An analysis of the Peoples’ Agreement (1) that emerged from the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held from 20 to 22 April in Cochabamba (Bolivia) may lead us to think that the gender issue was not present at that Conference.

Although in general terms it may be true that a gender perspective was not substantially incorporated into the conclusions of the working groups, gender language and references to women can be found in some of the texts. However, when women are brought up in the working groups’ conclusions, it is mainly as vulnerable group. For example, group 6 on migrations specifies that it is women who suffer the most in situations arising from migration; group 7 on indigenous peoples, calls for the full and effective participation of vulnerable groups, including women; group 8 on climate debt mentions women twice in connection with vulnerable groups; group 12 on funding appeals for women to have representation in the new funding mechanism that should be set up to take on the costs of climate change; and group 14 on forests asks for recognition of the role of women in the preservation of cultures and the conservation of native forests and jungles and proposes the establishment of an expert group with representation of at least 50% by women. (1)

However, it would not be fair to assess the influence of feminist and women’s groups solely based on the conference texts and not consider the important contributions made alongside the working groups that prepared the final document. Here are some examples:

The Feminist Working group from Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) made a presentation at a workshop, showing the conclusions of the tribunals on gender and climate change held in seven countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The presentation included an analysis of the differentiated gender impacts caused by climate change. These issues are the lack of access to drinking water and water for agriculture, impact on food sovereignty and greater dependence on the economy and the market, prolonged droughts and heavy unseasonal rain and the loss of the ability to produce natural medicines due to reduced availability of the appropriate plants. This activity was positively assessed by the participants as it introduced a relevant but scantly addressed issue at the conference. However, perhaps the most important input of this group was related to the role of education in the generation of changes in production and excessive consumption patterns that are the true causes of climate change.  (2)

The event organized by the Latin American Network of Women Transforming the Economy (Red Latinoamericana de Mujeres Transformando la Economía – REMTE) made important inputs regarding “the structural causes of climate change and the challenges of an economy for life,” an approach in which the proposals of “Living Well” (Buen Vivir), the visions and practices of ancestral community economy, of feminist economy and of ecological economy all converge.  In a very brief summary, they stated that “what matters is to move towards an economy that promotes a broader reproduction of life instead of the reproduction of capital.”

Along the same line, during the Assembly of Social Movements that took place during the conference, women’s struggles did not go by unnoticed. In the Letter made public, it is stated that “resistance [to the climate crisis assessed as part of the global crisis] is being built up from the interrelation of diverse anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, anti-colonial and anti-racist approaches”… and that in the “process of articulation under permanent construction” one of the “key moments” will be the Third International Action of the World March of Women to take place in Congo next October.(3)

For their part, the Latin American representatives of Gender CC – Women for Climate Justice, made an analysis of the gender impacts of climate change in Bolivian and Colombian communities. Perhaps their most important contribution was the analysis of the impact on women of the false solutions to climate change proposed so far.  These false solutions include, among others, increased monoculture tree plantations for agrofuels and carbon sinks and major hydroelectric dams promoted as supposedly clean energy sources.  They are false solutions because from the standpoint of climate they do not attack the true causes and, what is even worse, they will not only aggravate injustices towards the poorest communities but also, as has already been proven, they worsen the lives of women in particular. (4)

The Latin American Feminist Community group, the voice of feminist social movements and organizations, also made a substantial input, making public a Pronouncement that arose from a document presented at one of the workshops. This document was discussed during the workshop and later the discussion was continued in an open space, where it received contributions from indigenous women and women from different countries. The Pronouncement analyzes in detail the concepts of Pachamama (Mother Earth), community, reciprocity, autonomy and climate change. As it is a lengthy document we will only refer to some points related to climate change which we believe to be of substance. (5)

Regarding climate change, the pronouncement explains that “it is the consequence of human activity, of human excesses, conceived in the framework of a predatory development model that is sustained by the consumption of fossil fuel and through deforestation and violation of nature in order to increase cement cities. A capitalist and patriarchal system, where everything is a commodity, where everything can become private property and have a price on it, and where any consequence of human activity can be repaired or modified by science and technology. It is the result of a system that … has undermined the basic necessary conditions for perpetuating life in a harmonious cosmos, for us the Pachamama (Mother Earth).”

