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.

GDA 2011

This year’s Global Day of Action will take place on Saturday, 3 December, and is an opportunity to demonstrate to governments around the world people’s common determination to prevent catastrophic climate change. C17 will mark the day by coordinating a non-violent mass march in Durban that welcomes all interested civil society organisations wanting to participate.

The march will demonstrate that addressing climate change is as urgent for the people of Africa as for those of the North. Behind a common lead banner, it will combine the diversity of formations and opinions within civil society. Organisations participating in the march will define and display their own messaging.

Participants are asked to gather from 08h30. The pre-march rally will begin at 09h00.

The Route

Participants are invited to gather at Botha’s Garden/ King Dinuzulu Garden (near the corner of Julius Nyerere Street and Dr Pixley Kaseme Street). The march will follow a route past the ICC, the site of the United Nations climate change negotiations, converging en route with faith community members (who will rally at Diakonia Centre, 20 Andrew’s Street, Durban).   Pausing at the entrance to the ICC, the GDA march will end at the Old Pavilion site (corner of OR Tambo parade and KE Masinga).

More information:

As world leaders struggle to reach agreement at the COP17 negotiations, the COP17 civil society committee (C17) is issuing a rallying call to all South Africans to join civil society, organised labour, faith-based organisations, artists and musicians in a peaceful march through Durban on Saturday 3rd December.

Ordinary people from across Africa and the World are coming together to make sure their voices are heard. Some of those most affected by the impacts of changing climate will be taking part in the march including peasant farmers from across the continent and hundreds of women from South African rural communities.

C17 Global Day of Action committee convenor Desmond D’sa: “World leaders are discussing the fate of our planet but they are far from reaching a solution to climate change. If they fail to make progress we will see drought and hunger blight our country and continent even further. We call on all South African’s to march with us this Saturday and remind our leaders they must come to a fair climate change deal that avoids runaway climate change.”

Participants are invited to gather from 8:30 am at Botha’s Garden/ King Dinuzulu Garden (near the corner of Julius Nyerere Street and Dr Pixley Kaseme Street) for the pre-march rally to begin at 9:00am. Speakers will include South African and international community representatives, Bishop Geoff Davies, Bandile Mdlalose, and C17’s Desmond D’sa.

The march will follow a route past the ICC, the site of the United Nations climate change negotiations, converging en route with faith community members (who will rally at Diakonia Centre, 20 Andrew’s Street, Durban). Special needs groups and children will join the march at Speakers Corner.

Pausing at the entrance to the ICC at about 13:00, speakers will present short speeches, before statements gathered from participating groups and organisations are collectively handed over to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. Speakers will include Zwelinzima Vavi (representing labour), Nnimmo Bassey (representing Africa), Bishop Davies (representing faith communities), Aluwani Nemukula (representing youth) and Constance Mogale (representing women).

The GDA march will end at the Old Pavilion site (corner of OR Tambo parade and KE Masinga).

Media are advised that the best photo and interview opportunities will be at the rallying point and as the march approaches the ICC.

PLEASE NOTE: After negotiations with the City of Durban, the starting point of the march has changed. It was previously advertised that the march would start at Curries Fountain, however it will now begin at Botha’s Gardens.

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)

DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA – Today – The African Climate Policy Centre (ACPC), the technical arm of the Climate for Development in Africa (ClimDev Africa) programme, based at the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), released a detailed report on the current provision of climate finance.

The report finds that there are many lessons to be learnt from the current ‘fast start finance’ system, which was supposed to deliver $30 billion in ‘new and additional’ funding to developing countries, and was agreed at the Copenhagen climate conference.

Launching the report, Yacob Mulugetta, Senior Energy and Climate Specialist at the ACPC said, ‘The experience with the “fast-start” pledges and discussions of the $100 billion promise suggests that the adequacy and predictability of climate finance may remain very low if the future climate finance architecture reflects current practice.’

‘African countries, as well as many other developing countries, are vulnerable to climate change and are among those least likely to have the resources required to withstand its adverse impacts – yet there has not been any indication that the magnitude of climate finance will meet the scale of what is needed.’ Seyni Nafo, Spokesperson of the African Group said.

‘Long-term climate finance needs to be accountable and transparent. In Africa, we need to know how much is new, where it is coming from, and whether it will be directed to the adaptation projects that are desperately necessary,’ he insisted.

The study shows that:

• Of the $29.2 billion pledged since 2009, only between $2.8 and $7.0 billion is “new” (i.e. not previously pledged);
• The total amount of funds that are both “new and additional” (i.e. on top of aid budgets) would be less than $2 billion.
• While 97% of the promised $30 billion has been pledged, only 45% has been “committed”, 33% has been “allocated” and only about 7% has been “disbursed”
• That finance is being directed toward ‘mitigation’ projects over ‘adaptation’ projects instead of being ‘balanced’ between the two with around 62% allocated for mitigation, 25% for adaptation and 13% for REDD+ (forestry, which should count as mitigation)
• The current finance available for Africa and other developing countries under the fast-start finance is not commensurate to the scale required to implement the activities agreed to in the UN climate convention;
• There are few agreed benchmarks for climate finance so there is limited transparency and accountability as to how the money is provided.

Please contact Yacob Mulugetta, African Climate Policy Centre (UNECA), +27714177993, YMulugetta@uneca.org for a copy of the report

Durban:

“Shell has left a trail of broken promises and ravaged eco-systems.  They have been pushing their dirty fossil fuels plans on every country they can bully. It’s time to stand up and say get the Shell out of there, we don’t want your broken promises anymore,” declared Eriel Deranger, a community member of ACFN and director of Sierra Club Prairies.

“We’re drawing the line, and taking a strong stand against Shell. ACFN wants no further developments until Shell is brought to justice and our broader concerns about the cumulative impacts in the region are addressed,” stated Allan Adam, Chief of ACFN.

“The destructive tar sands operations by Shell and other big oil companies are destroying the land and violating our people’s rights to hunt, trap and fish. Canada is a willing partner in these crimes and other human rights abuses caused by fossil fuels and climate change,” noted Daniel T’seleie, an Indigenous youth from northern Canada, and a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation.

“Shell has a history of devastation across the African continent that we are well aware of. Our peoples and our environments have been turned into a colony for companies like Shell, who profit from our suffering. Knowing full well the extent of brutality that Shell has delivered to my fellow Nigerians, we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Canada standing up to say ‘get the Shell out of here’,” emphasized Nnimmo Bassey, director of Environmental Rights Action (Nigeria) and winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize.

