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”.

CANCÚN, Dec 11, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – If success is measured by delaying difficult decisions, then the Cancún climate meeting succeeded by deferring crucial issues over financing and new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the next Conference of the Parties meeting a year from now in Durban, South Africa.

Indigenous rights protestors bundled away from negotiations by police. Credit: Nastasya Tay/IPS

International negotiations to address climate change proceeded at a glacial pace in the palatial, over-air-conditioned Moon Palace Resort in Cancún. After two long weeks, final talks dragged on into the early hours of Saturday morning, with Bolivia’s refusal to accept a weak agreement that puts the world on a path that “could allow global temperatures to increase by more than four degrees”, said Pablo Solón, Bolivia’s chief negotiator.

In the end, Bolivia’s continued objections were drowned out by applause and cheering by more than 190 national delegations as the chair of the meeting, Mexico’s foreign secretary Patricia Espinosa, gaveled the meeting to a close declaring “a consensus without Bolivia”.

“The Cancún text is a hollow and false victory that was imposed without consensus,” Bolivia said in a final statement.

Based on the science, Bolivia is not wrong. The World Meteorological Organisation declared last week that the decade will close as the hottest 10-year period on record. The 100+ pages that form the “Cancún Agreements” will do nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet, but did revive the U.N. climate negotiation process after its near death in Copenhagen last year.

And most here believe this agreement sets the stage for a substantive agreement at the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban next December.

“I can’t disagree with Bolivia that based on the science, this agreement as it stands means four degrees C of warming,” said Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace.

“The text of the agreement is not good enough, but it does save the process and maybe this gets us to a truly fair, ambitious and balanced treaty in Durban,” Naidoo told TerraViva.

“Governments have given a clear signal that they are headed towards a low-emissions future together,” declared UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres. The Cancún Agreements represent “the essential foundation on which to build greater, collective ambition”, Figueres said in a statement.

“It’s pathetic the world community struggles so much just to climb over such a low bar,” commented Naidoo, whose hometown is Durban, South Africa. “Our only real hope is to mobilise a broad-based climate movement involving all sectors of the public and civil society before Durban.”

Late Friday night in the hallways, the mood was surprisingly upbeat. Not only had the talks not collapsed, there was formal agreement on a number of issues. These included acknowledgement that emissions cuts needed to be in line with the science ­ 25 to 40 percent cuts by 2020 – and the global temperature rise target should be kept below two degrees C instead of at two degrees C as the target in the Copenhagen Accord.

However, Japan, Canada, the United States and Russia successfully undermined any binding agreement on how to reach those targets by lobbying to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and replacing it with a weak pledge and review system as proposed in the Copenhagen Accord, according to Friends of the Earth International (FOEI). Current pledges under the accord translate into global temperature rises of three to five degrees C by most analyses.

“The agreement reached here is wholly inadequate and could lead to catastrophic climate change,” said Nnimmo Bassey, FOEI chair. Bassey is this year’s winner of the Right Livelihood Award – the ‘alternative Nobel Prize’ – for “revealing the full ecological and human horrors of oil production” in Nigeria, his home country.

Bassey said developed countries need to reduce their emissions by 40 percent under a new Kyoto Protocol commitment period with legally binding commitments.

The current Kyoto commitment to reduce emissions by five percent from 1990 levels ends in 2012. Most developed countries are meeting that target, with the notable exception of Canada, whose emissions have soared 30 percent.

Canada, Japan and Russia have declared they will not agree to a second Kyoto commitment. The U.S. refused to ratify the first Kyoto commitment and rejects the second as well. Those positions nearly derailed the talks since developing countries have long insisted rich countries agree to binding reductions under Kyoto. Agreeing to disagree, the final fight for Kyoto has been punted to Durban.

A Green Climate Fund was also agreed to with a $100-billion commitment by 2020, with a re-commitment of $30 billion by 2012 to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to impacts of climate change. The fund will be managed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries with funding channeled through the World Bank for the first three years.

Tropical forest protection may be the big breakthrough coming out of Cancún. Delegates adopted a decision that establishes a three-phase process for tropical countries to reduce deforestation and receive compensation from developed countries, and it includes protections for forest peoples and biodiversity. Deforestation presently contributes 15 to 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“This is so much better than what we had in Copenhagen,” said Peg Putt of the Wilderness Society, a U.S.-based conservation group.

