Vigilia por el Protocolo de Kyoto en las escalinatas del Moon Palace. Crédito: Nastasya Tay/IPS

Por Stephen Leahy *

CANCÚN, 11 dic (IPS/TerraViva) – Si el éxito se logra dejando para después las decisiones difíciles, entonces la reunión climática de Cancún fue exitosa porque pospuso la adopción de metas cruciales sobre reducción de gases invernadero, financiación y bosques para la próxima conferencia, dentro de un año en Sudáfrica.

Las negociaciones internacionales para afrontar el cambio climático se desarrollaron a ritmo glacial en el palaciego y excesivamente refrigerado Moon Palace Resort, un recinto de varios hoteles en las afueras de la ciudad turística mexicana de Cancún.

Dos semanas de discusiones se prolongaron en la mañana de este sábado, ante la negativa de la delegación de Bolivia a aceptar un acuerdo débil que “podría llevar la temperatura media mundial a un aumento de más de cuatro grados”, dijo el negociador jefe, Pablo Solón.

Al final, las continuas objeciones bolivianas fueron sofocadas por los aplausos y vítores de más de 190 delegaciones nacionales cuando la presidenta de la conferencia, la canciller mexicana Patricia Espinosa, dio por concluida la asamblea declarando el “consenso sin Bolivia”.

“El texto de Cancún es una victoria falsa y vacía, impuesta sin consenso”, sostuvo Bolivia en un comunicado final.

El gobierno boliviano dijo sustentar su postura en la ciencia. La Organización Meteorológica Mundial sostuvo la semana pasada que la actual será la década más caliente de la historia desde 1853, año en que comenzaron los registros.

Las más de 100 páginas de documentos que conforman los “Acuerdos de Cancún” no harán nada para abatir las emisiones de gases que están calentando el planeta. Pero revivieron las negociaciones en la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, casi extintas en la reunión anterior, celebrada en Copenhague en 2009.

Muchos creen que lo acordado aquí sienta las bases para un tratado real a adoptarse en la 17 Conferencia de las Partes (COP 17) de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático, que comenzará en Durban, Sudáfrica, el 28 de noviembre de 2011.

“No puedo discrepar con Bolivia, basado en la ciencia, este acuerdo así como está significa cuatro grados más de calentamiento”, sostuvo el director ejecutivo de Greenpeace, Kumi Naidoo.

“El texto no es lo suficientemente bueno, pero rescata las negociaciones y quizás nos traiga un tratado realmente justo, ambicioso y equilibrado en Durban”, dijo Naidoo a TerraViva.

“Los gobiernos dieron una clara señal de dirigirse juntos hacia un futuro de bajas emisiones”, señaló la secretaria ejecutiva de la Convención, Christiana Figueres. Los Acuerdos de Cancún representan “los fundamentos esenciales sobre los cuales se construirá una ambición mayor y colectiva”, añadió en una declaración.

“Es patético que la comunidad internacional luche tanto para saltar un obstáculo tan bajo”, apuntó Naidoo.

“Nuestra única esperanza es movilizar un amplio movimiento, con todos los sectores de la opinión pública y la sociedad civil, antes de Durban”, añadió.

El viernes por la noche, en los corredores del Moon Palace el optimismo sorprendía. No sólo las negociaciones no habían colapsado, sino que había acuerdos formales en varios asuntos.

Por ejemplo, el reconocimiento de que las reducciones de gases de efecto invernadero deben dar respuesta a la recomendación científica –entre 25 y 40 por ciento menos de emisiones para 2020 respecto de los volúmenes de 1990—y que el aumento aceptable de la temperatura mundial debe mantenerse debajo de los dos grados, en lugar de llegar a los dos grados, como sostenía el Acuerdo de Copenhague.

Pero Canadá, Estados Unidos, Japón y Rusia consiguieron evitar un tratado vinculante sobre cómo lograr esas metas, presionando a favor del abandono del Protocolo de Kyoto –único tratado obligatorio sobre el cambio climático—para ser reemplazado por una mera promesa y un sistema de revisión, tal como proponía el Acuerdo de Copenhague, según la red Amigos de la Tierra Internacional.

Las promesas que se han efectuado hasta ahora en el marco del Acuerdo implican aumentos de la temperatura de entre tres y cinco grados, según la mayoría de los análisis.

“El pacto logrado es totalmente inadecuado y podría conducir a un cambio climático catastrófico”, dijo el presidente de Amigos de la Tierra, Nnimmo Bassey.

Los países en desarrollo deben reducir sus emisiones en 40 por ciento en el marco de un nuevo período de compromisos obligatorios del Protocolo de Kyoto, que debería regir desde 2013.

La actual meta de Kyoto, abatir las emisiones en 5,2 por ciento respecto de los volúmenes de 1990, debería alcanzarse en 2012. La mayoría de los países desarrollados que son parte del Protocolo cumplieron con sus obligaciones, excepto Canadá, que elevó su contaminación climática en 30 por ciento.

Ese país, Japón y Rusia advirtieron que no aceptarán un segundo compromiso en el marco de Kyoto. Y Estados Unidos se niega a ratificarlo. Esas posiciones casi hacen fracasar la reunión de Cancún, pues las naciones en desarrollo llevan mucho tiempo insistiendo en que los países ricos deben asumir nuevos compromisos en el Protocolo.

Pero la batalla final sobre Kyoto se librará en Durban.

También se adoptó un Fondo Climático Mundial con un compromiso de abastecerlo de 100.000 millones de dólares hasta 2020 y de 35.000 millones en 2012 para asistir a los países pobres en la reducción de sus emisiones y en la tarea de afrontar los impactos del calentamiento.

El Banco Mundial distribuirá los recursos en los tres primeros años, pero la administración y supervisión del Fondo estarán en manos de una junta directiva con participación igual de países desarrollados y en desarrollo, en el marco de la Convención.

