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 talks have been going on for a long time. Since Rio in 1992, when the Climate Convention was adopted, there have been 16 Conference of the Parties (COPs). Then in 2007, a new round of negotiations was launched in Bali.

Many thought Parties were going to arrive at a deal in Copenhagen, COP 15, but that proved a mirage. And then there was Cancun, and now Durban, where it is clear that negotiations will not conclude. What is perhaps unclear is what will happen after Durban.
How are humans going to live with climate change? One response to this is the climate justice response. The challenge here is that climate change impacts everything and everybody. It is a really big challenge, but it is also a huge opportunity. There is an opportunity to promote solutions that are real solutions – people-centered solutions, ecological solutions and socially just solutions.

Climate change is also a justice issue. The rich and corporations are the principal drivers of climate change. And here the culprits are mainly the extractive industries, the fossil fuel industries, mining and oil companies and, of course, consumers of what these companies are extracting from the ground, so it is also a demand-side problem.

But it is really the rich minority in this world that have principally caused the problem of climate change. However, those who did not cause the problem, the poorest, who are the world’s majority, will feel the impacts worst and first. This is a fundamental fact and the basic foundation for the climate justice analysis and the climate justice movement.

The developed countries – forming only 20 per cent of the world’s population – have emitted nearly three-quarters of all the historic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) into the atmosphere, so there is a fundamental imbalance here. This atmosphere is not theirs alone; this atmosphere is shared by all of us and they have polluted the atmosphere that they share with everyone, causing this problem of climate change.

If there is a limit to what can be emitted into the atmosphere, and developed countries have emitted so much, it means that there is little capacity for more. The fact is that these countries have already over-consumed what we might call their fair share. They have already taken away that space from us in developing countries, who arguably need it more to develop.

If this is the case, then we need to talk about how we develop – we need real, sustainable development. We need to de-link our development from emissions pollution. But because we haven’t yet been able to do this successfully – and even developed countries have not been able to show us that they can de-link their development from GHG emissions – we are still facing the struggle of how we are going to do it. At the moment the predominant model is to grow and develop our way out of poverty and that requires emissions.

On actual, historic emissions, since 1850, Annex 1 countries (the developed countries) have used more than three-quarters of available emissions space. This situation should probably be the reverse since the population in developing countries is around 80 per cent of the world’s population. What the developed countries propose in the negotiations is that they still take a very big share of the available emissions space in terms of population, when it should be much less because they have already over-consumed in the past and they have a much smaller population. That’s where the basic problem lies.

One of the key discourses in the climate justice agenda, proposed by Bolivia and backed up by NGOs and civil society, is what they have framed as climate debt: Because the developed countries have already over-used, and propose to continue over-using in the future, their share of the atmospheric capacity (a global commons), they have diminished the Earth’s ability to absorb GHG emissions and this has denied developing countries the fair space needed to further their development. This is an emissions debt to developing countries and has led to climate change and its impacts.

Then there is also an adaptation debt, as now there are adverse effects of climate change, and these impacts are being felt in developing countries. The adaptation debt to developing countries is in terms of loss and damage, the imperative to adapt and for lost development opportunities. Together, the emissions debt and the adaptation debt comprise a climate debt. This is how Bolivia and many climate justice groups have framed it.

Many groups have been calling for the adoption of the climate debt principle so that developed countries would be compelled to repay climate debt through finance and technology transfers. This obliges developed countries to accept full accounting for their historical emissions debt and commit to making the deepest possible emission reductions in the negotiations.

If one actually were to do a full accounting of the emissions debt of developed countries, this would probably show that they would need to cut emissions by minus 300 per cent. You might say that is impossible – we can’t cut it even by 100 per cent, how are we going to go to minus 300 per cent? We do acknowledge that such a cut back might not be technically possible at the moment. However, developed countries need to make the deepest cuts technically possible at this time. So what they need to do and what they can do may differ because there are presently technological and other practical limits. They need, however, to accept their responsibility and do the utmost.

And for what cannot be done, they must transfer finance and technology to developing countries who will have to make emissions cuts or be faced with the impacts that excessive global emissions bring. This is a debt that developed countries owe to developing countries, it isn’t aid. It is an obligation, a right that developing countries have to finance and technology transfers from developed countries.

This framing has allowed for a methodology that developing countries like Bolivia and others have put forward in the negotiations. Using the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities as a basis, Bolivia and other countries have demanded that developed countries reduce their emissions by 50 per cent from 1990 levels without offsetting by 2017, and transfer finance and technology to do likewise in developing countries.

There is a full spectrum of positions at the climate negotiations. There are the ‘usual suspects’ led by the worst of all, the United States. Others such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and Japan – basically the industrialised OECD countries – adopt hard-line positions. And then there is the European Union and the other developed countries that are either not in the European Union or are not quite in the developed country bloc, such as Mexico and South Korea, which are OECD countries, but are not Annex 1 countries.

Furthermore, there is the full range of non-Annex 1 countries. The largest bloc is the G77 and China, which comprises nearly all developing countries. Among the G77 and China there is the alliance of small island states, quite a prominent bloc in the negotiations because they represent the small islands who, up until this point, have been the moral voice of the negotiations owing to their focus on sea-level rise and the right to survival. There are the least developed countries, the African group and the ideologically left South American countries: Bolivia is key among them, also Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and others. There is also the BASIC grouping of emerging developing countries, not negotiating as a bloc, yet meeting regularly in an effort to coordinate positions. This group is viewed with suspicion by other developing countries. There is also the Arab group which overlaps with the African group.