“There was official recognition of the multiple benefits of forests and ecosystem integrity,” Putt told TerraViva.

Loopholes have been closed and good progress made on tackling the drivers of deforestation, she said. Much work is left to do to strengthen safeguards and work out the details for a new financial tool called REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation).

REDD remains very controversial. It is widely touted as a way to mobilise $10 to $30 billion annually to protect forests by selling carbon credits to industries in lieu of reductions in emissions.

“I’m feeling very good about the prospects for forests,” Putt said in an interview.

Many Indigenous and civil society groups reject REDD outright if it allows developed countries to avoid real emission reductions by offsetting their emissions.

“We reject false solutions like the carbon market mechanisms of REDD,” said Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network.

REDD represents a new set of tradable property rights based on trees and other environmental services, Goldtooth said in an interview.

“If we are going to save the climate, we need to focus on real solutions that assure that forests will be left standing and people’s rights are respected,” he said.

Although Bolivia’s stance will be much commented on, the more than 500 organisations in the Climate Action Network (CAN) once again voted Canada’s radical right-wing government as the most obstructive nation in the world. For its four years in power, Canada’s Stephen Harper government has won the “Colossal Fossil for the year” during climate negotiations for consistent efforts on behalf of its huge tar sands oil sector to block an agreement.

“Canada’s tar sands sector is truly among the global elite, an all- star of greenhouse gas pollution,” a CAN spokesperson said in a statement. “Despite an overall record of climate futility, Canadians should rest assured there’s at least one thing here that Canada is really, really good at.”

La playa se hunde y la arena se va en el "paraíso" de la zona hotelera de Cancún- Crédito: Diana Cariboni/IPS

Por Diana Cariboni, enviada especial *

CANCÚN, 11 dic (Tierramérica/TerraViva) – “Somos el país más frío del mundo…, así que el calentamiento global es bueno para nosotros. Cuanto más tibio, más cosechas… Se habla de detener la deforestación de las selvas tropicales para combatir el cambio climático, pero nosotros no tenemos selvas tropicales”.

La franqueza del legislador ruso Viktor Shudegov expuso una verdad “incómoda”: la aún escasa conciencia sobre el calentamiento global, en una reunión paralela a la conferencia de cambio climático que tuvo como anfitrión a México entre el 29 de noviembre y el 11 de diciembre.

Shudegov sintetizó lo difícil que resulta para la opinión pública de un país como Rusia asumir el desafío del cambio climático, pese a que, según los científicos, se trata del problema mundial más serio que afronta la humanidad en este siglo.

Esa dinámica, en la que predominan los problemas domésticos “urgentes”, como la crisis económica que afecta a casi todo el mundo rico, hace patinar una y otra vez los intentos de adoptar una norma mundial y obligatoria para reducir la contaminación climática.

La 16 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP 16), que tuvo como sede la ciudad turística mexicana de Cancún, no fue la excepción.

Una de las fuerzas motrices de la negociación que conduce la Organización de las Naciones Unidas busca atraer desde hace años al sector privado, ofreciéndole cada vez más oportunidades de negocios en la todavía enclenque “economía verde”.

La inclusión de los sistemas de captura y almacenamiento de carbono entre los mecanismos financiables para reducir la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero es una muestra de esa tendencia.

Se trata de extraer el dióxido de carbono, un gas invernadero, y depositarlo en “sumideros”, que pueden ser océanos, bosques o el subsuelo. Quienes inviertan en estos negocios estarían en condiciones de comerciar derechos de emisión en el mercado de carbono.

Para ambientalistas y científicos, impulsar ese mercado de carbono es una fuga hacia adelante.

“Esta tecnología no ha sido probada, no está lista para ponerse en práctica. Es otra forma de alejarse de las energías renovables y de las acciones de mitigación”, dijo a Tierramérica el nigeriano Nnimmo Bassey, presidente de la red ecologista Amigos de la Tierra Internacional.

“¿Qué es enfrentar el calentamiento? Reducir el lanzamiento de dióxido de carbono a la atmósfera. Entonces, ¿por qué no dejamos el carbono adonde pertenece…, en el suelo?”, cuestionó Bassey, que acaba de recibir el Right Livelihood Award.

