Martin Khor. Courtesy of the South Centre.

Nastasya Tay interviews MARTIN KHOR, Executive Director of the South Centre

CANCÚN, Dec 10, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – As negotiations approach their conclusion at COP16, Nastasya Tay speaks to Martin Khor, the Executive Director of the South Centre, a civil society organisation that champions the views of the developing world, to see what developing countries hope to achieve in this round of talks.

Or download mp3.

Follow Nastasya on Twitter @NastasyaTay.

Listen to TerraViva’s other COP16 Podcasts here.

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

CANCÚN, Dec 8, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – Funding to developing countries to support reduced emissions and adaptation to the impacts of climate change is one of the tasks before negotiators and politicians at the U.N.’s Climate Conference in Cancún.

The African Development Bank’s Dr Anthony Nyong explains Africa’s position on how much money is needed, for what, and who should manage it. Excerpts of the interview follow.

Q: You have presented a proposal to set up a continental fund called the African Green Fund, but we haven’t seen any money. How much money is to be made available for Africa’s adaptation needs?

A: The baseline matter is straightforward, but some people have decided to complicate it.

In December 2009 when they endorsed the Copenhagen Accord, the fast-track finance that was agreed upon was for 2010-2012. In Copenhagen, developed nations made political commitments to provide developing countries with $30 billion dollars for the period from 2010 to 2012 for adaptation and mitigation.

The AfDB has drawn up a proposal to have a Africa Green Fund. This was supported by all African nations, that Africa should take care of the climate finance at a regional level.

The proposed fund includes enhanced direct access by countries, complete alignment with Africa’s priorities and processes as well as the strengthening of country systems to support the implementation of projects.

This Fund has been recognised in a report by the panel of experts that the U.N. Secretary General tasked to look at long-term climate financing and how we can get to the $100 billion annually by 2020 that develop countries opened up to. And we are represented by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia on the team the looks at the options of getting this money. This report will be put before the parties this week.

This panel has proposal that the African Green Fund should receive about $20 billion a year, but that’s not our recommendation. Africa’s recommendation is $40 billion a year. The Fund is not just an initiative of the bank, it’s an initiative of the continent, we are simply responding to that request.

This will help implement projects in mitigation, adaptation and other enabling areas like capacity building and technology transfer, all the things that are being negotiated.

Q: African negotiators have quoted varying amounts needed for the continent’s adaptation to climate change. What do you see as the most credible number?

A: When you are costing for adaptation, many people cost adaptation to include basic development. If you don’t have good roads, you can’t implement your disaster reduction strategy. If you do not have good hospitals, you cannot adapt to the health impacts of climate change.

So it varies. Some put the cost of basic development down as part of adaptation; for others, they see adaptation without necessarily including the cost of basic infrastructure.

I personally support the model that tells you that adaptation consists of basic development and then the additional costs to be incurred by climate change.

Q: Who should manage an adaptation fund?

A: Regional development banks should manage the funds. These funds should not be centralised anymore.

We want these resources decentralised to bring them closer to the people. If you manage this centrally, it defeats the purpose of distributed development. My take is that the regional development banks like the African Development Bank should manage the fund.

Q: Will the Fund rely entirely on money agreed at these negotiations?

A: No, African countries too will make commitments to this fund and the African development fund will not stop countries from accessing climate funds outside this regional framework.

Q: You have warned African negotiators not to accept an agreement that won’t work for Africa, and you have used the example of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). How has this failed?

A: During the negotiation process for the Clean Development Mechanism in Kyoto, the financing mechanism was not fully aligned with Africa’s needs and priorities. We don’t want this to be repeated.

The problems of CDM are many, the first being that the level of development cannot easily support projects that would help us earn any carbon credits from carbon market. We have not seen many sustainable development projects in the energy sector because we have largely renewable energy.

Then the second problem is that the sectors that actually generate emissions from Africa were largely excluded, like agriculture and forestry.

The third problem  is that the transaction costs of doing business in Africa is till high. This had led to the low levels of participation in this mechanism for Africa.

Q: How certain are you that developed countries will deliver the money, taking into account the current financial economic crises in Europe?

A: There are crises and there are commitments. There are things you have to do even when you have a crisis. And a commitment to climate change adaptation  is one of them.

We expect that these countries will honor their commitments to ensure that there’s a global solution to climate change. We spend a lot of time talking about funds, but the best way of adaptation is mitigation. If you do not cut your green house gas emissions there’s no amount of money that can help.

So the developed countries have two things to do. First, cut down their emissions to scientifically acceptable levels, and secondly, provide resources for countries that are affected to take action.

Q: What will be the role of the new Climate Change Policy Centre set up by the African Union, African Development Bank and the U.N. Economic Commission for Africa?

A: The Centre will guide our policy development to ensure that countries are capacitated enough to address the challenges and effects of climate change.