What happened after the debacle in Copenhagen was that Bolivia went on to organise a large conference in Cochabamba in 2010. The idea came about as the Copenhagen meeting had failed miserably since the developed countries had tried to force the Copenhagen Accord onto other countries. Countries including Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Sudan basically rejected the Copenhagen Accord and there was no formal decision at that meeting. So Bolivia organised a World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth to bring together governments, civil society, and climate justice and social movements to discuss and address this issue. The idea was that it was supposed to be democratic and open to the peoples of the world to decide on this fundamental issue. There is much we can draw on from this.

The problem is what developed countries are trying to do: They acknowledge that climate change is a problem (some sectors in the US don’t acknowledge it is a problem and that is another problem altogether), however, their approach to solving the problem is incorrect. What they are trying to do, instead of acknowledging that they are the ones responsible for the problem, is to push the burden onto developing countries. This is an injustice.

They are trying to push climate change mitigation onto the BASIC countries in particular with the argument that their emissions are growing considerably hence they are responsible for a lot of the climate problem. Historical responsibility is not considered, as the developed countries argue that they can’t be responsible for the actions of generations before them, and what matters is emissions today. The US is saying that China’s absolute emissions today are bigger than their own, yet on a per capita basis, US emissions are still much greater than China’s. They are also not considering their historical responsibility, and this is fundamentally unfair.

What developed countries are also doing, instead of meeting reductions domestically, is to basically buy them from developing countries. This is possible with market mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol. Instead of effecting domestic emission reductions, developed countries can pay developing countries to mitigate for them. On paper they meet their obligations, but actually the emission reductions are made elsewhere. Developing countries are trying to expand the market mechanisms and introduce new ones.

What developed countries are also trying to do is to use accounting loopholes that will allow them to show on paper that they have reduced emissions, when in reality, they have not made these emissions reductions.

They are also trying to deny finance and technology transfers to developing countries. What of the $100 billion that was first mentioned in the Copenhagen Accord? This is basically re-programmed aid money and it is not a pledge to give $100 billion, it is a pledge to help mobilise $100 billion, and that would include mobilising it from developing countries.

Developed countries have also been trying to push the problem of adaptation back onto developing countries. They are really not going to pass on the finance and technology, but instead leave the problem to developing countries to deal with themselves.

All of this plays out in the climate negotiations and has crystallised into the fight over what kind of emissions reduction system we should adopt. Up until this point we have always had a system of legally binding international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Countries came together under the UN to say this is what we need to do because the science calls for it and we will negotiate as such and have an international agreement because it is an international problem. There is already a system for accounting, review, reporting and compliance and all of this is agreed and binding internationally.

However, what is happening now is that the US is promoting a system of bottom-up domestic pledges. They are pledging to reduce their emissions by around three per cent based on 1990 levels. They are resisting common accounting, reporting and review rules, and instead talk about “the sunshine of transparency”. They do not envisage a system with international compliance but a reliance on domestic legislation. However, it is clear that they are not going to have any climate legislation in the near future, so they can’t even promise that their pledge will be in domestic legislation, they merely state that this is what they are pledging to do domestically.

What is happening now is that the discussions have shifted. Countries like Canada, Russia and Japan are using the US as an excuse and have said that they will not commit to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, developed countries are pushing for a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and the new treaty that they want will likely legalise a domestic pledge and review system. This is now the fundamental fight that is playing out in the climate negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS AND AFRICAN AGENDA

In the Cochabamba Conference, more than 35,000 people from governments and civil society representatives of 140 countries discussed areas of the UNFCCC negotiations and issues demanded by social organizations and indigenous peoples. The Cochabamba Agreement emerged from this process, incorporating themes such as the structural causes of the climate crisis, agriculture and food sovereignty, the breakdown of harmony with nature, the importance of creating a binding framework to identify and judge climate crimes, and the development of a global democracy for the people to decide on an issue that affects all humanity and the planet.

Specific proposals from the Cochabamba Agreement included in the negotiation text are:

• 50% domestic reduction of greenhouse gasses emissions by Annex 1 countries for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol years from 2013 to 2017.
• Stabilize the rise of temperature to 1º C and 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• Guarantee an equitable distribution of atmospheric space, taking into account the climate debt of emissions by developed countries.
• Full respect for the Human Rights and the inherent rights of indigenous peoples, women, children, migrants, and peasants and other small producers.
• Full recognition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Recognition and defense of the Rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony with nature.
• Guarantee the fulfillment of the commitments from the developed countries though the building of an International Court of Climate Justice.
• Rejection of the mechanisms of carbon markets that transfer the responsibility of the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases from developed countries to developing countries.
• Promotion of measures that change the consumption patterns of the developed countries.
• Promotion of national policies that could improve local markets and food sovereignty instead of supporting global markets and exportation.
• Adoption of necessary measures in all relevant forums to exclude from the protection of the intellectual property rights those technologies to mitigate climate change.
• Developed countries will allocate 6% of their national gross product to actions relevant to Climate Change to repair the ecological debt from the North and use this to adaptation and mitigation measures in the global South.
• Integrated management of forests for mitigation and adaptation, without applying market mechanisms and with the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities.
• Prohibition of the conversion of natural forest and other valuable ecosystems for plantations, since the monoculture plantations are not forest; Instead, to encourage the protection and conservation of natural forests.
• The management of funds and policies related to climate change must be under the governance of the UNFCCC.

We urge you to support these proposals and act to ensure that they stay in negotiation text for the upcoming negotiations in Cancun, Mexico.