Los gases invernadero se liberan por la quema de petróleo, gas y carbón, la deforestación, la agropecuaria, la conversión de suelos silvestres en agrícolas y la producción industrial.

Los grandes contaminadores, encabezados por China y Estados Unidos, no consiguen ponerse de acuerdo sobre una meta mundial de reducción de gases que permita mantener el aumento de la temperatura media en menos de dos grados.

Si se cruza ese umbral, dicen los científicos, el clima planetario llegaría a un “punto de quiebre” que desataría cambios catastróficos.

Adoptar una economía verde, o baja en carbono, implica sobre todo modificar la forma en que buena parte de la humanidad concibe la actividad económica.

A primera vista, resulta más fácil empezar por frenar la tala de las selvas, responsable de 18 por ciento de las emisiones mundiales de gases invernadero.

La iniciativa REDD+ (Reducción de Emisiones de Carbono Causadas por la Deforestación y la Degradación de los Bosques), que despertó enorme atención en la COP 16, prevé que los países ricos financien estas acciones efectuadas en naciones en desarrollo, beneficiando a los actores locales, sobre todo comunidades locales campesinas e indígenas.

La REDD+ atrae tanto “a países ricos como a naciones con bosques” a un tipo de “intercambio de carbono” que permite a los ricos “seguir contaminando” y a los países con bosques “obtener algo de dinero”, describió Bassey.

No es verdadera conservación, sino una forma de “reducir emisiones”. Cuando una selva sea incluida en este mecanismo, se impedirá a las comunidades locales utilizarla como lo hacían para su subsistencia, “pues sea quien sea que esté en ella deberá asegurarse de que retenga el carbono, que será medido y evaluado”, describió.

La clave está en establecer un sistema de controles claros, afirma la abogada Adrianna Quintero, del Consejo para la Defensa de Recursos Naturales (NRDC por sus siglas en inglés), una organización ecologista estadounidense.

Para cumplir la “meta de conservación es crítica la supervisión y la transparencia, lo mismo que para asegurar el respeto de los derechos de indígenas y campesinos”, dijo Quintero a Tierramérica.

Pese a todo, el sistema de negociaciones en las Naciones Unidas sigue siendo el único posible. “El proceso diplomático es un poco lento”, pero ¿de qué otra forma se pueden tomar en cuenta los intereses y posiciones de los 192 países de la Convención?, preguntó.

Para Quintero, en la COP 16 las posiciones se han acercado mucho para llegar a un terreno común que sirva de base a un tratado amplio. Y buena parte del avance obedece a la forma en que el gobierno anfitrión, México, condujo las negociaciones no sólo en Cancún, sino durante todo el año.

Un pilar de ese terreno común es la entrega de fondos a los países pobres para hacer frente a las nuevas realidades meteorológicas, adoptar nuevas tecnologías y solventar las enormes pérdidas causadas por desastres naturales.

En esto, nuevamente, se enfrentan intereses. En la COP 15, realizada hace un año en Copenhague, se prometió la entrega de al menos 30.000 millones de dólares por año, y “ni siquiera esta suma se cumplió”, recordó Bassey.

“Los países ricos hicieron todo lo posible para movilizar dinero, ya comprometido como ayuda, a préstamos como forma de lucrarse de la miseria de los países pobres golpeados por el calentamiento”, describió.

No se trata de buscar dinero, sino de que los ricos “paguen su deuda climática”, indicó. Las naciones europeas “colonizaron durante años la atmósfera con sus emisiones de carbono”, dijo.

Entre la justicia climática reclamada por Bassey y el camino de “lo posible” que siguen las negociaciones oficiales hay una enorme brecha.

Y la cuestión central –cómo frenar la contaminación climática–, sigue siendo inabordable y deberá esperar otro año, hasta la COP 17.

“Las naciones más poderosas no prestan atención a la física ni a la química”, dijo en un pronunciamiento el fundador de la campaña 350.org, Bill McKibben.

La sociedad civil no es “lo suficientemente grande para derrotar a la industria de los combustibles fósiles y sus aliados, pero estamos creciendo”, señaló McKibben.