“Ironically, Durban, the site of this year’s international climate talks, has struggled against the aging Shell refinery that is the symbol of climate change and environmental injustice. Shell has been responsible for crimes against local citizens, where refinery accidents are common and where rusting pipelines have leaked more than 1 million litres of petrol. We strictly oppose plans to bring Tar Sands oil to South Africa, and agree that Shell must be held accountable for its violations against communities,” claimed Bobby Peek, director of Groundwork in Durban.

“We are here in Durban to look for climate solutions, meanwhile countries like Canada are promoting dirty oil from the Tar Sands, backed by large corporations like Shell. While our communities are suffering from the impacts of climate change, groups like Shell have been found to be lobbying governments to weaken their positions. This has to be the time when we begin to hold companies and countries alike responsible for their actions against our communities,” declared Tom Goldtooth, director of the Indigenous Environmental Network in North America.

The contract to utilise UKZN was signed on November 3, 2011, between the C17, a body mandated by over 80 South African civil society groups to coordinate civil society activities around COP17, and UKZN management, with the assistance of the university’s Centre for Society and School of Development Studies.

C17 aims to provide a space in which to strengthen the climate justice movement in South Africa, while at the same time consolidating civil society actions across the world during the two weeks of negotiations.

The establishment of a parallel space at COP negotiations each year responds to the marginalisation civil society frequently experiences at these events and the lack of progress that has been made by international governments in addressing climate change.

‘The People’s Space’ will thus serve as the space in which the people of the world can make their voices heard and where civil society can work towards creating another vision for addressing climate change by building a strong movement of like-minded activists and ordinary people from around the world.

Situated just six kilometres from the official UNFCCC event at Durban’s International Conference Centre (ICC), UKZN’s Howard College will provide room for key civil society events for the duration of the two-week conference from November 28, to December 9, 2011. C17 will engage with eThekwini Municipality to provide transport between the ICC and UKZN.

The People’s space is expected to attract between 5000 and 6000 people during the course of the conference. Events include the Conference of the Youth (COY7) the weekend ahead of COP17, the international labour movement’s Pavilion of Work, as well as numerous panel debates, art exhibitions and film festivals.

While the People’s Space was initially intended to be held at the Durban University of Technology, C17, which is coordinating the space, eventually settled on UKZN and secured a number of venues to accommodate civil society events. “C17 recognises the value of bringing as many South Africans as possible to participate in the COP and decided to use our limited funding to do so. We chose UKZN as our next-best option based on criteria of distance and cost,” says C17 coordination subcommittee convenor Siziwe Khanyile.

In addition to access to The People’s Space, C17 is coordinating the Global Day of Action on December 3, 2011, to relay civil society’s dissatisfaction with the pace of the UNFCCC negotiations. A peaceful march through the streets of Durban attended by upwards of 20 000 people will be supported by people around the world as they take action in their home countries.

C17 will also establish a climate refugee camp at Block AK near the ICC from the December 1 to December 6, 2011, highlighting the plight of climate refugees worldwide.

To apply for use of the space go to http://www.c17.org.za/civil-society-space/participate <http://www.c17.org.za/CampaignProcess.aspx?A=Link&VID=9565142&KID=12963&LID=56114&O=http%3a%2f%2fwww.c17.org.za%2f..%2fcivil-society-space%2fparticipate>

About UKZN

The University of KwaZulu-Natal will be the host site for the ‘People’s Space’ activities, organised by civil society, associated with the international climate change negotiations to be hosted in Durban from November 28 to December 9. These activities will include public seminars, exhibitions, films and cultural activities. Many of the world’s leading experts on climate and civil  society will be on hand over the fortnight. Academics and activists will intermingle with those attending the United Nations COP17. The UKZN Centre for Civil Society and School of Development Studies will arrange local public events, web access and media relations to ensure that civil society’s views are heard and respected.

About C17 (The COP 17 Civil Society Steering Committee)

The Civil Society Committee for COP17 (C17) includes representatives of various organisations including social movements, labour, environmental justice organisations, international environmental NGOs and faith-based organisations. It is a facilitatory body established to coordinate the participation of international and national movements and organisations of civil society in the common process but will not seek to represent them or to enter into negotiations with, or lobbying of, governments on their behalf. Rather, the C17 seeks to create opportunities for civil society engagement in the 2011 climate change negotiations during 2011, civil society engagement with the South African government around climate change negotiations and positions, a platform for the expression of diversity in civil society and environmental movement building in South Africa and the region.

For more information, or to receive communiqués on civil society activities at COP17, go to www.c17.org.za <http://www.c17.org.za/CampaignProcess.aspx?A=Link&VID=9565142&KID=12963&LID=56115&O=http%3a%2f%2fwww.c17.org.za%2f..%2f>  , and follow us on facebook and Twitter.

Contact Information

C17 People’s Space Enquiries:

Bryan Ashe

People’s Space subcommittee convenor

bryan@c17.org.za

C17 Media Enquiries:

Laura Tyrer

Media and Communications subcommittee convenor

laura@c17.org.za <mailto:laura@c17.org.za>

C17 Global Day of Action Enquiries:

Desmond D’Sa

GDA subcommittee convenor

Desmond D’Sa-SDCEA Co-ordinator

General Enquiries:

Siziwe Khanyile

Coordination subcommittee convenor

siziwe@groundwork.org.za

GRASSROOTS GLOBAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE & LA VIA CAMPESINA NORTH AMERICA

GLOBAL WEEK OF ACTION

DECEMBER 3: 1000 DURBANS FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE

December 5: Via Campesina International Food Sovereignty Day to Cool Down the Earth

STOP THE 1% FROM PROFITING FROM POLLUTION!
LIFT UP COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS THAT COOL THE PLANET!

GGJ and La Vía Campesina are calling on all members and allies to mobilize on Saturday, December 3 under the banner of “1000 DURBANS FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE! STOP THE 1% FROM PROFITING FROM POLLUTION, LIFT UP COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS THAT COOL THE PLANET!”

On this day we will join social movements across the globe in creating 1000s OF DURBANS in conjunction with the social movement activities around the UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa. From November 28 – December 9, government representatives are once again gathering for the 17th Conference of Polluters, otherwise known as the United Nations Conference of Parties (COP17) on climate change.

