funded at full cost through a direct and simplified process that is accountable and open to countries. Agreement on the funding of adaptation activities should come as one part of a balanced package on all issues to implement the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol.

There is an urgent need to avoid further loss and damage arising from the adverse effects of climate change on Africa. To do so developed countries must reduce their emissions in line with the most recent science in order to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 1.5°C.

2. Emissions

The African Group enters Durban deeply concerned that the inadequate mitigation pledges, notably by developed countries under the Cancun outcomes, risk an increase in global average temperature of greater than 2°C – and possibly as much as 5°C.[1] Such temperature increases will have catastrophic impacts worldwide, and particularly for Africa due to its high vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and low adaptive capacity.

Of further concern is that the mitigation pledges by developed countries amount to less than the voluntary mitigation pledges by developing countries.[2] In Durban the African Group will stress that developed countries must show leadership by raising their level of ambition to the scale required by science and equity.

The African Group will affirm in the negotiations that equity includes the right to equitable sharing of atmospheric space and resources, taking into account the cumulative historical responsibility and use of such resources by developed countries. The fact that cumulative emissions in Africa remain extremely low means Africa’s share of global emissions will need to grow to meet its social and economic development needs.

The African Group’s position is that developed countries must recognise ambitious mitigation commitments for a second and subsequent commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol. Developed countries must reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 40% by 2017 and by at least 95% cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. To ensure the environmental integrity of these targets offsets should be limited to 10% and existing loopholes should be closed.

The Group stresses the urgency of agreeing a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in Durban and of elaborating measures to avoid a gap between commitment periods.

3. Finance

The Durban talks must find agreement on the scale of public resources to be provided by developed countries from 2013, building on short-term finance commitments and reaching a scale adequate to meet the needs developing countries in 2020 and beyond.

The African Group is concerned by the insufficient transparency and slow disbursement of the financial resources pledged by developed countries as “fast start” finance for the period 2010-2012, particularly as analysis suggests that a small proportion of these resources are “new and additional”. To address this the African Group proposes a common reporting format for finance pledges.

The African Group is focused on ensuring direct access for all developing countries; and equitable allocation through geographical and needs based criteria; a balance between adaptation and mitigation; and grant-based funding for adaptation activities. The Group continues to emphasize that public finance should be the main source of funding to ensure the sustainability, predictability and adequacy of funding, bearing in mind that private and market finance can play a complementary role.

The African Group’s position is that developed countries should provide scaled up financial support based on an assessed scale of contributions that constitutes at least 1.5% of the gross domestic product of developed countries.

  4. Legal Architecture

The African Group understands that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol constitutes the fundamental global legal framework on climate change and that all actions or measures related to climate change must be in full conformity with the principles and provisions of the Convention, in particular those of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

The Group expects that the Durban talks will produce two outcomes in line with the Bali Roadmap:

1. An agreed outcome on long-term cooperative action to enhance the implementation of the Convention;
2. An amendment to Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol regarding further mitigation commitments of Annex I Parties for a second commitment period from 2013 to 2017 under the Kyoto Protocol.

The United States (which is not party to the Kyoto Protocol) should undertake legally binding commitments under the Convention that are comparable in magnitude and effort and are measurable, reportable and verifiable with regard to mitigation efforts and the provision of financial and technological resources.

In Durban, the African Group will work so a firewall is maintained between the mitigation commitments of developed countries that are legally binding in nature and the appropriate voluntary mitigation actions by developing countries.

The African Group expects a balanced outcome at the end of the negotiations in Durban, including a legally binding outcome on the scale of emission reductions to be undertaken by developed countries through a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and a legally binding outcome on the various pillars of the Bali Action Plan in accordance with the Bali Roadmap.