We also demand that you to reject the adoption of the so called “Copenhagen Accord”, which was not an agreement of the COP15 and was drafted in a non transparent and undemocratic manner, in closed meetings and by a small group of powerful governments, and subsequently forced upon the overall process to destabilize and derail the UNFCCC where all the countries have the same rights.

Finally, we call on the US-Government to step aside and for the rest of the world to move ahead, as well as on the EU to be more ambitious regarding the KP targets.

It is now time for the UNFCCC to embark on resolute policies to address the climate crisis. Governments need to take strong and legal binding commitments to radically cut greenhouse gas emissions and begin to transition away from unsustainable modes of production and consumption.

We urge you to reject false solutions and to adopt coherent politics and real solutions based on the principles of climate justice in order to eradicate the policies and root causes of climate change.

Yours sincerely,

Signed by following Members of Climate Justice Now!

AITEC-IPAM – France, Amis de la Terre – France, ATTAC – France, Brazilian Network for Integration of Peoples – Brazil, Campania per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale (CRBM) – Italy, Canadians for Action on Climate Change – Canada, Carbon Trade Watch, Centre for Civil Society, University of KwaZulu-Natal – South Africa, Climate SOS – US, Corporate Europe Observatory – Belgium, Council of Canadians – Canada, EarthPeoples, Ecologistas en Acción, – Spain, ETC Group, Fair – Italy, FASE, Solidarity and Education – Brazil, FERN, Focus on the Global South, Fundación por el Futuro – Spain, Friends of the Siberian Forests – Russia, Fundación Solón – Bolivia, Global Exchange – US, Global Forest Coalition, Global Justice Ecology Project – US, Grassroots International, Hemispheric Social Alliance – Americas, Human Nature, IBON – Philippines, Jubilee South, Jubilee South – Americas, Jubilee South – Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development (JSAPMDD), La Via Campesina, Legambiente – Italy, Movement Generation: Justice and Ecology Project – US, North East Peoples Alliance – India, Peoples Movement on Climate Change, Platform – UK, Society for Threatened Peoples International, Solidarity Workshop – Bangladesh, Sustainable Energy & Economy Network, IPS – US, Transnational Institute, World Rainforest Movement

The Run-Up

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

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

To read the whole article, click here

World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth
April 22nd, Cochabamba, Bolivia

Today, our Mother Earth is wounded and the future of humanity is in danger.

If global warming increases by more than 2 degrees Celsius, a situation that the “Copenhagen Accord” could lead to, there is a 50% probability that the damages caused to our Mother Earth will be completely irreversible. Between 20% and 30% of species would be in danger of disappearing. Large extensions of forest would be affected, droughts and floods would affect different regions of the planet, deserts would expand, and the melting of the polar ice caps and the glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas would worsen. Many island states would disappear, and Africa would suffer an increase in temperature of more than 3 degrees Celsius. Likewise, the production of food would diminish in the world, causing catastrophic impact on the survival of inhabitants from vast regions in the planet, and the number of people in the world suffering from hunger would increase dramatically, a figure that already exceeds 1.02 billion people.

The corporations and governments of the so-called “developed” countries, in complicity with a segment of the scientific community, have led us to discuss climate change as a problem limited to the rise in temperature without questioning the cause, which is the capitalist system.

We confront the terminal crisis of a civilizing model that is patriarchal and based on the submission and destruction of human beings and nature that accelerated since the industrial revolution.

The capitalist system has imposed on us a logic of competition, progress and limitless growth. This regime of production and consumption seeks profit without limits, separating human beings from nature and imposing a logic of domination upon nature, transforming everything into commodities: water, earth, the human genome, ancestral cultures, biodiversity, justice, ethics, the rights of peoples, and life itself.

Under capitalism, Mother Earth is converted into a source of raw materials, and human beings into consumers and a means of production, into people that are seen as valuable only for what they own, and not for what they are.

Capitalism requires a powerful military industry for its processes of accumulation and imposition of control over territories and natural resources, suppressing the resistance of the peoples. It is an imperialist system of colonization of the planet.

Humanity confronts a great dilemma: to continue on the path of capitalism, depredation, and death, or to choose the path of harmony with nature and respect for life.

It is imperative that we forge a new system that restores harmony with nature and among human beings. And in order for there to be balance with nature, there must first be equity among human beings.   We propose to the peoples of the world the recovery, revalorization, and strengthening of the knowledge, wisdom, and ancestral practices of Indigenous Peoples, which are affirmed in the thought and practices of “Living Well,” recognizing Mother Earth as a living being with which we have an indivisible, interdependent, complementary and spiritual relationship.   To face climate change, we must recognize Mother Earth as the source of life and forge a new system based on the principles of:

• harmony and balance among all and with all things;
• complementarity, solidarity, and equality;
• collective well-being and the satisfaction of the basic necessities of all;
• people in harmony with nature;
• recognition of human beings for what they are, not what they own;
• elimination of all forms of colonialism, imperialism and interventionism;
• peace among the peoples and with Mother Earth;

The model we support is not a model of limitless and destructive development. All countries need to produce the goods and services necessary to satisfy the fundamental needs of their populations, but by no means can they continue to follow the path of development that has led the richest countries to have an ecological footprint five times bigger than what the planet is able to support. Currently, the regenerative capacity of the planet has been already exceeded by more than 30 percent. If this pace of over-exploitation of our Mother Earth continues, we will need two planets by the year 2030.   In an interdependent system in which human beings are only one component, it is not possible to recognize rights only to the human part without provoking an imbalance in the system as a whole. To guarantee human rights and to restore harmony with nature, it is necessary to effectively recognize and apply the rights of Mother Earth.   For this purpose, we propose the attached project for the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth, in which it’s recorded that:

• The right to live and to exist;
• The right to be respected;
• The right to regenerate its bio-capacity and to continue it’s vital cycles and processes free of human alteration;
• The right to maintain their identity and integrity as differentiated beings, self-regulated and interrelated;
• The right to water as the source of life;
• The right to clean air;
• The right to comprehensive health;
• The right to be free of contamination and pollution, free of toxic and radioactive waste;
• The right to be free of alterations or modifications of it’s genetic structure in a manner that threatens it’s integrity or vital and healthy functioning;
• The right to prompt and full restoration for violations to the rights acknowledged in this Declaration caused by human activities.