There are two issues we have to address in Africa to cope with climate change, projects and policies. One of the reasons why renewable energy is not expansively implemented in Africa is because we do not have policies. The Policy Centre will ensure that African countries have policy and regulatory reforms to ensure climate change initiatives are taken up.

(END)

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

Windmills at Xinjiang, China. Credit: Chris Lim/Wikicommons

CANCÚN, Dec 5, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – In 2008, China pumped out 6.5 gigatonnes of CO2, roughly equal to the emissions from the rest of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East combined.

But that’s not the whole story. China’s enormous population means that its per capita emissions are just below five tonnes of CO2 per person – approximately a quarter that of the U.S.

China is also a developing country, and one which feels that it should be afforded space for economic growth as it tries to lift the150 million of its 1.3 billion people who still live in poverty.

In this complex environment, the country is attempting to map out a growth path for the future and negotiate the tension between fuelling economic growth and delivering on green imperatives.

It has invested more in renewable energy than most developed countries, including the United States. It has embarked on an ambitious energy efficiency programme, trying to convince its millions to change their lightbulbs, and has mainstreamed climate change into policy-making across levels of government.

But in the face of its momentous climate change challenges, is it enough?

TerraViva’s Nastasya Tay spoke to Renate Lok-Dessallien, head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) office in China, which engages heavily with the PRC government on its strategy to deal with climate change, providing financial support and technical assistance on some of its programmes. Excerpts of the interview follow.

Q: China’s gotten a lot of attention for becoming the world’s largest emitter of CO2. Do you think the country’s trying to change perceptions of its climate change agenda?

I think China’s done a lot of work. First of all, she’s internalised the problem, which is more than one can say for some countries.

Formerly, climate change was considered a scientific study, but now it’s absolutely central to the whole development agenda. This has huge significance, because the challenges are so great.

How do you continue to develop a country the size of China – 1.3 billion people – 500 million people taken out of poverty in the last 30 years, and 150 million people remaining in poverty, and expecting that to happen for them in the years ahead. And how do you do that on a low-carbon growth path? It’s never been done before. There’s no models out there.

The second area is the whole area of energy efficiency and conservation, where they’ve set targets. And when China sets targets, they’re serious targets. And they get implemented – even sometimes at the expense of other things. [Other colleagues have said that] China’s even gone to the extent of switching off the electricity for a week.

It may seem a little extreme, but it also indicates the seriousness with which the whole issue of target-setting and target meeting is addressed in China.

Q: The country appears to be taking climate change challenges very seriously. But is it enough?

If you look at it from an absolute emissions reduction perspective, it’s not enough.

Renate Lok-Dessallien, head of the UNDP's China Office. Credit: Nastasya Tay/IPS

China has to do more, but all countries have to do more. And it looks very much like China is taking it seriously, but it’s also waiting for other countries to take it seriously. In particular, the other big emitter countries, which happen to be developed countries.

There’s still a long way to go. They have competing demands on them. And how do you balance the need for development, the need for poverty reduction, with the need emissions reduction?

We have some technology fixes which allow you to both, but on a large scale which would make a big dent in emissions reduction, we don’t yet have a magic bullet. It will be tough sailing for a while until we have that kind of technology. So they’ve recognised that as well, and are investing heavily in innovation and research to develop the technologies.

Q: Do you think it might be possible or desirable to replicate China’s efforts in other developing countries?

A lot depends on the international financing mechanisms that finally, hopefully come to be. It’s not realistic to expect least developed countries to dole out huge proportions of their budgets on this – some proportion yes, obviously, but to the same degree as China, probably not. So there we’re probably dependent on the whole issue of international financing for climate change.

I think that a lot of people misunderstand China, and perhaps have misconceived ideas about how the system actually works.

Government has set serious targets and they’ve actually linked the personal performance assessment system of provincial leaders and some of the large city leaders on meeting some of these targets. That in itself is totally replicable. Why don’t developed countries do that?

It seems like a very responsible way to go about it, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the kind of government that you have. It just means that you’re taking it seriously.

I think getting the incentive system right is the essence of it. If the country as a whole decides that it’s an important priority, then it’s beholden upon whichever government you’re talking about to figure out the mechanisms.

Each country has its own governance system, each country knows how it operates. It doesn’t have to be the same.

I think the performance system is totally replicable. That’s what good governance is all about – getting the incentive system right. Whether it’s climate change, or whatever you’re talking about.

Q: So, what’s next for the country? What are we likely to see in the next few years?

As we move to the 12th Plan period in China, they’re going to be restructuring the economy on multiple fronts.

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, they realised their economy was over-dependent on an export-led system. Now that there’s a rising middle class in China, they want to migrate the structure towards a more consumption-based system.

At the same time they’re doing that, they’re trying also to feed in a low-carbon growth path and cope with a lot of poverty. They’ve got a lot on their hands, and getting the right balance is going to be a challenge. But they can get the right balance, and they’re certainly moving in that direction. That’ll be a huge inspiration for other countries.

Download the full interview here.