“¿Cuál es el sentido de estas reuniones de dos semanas?”, cuestionó Bassey. “No vamos a ninguna parte. Y esto muestra la falta de reconocimiento de la gravedad de la crisis”, añadió.

“Cuando los impactos se multipliquen más allá del punto de quiebre, ni siquiera los ricos escaparán al desastre”, advirtió.

* Publicado originalmente por la red latinoamericana de diarios de Tierramérica.

CANCÚN, Mexico, Dec 9, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) An entire body of leaders, spearheaded by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, is now looking at REDD+ as a panacea to global warming with multiple benefits thrown in.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addresses the Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico. Credit: UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras

“REDD+ is the ‘shortest shortcut’ to address climate change; we will do all we can to support it, ” Ban told a packed audience of dignitaries, heads of state, indigenous community leaders, NGOs, forestry organisations and citizens convened by influential US NGO, Avoided Deforestation Partners.Org, on the sidelines of high-level deliberations at Cancún.

REDD+ stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. It essentially supports developing countries financially and technically to either prevent deforestation or regenerate forests, and is currently not a part of either the Kyoto Protocol or the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

It is, however, being both pushed and deliberated on at the meetings underway currently in Cancún.

“The overall message of REDD+ is that it is progressing well,” said Norway’s Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. “The personal leadership of heads of state of national governments like Guyana, Brazil and Indonesia has helped. So the main effort is by national governments.”

REDD+ has garnered around $4.5 billion in funds so far through bilateral agreements. Most of the funding currently is from Norway, which is funding both reforestation and avoided deforestation programmes in Guyana and Indonesia.

In May 2010, Norway signed a $1 billion deal with Indonesia, which Dr. Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, the head of Indonesia’s government REDD+ Unit, said was a partnership that is the best way to approach the climate change problem and which he hoped would become a worldwide model.

Kuntoro, however, added that the process of REDD+ needed careful consideration in its implementation.

“From an economy that was based on cutting trees, we are now introducing a new way of managing things without cutting. It needs a whole new paradigm of government change,” said Kuntoro.

Kuntoro’s leadership in the reconstruction of Aceh after the devastating tsunami of December 2005, with 93 percent of funds actually seeing direct results on the ground, has been lauded by the international community.

Norway’s PM Stoltenberg also highlighted the political risk involved in staking money on REDD+.

“It’s hard to win elections by raising taxes,” quipped Stoltenberg, “which is why we too are dependent on the success of Indonesia’s efforts. The concept is simple: we pay per tonne of carbon reduced, measured after a year.”

“Besides,” he continued, “as a political investor, transformation is essential.”

Billionaire-philanthropist George Soros, founder of the Open Society Foundation which has given over $50 million so far to REDD+ efforts, says “REDD+ is a method that can be done, and can be done cheaper than any other method.”

International forestry organisations and prominent individuals like Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner Professor Wangari Maathai and U.N .Messenger of Peace Dr. Jane Goodall are in strong favour of promoting REDD+.

In a video message to the group at Cancún, Maathai said she saw REDD+ as an excellent livelihood option, apart from its conservation and climate change benefits, while Goodall said conserving and re-generating forests would help save the world’s rich biodiversity.

But in spite of the high-profile support for REDD+, one of its first executors, Guyanan President Bharrat Jagdeo, highlighted in blunt terms the difficulties in getting the international financial institutions “up to speed” on the matter.

“What I have a problem with is I have x tonnes of carbon saved, Norway is paying, but I can’t get the money,” said Jagdeo. The World Bank, in this instance, has mired the Norwegian aid in bureaucracy so deep that Jagdeo feels political will be lost in using this new tool.

“Developing countries run the risk of the same situation as before: if there is no corresponding flow of finance, political capital will be lost,” he said.

Developing nations have been complaining throughout the talks at Cancún that climate financing, either promised or in general, is unforthcoming.

None of the $30 billion promised till 2012 by industrialised nations at Copenhagen last December for adaptation and mitigation in poorer countries has been remitted so far. A further $100 billion was promised for the same along with technology transfer by 2020.

With official funding through the U.N. framework remaining a serious problem anyway, REDD+’s propagation seems to hold out promise through the market, as in the case of the U.S. state of California.