Last year at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico, most of the world’s governments — with the notable exception of Bolivia — met to do business with transnational corporations that traffic in false solutions to climate change. Rather than seriously address the urgency of climate change, these governments negotiated the details of polluting and land-grabbing projects like REDD and other carbon market mechanisms, agrofuels and GMOs. These meetings are supposed to be urgent negotiations to cut greenhouse gases on a world scale. But instead of taking big steps beyond Kyoto, they want to throw out any binding agreements and set up new markets to buy and sell pollution and carbon.

BRINGING DURBAN HOME
Social movement delegations will be gathering in Durban to advance climate justice solutions that address these crises at the root, the capitalist system. This climate justice agenda includes stopping false solutions like cap and trade, REDDs and other carbon trading mechanisms, and advocating for the principles and guidelines of the Food Sovereignty movement and the Cochabamba Accords.  It also includes pressuring industrialized nations to adopt the science-based emissions target reductions outlined in the Cochabamba Accords: a reduction of 50% of current levels by 2017.

Grassroots Global Justice Alliance (GGJ) and La Vía Campesina North America are joining forces to mobilize our memberships for this day of action to “bring Durban home”. Saturday, December 3rd will be a day for people across North America and around the world to denounce the system that allows corporations to profit from harming our communities and our planet. A day to demand that big polluters clean up or close up . It will be a day to connect the climate crisis to the economic crisis and to say – we will not let corporations continue to profit from pollution!

WHAT YOU CAN DO
We are calling on all GGJ and Via Campesina U.S. members and allies to do events in your own cities and regions. The events could be actions or political education events that expose the corporate polluters in your area, or that highlight the environmental justice or climate justice solutions already in place in your area (community lands/ gardens, pesticide and GMO free production, local family farmers markets, toxics cleanup projects, real renewable clean energy policies etc.). We also invite members to link their actions in solidarity with struggles globally against landgrabbing and other so-called “green” capitalism projects which in fact are harming the environment and displacing communities.

STOP THE 1% FROM PROFITING FROM POLLUTION
At Durban COP17 we will reject any attempt to extend the toxic carbon market and will reject any attempt to develop offset mechanisms including REDDs and soil carbon. We will expose the false solutions dressed up by the World Bank as support for small farmer agroecology or “Climate Smart Agriculture”. Just as in the case of REDD for forests, the voluntary soil carbon market will put the carbon in our soil into the hands of polluting corporations in the North. It will become another space for financial speculation and a carbon bubble that could burst just like the housing bubble. Farmers and farmworkers will receive pennies while speculators make exorbitant profit off the commodification of carbon in soil.

This is the same corporate-led agenda that has led to rising sea levels, rising food prices, increased flooding and drought in many parts of the world, and the massive migration of rural peoples due to displacement by deforestation, desertification and now speculative land-grabbing.

STOPPING THE TAR SANDS AND KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
The “cornerstone” actions in the US will be actions to stop the TransCanada Corporation’s Keystone XL Pipeline designed to carry synthetic crude oil from the Tar Sands in Alberta throughout the Western Plains, Midwest and Southern US. These actions will highlight who would profit and who would suffer if the Keystone XL pipeline gets built. The current stretch of the Keystone pipeline running through the Western Plains states of the US has already resulted in twevle devastating oil spills.

First Nations, family farmers and communities in those states have actively opposed the continuation of the pipeline, built and managed by the TransCanada corporation, due to fears of the polluting impacts on soils, forests, water and communities. These same groups also oppose government supported corporations’ harmful “fracking” in the search for additional fossil fuel reserves. “Our water is like gold; the pipeline threatens some of the American heartland’s most sensitive lands, now productive agricultural land, as well as the Ogallala aquifer, the Yellowstone and Missouri and many other rivers, and other drinking water supplies.” says the Western Organization of Resource Councils. Farmers and ranchers, landowners, steelworkers, and environmentalists have joined First Nation tribes to warn that construction of three massive pipelines would threaten communities across the West and Midwest and increase greenhouse gas emissions by 17% over other types of oil fuels. The US and Canadian governments show no intention to protect our land, water and livelihoods as they continue to support big corporations who exploit and pollute.

Whatever your local mobilization may be, we are asking all participants to take one joint action together: gather signatures for a petition that targets the U.S. Department of State for its role in supporting the corporate polluter agenda.  Specifically the petition will demand that the Department of State deny the permit that would allow the TransCanada Corporation to build this destructive pipeline.

Our goal is to collect 5,000 signatures to turn into the State Department the week of December 5th.

The struggle in Durban is our struggle here and everywhere. Make this global day of action a day of connection with the millions who are saying:

STOP THE CARBON MARKET BUBBLE AND OPPOSE GREEN CAPITALISM!
OUR PLANET IS NOT FOR SALE!
COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS COOL THE PLANET!
FOOD SOVEREIGNTY COOLS THE PLANET!

This year is a critical one for the global climate change negotiations. Durban, South Africa will play host to the UN Conference of Parties (COP 17) later this year.

One of the challenges in the run-up to Durban is understanding the politics of climate change arising from the Copenhagen meeting and the subsequent Cancun conference, the outcomes of those meetings, and how these outcomes relate to Durban and, therefore, what civil society demands can and should be.

What happened in Copenhagen and Cancun?

The Copenhagen conference was essentially a train wreck. It ranks as one of the worst international meetings held in the last decade and a half, and may go down in infamy for the Danish government’s handling of it.

The mandate of Copenhagen was to come up with outcomes in two tracks of climate change negotiations under the UN Climate Convention and its Kyoto Protocol (KP). There was a heavy push to involve heads of states. The direct involvement of these leaders complicated the negotiations because once they arrived, the formal negotiations stalled and negotiations went underground.

Essentially, a number of high-level officials from a small group of countries, around 26 or 28 (the actual list has never been made public) disappeared into a backroom at the conference centre. So you had the delegates of around 190 countries negotiating as part of the formal process as they are supposed to while, in parallel, in a backroom, there was a meeting going on that even the chair of the negotiations had not been invited to.

That small group came up with a document that they called the ‘Copenhagen Accord’. This was basically a document that was drafted initially by the Danish government with input, as far as we can tell, from a fairly small group of developed countries.