The “shared vision” seeks to stabilize the concentrations of greenhouse gases to make effective the Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which states that “the stabilization of greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere to a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic inferences for the climate system.” Our vision is based on the principle of historical common but differentiated responsibilities, to demand the developed countries to commit with quantifiable goals of emission reduction that will allow to return the concentrations of greenhouse gases to 300 ppm, therefore the increase in the average world temperature to a maximum of one degree Celsius.

Emphasizing the need for urgent action to achieve this vision, and with the support of peoples, movements and countries, developed countries should commit to ambitious targets for reducing emissions that permit the achievement of short-term objectives, while maintaining our vision in favor of balance in the Earth’s climate system, in agreement with the ultimate objective of the Convention.

The “shared vision for long-term cooperative action” in climate change negotiations should not be reduced to defining the limit on temperature increases and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but must also incorporate in a balanced and integral manner measures regarding capacity building, production and consumption patterns, and other essential factors such as the acknowledging of the Rights of Mother Earth to establish harmony with nature.

Developed countries, as the main cause of climate change, in assuming their historical responsibility, must recognize and honor their climate debt in all of its dimensions as the basis for a just, effective, and scientific solution to climate change. In this context, we demand that developed countries:

• Restore to developing countries the atmospheric space that is occupied by their greenhouse gas emissions. This implies the decolonization of the atmosphere through the reduction and absorption of their emissions;
• Assume the costs and technology transfer needs of developing countries arising from the loss of development opportunities due to living in a restricted atmospheric space;
• Assume responsibility for the hundreds of millions of people that will be forced to migrate due to the climate change caused by these countries, and eliminate their restrictive immigration policies, offering migrants a decent life with full human rights guarantees in their countries;
• Assume adaptation debt related to the impacts of climate change on developing countries by providing the means to prevent, minimize, and deal with damages arising from their excessive emissions;
• Honor these debts as part of a broader debt to Mother Earth by adopting and implementing the United Nations Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.

The focus must not be only on financial compensation, but also on restorative justice, understood as the restitution of integrity to our Mother Earth and all its beings.

We deplore attempts by countries to annul the Kyoto Protocol, which is the sole legally binding instrument specific to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by developed countries.

We inform the world that, despite their obligation to reduce emissions, developed countries have increased their emissions by 11.2% in the period from 1990 to 2007.

During that same period, due to unbridled consumption, the United States of America has increased its greenhouse gas emissions by 16.8%, reaching an average of 20 to 23 tons of CO2 per-person. This represents 9 times more than that of the average inhabitant of the “Third World,” and 20 times more than that of the average inhabitant of Sub-Saharan Africa.

We categorically reject the illegitimate “Copenhagen Accord” that allows developed countries to offer insufficient reductions in greenhouse gases based in voluntary and individual commitments, violating the environmental integrity of Mother Earth and leading us toward an increase in global temperatures of around 4°C.

The next Conference on Climate Change to be held at the end of 2010 in Mexico should approve an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period from 2013 to 2017 under which developed countries must agree to significant domestic emissions reductions of at least 50% based on 1990 levels, excluding carbon markets or other offset mechanisms that mask the failure of actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

We require first of all the establishment of a goal for the group of developed countries to achieve the assignment of individual commitments for each developed country under the framework of complementary efforts among each one, maintaining in this way Kyoto Protocol as the route to emissions reductions.

The United States, as the only Annex 1 country on Earth that did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, has a significant responsibility toward all peoples of the world to ratify this document and commit itself to respecting and complying with emissions reduction targets on a scale appropriate to the total size of its economy.

We the peoples have the equal right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change and reject the notion of adaptation to climate change as understood as a resignation to impacts provoked by the historical emissions of developed countries, which themselves must adapt their modes of life and consumption in the face of this global emergency. We see it as imperative to confront the adverse effects of climate change, and consider adaptation to be a process rather than an imposition, as well as a tool that can serve to help offset those effects, demonstrating that it is possible to achieve harmony with nature under a different model for living.

It is necessary to construct an Adaptation Fund exclusively for addressing climate change as part of a financial mechanism that is managed in a sovereign, transparent, and equitable manner for all States. This Fund should assess the impacts and costs of climate change in developing countries and needs deriving from these impacts, and monitor support on the part of developed countries. It should also include a mechanism for compensation for current and future damages, loss of opportunities due to extreme and gradual climactic events, and additional costs that could present themselves if our planet surpasses ecological thresholds, such as those impacts that present obstacles to “Living Well.”

The “Copenhagen Accord” imposed on developing countries by a few States, beyond simply offering insufficient resources, attempts as well to divide and create confrontation between peoples and to extort developing countries by placing conditions on access to adaptation and mitigation resources. We also assert as unacceptable the attempt in processes of international negotiation to classify developing countries for their vulnerability to climate change, generating disputes, inequalities and segregation among them.