Unlike its national government, California has a law to reduce emissions by 2020 to 1990 levels, with a slew of features like ‘cap and trade’, energy efficiency, clean cars and low-carbon operations. It now uses this to implement its REDD+ market strategy, while it waits to pass its draft REDD+ law.

The vice president of the Pacific Gas & Electric Corporation, Steve Kline, says the system works only because it is both climate-effective and cost-effective.

“So we have renewables, low-carbon operations and together we have offsets with local California companies. But we had to convince our customers first,” explained Kline.

Significant progress has been made so far at the Cancún talks to formulate a REDD+ strategy with components for local community rights, and gender considerations.

But while the drafts on REDD+ are almost ready at the Cancún deliberations, organisations like CARE International urge caution in finalising all REDD+ drafts.

“The critical issue in a REDD mechanism is to have strong safeguards to prevent it from harming the livelihoods and violating the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities,” says Raja Jarrah, CARE’s REDD Advisor.

“The real test will be how the words unfold into implementation on the ground,” says Jarrah.

Felix Finkbeiner. Credit: Mantoe Phakathi/IPS

By Mantoe Phakathi

CANCÚN, Dec 9, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – While delegates, ministers and politicans struggle towards agreement on a climate change treaty in the conference rooms of the Moon Palace, a group of children are getting on with it outside, planting trees to save the planet.

“Stop talking and start planting,” is the message from a group of children to the politicians struggling to reach agreement on a climate change treaty.

“Unless we start acting now, talking will not stop the glaciers from melting,” said 13-year-old Felix Finkbeiner, a United Nations Environment Programme climate justice ambassador.

Finkbeiner, was inspired by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai, who planted 30 million trees in her native Kenya, to try to plant a million trees in every country of the world.

He shared this vision with his classmates at the Munich International School while  making a presentation on the climate crisis. His teacher and the director of the school both bought into the idea and it has grown into a children’s movement with 100,000 members in 91 countries.

“I want to have a better future and that’s why I’m urging the grown-ups to come out of the conference room to plant trees with us here,” said seven-year-old Emiliano Garza.

The Mexican government donated around 200 saplings to be planted outside the Moon Palace, the climate talks venue.

Finkbeiner said the trees would stand not only as a symbol for climate justice, they are also a (small) carbon sink, doing their part to reduce the devastating impact of climate change.

“It’s disappointing that in Copenhagen the negotiators failed to come up with a concrete solution that would save the planet in the years to come,” said Finkbeiner.

Kenya’s Assistant Minister of Environment and Mineral Resources Professor Margaret Kamar liked the idea of children participating in conserving the environment. She said there is a big gap between the protection of the environment and education.

“We need to inculcate the culture of conservation among children,” said Kamar.

She said this is especially relevant in African countries like Kenya where intense pressure to clear land for agriculture and for fuel means that forests now cover only three percent of the land.

She said Kenya is involved in the planting of trees under the Maathai’s Green Belt Movement, initiated by Maathai. Across Africa, deforestation is resulting in the loss of topsoil to erosion and the expansion of deserts.

Mandrate Oreste Nakala, Deputy Director of Land and Forest Management from Mozambique’s agriculture ministry said that planting trees was an important part of his country’s efforts to control a different problem – flooding.

Nakala, who also planted a tree at the Moon Palace on behalf of his country, said that trees helped to reduce flooding.

Climate change produces two kinds of water problems, said Nakala. “You either have too much or too little.”

He was also impressed by the children’s initiative, saying that involving kids in the climate talks could help push decision-makers past deadlocks towards action.

(END)

The Epulu River flowing in DRC's Ituri Province. Credit: J Doremus/Wikicommons

By Rosebell Kagumire

CANCÚN, Dec 7, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – One of the stumbling blocks to finalising proposals to fund the conservation of forests in Africa is that some of the most ecologically – and commercially – valuable forests in Africa are in areas racked by conflict.

The Democratic Republic of Congo has received plenty of attention and money to preserve its rainforest. One hundred thirty million hectares – nearly two thirds – of this enormous central African country is forested. Somewhere between 20 and 37 billion tonnes of carbon are stored in the second largest rainforest in the world (only the Amazon is larger), as well as a tremendous amount of biodiversity.

The DRC was the first African country to complete a Readiness Proposal Plan for REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation), and there are a dozen pilot projects of various sizes in place in the country.