One of the indigenous members of the movement explained that for them, patriarchy is a system of oppression of which its offspring, such as colonialism and neo-liberalism, are just different ways of plundering life, where the latter is the one that most cynically plunders the Pachamama. For this reason she added, it is not the indigenous peoples who are going to save the planet, because the men and women of the indigenous peoples are also patriarchal and it is patriarchy that is destroying life.  This is the reason for the need of a Pronouncement by Community Feminism, because our struggle is for our dreams.

Regarding the effects of climate change, the group ratified and agreed with the analysis made by other groups that “they are different and more severe for women because of their socially allocated role, where production, feeding and looking after the family is central; bringing up children and working outside the home, which does not imply not doing so-called domestic chores. As a result, women are more intensely affected by changes in the climate.”

The pronouncement rejects the fact that the same patriarchal rationale that inequitably allocates roles and tasks to sustain society is used to face climate change. Those responsible for it, the self-denominated developed countries have plundered, contaminated and forced the Pachamama. Their industries, elites and corporations are attempting to compensate and put a price on destruction. Regarding this, the pronouncement emphatically concludes: “From this community feminist viewpoint we reiterate that we do not want money in exchange for the damage caused to the Pachamama or to women. To accept money would be like a time bomb, it would mean that they will continue exploiting and paying for this exploitation.  We want restitution of rights. The damage caused can no longer be repaired, but the Pachamama’s rights can be restored and for this patriarchy must be dismantled, including its states, its armies, its transnational corporations, its hierarchical rationale and all the violence this means to women and to the Pachamama. We will not accept either that we women are made responsible for the plundering, what we have before us, men and women, is a community task. That is to say a task for all of us.”

Women spoke out clearly in Cochabamba. The enormous task of disseminating these contributions and their true inclusion on the agenda of social movements struggling for change still remains

(1) The full texts can be found on the Conference’s webpage e: http://cmpcc.org/

(2) See details of the conference and the presentation in the text distributed by Ana Agostino available at: http://www.icae2.org/files/349c.pdf

(3) Full text of the Letter in Spanish available at:  http://www.wrm.org.uy/actores/CCC/CMPCC/Movimientos_Sociales.html

(4) Full texts and power point presentations in Spanish available on the webpage of Gender cc: http://www.gendercc.net/

(5) The full document in Spanish is available at: http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/pronunciamiento-feminismo-comunitario-latinoamericano-conferencia-pueb

Article published in the English edition of WRM Bulletin, Nº 154, May 2010

If you wish to receive the bulletin monthly, please send a message to wrm@wrm.org.uy

World Rainforest Movement – http://www.wrm.org.uy

AWG-LCA discusses unilateral trade measures and forum on impacts of response measures

Bonn, 10 June (Meena Raman) – The contact group under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term, Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealt with the issue of the impact of mitigation actions by countries which result in economic and social consequences on 9 June.

Developing countries, led by the G77 and China wanted a forum to address the economic and social consequences of response measures, while developed countries said that the existing channels (such as information in national communications) were adequate to deal with the issue and there was no need for a separate forum.

Developing countries also expressed the need to respond to provisions made in the national legislation of some developed countries for cross border tax adjustments (referring to pending US climate legislation that provide for import restrictions on products coming from developing countries on the basis of their greenhouse gas intensity because such countries have no or insufficient climate protection measures).

In this regard, the G77 and China said that measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Developed countries were opposed to having this element provided for in the Chair’s facilitative text as they felt that the Convention in Article 3.5 already provides for this.

(Article 3.5 of the Convention states that “The Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country Parties, thus enabling them better to address the problems of climate change. Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.”)

The Chair asked Parties to consider the following questions, including how Parties showed affected by economic and social consequences be assisted to address such consequences and if there was a need for a forum to address the consequences of response measures.

Argentina speaking for G77 and China said that when dealing with social and economic consequences of response measures, there is a need to respect the principles and provisions of the Convention, and to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention, in accordance with the Bali Action Plan.