The immense challenge humanity faces of stopping global warming and cooling the planet can only be achieved through a profound shift in agricultural practices toward the sustainable model of production used by indigenous and rural farming peoples, as well as other ancestral models and practices that contribute to solving the problem of agriculture and food sovereignty. This is understood as the right of peoples to control their own seeds, lands, water, and food production, thereby guaranteeing, through forms of production that are in harmony with Mother Earth and appropriate to local cultural contexts, access to sufficient, varied and nutritious foods in complementarity with Mother Earth and deepening the autonomous  (participatory, communal and shared) production of every nation and people.

Climate change is now producing profound impacts on agriculture and the ways of life of indigenous peoples and farmers throughout the world, and these impacts will worsen in the future.

Agribusiness, through its social, economic, and cultural model of global capitalist production and its logic of producing food for the market and not to fulfill the right to proper nutrition, is one of the principal causes of climate change. Its technological, commercial, and political approach only serves to deepen the climate change crisis and increase hunger in the world. For this reason, we reject Free Trade Agreements and Association Agreements and all forms of the application of Intellectual Property Rights to life, current technological packages (agrochemicals, genetic modification) and those that offer false solutions (biofuels, geo-engineering, nanotechnology, etc.) that only exacerbate the current crisis.

We similarly denounce the way in which the capitalist model imposes mega-infrastructure projects and invades territories with extractive projects, water privatization, and militarized territories, expelling indigenous peoples from their lands, inhibiting food sovereignty and deepening socio-environmental crisis.

We demand recognition of the right of all peoples, living beings, and Mother Earth to have access to water, and we support the proposal of the Government of Bolivia to recognize water as a Fundamental Human Right.

The definition of forests used in the negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which includes plantations, is unacceptable. Monoculture plantations are not forests. Therefore, we require a definition for negotiation purposes that recognizes the native forests, jungles and the diverse ecosystems on Earth.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be fully recognized, implemented and integrated in climate change negotiations. The best strategy and action to avoid deforestation and degradation and protect native forests and jungles is to recognize and guarantee collective rights to lands and territories, especially considering that most of the forests are located within the territories of indigenous peoples and nations and other traditional communities.

We condemn market mechanisms such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and its versions + and + +, which are violating the sovereignty of peoples and their right to prior free and informed consent as well as the sovereignty of national States, the customs of Peoples, and the Rights of Nature.

Polluting countries have an obligation to carry out direct transfers of the economic and technological resources needed to pay for the restoration and maintenance of forests in favor of the peoples and indigenous ancestral organic structures. Compensation must be direct and in addition to the sources of funding promised by developed countries outside of the carbon market, and never serve as carbon offsets. We demand that countries stop actions on local forests based on market mechanisms and propose non-existent and conditional results. We call on governments to create a global program to restore native forests and jungles, managed and administered by the peoples, implementing forest seeds, fruit trees, and native flora. Governments should eliminate forest concessions and support the conservation of petroleum deposits in the ground and urgently stop the exploitation of hydrocarbons in forestlands.

We call upon States to recognize, respect and guarantee the effective implementation of international human rights standards and the rights of indigenous peoples, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples under ILO Convention 169, among other relevant instruments in the negotiations, policies and measures used to meet the challenges posed by climate change. In particular, we call upon States to give legal recognition to claims over territories, lands and natural resources to enable and strengthen our traditional ways of life and contribute effectively to solving climate change.

We demand the full and effective implementation of the right to consultation, participation and prior, free and informed consent of indigenous peoples in all negotiation processes, and in the design and implementation of measures related to climate change.

Environmental degradation and climate change are currently reaching critical levels, and one of the main consequences of this is domestic and international migration. According to projections, there were already about 25 million climate migrants by 1995. Current estimates are around 50 million, and projections suggest that between 200 million and 1 billion people will become displaced by situations resulting from climate change by the year 2050.

Developed countries should assume responsibility for climate migrants, welcoming them into their territories and recognizing their fundamental rights through the signing of international conventions that provide for the definition of climate migrant and require all States to abide by abide by determinations.

Establish an International Tribunal of Conscience to denounce, make visible, document, judge and punish violations of the rights of migrants, refugees and displaced persons within countries of origin, transit and destination, clearly identifying the responsibilities of States, companies and other agents.

Current funding directed toward developing countries for climate change and the proposal of the Copenhagen Accord are insignificant. In addition to Official Development Assistance and public sources, developed countries must commit to a new annual funding of at least 6% of GDP to tackle climate change in developing countries. This is viable considering that a similar amount is spent on national defense, and that 5 times more have been put forth to rescue failing banks and speculators, which raises serious questions about global priorities and political will. This funding should be direct and free of conditions, and should not interfere with the national sovereignty or self-determination of the most affected communities and groups.

In view of the inefficiency of the current mechanism, a new funding mechanism should be established at the 2010 Climate Change Conference in Mexico, functioning under the authority of the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and held accountable to it, with significant representation of developing countries, to ensure compliance with the funding commitments of Annex 1 countries.

It has been stated that developed countries significantly increased their emissions in the period from 1990 to 2007, despite having stated that the reduction would be substantially supported by market mechanisms.

The carbon market has become a lucrative business, commodifying our Mother Earth. It is therefore not an alternative for tackle climate change, as it loots and ravages the land, water, and even life itself.

The recent financial crisis has demonstrated that the market is incapable of regulating the financial system, which is fragile and uncertain due to speculation and the emergence of intermediary brokers. Therefore, it would be totally irresponsible to leave in their hands the care and protection of human existence and of our Mother Earth.