La protección de los bosques tropicales es el gran avance que emerge de Cancún. Los gobiernos decidieron establecer un proceso de tres etapas para que los países con selvas frenen la deforestación y sean compensados por las naciones ricas. El acuerdo prevé proteger a las comunidades forestales y la biodiversidad.

Se estima que la deforestación aporta entre 15 y 20 por ciento de las emisiones de gases invernadero.

“Esto es mucho mejor que lo que conseguimos en Copenhague”, dijo Peg Putt, del grupo conservacionista estadounidense Wilderness Society.

“Hubo reconocimiento formal de los múltiples beneficios de la integridad de los bosques y ecosistemas”, dijo Putt a TerraViva.

Pero se necesita aún mucho trabajo para fortalecer las salvaguardas ambientales y sociales y definir los detalles del nuevo instrumento financiero para la Reducción de las Emisiones Causadas por la Deforestación y la Degradación de los Bosques (REDD).

La REDD sigue siendo polémica, Se objeta sobre todo que no se trate más que de un camino para movilizar entre 10.000 y 30.000 millones de dólares por año para proteger selvas mediante la venta de créditos de carbono a las industrias, en lugar de que éstas reduzcan sus emisiones.

“Siento que es un buen pronóstico para los bosques”, sostuvo Putt.

Muchos grupos indígenas y ecologistas rechazan de plano la REDD si ésta permite a las naciones ricas eludir las verdades reducciones de su contaminación mediante este sistema de compensaciones.

“Nos negamos a las falsas soluciones, como los mecanismos de mercado de carbono de la REDD”, dijo Tom Goldtooth, director ejecutivo de la Red Indígena Ambientalista.

La REDD entraña un nuevo conjunto de derechos de propiedad comercializables, basados en los árboles y otros servicios ambientales, dijo Goldtooth a TerraViva.

“Si vamos a salvar el clima, debemos centrarnos en soluciones reales que aseguren que los bosques no se talen y que los derechos de los pueblos se respeten”, agregó.

Si bien la postura de Bolivia será muy comentada, más de 500 organizaciones no gubernamentales reunidas en la Red de Acción Climática eligieron nuevamente a Canadá como el país más obstruccionista del mundo.

El gobierno derechista de Stephen Harper obtuvo el “Premio del Fósil Colosal” del año, por sus persistentes intentos de bloquear un acuerdo, en defensa de su sector petrolero, dedicado a la explotación de las arenas empetroladas.

“El sector de las arenas empetroladas de Canadá forma parte de la elite mundial, las cinco estrellas de la contaminación de gases invernadero”, indicó la Red. “Pese a su generalizada futilidad climática, los canadienses pueden tener la seguridad de que al menos hay una cosa en la que su país es muy, muy bueno”.

Emilio Godoy interviews YOLANDA KAKABADSE, president of WWF

CANCÚN, Dec 9, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – Latin America should create regional conventions to protect biodiversity and combat the impacts of climate change, says Ecuadorian environmentalist Yolanda Kakabadse, president of the World Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF), in this interview with TerraViva.

Climate agreements should be centred on eliminating polluting emissions, and not just reducing them or mitigating their effects, said Kakabadse, an activist who served as environment minister in Ecuador from 1998 to 2000.

Q: What needs to change in the COP meetings?

A: I think a different dynamic is needed. In terms of their content, the lack of stronger links between the conventions on climate change and biodiversity is very damaging.

The two issues should be considered together, because ultimately climate change is due to poor ecosystem management.

I also think that the traditional way of grouping countries together does not make much sense any more. For instance, people talk about Latin America, but there is no strong foundation for the belief that its governments all have the same agenda. The United Nations should support all these initiatives.

Q: What can the region expect to get out of this summit, in areas like finance and technology transfer?

A: The question is, what is it getting, and what can it get. It should get more. This continent is the richest in natural resources, and that makes it a particularly attractive region of the planet for a number of actions, like devising a model of natural resource protection, and for creating new dynamics for dealing with climate change, biodiversity management, water, forests, and the concept of environmental services.

This natural capital has not been politically exploited, especially in the case of South America, at these global debates. I think it will gain no more and no less than other regions. We have not developed a South American agenda very successfully.

Q: Is it feasible to design a climate agenda by country blocs?

A: Yes, absolutely. Among all the issues within the conventions, some have real implications for the region, while others are completely irrelevant to it.

We should create regional agreements that are based on the same framework, but that take into account relevant matters, because we waste an enormous amount of time trying to respond to each and every challenge in the treaties.

We should concentrate on issues concerned with forests, water, the problems of adapting to climate change, and shared management of ecosystems and fisheries. If we do not do this, we will not be able to contribute key ideas to the convention.

We face a very serious problem in that our South American countries do not receive sufficient funding.

Q: Should some countries, like Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, adopt compulsory emissions reduction targets?

A: Every country should have goals for the rational use of resources, and implement social inclusion policies. As of now, the approval process for every new installation should take development ethics into account, because this is not only about money but about responsibility towards our own populations.

It is not a matter of the countries of the South providing climate benefits for those of the North: we will all sink or swim together. Every country has a social obligation to set emission reduction targets.

Q: What should the foundation of development ethics be?

A: One of the key issues is rational use of natural resources, which requires the development of policies for conservation, respect for our ecosystems — not just as the source of life, but also for their contribution to economic opportunities — social welfare and alternative job creation.

This perspective is absent in our countries. We simply exploit resources without caring about what will happen in the next 10 years.

Q: How can opposition to the idea of putting a price on ecosystems be overcome?

A: There is a tendency to confuse value and price. When we really appreciate the true value of natural resources, we can take policy decisions, and when we have designed strategies to protect those ecosystems, we will be able to think about an efficient pricing system.

I also see the debate about pricing as a fallacy, because it arises from an anti-market ideology. In my country we market bananas, oil and shrimp. Why should we be reluctant to put a price on a service that guarantees our livelihood?

Q: Ecuador has established the Yasuni Initiative, which seeks to raise international funds in exchange for refraining from extracting oil from the Yasuni biosphere reserve. Could this approach be replicated in oil-producing countries like Mexico?