The country has received about $120 million for its REDD+ processes – developing the plan and supporting provincial efforts and popular participation in conservation.

Half a million hectares lost each year

But the country is still losing around 500,000 hectares of forest every year. Illegal logging is top of a list of drivers of deforestation that also includes charcoal production, trade in bush meat and ongoing armed conflict. War, particularly in the eastern DRC, has forced many people into camps for the internally displaced which place increased pressure on forests.

More seriously, the conflict has all but destroyed regulation and oversight of forests, allowing an illegal timber trade to flourish. In 2009, the government cancelled around 60 percent of the country’s timber contracts after an anti-corruption probe found that 91 deals covering nearly13 million hectares of forest had been granted under questionable circumstances by corrupt officials.

A 2001 U.N. panel also found that three of the DRC’s neighbours, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, were guilty of looting timber under cover of war. The U.N.’s report said this included confiscation of forest products, forced monopoly and price-fixing; it implicated top government officials from each of these countries, who profited hugely from the illegal logging.

Designing and implementing an effective conservation strategy will have to account for illegal logging and cross-border security in a challenging political environment.

“As we move forward with the REDD projects, we will have to hold talks through various sectors like trade and security to ensure these cross border illegal activities  that affect REDD are checked,” said Victor Kabengele wa Kadilu from the DRC Ministry of Environmental Conservation.

“Illegal logging is still big challenge,” he said. “So far we have a project in Mambasa, (North Kivu) to control the logging through certification of forest products.”

The DRC’s REDD proposal recognises the need to improve governance of forests. One of the measures it puts forward is to improve the salaries of the officials who enforce forestry regulations with a system of performance bonuses, as well as greatly increasing their numbers: at present, there are just 50 forestry agents for the entire DRC.

Kadilu says that an agreement on funding would go a long way towards securing DRC’s forests.

“We have ongoing projects to minimise the pressure on forests. We have encouraged new, improved agricultural practices; agroforestry and new technologies like the improved cook stoves on a large scale,” he said.

“To continue with all this we need a lot funding and we are hoping that the monies pledged are delivered and that more pledges are made at this conference.”

Outlook not promising

Charles Mushizi, a lawyer from the Kinshasa-based Centre for Exchanges On Legal and Institutional Reform, is sceptical.

“Most of our political decision-makers don’t understand these issues and our policies are still not in line with climate change demands,” he said. “Corruption is very big in DRC. On one side you have wars, and on the other we have a lack of capacity of government structures.

“Those in armed conflict areas are committed to logging and the sale of timber to finance the conflict and of course REDD activities in such areas will not easily be carried out.”

Wally Menne, an environmentalist affiliated with the Timberwatch Coalition, told IPS that it is difficult to see REDD succeeding in DRC.

“The DRC government is under pressure to convert forests to plantations of oil palm and eucalyptus, on the understanding that there will be REDD+ money to subsidise the conversion of natural forests that are ‘degraded’, and at the same time get money from logging,” said Menne.

“The argument is that they will only plant in ‘degraded’ forests, which usually means that the forest has been disturbed at some time in the past and can no longer be called ‘pristine’, but is still ecologically important.”

He pointed to other government policies on land that will affect the success of conservation efforts.

“In the DRC there have already been schemes to attract farmers from other countries (including South Africa) with grants of free land and tax holidays for mass food production. This might not be directly linked to REDD, but it will mean that more ‘degraded’ forests will need to be bulldozed to make way for crops.”

In Menne’s view, illegal logging by international actors is a lesser threat than the activities of big corporations with legal concessions who supply enormous and profitable markets in Europe.

“Illegal logging is going to thrive because it will be seen as a way to make money from forests before they are ‘sold’ to a REDD project for ‘restoration’ with one or other kind of plantation,” he said.

“it does not look very good either for the forests and grasslands, or the indigenous peoples and local communities. REDD will most likely bring more problems than solutions, and it is unlikely to succeed in protecting natural forests.”

(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

Farmers have a role to play in reducing emissions. Credit: Kristin Palitza/IPS

By Mantoe Phakathi*

CANCÚN, Dec 5, 2010, (IPS/TerraViva) – Global agriculture contributes in the region of 17 percent to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, but according to the World Bank, climate smart agriculture techniques can both reduce emissions and meet the challenge of producing enough food for a growing world population.