It said that consideration must be given to concrete remedies and effective actions to minimize any negative social and economic consequences of response measures experienced by developing country Parties. In this context, developed country Parties shall strive to implement response measures in such a way as to avoid and minimize those negative consequences on developing country Parties, taking fully into account Article 3 of the Convention.

Environmental standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and may cause unwarranted economic and social costs to other countries, in particular developing country Parties. In this context, it is important to fully take into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties, said Argentina.

Argentina also said that in order to minimize negative economic and social consequences, there is a need to avoid climate-related trade protectionist measures. Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country Parties. Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.

With respect to the social consequences, Argentina said that it was important to promote a just transition of the workforce, and the creation of decent work and quality jobs, in order to contribute to the promotion of economic growth and sustainable development.

Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources, including for access to and development and transfer of technology, at agreed full incremental costs in accordance with Article 4, paragraphs 3, 5 and 7, of the Convention, and promote and facilitate the transfer of and access to environmentally sound technologies and know-how to developing country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention.

Argentina also said that it was necessary to establish a forum to undertake activities including identifying and addressing negative economic and social consequences of response measures of developed country Parties, sharing information, promoting and cooperating on issues relating to response strategies and exploring ways to minimize negative consequences in developing country Parties. Further elaboration on these activities and functions of the Forum will be communicated by individual Parties and during our discussions in the appropriate contact groups.

It said that it would like to state that the treatment of social and economic consequences of response measures should have a broader scope than the current paragraph 17 of Chapter 1 of the Chair’s text. The creation of a forum to assess social and economic consequences of response measures is only one of the many elements included in Chapter 7 of the text and one of the many elements that the Group has mentioned that need to be reflected.  It said that there were issues in Chapter 7 that are also relevant to the discussions on ‘shared vision’ that would need to be adequately addressed as such.

Sierra Leone, speaking for the African Group said that the issues related to response measures should be separated from those of adverse effects of climate change. In this respect, it stressed the importance of creating space in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol process to ensure mitigation policies and measures on the economies of developing countries.

It said that the scope of these impacts extend beyond the traditional discussion of the consequences of mitigation policies on those countries whose economies are highly dependent on the export of fossil fuels. This is particularly relevant in the context of provisions made in the national legislation of some developed countries for cross border tax adjustments. In this regard, Sierra Leone said that policies and measures of developed countries should be formulated and implemented in accordance with the principle outlined in Article 3.5 of the Convention.

Sierra Leone also supported the establishment of the forum on response measures. The focus of the forum would be to address serious and consolidated discussion of the issues.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said that the implementation of response measures is separate and different from adaptation. The needs of the small island states and LDCs must be addressed in relation to the impacts of the response measures. SIDs are remote and necessities are brought by boats and planes and they rely on tourism. There was need to understand the impacts of response measures in this regard, both negative and positive.

It also supported the establishment of a forum as a good way to discuss the ways and means to address such impacts.

Saudi Arabia said that while it saw the discussion on response measures as relevant to mitigation, the notion of seeking to adapt to the impacts for all developing countries constitutes adaptation as well.

On measures to address the consequences, it said that insurance and mechanisms can be built to cater to particular policies that result in revenue loss in developing countries, including assistance in economic diversification.

It supported the need for the forum which could be under the Subsidiary Body on Implementation and there was need for policy guidance and decisions of the Conference of Parties, with a work programme. There could be an annual report to the COP for decisions.

Bolivia said that developed countries have appropriated a major part of the Earth’s atmosphere in the past, and they are now seeking to take a disproportionately large share of the remaining budget without compensating developing countries. From 1850 to 2005 the cumulative emissions of CO2 equivalent have been 1.107 billions tons. From this total amount and taking into account that Annex 1 Parties represent 20 % of the population, they have over used their share by 280 %. In other words that means that the space that belonged to developing parties has been occupied by 618 billion tons CO2 by Annex 1 Parties. The discussion in this regard was how to give back this space since this has constrained the development of developing countries.

There was therefore need for developed country Parties to compensate developing countries for the economic losses arising from the implementation of climate change response measures. Based on the historical responsibility of developed countries and climate justice, this compensation is to counter lost development opportunities, including addressing the needs of climate migrants.