A: The initiative is based on the argument that oil should be left underground in places where the value of the flora and fauna is higher. There is a cost involved in leaving fossil fuels underground, and it should be paid for. This requires that the convention recognise the value of non-emissions.

The price of avoiding emissions is the profit that would be made by extracting the oil, and if a country is willing to forgo this, it should be rewarded for these non-emissions. It is entirely valid to create a new protocol, based on the concept of non-emissions.

Share this

Yolanda Kakabadse. Crédito: WWF

Por Emilio Godoy

CANCÚN, México, 8 dic (IPS/TerraViva) – América Latina debe construir convenciones regionales para proteger la biodiversidad y combatir el impacto del cambio climático, según la ecuatoriana Yolanda Kakabadse, presidenta internacional del no gubernamental Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza (WWF).

Los acuerdos deben girar en torno a impedir las emisiones contaminantes y no sólo en la reducción y en la mitigación de sus efectos, dijo la activista.

Kakabadse, quien de 1998 a 2000 fue ministra de Ambiente de Ecuador, conversó con TerraViva en un alto de su participación en la 16 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP 16), que se desarrolla hasta este viernes 10 en la sudoriental ciudad mexicana de Cancún.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Qué debe cambiar en las COP?

YOLANDA KAKABADSE: Creo que se deben generar otras dinámicas. En términos de contenido, es muy negativo que las convenciones sobre el cambio climático y sobre diversidad biológica no tengan enlaces mucho más fuertes.

Tendrían que trabajarse en conjunto, porque finalmente el cambio climático se debe a un mal manejo de los ecosistemas. Es una contradicción total no hacerlo.

También entiendo que los grupos tradicionales de países ya no tienen mucha razón de ser. En el caso de América Latina, por ejemplo, ya no hay una base fuerte para creer que todos los gobiernos tienen la misma agenda. La Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) tiene que dar apoyo a todas esas iniciativas.

TERRAVIVA: Qué puede obtener la región de esta cumbre en temas como financiamiento y transferencia de tecnología?

YK: El tema es qué está obteniendo y qué puede obtener. Pienso que debería lograr más. Es la región más rica del planeta en recursos naturales, y eso la hace un punto de particular atractivo para muchas cosas, como definir un modelo de protección de recursos naturales, crear dinámicas en las cuales se trata el cambio climático, respecto del manejo de la biodiversidad, del agua, bosques y en el concepto de servicios ambientales.

Es un capital que no ha sido explotado políticamente en estos debates globales, especialmente por América del Sur. Creo que la región no va a obtener ni más ni menos que las otras.

No hemos trabajado bien la agenda sudamericana.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Es factible pensar en una agenda climática por bloques de países?

YK: Absolutamente. En todas las convenciones hay temas que realmente tienen implicaciones para la región.

Deberíamos crear acuerdos regionales basadas en el mismo marco, pero que tomen en cuenta asuntos relevantes, porque gastamos una cantidad de tiempo enorme en tratar de responder a todos los retos de los tratados.

Hay que concentrarse en explorar los bosques, agua, problemas de adaptación al cambio climático, en el manejo compartido de los ecosistemas, las pesquerías. Si no lo hacemos, tampoco podemos contribuir con ideas importantes para la COP.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Deberían algunos países, como México, Brasil y Argentina, adoptar metas obligatorias de reducción de emisiones?

YK: Todos deberían tener metas de uso racional de los recursos y aplicar procesos de inclusión social. Toda nueva instalación tendría ya que tener en cuenta la ética del desarrollo, porque no estamos hablando sólo de dinero sino de una responsabilidad con nuestra población.

No es que vamos a beneficiar a los países del Norte. Todos se hunden o todos se salvan. Fijarse objetivos de reducción es una obligación social del planeta.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Alrededor de qué debe girar esa ética?

YK: Entre los temas clave está el uso racional de los recursos naturales, que significa definir políticas de conservación, respetar nuestros ecosistemas, no sólo como fuente de vida sino económicas, de bienestar social y de generación de empleo.

Esa visión está ausente en nuestros países y simplemente explotamos los recursos sin que nos importe qué va a pasar en los próximos 10 años.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Cómo puede enfrentarse la oposición a adjudicar un precio a los ecosistemas?

YK: Hay una confusión entre valor y precio. En el momento en que apreciamos el valor de los recursos naturales, podemos tomar decisiones de política y, luego de diseñar estrategia para proteger esos ecosistemas, podemos pensar en precios eficientes.

Además considero que el debate sobre el precio es falso, porque surge de una posición ideológica en contra de los mercados. Pero en Ecuador ponemos en el mercado el banano, el petróleo y los camarones. ¿Por qué tenemos miedo de poner un precio a un servicio que me está asegurando la vida?

TERRAVIVA: Ecuador promueve la llamada Iniciativa Yasuni, que consiste en reunir un fondo internacional para no explotar el petróleo existente en ese parque protegido. ¿Esa fórmula es replicable en países petroleros como México?

YK: Lo que se argumenta es que se debe dejar en el subsuelo en algunos sitios cuando el valor de la vegetación es más alto. Que el carbono se quede en el suelo tiene un precio y debe pagarse por eso. Se necesita que a nivel de la Convención se reconozca el valor de no emitir.

El precio es lo que se generaría si se sacara el petróleo, pero, como lo guardo, reconózcanme el no hecho de no emitir.

Crear un nuevo protocolo basado en el concepto de la no emisión es absolutamente válido.

(FIN/IPS)

Share this

Climate-driven changes in the water cycle will affect large regions of the world. Credit: Friedrich Böhringer/creative commons license

By Stephen Leahy

CANCÚN, Dec 8, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – As the world heats up, continents are drying up, with severe droughts forecast in the future. But negotiators at the climate summit here seem to have forgotten about water in their endless discussions over forests, carbon trading and finances.