“As much as agriculture is part of the problem, it is also part of the solution,” said Inger Anderson, the World Bank’s vice president on sustainable development.

Anderson was speaking to agriculture, food security and climate change experts at Agriculture and Rural Development Day, a side event at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico on Dec. 4.

Agriculture experts are punting a scenario in which farming delivers a “triple win”, sequestering carbon in soil and biomass, gaining greater resilience to drought and higher temperatures, and improve food security and farmers’ incomes.

Achieving this miracle will require varying interventions in different areas, but examples can already be found.

On China’s Loess Plateau, thousands of years of agriculture and grazing turned forests into a dry zone. The loss of trees left a fine yellow soil vulnerable to erosion; the erosion filled the rivers with silt and created damaging annual flooding.

Sixteen years ago, the Chinese government and the World Bank set out to change land use practices in the area. The project enlisted the local population to construct silt dams and terracing and planting fruit trees and grass on slopes to steep for other crops. Locals were paid for their labour on the rehabilitation projects, but more importantly were granted cheap long-term leases on land which is rapidly recovering its ecological and agricultural viability.

On the much-smaller Humbo Plateau in Ethiopia, smallholders have succeeded in regenerating forest and restoring productivity. Farmers there have adopted new rules for sustainable use of wooded areas – helped by energy-efficient stoves that reduce the demand for fuel wood and charcoal. Alongside nurturing the regrowth of badly degraded woodland, training has allowed locals to diversify into raising livestock and poultry as well as non-farm activities.

The Humbo project is one of the few African Clean Development Mechanism projects, receiving its first $34,000 cheque for carbon stored in its 2,700 hectares of forest in October 2010.

Farmers in Malawi, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Niger and Zambia are also involved in agro-forestry, integrating trees into  food crop and livestock systems.

“In this way, a green cover on the land is sustained throughout the year,” said Anderson. “These systems bolster nutrient supply through nitrogen fixation and water conservation, and they increase the direct production of food, fodder, fuel, fibre and income from products under these trees.”

Farmers in Malawi, have more than doubled their maize harvests when growing their crops under a canopy of trees. Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, the chief executive officer of Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network, said African countries need to work out strategies that will take into consideration the livelihoods of rural communities.

“The challenge is that in Africa, we thought only of science and technology as a way of adaptation to climate change,” said Sibanda.

“We started talking about adaption in Africa before we could even do research on the opportunities that come with community livelihoods.”

Diana Liverman, a researcher from the University of Arizona, said smallholder farmer have long relied on indigenous knowledge to adapt to conditions, but escalating climate change may exceed their capacities.

“To use indigenous knowledge at this point, when the climate has drastically changed, could be a challenge because it might not be able to cope with the present realities of the phenomenon,” said Liverman.

Instead, she said, modern science should help advance indigenous knowledge to help farmers adapt. But she stressed that farmers should be at the heart of deciding which course to take.

“Researchers should refrain from making choices for African farmers,” said Liverman. “Some will want the modern technologies while others would like to continue with the traditional ones. What needs to happen is that adaptation funds should be availed to all.”

Scientists, researchers and policy makers should hasten their pace in finding adaptation measures, said Sibanda, because unless action is taken now, the impacts of climate change could derail sub-Saharan Africa’s revitalised efforts to transform the agricultural sector.

“This could deflate the optimism this has created in achieving a uniquely African ‘Green and Rainbow’ Revolution,” said Sibanda.

The continent is pushing forward with the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) which focuses on four key areas: land and water management, market access, food supply and hunger and agriculture research.

Dr Josué Dioné, the director of food security and sustainable development division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, noted that CAADP will strenghen the agriculture sector in Africa and improve food security, but he warned though that countries should come up with climate-proof programmes to secure gains.

“Climate change in Africa is both a challenge and opportunity,” said Dioné. “By using the best practices to counter the impact of climate change, we could stop importing food for our people.”

*Terna Gyuse in Cape Town contributed to this report.

(END/2010)

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

Wangari Maathai

By Wangari Maathai *

NAIROBI, Dec 4, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – 2010 A year after much touted climate change summit in Copenhagen, country negotiators from around the world are together again to work out an international response to climate change.