The negotiations in the backroom continued until after midnight on the final day, while delegates from the remaining 150 countries waited in the plenary room for hours. The Danish prime minister came back and said to the governments assembled that a small group had been working very hard and had come up with a document that they wanted to present as the outcome of the meeting.

For many of the delegates it was the first time they had seen the document or that version of the document, and they were given one hour to go back to their groups and review the document and basically accept the outcome.

And of course the flags of dozens of countries went up in the air: ‘Point of order,’ was decalred. The deputy executive secretary bent over and said to the Danish prime minister that there were some ‘points of order’ but the prime minister lent back and said, ‘There will be no points of order.’ Unbeknown to him, his microphone was switched on and this was communicated to everyone in the room, triggering pandemonium. He stood up and walked off the podium.

Delegates then heard a resounding banging that ricocheted around the room. A delegate from Venezuela had picked up the plastic name tag of her country and was banging it on the table demanding that the Danish prime minister return to the room and the other countries be given the right to participate in the multi-lateral negotiations.

When the Danish prime minister was brought back reluctantly and red-faced to the podium, the delegate raised her bleeding hand and asked: ‘Do I have to bleed to have my country heard in this forum?’ There were other interventions. Tuvalu said they would not sell their future for ‘30 pieces of silver’. Sudan asked whether the document was a suicide pact and whether delegates were being asked to incinerate Africa.

In the ensuing discussions in the plenary, the UK and USA mounted pressure on other countries, basically bribery and pressure, using finance in an attempt to get countries to agree, but ultimately countries led by Bolivia and Nicaragua held firm and the Copenhagen Accord was merely noted, meaning that the UN neither agrees nor disagrees with it; it simply recognises that it exists.

Following Copenhagen, many of those same governments exerted massive pressure on developing countries to sign up to the Accord. Many African countries did so willingly, in part because Ethiopia had been one of the countries that had been in the room and had supported the Copenhagen Accord and had brought it back into the processes of the African Union, but many other African countries stood firm against the Accord.

Between Copenhagen and Cancun there was a strong process to reinstate the Copenhagen Accord as the basis of negotiations and to reintroduce it as one of the formal documents. As negotiations moved to Cancun there were continuing concerns about substantive demands, but also about the process of negotiations – whether countries would genuinely be able to participate and represent the interests of their people.

In Cancun it was recognisable that this was going to be a different type of negotiations: The developed countries were not going to repeat the same mistake that they made in Copenhagen. Instead, there was a much more sophisticated process established that involved a number of things that were extraordinary in the UN process. This included meetings of small groups of countries that were not announced. A new text was developed in a process that no-one quite understands. In subsequent meetings of the Africa group, delegates acknowledge they still have no idea who drafted the document. The document was again tabled with a few hours notice, but this time with a much more sophisticated process and ultimately only Bolivia was really willing to stand up and raise questions about the process.

They enumerated their concerns, including a shift to a pledge-based process; the continuation of market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, even if there is no second commitment process; questions around the scale of financing; and concerns around technology and intellectual property.

Ultimately, the views of Bolivia were dismissed by the chair, the text was not opened for any negotiation and the chair said that consensus did not mean unanimity. In other words, the fact that a sovereign state opposes a consensus does not prevent the document from being adopted, which is inconsistent with the traditional understanding of consensus, which means that all parties participate.

Basically, what happened in Cancun was that there were a number of undertakings for further work and, in a sense, these are deliverables for the Durban meeting. But there were a number of issues that were left unaddressed because Cancun addressed the easy issues, but left the hard issues that arose in the Bali Action Plan.

CLASH OF PARADIGMS

Underlying these meetings is the clash of paradigms between the science-based, equity-based, rule-of-law-based process that was envisaged in the Bali roadmap and the pledge-and-review approach which the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reveals will lead to between 2.5 and five degrees Celsius of warming and associated impacts that include massive levels of loss and damage, particularly in Africa.

At Cancun, there were two main outcomes: One under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the other under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). Two key questions arise: What is on the table and what are the key things that need to be addressed in both of these areas?

On the table on the AWG-LCA is a two degree Celsius goal and a review to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050. The position of various countries reflects their underlying material interests: The Annex 1 countries (developed countries) have supported two degrees Celsius while within the African group there is support that has flip-flopped between two degrees Celsius and 1.5 degrees Celsius. The last statement was for 1.5 degrees Celsius.

There are also issues around mitigation, all related to the effort sharing question, because all of them affect how much the developed countries do and how much the developing countries do, and how much reduction need be made in each of a country’s economic sectors.

Obviously the level of cuts in terms of mitigation by the developed countries is important, but also their access to the carbon markets – how much of the effort they can shift back to the developing countries through carbon markets. Also, the use of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) agreement and the proposed forest carbon markets have to be added in to understand the basic effort sharing model to ensure that adequate effort is made by the developed countries and isn’t pushed onto developing countries in a manner that is unjust and unsustainable.

In terms of the general issues, there is a need to protect the current system and also ensure there is an adequate level of emissions reductions by the developed countries. On the table, however, there are a variety of different proposals. The most ambitious is a 50 per cent cut by 2017 put forward by Bolivia and a number of other countries, basically asking the developed countries to change their lifestyles and consumption patterns to halve emissions. The African group has again oscillated between two different demands: A weaker one (40 per cent by 2020) and a stronger one (45 per cent by 2020). African countries need to stick to the stronger end of the demands again to ensure the effort is undertaken by the developed countries and it doesn’t fall to Africa to pick up an unfair share of the burden.

Another issue is the question of markets and loopholes. In other words, do developed countries do what they say they are going to do and how much are they going to achieve through creative accounting, through loopholes. And then there are questions of how the system then accounts for this in terms of measurement and verification.

Via the Cancun agreement, the Annex 1 countries are merely going to take on targets to be implemented by them that are both not legally binding and negotiated. Developing countries have rejected this flawed model.

There also are concerns about the levels of the emissions gaps by Annex 1 countries and the comparability of efforts by the USA and the level of stringency of the reporting requirements of the Annex 1 countries. And so, again in response to that, the demands have been 40-50 per cent by 2017 or 2020, clearly comparable efforts by the USA in terms of their level of ambition, the legal form and their compliance and then maintaining the current system of mitigation pledges.