“The main impact of climate change is on the planet’s water cycle,” said Henk van Schaik of the Cooperative Programme on Water and Climate, a foundation based in the Netherlands.

“Climate-driven changes in the water cycle will affect large regions of the world,” van Schaik told TerraViva at a side event meeting here at COP 16 in Cancún .

The impact of climate on the world’s water resources is not addressed within the U.N. climate framework, said Anders Berntell of the Stockholm International Water Institute.

“Negotiators here see it as just another sector of the economy but it is a basic element for life. Water is the bloodstream of our planet,” Berntell said.

The global water cycle has already been affected with more intense rainfalls and decline in the evapotranspiration rate over land, according to new scientific research. Evapotranspiration is the term that describes the process of water evaporation and plant transpiration from the Earth’s land surface to its atmosphere.

As the temperature goes up, rates of evaporation are expected to increase. They did until 1998, when there was a leveling off and then a decline in recent years, even though the planet continued to warm, said Beverly Law, a global climate change researcher at Oregon State University.

“Evapotranspiration depends strongly on the amount of water available… the decline seems to be because less water is available,” Law, who led the first global study, told TerraViva.

There is less water because the soils in large areas of the Southern Hemisphere, including major portions of Australia, Africa and South America, have been drying up in the past decade, Law and her colleagues reported in a study in the journal Nature last October.

Not only are soils drying up, since less of the sun’s energy is being used in the evapotranspiration process, more is available to warm the air in these regions, says Law.

Within the next 30 years, large parts of parts of Asia, the United States, and southern Europe, and much of Africa, Latin America and the Middle East could experience serious droughts based on another study also published last October.

“We are facing the possibility of widespread drought in the coming decades, but this has yet to be fully recognised by both the public and the climate change research community,” said Aiguo Dai a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in the U.S. state of Colorado.

“If the projections in this study come even close to being realised, the consequences for society worldwide will be enormous,” he said in a release. Dai’s projections are based on computer climate modelling of the future as the climate continues to heat up.

Although based on models, those projections are fairly “robust”, says Kevin Trenberth, a senior climate scientist who is also at NCAR. Climate experts have long maintained that one of the major effects of climate change is “that places already wet get wetter and places already dry get drier”, Trenberth said in an email.

Water is not only an essential element for life, it is essential for nearly every sector of the global economy, including energy, manufacturing, transport, agriculture and more, noted Laura Tuck, director of the Sustainable Development Department at the World Bank.

“By 2030 in order to feed the world, water use for agriculture will need to increase 45 percent,” Tuck told attendees at the side event meeting.

Energy demands will be 160 percent higher and some of that will have to come from hydroelectric power. Many proposed climate mitigation plans, like reducing forest degradation and deforestation (REDD), or sequestering carbon in soil cannot be accomplished without water, she noted.

“In addition, institutions need to change because they were built in a world when there was no climate change,” Tuck said.

There has been some progress, with consideration being given to including water on the agenda of the next Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) meeting in June of 2011, reported Berntell of the Stockholm International Water Institute.

“We have to do more to explain the value of water,” he said.

Share this

Jatropha berries. Credit: John Bwakali/IPS

Par Mantoe Phakathi

MBABANE, 7 déc (IPS/TerraViva) – “Nous allons à Cancún pas mieux lotis que nous l’étions à Copenhague”, a déclaré Thuli Makama, la directrice des Amis de la terre – Swaziland, pendant qu’elle se préparait à se rendre aux négociations sur le climat au Mexique.

Makama s’inquiète d’une proposition particulière pour la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre: les biocarburants. Elle estime que les pays industrialisés sont en train de promouvoir la production et l’utilisation des biocarburants afin de répondre à leurs besoins énergétiques, mais cela laissera davantage de personnes dans le monde en développement sans nourriture.

“Nous sommes en face du danger de produire des aliments pour les machines plutôt que pour nos estomacs”, a confié Makama à IPS. Le Swaziland connaît de graves pénuries alimentaires, avec 170.000 personnes sur sa population valide d’environ un million d’habitants dans le besoin d’aide alimentaire cette année.

Makama et les Amis de la terre ont durement fait campagne contre un projet visant à mettre en place la production de biocarburants à partir du jatropha au Swaziland.

Une société britannique appelée ‘D1 Oils’ a signé des contrats avec les agriculteurs afin qu’ils lui cultivent le jatropha. Un premier accord avec le gouvernement envisageait d’affecter 20.000 hectares à la production de biocarburants, ce qui pourrait devenir 50.000. Le site Internet de l’entreprise indique qu’il y a des millions d’hectares de terres marginales dans les pays en développement qui ne peuvent pas être utilisées efficacement pour produire des vivres.

“Une grande partie de ces terres est adaptée à la production des cultures énergétiques telles que le jatropha”, déclare l’entreprise, qui a envisagé d’installer ces activités dans les zones du Swaziland touchées par la sécheresse.

‘Les Amis de la terre’ a parlé à beaucoup d’agriculteurs impliqués dans le projet. L’un d’entre eux, Sam Dube, a déclaré au groupe de campagne sur l’environnement qu’il avait consacré ses trois champs, sur lesquels il produisait auparavant des cultures vivrières sur deux de ses parcelles, et du coton comme culture de rente sur le troisième, à cette culture énergétique.

Il a dû attendre trois ans, le temps que son jatropha arrive à maturité, avant de pouvoir commencer à en tirer des bénéfices.

Il pourrait être en difficulté. D1 Oils a sorti le projet avant qu’il ne démarre correctement parce que, selon le président directeur général de l’entreprise au Swaziland, Gaetan Ning, le gouvernement du Swaziland n’était pas disposé à soutenir le projet avec la législation requise.

“Ils voulaient que nous définissions une stratégie nationale sur les biocarburants, pourtant ce n’était pas à nous de faire cela mais au gouvernement”, a indiqué Ning. Après avoir dépensé plus de huit millions de dollars sur cinq ans dans la culture de cette plante sur des fermes privées, l’entreprise en a mis un terme.