We consider inadmissible that current negotiations propose the creation of new mechanisms that extend and promote the carbon market, for existing mechanisms have not resolved the problem of climate change nor led to real and direct actions to reduce greenhouse gases.   It is necessary to demand fulfillment of the commitments assumed by developed countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change regarding development and technology transfer, and to reject the “technology showcase” proposed by developed countries that only markets technology. It is essential to establish guidelines in order to create a multilateral and multidisciplinary mechanism for participatory control, management, and evaluation of the exchange of technologies. These technologies must be useful, clean and socially sound. Likewise, it is fundamental to establish a fund for the financing and inventory of technologies that are appropriate and free of intellectual property rights. Patents, in particular, should move from the hands of private monopolies to the public domain in order to promote accessibility and low costs.

Knowledge is universal, and should for no reason be the object of private property or private use, nor should its application in the form of technology. Developed countries have a responsibility to share their technology with developing countries, to build research centers in developing countries for the creation of technologies and innovations, and defend and promote their development and application for “living well.” The world must recover and re-learn ancestral principles and approaches from native peoples to stop the destruction of the planet, as well as promote ancestral practices, knowledge and spirituality to recuperate the capacity for “living well” in harmony with Mother Earth.

Considering the lack of political will on the part of developed countries to effectively comply with commitments and obligations assumed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, and given the lack of a legal international organism to guard against and sanction climate and environmental crimes that violate the Rights of Mother Earth and humanity, we demand the creation of an International Climate and Environmental Justice Tribunal that has the legal capacity to prevent, judge and penalize States, industries and people that by commission or omission contaminate and provoke climate change.

Supporting States that present claims at the International Climate and Environmental Justice Tribunal against developed countries that fail to comply with commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol including commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

We urge peoples to propose and promote deep reform within the United Nations, so that all member States comply with the decisions of the International Climate and Environmental Justice Tribunal.

The future of humanity is in danger, and we cannot allow a group of leaders from developed countries to decide for all countries as they tried unsuccessfully to do at the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. This decision concerns us all. Thus, it is essential to carry out a global referendum or popular consultation on climate change in which all are consulted regarding the following issues; the level of emission reductions on the part of developed countries and transnational corporations, financing to be offered by developed countries, the creation of an International Climate Justice Tribunal, the need for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, and the need to change the current capitalist system. The process of a global referendum or popular consultation will depend on process of preparation that ensures the successful development of the same.

In order to coordinate our international action and implement the results of this “Accord of the Peoples,” we call for the building of a Global People’s Movement for Mother Earth, which should be based on the principles of complementarity and respect for the diversity of origin and visions among its members, constituting a broad and democratic space for coordination and joint worldwide actions.

To this end, we adopt the attached global plan of action so that in Mexico, the developed countries listed in Annex 1 respect the existing legal framework and reduce their greenhouse gases emissions by 50%, and that the different proposals contained in this Agreement are adopted.

Finally, we agree to undertake a Second World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in 2011 as part of this process of building the Global People’s Movement for Mother Earth and reacting to the outcomes of the Climate Change Conference to be held at the end of this year in Cancun, Mexico.

Movements, networks and social organizations gathered at the Assembly of Social Movements held in Cochabamba, in the framework of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change, welcome the initiative of President Evo Morales Ayma and respond to the global call to confront the commodification and privatization of common goods and the climate change debate itself.

We consider that the issue of climate change is important along with other manifestations of the global systemic crisis. To confront the imperialist offensive there must be an end to the militarization of our territories and the criminalization of social movements, an end to the neocolonial agenda included in the FTAs, an end to the power of transnational corporations and especially the agribusiness and extractive model that promote the privatization of life and nature.

The resistance is being built from the relationship among different anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, anti-colonial and anti-racist perspectives, which claim that this systemic crisis will not be paid by the peoples, and at the same time promote alternatives to find a new paradigm based on equality, good living and sovereignty of the peoples.

This process of articulation in permanent construction is dynamic, comprehensive, popular and decentralized, and seeks greater coordination among social movements to strengthen popular mobilizations. From the Assembly of Social Movements we are committed to expand our work by strengthening processes in Asia, Africa, North America and Europe.

We consider that one of the main challenges is to strengthen our platform of common struggles and alternatives in a process that is reinforced by the regions and seeks global impact.

The Assembly of Social Movements is part of an agenda made up by many key spaces, including the People’s Summit “Enlazando Alternativas” IV in Madrid (14-18 May), the Social Forum of the United States, the Mesoamerican Forum against Agribusiness in El Salvador (3-5 June), the 4th Social Forum of the Americas in Asuncion (11-15 August), the International Day Against Monoculture Tree Plantations on September 21 and the Global Day of Action against Monsanto (October 16), the 4th World Social Forum on Migration in Ecuador (October), the Third International Action of the World March of Women in Congo (14-17 October) and the mobilization process towards Cancun where the COP 16 will be held.  We are also planning to have in October a global week of action for climate justice, unifying the struggles as the ones carried out by movements resisting the privatization and commodification of water in “Blue October.”

We want the Assembly of Social Movements to continue being a dynamic space to join our processes and actions, and to continue being another tool to coordinate our struggles.

We hope that the results of this conference in Cochabamba strengthen the mobilization and resistance process, notably the Global Referendum on Climate Change, which we must promote, discuss and include in our movements as an important element to raise awareness towards Cancún and the People’s Tribunal on Ecological Debt and Climate Justice.

We call the social movements of the continent and the world to promote a unified and broad mobilization to demand change, denouncing those responsible for driving the false solutions to the systemic crisis, including the climate crisis.


Last week over 30,000 people converged in the Bolivian town of Cochabamba in the heart of the Andes mountains for an unusual summit on climate change – it involved thousands of grassroots leaders as well as some political leaders and government officials.