Attaining these desires may demand a political strategy, engagement by heads of state in Africa with their counterparts in the run-up to Durban, as well as very strong efforts in terms of media and communication and mobilisation by civil society and other actors in the developed countries to apply pressure on their governments.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the big demands are for a second commitment period. If the Africa group’s central demand is a second commitment period, Durban must not be the graveyard of the Kyoto Protocol – this has to be made very clear to the Annex 1 countries. They cannot come to Africa and expect to kill the Kyoto Protocol and fail to honour their legal obligations and fail to respond to the most basic demand of African negotiators. The challenge here, of course, is getting an adequate scale of emissions reduction and then closing the loopholes in the markets to close the emissions gap as well as ensure that Annex 1 countries do their fair share.

Durban is one stepping stone but there is also the danger that developing countries may be forced back into discussions around institutions, and the big picture issues taken off the table.

Developing countries and indeed the world are basically being herded into a fait accompli around the Kyoto Protocol and a fait accompli about the global system for stabilising the Earth’s climate. One that, from UNEP (a very conservative multi-lateral institution) figures, is likely to lead the Earth to between 2.5 degrees Celsius and five degrees Celsius of warming.

There are people and institutions working to block progress on climate change. They are the same people that are undertaking projects in Ogoniland and other parts of Africa. They are the same companies that are undermining climate legislation in the United States Congress and they are the same corporations that are emitting the greenhouse gasses that are causing the problems that the world is saddled with.

Africa, and indeed the larger developing world, needs to put forward alternatives that are inspiring, that will actually lead negotiations to the solutions that are needed to save the Earth and humanity from destruction. So, Durban is a stepping stone and must deliver a bold step on the path to a just climate outcome.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS AND AFRICAN AGENDA

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What role will Environmental Rights Action (ERA) and Friends of the Earth International be playing at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP17) in Durban? What will you be pushing for?

NNIMMO BASSEY: While there is a generally low level of expectation from the Durban Conference of the Parties (COP17), we see it as a great moment to stand with impacted peoples and the environmental justice movement and call for a climate tackling regime that understands the depth of the crises and the fact that the impacts are already manifesting. We will push for polluting countries to cut emissions at source and not through offsets and related market mechanisms that help polluters profit from the damage they do. We will push for legally binding emissions reduction targets to ensure that temperature increase is kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. ERA will demand the recognition and payment of the accumulated climate debt due to centuries of exploitation and colonisation of the atmosphere.

Friends of the Earth International will particularly bring to light the negative impacts of carbon markets, dirty energy, dams, agrofuels, plantations/industrial agriculture – all funded or potentially fundable through the carbon markets. We will also highlight land grabs and related issues. Details of our full focus are still being fine-tuned. As you know, we have member groups in 76 countries and each of these is autonomous so we invest time and energy in consultations. You will hear of our detailed plans once they are ready.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Judging from the outcome of the COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico, obtaining a multi-lateral agreement through which those most to blame for causing climate change take responsibility for the damage they are causing to those most affected by climate change, is unlikely to happen at COP17 in Durban, South Africa. But even though this is expected to be the case, why is the Durban event still important for climate justice activists?

NNIMMO BASSEY: You are right to say that we may not expect an equitable outcome from Durban. Nevertheless, Durban will be a great moment to intensify campaigns against the business-as-usual manner [in which] the negotiations have been conducted. Durban has a rich history that will inspire the climate justice movement to get stronger. Remember that Gandhi’s non-violent resistance was more or less birthed in Durban. Some of the most intense organising against apartheid also occurred in Durban. Currently, Durban is the hub of the environmental justice activism in South Africa. This has not occurred accidentally. Durban has some of the most polluted neighbourhoods in the country, with highly polluting refineries and chemical factories located there.

The building rage on the streets of Durban will inspire the Climate Justice movement. For me, the need to resist the planned offshore exploration for crude oil off the coast of Durban, an act that is bound to rub salt in raw injuries, holds an additional pull.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Hypothetically speaking, what in your mind would be the key aspects of a just global climate deal and why?

NNIMMO BASSEY: Getting polluters to accept to cut emissions at source and to the extent required by science to keep global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. A regime of voluntary targets would simply translate to roasting Africa and sinking the small island states.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: At other COP events, activists have rallied against market-based solutions such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). What kind of ‘false solutions’ should we be watching out for in Durban and why?

NNIMMO BASSEY: Durban will likely build on the same discredited CDM. We should expect to see more vicious forms of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) that will intensify the land grabs already troubling Africa, Asia and Latin America. In deed, we should expect the addition of soil carbon capture into the matrix. This will aid speculators to begin a pattern of soil grab that will push small-scale farmers into more or less barren lands, thus ensuring an increase of hunger and malnutrition in vulnerable communities.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: The north will be pushing for the ‘green economy’: How far is this ‘green’ the colour of dollar bills, and what should be the components of a real green economy?

NNIMMO BASSEY: This is a rather funny but serious question. The green economy concept being pushed through the Rio+20 (Unite Nations Conference on Sustainable Development) discussions and the climate negotiations is template for green washing. It will help brown sectors such as the petroleum and chemical sectors to claim they are green through embarking on token projects. The ‘green economy’ is a worrisome concept that needs careful interrogation, otherwise what we will have is the ignoring of the intrinsic value of nature and the formulation of fictional exchange values on natural systems for profit and to the detriment of the people.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you give any recent examples where you have seen the on-the-ground impact of climate change for Africa? You recently wrote about flooding in Nigeria. What other evidence is emerging and what has been the impact.

NNIMMO BASSEY: The droughts and famine in the Horn of Africa is a very clear example. The tragic consequences are all avoidable if the countries involved had developed and built resilience and coping mechanisms. Rain failure occurred over a period of three years, but the governments and institutions kept blind eyes to that. Analysts saw that due to the warming of the Indian Ocean, rain that ought to fall on the land is now mostly falling on the ocean. This is a clear signal of more disasters to come.

Crop loss and poor harvests are clear evidence already noticed in some areas.

Desertification is impacting at least 13 states in Northern Nigeria and this is expanding. Coastal erosion due to sea level rise is a reality.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: The idea of climate debt – that developed countries who have caused the damage to the environment owe developing countries – has been promoted by Bolivia and progressive civil society movements. But at the same time the UK, through the World Bank, is lending money to developing countries for adaptation, locking these countries further into debt. What’s your view of this?