“Nous avions embauché 500 personnes pour travailler sur ces fermes et nous étions obligés de les licencier”, a expliqué Ning.

Gcina Dladla, porte-parole de l’Autorité de protection de l’environnement du Swaziland, a déclaré que c’était dommage que D1 Oils ait abandonné le projet après qu’on lui a demandé de faire l’Evaluation environnementale stratégique.

“Nous voulions vérifier par des faits, l’impact du jatropha sur la sécurité alimentaire et la qualité des sols en réponse au tollé des organisations de la société civile”, a affirmé Dladla.

Prudent, le consultant en environnement, Rex Brown, qui travaillait avec D1 Oils sur le projet de jatropha, estime que l’insécurité alimentaire ne peut être imputée aux biocarburants. Les raisons pour lesquelles les gens au Swaziland et ailleurs souffrent de la faim peuvent inclure des politiques alimentaires inadéquates, la disponibilité des aliments, les forces du marché, la distribution et la logistique ainsi que les climats appropriés.

“Ce qui est souvent critique, c’est la capacité d’une personne à s’acheter ses vivres”, a déclaré Brown. Cultiver du jatropha sur des terres marginales dans les zones arides du Swaziland, estime-t-il, pourrait offrir un revenu stable aux populations rurales, soit en termes de main-d’œuvre agricole ou de producteurs indépendants.

Brown affirme que le projet de biocarburants à base de jatropha que D1 Oils a proposé présente l’avantage supplémentaire de capter et de stocker le carbone atmosphérique.

“Le rôle de l’agriculture, et de l’arboriculture en particulier, dans l’atténuation des changements climatiques tourne autour de la capacité de la plante à stocker le carbone pendant longtemps”, a expliqué Brown.

Défendant les biocarburants contre des accusations selon lesquelles la culture à grande échelle déplacera les agriculteurs et les cultures vivrières, Brown a déclaré que c’était partir d’un seul cas pour critiquer tous les autres cas.

“Le caoutchouc, le coton, le cacao, le sisal, par exemple, sont cultivés sur de grandes plantations au niveau mondial”, a dit Brown. “Utilisant l’argument avancé par les opposants aux biocarburants, nous devrions également mettre en cause la sécurité alimentaire de ces cultures”.

Sans doute Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, de GRAIN, une organisation non gouvernementale internationale qui soutient la biodiversité, les systèmes alimentaires communautaires, remettrait en cause le rôle joué par l’agriculture de plantation de toute sorte d’arbre.

Pschorn-Strauss dit que les biocarburants – que GRAIN préfère appeler les agrocarburants – ont déjà déplacé des fermiers de leurs terres, négativement affecté la production vivrière et causé la destruction des forêts.

“Alors, de nombreuses promesses d’agrocarburants comme le jatropha n’ont pas été concrétisées”, a-t-elle déclaré.

Elle ne veut pas voir les biocarburants mieux acceptés dans le cadre d’une stratégie d’atténuation négociée à Cancún.

“[L'industrie] a réussi à développer des mécanismes et des accords qui lui permettront d’exploiter légitimement l’environnement et les gens pour un gain financier”, a déclaré Pschorn-Strauss.

La réponse peut se situer quelque part entre les positions antagonistes. Le chercheur David Tilman, de l’Université du Minnesota, aux Etats-Unis, était l’auteur principal d’un document qui présentait les bases potentielles d’une production durable et responsable de biocarburants.

Pour obtenir le maximum de réductions des émissions de carbone par rapport aux combustibles fossiles tout en conservant le couvert forestier et la biodiversité, la production de biocarburants devrait provenir de déchets municipaux et industriels, des résidus de cultures et de bois récoltés de façon durable ainsi que de plantes vivaces cultivées sur des terres dégradées – déjà abandonnées sur le plan agricole.

(FIN/2010)

Irrigation near Kakamas, South Africa: sustainable use of water is especially critical in a warming world. Credit: Patrick Burnett/IPS

By Stephen Leahy

MEXICO CITY, Dec 7, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) Africa will be amongst the hardest hit regions of the world as the climate heats up, threatening the continent’s food security, experts agree. If global temperatures rise 2.0 degrees C, southern Africa will warm an additional 1.5 degrees to a 3.5-degree increase on average.

Such temperatures could be reached as early as 2035. The Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain recently advised that a 4.0-degree C rise in the global average temperature could be reached as soon as 2060 if the ever-increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not curbed.

“The prognosis for agriculture and food security in SSA (Sub-Saharan Africa) in a 4°C+ world is bleak,” write the authors of a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society to be published next month.

“A four-degree C world would be horrendous and must be avoided at all costs,” said Philip Thornton of the International Livestock Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya and co-author of a paper in the Royal Society special issue “Four degrees and beyond”.

“This special issue is a call to action so we can avoid such a future,” Thornton told TerraViva.

Even if a new climate treaty came out of the final week of the 16th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancún, 2.0 degrees C looks inevitable, he said. No one is realistically expecting a comprehensive climate treaty for several years. This means southern Africa can expect to be 3.5 degrees C hotter and much drier in future, he said.

“It is going to get very difficult for rain-fed agriculture in this region,” Thornton warned.

Even 2.0 degrees C would be devastating for South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana and other neighbouring countries, said Lance Greyling a member of South Africa’s parliament.

“We can’t have more than 1.5 degrees C globally and that has been Africa’s position since Copenhagen COP,” Greyling said in an interview in Mexico City at the Globe International forum on climate change.

Water is a huge constraint on South Africa’s agriculture and economy since 98 percent of freshwater resources are already allocated, he said.

A great deal of work will be needed to help farmers adapt to these new conditions, including the development of heat and drought-tolerant varieties, said Thornton. Learning from other regions with conditions similar to those expected in southern Africa in the next 20 to 30 years, as well as bringing seeds from those regions, has to be part of the adaptation strategy.