It also believed that an appropriate forum should be established under the Convention to give full consideration to what actions are necessary to address the potential economic and social consequences and impacts of the design, selection and implementation of response measures. In addition, this forum shall cooperate with the indigenous peoples through their own representative institutions to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing measures that may affect them.

Bolivia also said that developed country Parties should not resort to any form of unilateral climate-related trade measures including border adjustment measures and tariffs against the goods and services of developing country Parties on climate-related grounds.

Spain speaking for the European Union said that it understood the social and economic challenges especially of the SIDs and the LDCs. Efforts to address climate change must not hinder progress as regards sustainable development. However, it felt that it was best to address such concerns through existing information channels, including bilateral ones. This could be done through national communications with improved information.

The United States said that there would be impacts that need to be managed as a result of all Parties taking mitigation actions. It supported language in the Chair’s facilitative text to promote just transition of workforce in the context of mitigation efforts.  This consideration, it said, belonged to the mitigation aspect and not adaptation.

The US did not see the need for a separate channel such as a forum to address the impacts of response measures and felt that existing channels were sufficient. It also said that Article 3.5 of the Convention was sufficient to address the issue of trade and it was not relevant or appropriate in the context of the current discussion.

Japan said that there was no need to re-open the discussion on trade matters as Article 3.5 already deals with this. There was need to understand the impacts of response measures before establishing a forum to deal with it. Hence, it proposed the use of existing channels such as the national communications as a tool for this.

Australia and New Zealand reflected similar views as other developed countries.

The climate crisis in Bolivia is not a headline or an abstraction – it is playing out in people’s lives in real time.

Melting glaciers are threatening the water supply of the country’s two biggest cities. Increasing droughts and floods are playing havoc with agriculture.

So it is no surprise that in climate negotiations, Bolivia is emerging as a leader in the global south – advancing both radical solutions and analysis that make rich countries distinctly nervous.

On this edition of Fault Lines, Avi Lewis travels to Bolivia to explore the country’s climate crusade from the inside.

It is the story of an emerging movement, based in the global south, raising questions about who owes what to whom in confronting the climate crisis.

And it is playing out in Bolivia’s epic landscape – from the tropical glaciers to the endless salt flats. A landscape that in normal times seems to mock the very idea that human beings can change the course of nature.

This episode of Fault Lines can be seen from Thursday, May 20, 2010 at the following times GMT: Thursday: 0600; Friday: 0030, 0830; Saturday: 2330; Sunday: 0630, 2130; Tuesday: 0530, 1230; Wednesday: 0300

To view the video on a full screen http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/faultlines/2010/05/2010518121127315453.html

The Run-Up

Copenhagen, Denmark, December 2009. The climate summit’s failure manages to underwhelm even the already low expectations of the emerging global climate justice movement. Once it becomes obvious that none of the major emitters, neither the US nor the EU, Japan or Australia, has committed to the necessary dramatic emissions reductions, the so-called “Copenhagen Accord” is being negotiated outside the official processes under the leadership of the United States. (And why should the major emitters reduce their emissions? In a fossil-fuel based capitalist economy, reducing emissions implies a politically unpalatable reduction of economic growth.) The Accord claims it wants to limit global warming to 2° Celsius, but in pursuit of this ambitious goal it proposes only voluntary emissions reductions, without any mechanisms for enforcing these commitments, or for penalising those countries that fail to meet their commitments.

It is the resistance of governments from Venezuela, Sudan and Bolivia that ultimately stops the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) from officially adopting the Accord. Instead, the text it is merely “taken note of” – as is the quality of the catering at the summit. The worst-case scenario feared by many in the movements and in critical NGOs, that a bad deal might be greenwashed, thus does not come to pass. Only the politically colour-blind could see the Accord as being genuinely green. The supposedly “last, best chance to save the planet” thus passes, after a two-week summit during which the prospect of the disappearance of entire island states under water and the evacuation of their populations had become a new normality that people accepted without flinching.