NNIMMO BASSEY: Countries have made the issue of funding adaptation a major point of the climate negotiations, with proposals and designs for climate funding taking huge and unending chunks of time. Climate debt has been a campaign point for environmental and social justice activists for some time now. The promotion of the idea by countries such as Bolivia indicates a possibility of building more points of agreement between states and citizens. Climate debt was also captured as a major demand at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, April 2010.

If climate debt is accepted and paid, it will right many historical wrongs, provide funds for adaptation and for building of resilience in vulnerable territories and nations/regions. It would also help exploiters and polluters to seek just ways of doing business and of relating to others. It would require a rethinking of our global accounting books. It would show that the so-called poor countries have credited and subsidised the rich nations and that the ‘rich’ nations are actually the debtor nations. The question of lending money to developing countries for adaptation would not arise as the payment of the debt would suffice and probably leave a surplus.

In fact the whole idea of adaptation without halting the causative factors driving the problem to which nations must adapt is unacceptable. The position seems to be that we cannot do anything about climate change and that all we can do is to adapt to it. The fundamental driver of the argument is business as usual. This has made some see climate change not as a crisis but as a business opportunity.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Bolivia has published a declaration on the rights of Mother Earth and even established a ministry responsible for protection of those rights. What is the likelihood of similar declarations in Africa, and what will it take to make that work?

NNIMMO BASSEY: First of all we must applaud Bolivia for taking these steps. To a lot of people the right of Mother Earth is something idealistic and impractical. Even the concept raises barriers that many cannot cross because of the preponderance of adversarial legal systems in the world. When they hear of the rights of nature or the rights of Mother Earth, they wonder how can Mother Earth demand the protection of her rights. If we see ourselves as being children of the Earth, of belonging to her and not owning her, that argument should not arise. Children can speak for their mother.

Will African nations make similar declarations? My answer to that is a yes. They may be slow to come around, but the recognition of the rights of Mother Earth provides one of the best platforms for the defence of the African environment. It would provide the basis for citizens to fight against destructive actions in their countries. At present even environmental rights are merely national objectives in some national constitutions and are not justiciable. This is the case with Nigeria, for example. The best option for seeking justice has been through the use of the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights ratified and domesticated by many African countries.

Bolivia is equally promoting the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth by the United Nations. If and when this gets to be adopted, African nations will eventually come around to consider and accept this platform. This is an opportunity for socio-political, environmental and other movements on the continent to campaign for the adoption of this important and fundamental right.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Previous climate meetings such as Copenhagen in 2009 and Cancún in 2010 have faced strong criticism for the tendency to silence the voices of Southern countries and civil society organisations. Do you feel that this situation will have improved for Durban, or will it be ‘business as usual’?

NNIMMO BASSEY: The South African government has dubbed COP17 ‘the people’s COP’. We wait to see what will happen. I expect that these voices will be very loud in Durban. Will they be heard? That is another question. In Copenhagen we were muffled. In Cancun we were spatially dispersed. In Durban there may be another structural barrier that the clever neoliberal system is always capable of erecting. We will be pleasantly surprised if the dominant voices will allow others voices to be raised and heard.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: While much of the global South faces the same challenges in relation to climate change, it is often difficult to achieve political unity and speak with one voice. Do you see strong political unions developing between countries around the issue, or are countries likely to push their own positions?

NNIMMO BASSEY: Strong political unions will eventually emerge, but not in Durban. There will still be nations out there with broken drums to ensure that discordant tunes emerge. The game of these truce breakers is that they thrive on crumbs that fall from the tables of powerful countries. It is unfortunate that in place of principled stands for justice and equity, Southern leaders prefer to kowtow to powerful nations, extend empty bowls for crumbs and wear ‘vulnerability’ as a badge of honour. Countries will be glad to be invited into the so-called green rooms and made offers of aid or some other assistance.

Having said that, it must be agreed that efforts have been made by civil society to show the existing negotiating blocks the convergence of their needs and why they should stand together for the sake of the planet. Unfortunately, nations appear to gravitate towards narrow interests that do not even reflect the desires of the mass of their citizens. It appears that strong, united voices will emerge when leaders learn to listen to and hear the led.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: How would you describe the general level of understanding of climate change within government departments tasked with representing their citizens at the COP17?

NNIMMO BASSEY: Unfortunately the level of understanding of climate change within government departments is not based on rigorous interrogation and understanding of the issues. Even where there are excellent technocrats and negotiators within governments, a firewall seems to exist between these and the policymakers. This dissonance erases what may have been gained from the use of available knowledge in such departments. This arises sometimes because the technocrats build knowledge over time. They also build relationship with knowledgeable civil society actors who enrich their resource base over time. The policymakers and ministers on the other hand have less experience on the job, are changed frequently and may represent narrow interests that do not coincide with those of the citizens. This will play out once more at COP17, unfortunately.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: In your view, how successful have African civil society and governments been at communicating the challenges around climate change to wider society across the continent?

NNIMMO BASSEY: Civil society groups through campaigns, mobilisations and community meetings have made good efforts in communicating climate challenges. I am aware of efforts being made with youths and children as well as with women groups. Much more needs to be done by government. People are still being taken by surprise by climate change impacts. The people are not being prepared for the huge challenges rolling down their way. Much more work remains to be done at all levels.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: What role will the African Union have in the meeting?

NNIMMO BASSEY: The African Union ought to have a pivotal role in working for the attainment of the aspirations of the peoples of Africa during the meeting. Africa is the least ready to cope with the impacts of climate-induced catastrophes. Yet it is not clear that the AU will be helpful at the meeting. Information that has emerged from sources such as WikiLeaks have shown how compromised some leaders in the AU climate change efforts are. There is no reason for us to be hopeful that the AU will push a strong and principled position that would help the continent. We can look forward to hear pleas for charity rather than clear demands for climate debt to be paid and for the rich nations to stop fuelling conflicts on the continent that further reduce our capacity to stand the climate challenges.

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: While media and mainstream discussions around energy consumption in relation to climate change tend to focus on individual use, it is often the activity of corporations which commands a considerable slice of national energy use. What scope will the COP have for debating corporate consumption of energy?