It also means that water-hungry crops like maize will need to be replaced by cassava, millet and sorghum. That involves social change since local people largely prefer maize and food preparation of those other crops is different and may be more difficult, he said. “It’s a towering challenge,” Thornton noted.

Climate projections for the rest of sub-Saharan Africa are less clear in a 2.0 degrees-plus world. Changes in seasons and rainfall patterns have already been occurring for the last 20 or 30 years. That’s expected to continue. Higher temperatures mean crops need more water, and projections for precipitation, especially in dry regions, are that rainfall will be similar or less abundant.

More importantly, rain will likely occur in fewer events with longer dry periods between, making agriculture very difficult as the planet heats up.

The paper concludes that the cost of reaching the Millennium Development Goal on food security – halving the proportion of hungry people by 2015 – in a +2°C world will be around $40–$60 billion per year. “Without this investment, serious damage from climate change will not be avoided,” it said.

By 2050, countries in the Sahel, the region south the Sahara desert, will experience crop-growing conditions for which there are no current analogues globally, said Sonja Vermeulen, deputy director for research at the Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security launched last week in Cancún.

This is a 10-year, $200 million research initiative cope with climate change impacts on agriculture. It hopes to reduce poverty by 10 percent in targeted regions and lower the number of rural people who are malnourished by 25 percent by 2020.

Those unprecedented climate conditions make it difficult if not impossible to grow food. There may be no possibility of adaptation without significant outside resources, Vermeulen said in a statement.

The mounting hazards of climate change are beyond the “current coping range” of either local communities or national institutions, agreed Janice Jiggins of the Wageningen University and Research Centre in The Netherlands. Africa’s losses could in theory be offset by gains in productivity in more northern regions like Canada and Russia – however, counting on that is a very risky strategy, she said.

“We cannot rely on redistribution of resources via trade as an ‘adaptive mechanism’,” Jiggins told TerraViva.

Previous studies have shown that under 2.0 degrees of warming, global grain prices will likely double by 2050, if not before. An additional 25 million more children could be malnourished, said Gerald Nelson, a researcher at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.

Those studies only looked at changes in temperatures and precipitation and “the month to month variations were dramatic”, Nelson told TerraViva. The impacts on livestock have yet to be incorporated. If temperatures continue to rise by 3.0 and 4.0 degrees, it will be very hard to do anything to adapt in many parts of the world, he said.

Even with a +2 degrees C hotter world, the real scale of the problem of food security in Africa has been heavily underestimated and will require massive investments, Thornton concluded.

“It is completely unfair that Africa is not really responsible for the problem, and yet the greatest burden falls on their agriculture sector,” he said. “The last thing Africa needed was climate change.”

Share this

Gunter Pauli, author of "The Blue Economy"

Gunter Pauli *

THIMPHU, Dec 6, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – A decade ago HM Dorji Wangmo Wangchuck, the Queen of Bhutan visited the ZERI pavilion at the World Expo in Hannover, the largest bamboo building in modern times, constructed with a German building permit.

The Pavilion demonstrated new emerging business models, proven to work in Colombia, Brazil, Namibia, and Sweden. As the driving force behind these innovative development models, Her Majesty thought I should come to Bhutan.

I came and was enchanted with the country, its people. I was impressed with the visionary approach of HM Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the Fourth King who not only brought democracy to his Himalayan Kingdom, but who stated early in his reign that happiness is more important than growth.

That vision is now known to the world as Gross National Happiness (GNH). There is no doubt, a nation that enshrines forest protection into the constitution, and establishes every citizen’s right to traditional medicine, embraces a different type of development.

On top of that, the government banned the sale of cigarettes and the use of plastic bags. However, the pressure to grow is high, unemployment poses a new challenge, and access to satellite television and internet entices many to emulate a consumption model desiring junk food that recently has been subjected to a special tax.

After crossing the country from West to East, four extended visits enriched by dialogues with government, private sector, and civil society, I submitted a portfolio of possible initiatives “to grow and be happy”.

Based on my experience in creating initiatives that respond to people’s needs, with what they have, I designed businesses that go beyond cutting costs, and rather generate more value, especially for remote rural communities.

And one of the core values is happiness. A portfolio of 6 top projects emerged, each based on a benchmark somewhere in the world, inspired by pioneers who have demonstrated a sense for competitiveness while having the capacity to reach out to the unreached.

These opportunities offer a platform for entrepreneurship, job generation and investments, provided the government creates the policies to make this happen.

Working sessions with the Prime Minister and his colleagues lead to the formulation of government resolutions to set the stage for implementing this GNH portfolio backed up by an independent GNH Fund.

The Prime Minister’s goal that Bhutan will revert to 100% organic farming, forever. As a first step to achieve that goal, he wishes to decree that all food served in restaurants and hotels must be certified organic.

This guarantees higher income to farmers. The second policy option may even do better: turn Bhutan into the first country committed to bioplastics. An inspirational encounter between HM the Queen with Dr. Catia Bastioli, the founder of Novamont (Italy), who is already converting agro-waste of 600 Italian farmers into bioplastics, set the stage for a promising collaborative effort.

Bhutan said no to plastic bags. Now it says yes to bioplastics made from left-overs which after use, are composted and returned to soil.

The rise of petroleum imports is hurting the Bhutanese balance of payments. The Prime Minister already declared that the country will be carbon negative. Now he is prepared to commit to eliminate all use of fossil fuel.

He is inspired by the pioneering work of Las Gaviotas, Colombia. Las Gaviotas taps pine trees, and generates all the fuel it needs. Bhutan has a 72% forest cover. We can imagine an army of “happy tappers”, generating fuel from the trees.

The capital city of Thimphu, and emerging urban centers are struggling with an increasing flow of black water, a danger to public health and costly to treat. The Prime Minister is ready to turn Bhutan into the first country committed to eliminate septic tanks, sewage and water treatment.

Instead, Bhutan wishes to opt for the Swedish technology proven to work in homes, schools, apartment blocks and city quarters by the architect Anders Nyquist in Sundsvall. This “dry” approach, that does not smell at all, eliminates viruses at source, recycles water on site, regenerates nutrients and is cheap.

