The Ministers, who met to coordinate their views for the upcoming climate talks, emphasized in their joint statement that “the Kyoto Protocol is the cornerstone of the climate regime and its second commitment period (of emissions reduction by developed countries) is the essential priority for the success of the Durban Conference” that will be hosted by South Africa on 28 November to 9 December. The first commitment period will end in 2012.

The 9th BASIC Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change in Beijing stressed that Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol are working under the mandate of the 2007 Bali Roadmap and reaffirmed the need to focus on this mandate.

[Developed countries want a new mandate to negotiate a new single mitigation treaty for all Parties that would replace the Kyoto Protocol and include the developed and developing countries. The United States is not a Party to the Protocol and the mitigation actions of developing countries are under the UNFCCC and not part of the Protocol].

The ministers also underlined the importance of a proposal by India to include the issues of equity, trade and intellectual property rights in the agenda of the 17th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC. They agreed that “discussions on these important issues which are crucial to many developing countries, would contribute to a comprehensive and balanced outcome at Durban”.

Participating ministers were Xie Zhenhua (Vice-Chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission of China), Liu Zhenmin (Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of China), Francisco Gaetani (Deputy Minister of Environment of Brazil), Jayanthi Natarajan (Minister of Environment and Forests of India), and Bomo Edna Edith Molewa (Minister of Water and Environment Affairs of South Africa). Maite Nkoana-Mashabane (Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa) was also at the meeting in her capacity as the incoming COP President.

Representatives of Argentina (as chair of the G77 and China), Egypt (as representative of the Arab Group) and Grenada (as chair of the Alliance of Small Island States) participated as observers in what is called the “BASIC-plus approach”.

The BASIC ministers agreed that Durban should achieve a comprehensive, fair and balanced outcome to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, in accordance with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and fulfilling the mandate of the Bali Roadmap in the two-track process of negotiation.

[The Bali Roadmap includes two distinct components: First, the Bali Action Plan, which launched a negotiation process under the UNFCCC to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012. Second, there is a separate legal mandate for negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period of greenhouse gases emissions reduction by developed countries when the current one ends in 2012. The negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol were to conclude in 2009 but developed countries are still resisting an unconditional second commitment period.]

At the recent Beijing meeting, the ministers emphasized the need to implement the Cancun decisions (which were adopted in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010) as well as to address the unresolved issues from the Bali Roadmap. They called upon the Durban Conference to clearly establish the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.

They further called for the Conference “to accomplish the Bali Action Plan where developed country Parties that are not Parties to the Kyoto Protocol have to undertake comparable quantified emission reduction commitments under the Convention and for developing country Parties to implement enhanced mitigation actions in the context of sustainable development and enabled and supported by finance, technology and capacity building”.

Stressing the “essential priority” of the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period for the success of the Durban Conference, the ministers said that “the continuation of the flexibility mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol is contingent upon the establishment of quantified emissions reduction commitments by Annex I (developed country) Parties.”

[All the Annex 1 Parties want to use the flexibility mechanisms under the Protocol such as the Clean Development Mechanism although they have not made commitments for emissions reductions for the next commitment period. Developed countries such as Canada, Russia and Japan have expressed clearly that they will not undertake further commitments for emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol.]

AMBITIOUS ACTIONS BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The BASIC ministers reiterated their support “to work towards the perspective of a comprehensive, ambitious and fair outcome”, ensuring the full, effective and sustained implementation of the two treaties.

They noted that while sustainable development and poverty eradication remain urgent challenges and overriding priorities for developing countries, these countries, in particular the BASIC countries have pledged ambitious actions to reduce emissions at substantial cost to their economies.

The ministers called upon the developed country Parties “to rise up to their historical responsibilities and undertake ambitious and robust mitigation commitments consistent with science and in accordance with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.

They highlighted the robust contribution already offered by many developing countries in emission reductions by which these countries have become the active leaders of the global effort against climate change. They stressed that this has come about despite the responsibility, established under the Convention, that developed countries “take the lead”.