It was a stark contrast to the stuffy conference rooms and diplomatic language of the formal climate negotiations.  Indeed the 4-day People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth was meant to both challenge and to contribute to the United Nations’ official climate talks.

The Cochabamba gathering was convened by Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, as a response to what he saw was the unfair way in which the Copenhagen climate conference was organised.

“When I arrived in Copenhagen, I was struck by environmental activists braving the freezing weather to voice their disappointment at being locked out of the meeting,” said Morales, an indigenous people’s leader who came to power some years ago on the wave of a popular movement.

“Inside the conference, I realized that Bolivia was in a position similar to that of the protesters outside. We, the representatives of the majority of the world’s peoples, were effectively being left in the cold while a tiny group dominated by a few rich governments met in private to produce an unacceptable compromise…which we refused to sign.

“Bolivia will not accept an agreement reached between the world’s biggest polluters that is based on the exclusion of the very countries, communities and peoples who will suffer most from the consequences of climate change…If governments could not come to an agreement because of self-interest or ideology, it is time for the people to decide.”

The Conference was organised to give grassroots groups, and especially indigenous people, the chance to be in the spotlight and air their views on how to tackle the climate crisis.  Bolivia pledged to bring the results of the meeting into the UN’s negotiating halls.

Working groups on 17 topics discussed a variety of issues, and a summary of their conclusions was put into a 6-page Agreement of the People.

Since the crowd of participants was so big, a closing ceremony was held in a stadium, and leaders of social movements and environmental groups shared the limelight with Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other political leaders from the region.

The People’s Agreement called on developed countries to cut their greenhouse gases by 50% by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels).  It also wanted the average global temperature rise to be limited to 1 degree celsius and greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere to be brought to below 300 ppm.

These are ambitious targets which the participants argued are needed because of how serious the situation is.  In contrast, the Copenhagen Accord goal is a limit of 2 degrees.  At this level, says the People’s Agreement, there is a 50% chance of irreversible damage to the Earth, with many parts of the world becoming inhabitable.

The Agreement also called for the establishment of an International Court of Climate and Environmental Justice to prosecute states, companies and people who are damaging the climate, and a global referendum on how the world should tackle the climate crisis.

The Conference also set a target for developed countries to contribute 6% of their GNP to enable developing countries to take climate actions.

Technology should also be made available at low cost to developing countries, which should thus be be allowed to exclude patents on climate-related technologies.

The Agreement gives prominence to the Rights of Mother Earth and the need for humanity to live in harmony with nature.

A prominent issue was water, reflected in the Agreement’s demand “to recognize the right of all peoples, living beings and Mother Earth to access and enjoy water” and that the right to water should be recognized as a fundamental human right.

This emphasis on water is not surprising for two reasons.  Firstly, the glaciers in the Andes are disappearing as a result of climate change, and this is having a severe effect on water supplies and agriculture in Bolivia and neighbouring countries.

And secondly, it was in Cochamamba that the Bolivian “water wars” took place a decade ago, when thousands of people protested against the privatisation of the country’s water system to a foreign company.  They were afraid that this would lead to higher prices of and reduced access to water.

In the forefront of the protest were the indigenous people who comprise a majority of the population, and their leader Evo Morales, and this movement for the public control over water helped sweep him to power.

According to a BBC report last week, climate change has led to irregular water flows in the Andes mountains of Bolivia, and the streams have become torrents or dwindle to just trickles.

It quotes Max, an elderly Aymara Indian as saying:   “We are very worried because we have no water. Half the people of this community have already left. Those who remain are struggling with the lack of water.

“The weather has drastically changed and it is now two or three times hotter than it was. We cannot water our crops and the sun and the heat are very strong. Our crops are dry now, our animals are dying; we want to cry.”

And a community leader, Alivio Aruquipa, who is taking the community’s case to international fora, added:  “For the past two decades, we, the people from the Andean regions have been suffering because of the greenhouse emissions from the developed countries. If they don’t stop our glaciers will disappear soon.”

This is the background to why Bolivia wants a world climate tribunal to be set up, so that cases such as this can be taken up and those causing the problems will be made responsible for restoring the environment and compensating the victims.

“What we want to achieve is justice,” said Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations and the main organiser of last week’s conference.

“When we say climate justice tribunal, we are speaking about how to sanction actions that seriously affect the environment and have consequences for populations, for nations that may even disappear beneath the ocean,” he told the BBC.

“You might be on one side of the world, but what you do is affecting somebody else in another continent very far away…There might be, there will be, millions of people who are affected, and may even die, because of those actions.

“The situation we are facing deserves a new judicial system. Cochabamba is the beginning of the discussion. The beginning of a very big fight.”

* Martin Khor is executive director of the South Centre and former director of Third World Network.

Daphne Wysham

by Daphne Wysham*

[Cochabamba, 21 April 2010] Four months after world leaders who gathered in frigid Copenhagen failed to agree on a binding climate treaty, a peoples’ summit on climate change and the rights of Mother Earth is underway in the sun-dappled hills of Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Convened by Bolivian President Evo Morales, allegedly the first fully indigenous president since the Spanish conquest, the conference is an attempt to place indigenous peoples – and marginalized peoples from around the world – at the center of the global conversation on climate change.

At this conference, indigenous peoples are in the majority. They have arrived from all over South America by the thousands. And because many have come long distances with little funding, food at the conference is free – offered up to all attendees.

Babies instead of cell phones

Here, instead of women with cell phones walking briskly from one late-night climate negotiation to another, women in traditional dress and mothers with babies strapped on their backs with colorful woven cloths sit side by side with elder women in workshops.