Each policy decision proposed is backed by technologies, competitive business models, investment opportunities, … based on the Blue Economy, a development model that does not require anyone to pay more to be sustainable.

Everyone in the government read my book with the same title, now I realize the power of publishing! These policy decision made on December 7, 2010 inspired me to create the GNH fund with local partners. Over 100 personalities signing a letter of support go beyond the clapping hands and tapping shoulders.

We are delighted to advance on an investment rather an aid strategy and expect the fund will be operational by Spring 2011. Imagine if the big neighboring countries would opt for the same strategy.

* Gunter Pauli author of “The Blue Economy” and entrepreneur. (COPYRIGHT IPS)

Share this

Protestors insisted on protection of the interests of indigenous people and peasant farmers. Credit: Mantoe Phakathi/IPS

By Mantoe Phakathi

CANCÚN, Dec 6, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – As ministers arrived for the second week of climate change negotiations in the Mexican resort city of Cancún, an estimated two thousand marchers took to the streets to oppose what they called a capitalist outcome of deliberations.

“We’re seeing a green capitalism here in Cancún, where rich countries are calling for solutions aimed at violating the rights of not only the environment but also of grassroots groups,” said Mary Lon Malig, from peasant farmers’ organisation La Via Campesina.

The marchers – led by Via Campesina, the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, environmental group Friends of the Earth, and others – rejected the emerging outlines of agreement on such things as expanding the Clean Development Mechanism, the finalising of a REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) programme, and the prominence given to bio-fuels.

Protestors demanded solutions to global warming that will not deprive indigenous people and smallholder farmers of their rights of access to natural resources such as water and land.

“We’re saying No! to the privatisation of water because this is a natural resource that should be available even to the poorest of the poor,” she said.

Malig told protestors at the march’s end point in the Plaza de la Reforma that countries pushing for fuels derived from biomass – ranging from maize and palm kernels, to sugar cane and jatropha – as part of the solution to climate change were supporting a strategy that would deprive indigenous people of land.

“We’re faced with a situation where land is going to be grabbed from peasant farmers by our governments to give way to huge hectares [for] plantations of bio-fuels owned by transnational corporations,” said Malig.

REDD programmes also came under strong criticism from marchers. Critics said the sale of carbon credits to polluting countries to raise funds to protect and restore forests in developing countries would only allow the developed world to continue polluting.

“This means the communities who live next to fossil refineries in the U.S. will continue getting diseases such as cancer from the fossil fuels,” said GGJI’s Sunyoung Young.

Young said the communities whose health is affected by these refineries in the United States are overwhelmingly poor people, blacks, Asians and migrants.

Elsewhere, REDD programmes have been criticised for blocking access of forest-dependent peoples to resources in the name of conservation, while any financial benefits from the sale of carbon credits go to governments rather than local communities.

The Clean Development Mechanism, which assigns carbon credits to development projects deemed less polluting than alternatives, also attracted criticism from marchers. They said the CDM leads to the adoption of false solutions to climate change, such as nuclear energy.

Drawing inspiration from previous struggles by civil society to against global negotiations led by governments and business, the march celebrated the example of Korean farmer Lee Kyung-hae, who plunged a knife into his own heart in protest against World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations in 2003.

He was hailed as a selfless hero who gave up his life to oppose the WTO, which civil society has widely criticised as favouring large corporate interests.

As the march began at the Via Campesina camp at the Unidad Deportiva Jacinto Canek in central Cancún, incense was burned in Lee’s memory. Others put down flowers, oranges and a variety of maize seeds – Mexico is the birthplace of corn – at the Via Campesina camp in downtown Cancún.

“We’re trying to connect with the spirit of Lee,” said one of the protesters after placing flowers.

Doudou Pierre Fetile, a peasant farmer from Haiti, said smallholders continue to struggle against unfair terms of trade. He feared the climate negotiations were being carried out in the same vein.

“REDD is one of the examples where poor farmers will lose land to give way to plantations of trees under the excuse that they are used as carbon sink,” said Fetile.

He said indigenous farmers have the solution to global warming, but are not included in the negotiations.

“Let’s go back to the indigenous ways of life,” said Fetile. “Let’s evaluate the way in which we’re producing because therein lies the climate change problem.”

As the politicians join negotiatiors in Cancún, and agreements are hammered out, civil society began asserting its voice. A massive march is planned for Dec. 7.

(END/2010)

Wildlifers worry the Forest Rights Act will threaten India's last critical habitats, which include Ranthambore National Park in Rajasthan. Credit: Keya Acharya/IPS

Commentary by Keya Acharya

MEXICO CITY, Dec. 5, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) While the parlaying at the climate talks in Cancún broke for the weekend, a group of 155 legislators from 16 of the G20 major economies met in the Mexican Senate to discuss how to influence their countries’ ministers to agree to an international commitment that obligated them to pass national laws on climate action.

The group, called GLOBE, or Global Legislators’ Organisation for a Balanced Environment, has been lobbying the major economies to pass national emissions reductions laws, a major barrier to agreement at the Conference of Parties (COP).

So far, Brazil, Germany, South Korea and India have passed national legislation for climate change abatement, while China, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa are in the process of doing so.

GLOBE points to India’s political action on climate change as a significant outcome.

Indeed, India’s initiative to enact national policies on climate change has been commendable. It says it will reduce its emissions by 20 to 25 percent by 2020.

In 2008, India rolled out a National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), dealing with initiatives in eight key areas till 2017: solar and energy efficiency; sustainable habitat; sustainable agriculture; water; Himalayan ecosystem; Green India; and strategic knowledge on climate change.

The policy has been amplified in various fields. Talks are on between industry research institutions and governance for a low-carbon growth strategy, the recommendations of which are to become part of Inda’s 12th five-year plan of national policies in 2012.