While many believe we should lower our expectations for this year’s climate change summit being held in Cancun, this would be a mistake. As global temperatures rise, so do the challenge’s for the world’s poorest citizens­women, especially those living in developing countries.

Women are living on the frontlines of climate change, and are ready to be active partners in dealing with climate change. The negotiations in Cancun should be an opportunity to empower women and make concrete commitments that will turn some promises of earlier negotiations into a fair, binding and legal document.

From food shortages to forest degradation and new and more complex health risks, as well as an increased likelihood of conflict over resources, the impacts of climate change threaten to further jeopardize the lives of women and girls.

But just as many women are bearing the greatest burden of climate change because of their role as providers for their families, it is women who are developing the solutions that will save our world from the impacts of global warming.

Take, for example, the challenge of ensuring our world shifts to a “low carbon” future. The success of investment in developing states to circumvent development reliant on fossil fuels depends on local co-operation, and capacity on the ground. This is where women are key.

Through its green technology initiative in India, the Self Employed Women’s Association has helped provide over 150,000 women with microcredit and training required to take advantage of new green technology. While the developed world talks about action, women from the poorest sectors of India’s economy are cutting carbon emissions by ending their reliance on coal, re-using forms of solid waste and promoting the merits of alternative energy.

Similarly, in regions where women are able to be decision makers over land-use and resources, they are proving to be a positive force for sustainable change. With women at the forefront, the Green Belt Movement in Kenya has planted ten of millions of trees to restore local habitats and reduce fuel wood reliance on precious finite forest resources.

In Malawi, women farmers have joined together in ‘farmers’ clubs’ where they share information on seeds and cultivation techniques that are able to adapt to the degradation of soil and changes in rainfall patterns caused by global warming. This reduces their vulnerability to climate change induced drought and prolonged crop failure.

But it is not just women in the developing word who are taking on the challenge of climate change. As the research from North America, Europe and India demonstrates, women around the world demonstrate greater scientific knowledge of climate change, show more concern and are more willing to adopt policies that are designed to address global warming.

Internationally, women leaders are at the forefront of a global civil society network working to hold government, international institutions, and the private sector to account for their promises on climate action.

Yet despite their willingness to take political and individual action, entrenched inequality between men and women continues to pose a critical obstacle to global efforts to address climate change.

The most fuel-efficient stove ever produced will do little to bring an end to deforestation or reduce carbon emissions if women do not have access to the training required to use it, micro-credit needed to buy it or the financial freedom to control household expenditure. For example, it was shown that in Zimbabwe in the 1990s solar cooking stoves failed to be adopted largely because men objected to women purchasing or learning how to use the new devices.

In many parts of the world women do not own collective or individual title to the land from which they live. This lack of control means they are less able to implement sustainable agriculture or adapt forest management strategies that contribute to climate change mitigation as their voices are not heard when decisions are made. It also impedes their ability to participate effectively in programs such as REDD+, which offers financial incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation.

REDD+ will only work if policy makers are willing to learn from grassroots women. One of the key lessons is that focusing on carbon as the sole measure of the success of a climate change project has the potential to derail international efforts to combat climate change. Moving forward, we need to also take into consideration community rights to land and carbon, the livelihoods of people in communities, and issues related to governance.

Women need to be part of the decision making process. At present women are vastly under-represented in decision-making roles. In March this year, when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced a climate finance panel expected to mobilize $100 billion dollars a year to help those most affected by climate change, the 19-person panel did not include a single woman.

This is unacceptable. Not only should women be represented on a climate change finance panel. As well, every effort possible must also be made to ensure that women have access to the education, training and finances needed to adopt sustainable technologies and participate in the green economy.

Women and girls also need the land and resource rights to implement progressive forestry or agricultural practices. Last and certainly not least, women need the basic democratic rights that will enable them to vote for and promote green policies at the local, national and international level.

Citizens everywhere are waiting for real action on climate change. If the international community is serious about addressing climate change, it must recognize that women are a fundamental part of the climate solution.

* Wangari Maathai won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004 for her work on the environment and democratic participation in Kenya. She and her five sisters Nobel Peace Laureates created the Nobel Women’s Initiative in 2006 to work on human rights and climate justice. (IPS COPYRIGHT)

Share this