NNIMMO BASSEY: That discussion will be on the outside, in the civil society spaces. These are the spaces where actions for the future will be construction. That is where the fundamental causes of climate change will be dissected and real solutions like pushing for a post fossil civilisation will be made. On the inside of the COP the emphasis will remain on how to give corporations the best conditions for investment. It will be the space for the cheaper access to electricity for corporations. They will seek for and possibly receive the basis for more fossil fuels and related devious subsidies to be guaranteed the corporations through having their ally, the World Bank, playing central roles in climate finance architecture. It will be a platform for the formulation of more carbon offsetting and trading mechanisms to allow corporations intensify their polluting binge while piling up their profits from the ecological and human misery they leave in their wake.

Recently the UN began the process of engaging the eight biggest electricity companies in the world to advice on how to expand access through the Private-Public Partnerships that the UN sees as the solution to the energy poverty in the world. The space will provide the right ‘financial risk-reward atmosphere’ for the companies and help consolidate the position of existing power companies and more to come!

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Much like the threats posed by GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in relation to the global food system, activists are increasingly wary of the corporate backing given to drastic technological solutions such as geoengineering of the sky. Will there be discussion of these risky technologies at the COP?

NNIMMO BASSEY: There will likely be discussions of the risky technologies at the COP especially where they move into discussions on new sorts of REDD. They may not mention geo-engineering by name, but generic discussions will pave the way for carbon credits to be earned through soil carbon storage, for instance. In fact, there are attempts to push genetically engineered crops into the environment in Africa in the guise of supplying climate ready crops that can withstand severe weather events. The false claims of the modern biotechnology continue unabated, driven by huge corporate interests and their shoe-shining governments.

There will be frank and intense debates about these risky technologies at the COP, but, again, these will be mostly on the outside. A big challenge for this and future meeting is on how to build a convergence between the inside and the outside. Indeed, how to make the outside the inside, so that government can be of the people, by the people and for the people.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS AND AFRICAN AGENDA

The climate change meeting in Durban in December is crucial to the future not just of Africans, but of people around the world. Climate justice and climate change are the defining issues of this century.

The challenge of climate change is one that has arisen because of the current dominant system of social, political and economic organisation, whether we call it capitalism or by any other name.

Africa is the most threatened continent when it comes to climate change. At risk are the lives and livelihoods of at least one billion people.

The challenge is two-fold: To prevent what Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the ambassador of Sudan and the former G77 chair of the climate negotiations, referred to as the incineration of Africa from climate change and to ensure that the continent’s responses to climate change, including the climate negotiations, result in an outcome that is fair, just and sustainable.

The negotiations are important because they are defining the allocation of one of the Earth’s last great common resources. Virtually all common resources including land, the minerals, the trees and fish have been allocated.

These negotiations are about allocating one remaining global commons – the Earth’s atmospheric space, the climate system, the capacity of the atmosphere, the oceans and the forests to absorb greenhouse gasses (GHGs). This is a system that humans interact with every day. At stake in the negotiations is whether the benefits of that system are allocated to the rich countries or the poor countries, to large multinational corporations or to the people, to present or to future generations.

The response to climate change has to address certain realities. There are realities that are defined by atmospheric physics and chemistry – it is impossible to negotiate with Mother Nature. There are realities that are defined by present and expected levels of technology and there are challenges that are defined by the political economy of the present socio-economic and political system.

In terms of the science, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change. All of Africa is likely to warm during this century in all seasons and in all sub-regions.

Crucially, the level of warming in Africa will be around 1.5 times the global average because of its large land mass. If the world warms by two degrees Celsius, Africa will warm by three degrees Celsius. This is crucial because it defines the impact on Africa and African communities.

While it is understood that Africa is the most threatened continent, it is also important to note that the threats are significantly greater than has been previously understood and significantly greater than what was set out in the IPCC fourth assessment report, which is the basis of current negotiations and the basis upon which many African governments are setting their demands.

Some of the most recent research coming out of Stanford University, based on over 20,000 crop trials, demonstrates that, based on historical data and not on models or projections, a temperature rise of a single degree Celsius will cause losses of 65 per cent of the present maize growing region in Africa, and more than 75 per cent of those areas are expected to lose at least 20 per cent of their productivity from a mere one degree Celsius temperature rise.

So, on one hand, in the Cancun outcome countries talked about a two degrees Celsius goal (which in real terms means three degrees Celsius of warming in Africa), and on the other hand, these studies from Stanford show that one degree warming will result in 20 per cent losses continentally of maize production. In effect, at risk are massive levels of food insecurity and all of the associated problems. Africa is already beginning to see these effects – in the Horn of Africa.

The IPCC’s fourth assessment report vastly underestimated the extent of sea-level rise because the UN body merely summarised the existing science. In fact, the necessary research has not yet been undertaken. The IPCC has thus underestimated the rate of ice and glacier loss. As temperatures increases, sea level rises. The IPCC projection for 2100 is around one metre, but given the historical record, the world can expect over the longer-term 20-30 meters of sea level rise. This is consistent with the more recent studies on the loss of ice in the Arctic region. This will re-write the map of the world.

Already there is very substantial warming in Africa. According to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), in a study produced this year on what happened in 2010 around the world, temperatures in Africa last year were 1.29 degrees Celsius above the long-term average. The sub-Saharan area was over two degrees Celsius warmer, which was the largest warming ever outside of the polar region.

East Africa, which had never had warming above one degree Celsius of their long-term average, has had it for eight years in a row, contributing to the ongoing drought. So the impacts are already being felt in Africa.

PROJECTED LEVEL OF WARMING

According to the UNEP 2011 emissions report, which evaluates the low and high-end pledges made at the Copenhagen meeting, the world is on course for 2.5 to five degrees Celsius of warming – a catastrophic level of warming for Africa.

Five degrees Celsius of warming globally would be around 7.5 degrees Celsius of warming in Africa and, as noted earlier, a one degree Celsius of warming historically resulted in 20 per cent crop losses for 75 per cent of maize growing regions.

The UNEP report assumes that those pledges are implemented, but what is clearly happening is that there are efforts by various industrial and lobby groups, particularly in the USA, Europe and elsewhere, seeking to undermine those pledges. In the USA in particular, the powerful oil, energy, metals, coal, fertiliser and other industries are undermining effective climate legislation. But if those pledges are not kept, the world may not only warm 2.5 to five degrees Celsius, but based on the present trajectory if left unabated, the Earth is heading for about 900 to 1,000 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Based on the historical record of the Earth’s warming, global temperatures as a result of similar levels of atmospheric concentrations were around 16 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

What would this mean for present civilisation? A high degree of warming would fundamentally re-write the maps. It would disrupt the circulation of energy, air and water around the planet. Countries would likely be lashed by serious storms, droughts and fires. In a world more than 5 degrees Celsius warmer, many would likely have to live in small fortified settlements – a radical change in the organisation of civilisation.