There are proposals for a carbon tax on coal consumption, and a national mission on enhanced energy efficiency has mandated 700 of India’s most energy-intensive units to reduce their consumption, with incentives for those who reduce more than their mandated percentage. The refrigeration and lighting industries have had mandatory efficiency standards in place since January 2010.

The Jawaharlal Nehru solar mission will produce 20,000 MW of solar power, 20 million solar collectors and 20 million lighting systems by 2022, and its sustainable habitat strategy will buttonhole environmental and energy efficiency in housing and transportation.

The country also has an ambitious eco-restoration programme under its Green India Mission, to develop 20 million hectares of land in the next 10 years, calculated to sequester 43 million tonnes of carbon emissions annually.

The reforestation programme has a REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) component that India is pushing at the COP in Cancún.

Jairam Ramesh, by far one of the country’s most dynamic environment ministers, says he takes pride in the fact that its network of scientists (Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment) was the first in developing countries to bring out a Greenhouse Gas Inventory early in 2010.

So far, so good: India is good at passing legislation when it has the political will to do so. The country already has one of the most comprehensive environmental laws, some of them, such as on air and water pollution, enacted decades ago.

It is the implementation of these laws that is its ‘Achilles heel’, so to speak. Its new climate change policies fall into a sea of existing laws on prevention of air and water pollution, yet toxicity from both is already rampant in the country.

With nearly 70 percent of India’s energy requirements being met by coal, imposing a carbon tax is already encountering political obstacles.

Its Green India Mission has encountered thus far the most criticism for its bureaucratic vision and controversial use of land for reforestation. With tribal communities already protesting that they are being forcibly thrown off community lands in the name of state forests, the mission’s aim of bringing in massive areas of other lands, such as those used for shifting cultivation by tribal communities, will only exacerbate the current conflict between local communities and state forest officials.

India’s Forest Rights Act 2006 officially recognises pre-existing rights of tribal communities living for aeons on lands that later were classified as forests. It is already encountering hurdles by conservationists and the forest departments in some cases, and faces further problems with the Green India Mission’s ambiguity over its usage of lands such as those used for shifting cultivation by tribal communities.

The central Indian states of Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand and the eastern state of Orissa are already in the throes of violent unrest by village communities protesting their government’s takeover of lands they live on and handing them to mining industries.

The ambiguity of the definition of which lands can be used to ‘green’ India, and what afforestation techniques will be used to do so, falls into the current scenario of unrest and resentment. Activists are already protesting that the Mission’s promise of community participation is farcical, since its community groups are controlled by the Forest Department.

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the complex web of difficulties that India’s climate change policy faces, it is laudable that the country has had a minister rooting – unusually hard – for the environment.

In today’s climate, hope for positive action is essential.

Share this

A cloud forest in Costa Rica. Credit: Germán Miranda/IPS

By Keya Acharya

CANCÚN, Dec 4, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – Forest rights advocates and indigenous community organisations from India are adding their voices to what promises to become the newest division in the climate talks here: the inclusion of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation + in developing countries, or REDD+, as an agreement.

REDD+ essentially supports developing countries financially and technically, to either prevent deforestation or regenerate forests through afforestation.

The resulting carbon sequestration is aimed to reduce overall emissions, while the move itself will enable sustainable forestry and halt degradation.

But the clause is not going down well with forest rights and tribal groups in India over the draft REDD+’s use of agri-business plantations and ambiguity over the land categories to be used for the programme, the latter of which clashes with land rights given to tribal communities under India’s recent Forest Rights Act.

India’s government is staunchly supporting REDD+. In December 2008, it submitted a document to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) called “REDD, Sustainable Management of Forest, and Afforestation and Reforestation”.

The government now proposes to use REDD+ as part of its ‘Green India Mission’ to restore 20 million hectares of land into forests in the next 10 years, costing approximately $10 billion, and calculated to sequester 43 million tonnes of carbon annually.

Under its climate change policies, a national REDD+ coordinating agency and a national forest carbon accounting programme are being institutionalised.

Well-known forest and tribal rights expert Madhu Sarin criticises the government’s grouping all categories of land, whether coconut plantations, or forest, private, community or industrial plantations, into its fold for the programme.

She questions whether existing livelihoods, biodiversity, and displacement of forest-dependent communities have been taken into account by the programme.

“Without clarifying who will own the carbon, who will have the right to decide whether to participate in carbon markets or not, and with barely any mention of community forest rights, the Green India Mission seems designed for garnering REDD+ funds for undertaking plantations on community lands in the name of increasing forest cover,” Sarin charged in her blog on the India Environmental Portal, a news website run by the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, with sponsorship from the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF).

“According to MoEF’s own data, till 1999, 31.21 million hectares of forest plantations had already been undertaken. If all the plantations had survived why would Rs 46,000 crores (US 10b) be required for another 10 mha today?” Sarin continued.

A joint statement of protest against India’s support of REDD+ has now been issued by an umbrella group of Indian organisations, including the National Forum of Forest Peoples and Forest Workers and tribal rights groups from 13 states.

The letter highlights the “dangers” under India’s strategy under REDD+ of denying people’s land rights and forest livelihoods under the Forest Rights Act, excluding community participation, and allowing land grabs by private commercial interests.

But India’s Environment Ministry believes it has addressed community issues under REDD+, saying “local communities will be at the heart of implementation, with the Gram Sabha [village government body] as the overarching institution overseeing Mission implementation at the village level”, according to its brochure brought out just days before COP 16 began at Cancún.

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) also sees REDD+ as one of the best options available to reduce carbon emissions.

While agreeing that the scientific community has so far focused mainly on forest carbon monitoring, reporting and verification without paying adequate attention to social impacts, CIFOR says many REDD+ programmes identify improving livelihoods as an important co-benefit.

CIFOR recently published “A Guide to Learning About Livelihood Impacts of REDD+ Projects” and is collaborating with the government of Mexico to stage Forest Day 4 on Dec. 5, alongside the UNFCCC talks at the Cancún centre.

Share this