POST-2020 IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW

In reaffirming the need for the Durban Conference to focus on the Bali Roadmap mandate, the ministers stressed that deliberations and discussions for the further implementation of the UNFCCC beyond 2020 must be firmly based on the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and consistent with the latest findings of science as per the forthcoming 5th Assessment Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In this context, they noted the importance of the Review process which is to be completed by 2015.

[In Cancun, Parties agreed to conduct a first review in 2013 to be concluded by 2015.]

On the Review, the ministers said that this must be conducted in accordance with the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC itself. They stressed that the Review must include a review of the adequacy of global temperature goal and effectiveness of ambitious quantified emission reduction commitments by Annex I Parties and the provision of finance and technology support by developed countries to enable developing countries to implement enhanced mitigation and adaptation actions under the UNFCCC.

They also reaffirmed that any outcome on “shared vision” (one of the elements of the Bali Action Plan) needs to be firmly based on the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

FINANCING A “PRESSING PRIORITY”

The BASIC ministerial statement underscored that financing is one of the pressing priorities at the Durban Conference. The ministers welcomed the work of the Transitional Committee (tasked in Cancun to design the new Green Climate Fund) and envisaged the consideration and approval of its draft report by the COP.

They agreed that the Conference should decide to initiate the operationalisation of the Green Climate Fund with accountability to and under the guidance of the COP, ensuring adequate financial support for developing countries. Therefore, they urged developed countries to capitalize the Green Climate Fund from their public financial resources as soon as possible.

They further said that developed countries should fulfill their commitment of providing US$30 billion as fast start funding, ensuring new and additional funding and transparent information of its performance.

[Developed country Parties had committed to provide US$30 billion for the period 2010-2012 and to a goal of mobilizing US$100 billion per year by 2020.]

On the fast-start funding, the ministers reiterated the importance of ensuring that the accounting of finance is transparent, measurable, reportable and verifiable. They requested developed countries to submit information on the fast-start funding to the UNFCCC secretariat in a common and comparable format to strengthen mutual trust between developed and developing countries. This could serve as the first step in more accurate reporting on long-term financing, generating information to assess progress towards the collective financial commitments by Annex I Parties.

The ministers urged developed countries to honour their commitment to provide US$100 billion per year by 2020 in a predictable manner with specific measures and clear roadmap to be adopted in Durban, ensuring that there is no funding gap from 2013 to 2020. This funding should mainly come from public financial resources, and private and other alternative resources of funding should only be supplementary.

ADAPTATION

The ministers further emphasized that adaptation is the most urgent task in developing countries and supported the African Group’s position on prioritizing this issue in Durban. They called for immediate operationalisation of the Adaptation Committee, which should contribute to adaptation policy development and implementation of adaptation actions in developing countries following the requests of developing countries and respecting a country-driven approach.

They highlighted that the Adaptation Committee should establish effective links with the finance and technology mechanisms to support adaptation actions for all developing countries, particularly small island developing states, least developed countries and Africa.

TECHNOLOGY MECHANISM

The ministers also welcomed the functioning of the Technology Executive Committee and the progress on the set-up of the Technology Centre and Network. They urged a clear definition of the relationship between the two bodies and the link between the technology mechanism and the finance mechanism.

They highlighted the need to address the intellectual property rights issue properly and the early operation of the Technology Mechanism to advance climate-friendly technology transfer to developing countries.

NO TO UNILATERAL MEASURES

The ministers emphasized the need to address emissions from international aviation and maritime transport in a multilateral context and in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. They highlighted that unilateral measures on climate change, such as the inclusion of emissions from international aviation in the EU-ETS (emissions trading scheme), would violate the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and jeopardize the effort of international cooperation in addressing climate change.

The ministers stressed their dedication towards consolidating and strengthening the unity of the G77 and China and decided to continue to enhance transparency and inclusiveness (in the BASIC platform) through the BASIC-plus approach. They also reaffirmed their continued full support to the government of South Africa to make the Durban Conference a success in an open, transparent, inclusive and Party-driven process.

The ministerial meeting also received reports on the progress made by the BASIC experts group on Equitable Access to Sustainable Development and supported the publication of the paper as a contribution to the scientific body of knowledge. This experts group meets in parallel with the ministerial meeting.

India will host the next meeting in the first quarter of 2012.

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 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