To read the whole article, click here

June 3-4, 2010, Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Colmantstraße 14–16, Bonn, Germany

The climate crisis is upon us. But despite widespread political claims of support for climate protection, the UN negotiations in Copenhagen collapsed. A breakthrough for just and effective climate protection is not in sight – either nationally or at the international level. Good reason for social movements and environmental groups worldwide to continue our efforts for climate justice.

On the occasion of UN climate talks in Bonn, the German section of Attac and the BUND (Friends of the Earth, Germany) in cooperation with Alliance Klimawelle (“Climate Wave”) Bonn are organizing the strategy and action conference Climate Forum Bonn.

This alternative summit will continue the important work of the Climate Forum 09 during the Copenhagen Summit.

The program will include workshops and panel discussions on energy, mobility, agriculture, trade and social policy as well as international climate policy.

We must do it ourselves! New Strategies for just and effective climate protection!

More information

By Patrick Bond

May 5, 2010 — The “climate debt” that the industries and over-consumers of the global North owe Africans and other victims of climate change not responsible for causing the problem has accrued by virtue of the North’s excessive dumping of greenhouse gas emissions into the collective environmental space. Damage is being accounted for, including the more constrained space the South has for emissions. This historical injustice – and “debt” — is now nearly universally acknowledged (aside from Washington holdouts), and reparations plus adaptation finance are being widely demanded.

In Copenhagen, the 2009 United Nations summit on climate change witnessed a great deal of theatre over conceptual problems, including, who should make emissions cuts and to what degree; should markets be the main mechanism; who owes a climate debt; how much is owed; and how the debt should be collected. The willingness of African heads of state to raise the matter publicly beginning in mid-2009 was notable, but their inability to ensure political solidarity led to the imposition of the Copenhagen Accord on December 18, in a manner that sets back the cause.

Read the full article

Now we are opening a new front page, with two columns: one for the latest news, the other for texts & analysis coming from movements and networks. We open this column with the Story of Cap and Trade!

The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the “devils in the details” in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from whats really required to tackle the climate crisis. If you’ve heard about Cap & Trade, but aren’t sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the film is for you.

The following is a short summary of the current situation, no doubt with many gaps.

In Mexico City itself, there is a broad gathering, of organisations, including international NGOs such as Greenpeace, networks such as the RMALC (formed to fight against trade liberalisation), and numerous local and national organisations, many of them active on environmental issues. This gathering, facilitated by the Mexico office of the Heinrich Boell Foundation, does not yet have a platform or a precise identity.

At this stage this is an open space, which obviously does not represent the totality of those who are preparing for the COP16. However, several initiatives are already underway, such as a « solidarity economy caravan » which will start in Aguascalientes, in the centre of Mexico in mid October, travelling via Mexico City and San Cristobal de las Casas in Chiapas, and arriving in Cancun at the end of November. A group of activists is also building the « Klimaforum10 » — based on the model of the Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen. This group has a more defined platform however its relationship with other initiatives or organisations has yet to be defined.

Also present at the Mexico meetings were representatives Via Campesina North America and UNORCA (one of Via Campesina’s Mexico members) which has a strong base, especially in the south of the country. As a first priority, Via Campesina is committed to mobilising their members before becoming involved in a larger coalition.

Activists from Cancun itself were also present. Originally, the Mexican government announced that the COP16 would be held in Mexico City, assuming that an agreement would be reached in Copenhagen and therefore that the COP16 would pass without problems. Following the failure in Copenhagen and fears about mobilisations around the conference, the Mexican government decided to organise the conference in Cancun, more than 2000 kms from Mexico City and in a tourist zone which is easily isolated from the rest of the city. The local activists have decided to accept the challenge and construct a large coalition, but in the spirit of the Cochabamba « Peoples Accord ».

On the question of next meetings, all the participants, including activists from the US, Asia, Europe and Africa, agreed it would be useful to meet again, with the possibility of an international meeting in Mexico in September or early October. However, in the next months there are several other international meetings, including Bonn in early June during the UNFCCC intersessional, in Detroit at the end of June during the US Social Forum, in Istanbul in early July during the European Social Forum and in Asuncion Paraguay during the Americas Social Forum in August.

Christophe Aguiton and Nicola Bullard