They participate in preparing statements on everything from a shared vision of climate justice to green jobs and forest preservation. In accordance with indigenous tradition, each working group must be led by both a man and a woman.

Here, while there are a handful of sophisticated scientists and businessmen displaying PowerPoints on the causes of and solutions to climate change, men in traditional garb open many of the workshops with a prayer and an offering of traditional corn liquor and coca leaves before they vigorously engage in discussion.

And, here people stand patiently in line to share experiences on the Bolivian concept of “buen vivir” – living well – as a core concept and result of solving the climate crisis.

Between workshops, there are dancers and jugglers, musicians and poets, to calm the soul. And there are potato farmers and water harvesters in booths, reminding us of the simplicity, elegance, and low cost of sustainability.

The conference is not without conflict, however. There are some indigenous groups who claim President Morales has not allowed them space to present their concerns about mining in Bolivia.

Bolivia is, like many Latin American countries, dependent on extractive industries for much of its national revenue. These groups are defying Morales and proceeding with their working group.

Most every working group has crafted language that blames capitalism for the climate crisis and condemns carbon markets as a false solution. Consensus on text in the various working groups is still to be reached, but there is an attempt at democratic process.

It is a far cry from official U.N. climate negotiations, where official text is drafted by “sherpas” – government officials who do the heavy lifting before their leaders arrive. That happens months in advance with little or no consultation with all but the most well-heeled of NGOs, in an environment where businesses have more clout than entire countries in setting policy, and where intrigue and rumor is the closest one can get to transparency.

And so hopes are high that this summit will represent a turning point, in both the process and the product of climate negotiations. The indigenous moment in the climate crisis has arrived here in the hills of Cochabamba, a breath of fresh if rarified air. On the fortieth anniversary of the first Earth Day, it has arrived not a moment too soon.

Daphne Wysham is a Fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, and host of Earthbeat Radio.

Media contacts (interviews with representatives of La Via Campesina in Cochabamba)
Boaventura Monjane – Phone: (00591) 74815401; boa.monjane@viacampesina.org
Isabelle Delforge – Phone: (00591) 74306257; idelforge@viacampesina.org

[Cochabamba, April 19, 2010] On April 19, an Assembly of the Social Movements was one of the first activities on the agenda at the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The Assembly highlighted the popular focus of the conference, which was organized by the Bolivian government after the failure of governments and industries to negotiate a plan to stop climate change in Copenhagen last December.

The conference is being held from April 19 through 22 and is meant to amplify the voices of those who were not heard in Copenhagen. The Assembly of Social Movements was founded about 10 years ago within the World Social Forum process to strengthen the voice and the political agenda of social movements from all over the world.

The Assembly is important “in order to have common policies to construct an agenda of struggle, resistance and proposals,” says Fausto Torres, a member of the Association of Rural Workers in Nicaragua and the international food sovereignty movement La Via Campesina.

According to Nalu Faria, a Brazilian organizer with the Global March of Women, “The assembly has been very important since its beginning in order to construct a common agenda, for example, against the World Trade Organization, the war in Iraq, and now climate change. For us this process with allies is very important to generate general and ample policies for the changes that must be made.”

The Assembly “is a convergence of many social movements from different countries and from different sectors, not only peasants and migrants, but also labor unions, women and indigenous people. What is important is that most of these movements have identified with certain common policies, basically that the system has to change,” says Carlos Marentes of Agricultural Workers Project in Texas, USA, also member of Via Campesina.

The overwhelming consensus at today’s Assembly was the need for systemic change. Real solutions to climate change require a global shift in how ‘development’ is envisioned, says François Houtart, a Belgian intellectual. “Because we are facing a very fundamental crisis which is not only financial and economic, but really a systemic crisis and the answer to that is complex and global. And at the origin of the crisis is the logic of the capitalist system. And it is important for all the movements to understand that, and to see what is their place in this global struggle to change this system, as they are the ones trying to express popular needs and struggles. If political changes are not backed by social movements they are very weak.”

Several speakers at today’s Assembly emphasized climate justice. “Climate change does not affect people in the same way,” says Faria. “There are elements of gender, class and race, and relations between peoples of the North and South.”

Another common theme among the speakers at the Assembly was that the solutions to tackle climate change being proposed by governments and industry from the Global North are inadequate and will worsen the climate crisis. According to Henry Saragih, General Coordinator of La Via Campesina, “Right now the transnational corporations and governments from industrialized countries are proposing false solutions.” One solution being proposed by industry is to sequester carbon in plantations of palm oil cultivated for agrofuels and call them ‘forests.’

“We of La Via Campesina say this is not a true solution, because the transnational corporations are using the climate crisis to expand and make new business. It is time for the people and movements to come together to search for real solutions to climate change,” says Saragih, who, along with 300 delegates from La Via Campesina is at the conference in Bolivia to send the message to the world that diversified, sustainable peasant agriculture can cool down the planet.

La Via Campesina has had a presence at the official UN climate talks since December 2007 in Bali. Alberto Gomez, coordinator of the North American region of La Via Campesina, spoke of the organization’s plan to mobilize thousands of people for the upcoming climate talks in Cancun, Mexico in December. La Via Campesina in Mexico is organizing to have a large mobilization at the talks in Cancun, as well as mobilizations in each state, and also in other countries. “There will be massive moments in Cancun,” says Gomez.

Isabella Kenfield, Via Campesina

Media contacts (interviews with representatives of La Via Campesina in Cochabamba)
Boaventura Monjane – Phone: (00591) 74815401; boa.monjane@viacampesina.org
Isabelle Delforge – Phone: (00591) 74306257; idelforge@viacampesina.org