So, keeping temperatures down is not merely an effort to address the needs of farmers and workers, although it is fundamentally about those needs, but it is also about stabilising the Earth’s climate and preventing serious runaway climate change.

This means that a platform that addresses the latest scientific evidence is urgently needed. However, at the moment the world is in the middle of a very serious contesting in the negotiations between those who want a science-based approach to climate negotiations (demanded mainly by developing countries) and those who want a ‘pledge and review system’ (demanded by developed countries) in which each country would do what it thinks it can do and not what is necessary to save Earth.

In the climate change negotiations there are talks about adaptation and mitigation – the need to reduce GHG emissions and find ways to live with the climate change that is already in the system.

One of the main concerns is about the levels of impact on Africa. What are the various impacts going to be on different sub-regions and different sectors? This depends in large part on the level of warming regionally in Africa. As stated, Africa will warm around 1.5 times more than the global level of warming. So if Africa agrees in the negotiations to two degrees Celsius, the continent is effectively agreeing to three degrees Celsius in Africa, and that has implications for food security, for each of the different sectors where people work, for ecosystems and so forth.

The continent must also be worried about its piece of the pie. There are implications of the mitigation burden on Africa, particularly in each of the industrial sectors where people work and earn their livelihoods, in transportation, in energy production, in the building and construction of infrastructure, waste management and forestry, among others. In effect, if Africa is on less than two tonnes per capita, how much will it have to reduce and what are the implications for transportation or energy sectors? There are questions that have not been answered yet by many African governments.

The level of mitigation action by developing countries is defined by two things: It is defined by the level of global mitigation action that is needed to get to a certain temperature, less the amount that the rich countries contribute. That is to say, if there is a global pie and the rich countries take a certain slice, how much is left for Africa and what does that mean in terms of Africa’s own development pathway in each of the economic sectors where people live and work? If the pieces of this puzzle don’t fit together then there are serious impacts for industrial development and there are serious impacts in terms of safety and stability of the climate and the effects thereof on infrastructure, health, agriculture and all the other issues. It has to add up as a matter of atmospheric physics and chemistry and it has to add up as a matter of economics.

The other two key pieces are finance and technology, and the level of finance and technology that Africa needs is determined in part by what they agree (explicitly or implicitly) to do in terms of the share of the effort that is allocated (i.e. mitigation).

If African countries are going to reduce emissions in the production of energy, shift from fossil fuel to other non-fossil fuel-based energy, what are the costs of that and what are the implications for the continent’s development and for workers and others relying on those energy sources? Again, if African countries are not going to follow the path that was cheap, which was the path that the rich countries followed, and are forced to follow some other path because the path developed countries followed is blocked, how much will it cost and who bears those costs?

The same goes for adaptation: What technologies do African countries need to address the impacts of 1.5 degrees Celsius or two or five degrees Celsius of warming and what level of finance do they need to address the impacts, by compensating people for the loss of their farms or the loss of their property? Any set of demands made by African governments, by civil society and by the justice movement must, in this sense, reflect the physics and the chemistry and the economics and the politics underlying this set of relations.

Then there is a whole set of questions around how countries make this transition in a manner that is just, fair and equitable. How do countries make this transition in a way that empowers people instead of polluters, people instead of capital, how to fashion the transition in a way that creates new opportunities for participation and democratic representation?

All of these elements are important in terms of the global carbon budget and the emissions trajectory that is needed to secure a safe climate for Africa and for the rest of the world and the way that the world community shares that burden. Since the Industrial Revolution, there has been a steady increase in emissions. Those emissions have come vastly from the developed countries to produce roads, schools, buildings, the things that many developing countries have yet to build.

Global emissions have to peak and they have to come down very fast. The problem is that most of that historical budget for emissions was taken by the rich countries. They have taken a large amount and left the developing countries a small amount to get to the total global carbon budget amount up until this point.

What’s their plan? The Annex 1 countries, the developed countries, are planning a budget that they say is for two degrees Celsius globally, but it’s not actually a two degree Celsius budget and it is not a two degree Celsius budget for Africa. It is a three or four degree Celsius budget for Africa. The level of reductions they are calling for by 2050 gives a very low probability of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

Secondly, the Annex 1 countries are planning to cut their emissions rather slowly, much slower than needed to save the planet. They want a soft landing for their businesses, so for example, the Europeans say, ‘Well, we’ll cut by 30 per cent.’ So what is happening is that Annex 1 countries are going to take a large amount of the remaining global atmospheric space. They are allocating it to themselves and their corporations, leaving almost nothing to Africa and the rest of the developing world for industrial development.

What’s left is the small space between the total global amount of available emissions and the amount that the Annex 1 countries take. And this is the big secret in the climate negotiations that they have not wanted to explain. When developed countries were asked by Argentina what was left for developing countries, Annex 1 countries said they had not done the calculations. Yet their scientists understand the numbers very well.

So the question then facing developing countries, especially in Africa, is what do you need to live well and what are the implications of accepting this particular scenario proposed by the developed countries? Because for all of modern history the response, the approach to development proposed by the developed countries is that developing countries should grow their way out of poverty. ‘We’re not going to allocate our wealth to you, but you can grow,’ they have said. Now developing countries are being told: You can grow but without growing your economies physically; you can grow them economically but in terms of the physical emissions, the view now is that the door has been closed. So developing countries expect a certain level of increasing welfare, but you have to de-link that expected growth from your emissions and you have to find those emissions reductions in each of the sectors where people work.

Crucially, the question is what are the implications of changing what developing countries are going to do? How much it will cost and what technologies would be needed?

In a sense, any set of demands that are science-based and based on principles of equity and justice somehow have to reflect these considerations as core elements. On top of that there is a need for a whole set of transformative solutions that addresses the root causes of the problem, the structural problems, the systems of appropriation and exploitation that have led the world to this situation.

Africa and other developing countries would have to articulate a whole set of specific strategies and alternatives that put humanity on a pathway towards a world that they want and off the present pathway, which is one of massive appropriation of the Earth’s global resources by the rich which risks potentially catastrophic impacts for poor communities around the world.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS AND AFRICAN AGENDA