Busani Bafana

DURBAN, Afrique du Sud, 7 déc (IPS) – Effatah Jele, une productrice de lait en Zambie, en Afrique australe, ne croit pas en un hasard agricole, mais au pragmatisme à cause des changements climatiques.

“On devrait enseigner aux fermiers les bonnes pratiques agricoles au lieu d’imputer tout aux changements climatiques”, a déclaré Jele, qui dirige une ferme laitière dans la province de Luanshya Cooperbelt, en Zambie, et est la vice-présidente de la ‘Dairy Association’ (Association des producteurs de lait).

“Les changements sont là, sans doute, mais il est également important pour les agriculteurs de disposer des bonnes pratiques agricoles pour résister à ces changements. Par exemple, certaines femmes produisent des légumes et, à cause de l’ignorance, creusent le sol jusqu’au bord du fleuve. Ensuite, quand il pleut, tout le sable est entraîné dans le fleuve et après quelques années, le flot devient peu profond. Et certaines personnes affirment que c’est à cause des changements climatiques”.

Jele a indiqué que les changements dans les conditions météorologiques présentent de graves implications pour des fermiers, comme elle, qui dépendent des ressources en eau de plus en plus rares pour garder un troupeau laitier viable. Les producteurs de cultures, a-t-elle dit, sont moins bien lotis, sauf si la science et des idées pratiques viennent au secours.

“Je pense que nos scientifiques devraient aller vers les agriculteurs pour leur parler et leur faire comprendre la différence entre les changements climatiques et les problèmes auto-infligés à travers l’utilisation des mauvaises méthodes agricoles. Cela est important, parce que, autrement, nous ne trouverons pas des solutions qui assureront la sécurité alimentaire”, a déclaré Jele.

“Certaines des choses que nous imputons aux changements climatiques relèvent de l’incapacité de notre part, en tant que fermiers, à faire la bonne chose au bon moment. Parce qu’il y a une chanson sur les changements climatiques; nous chantons tous ‘changements climatiques, changements climatiques’”, a affirmé Jele.

Les craintes par rapport aux effets des changements climatiques sur l’agriculture africaine sont réelles et en Afrique australe, les fermiers sont en train de prendre des mesures pour s’assurer que les négociateurs à la 17ème Conférence des parties (COP 17) à Durban comprennent le message.

La ‘Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions’ (Confédération des syndicats agricoles d’Afrique australe – SACAU) – qui a obtenu le statut d’observateur à la session de la Convention-cadre des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques (CCNUCC) – veut que les négociations mondiales mettent fermement l’agriculture sur l’agenda des changements climatiques et établissent un programme de travail qui présentera et coordonnera des réponses nécessaires, telles qu’une allocation spécifique au secteur dans le cadre du Fonds vert pour le climat.

Des initiatives intelligentes face au climat, telles que l’agriculture de conservation, la récolte de l’eau, permettront non seulement aux fermiers de faire face aux conditions météorologiques extrêmes, mais aussi de s’assurer qu’ils réduisent les émissions de carbone. Selon des scientifiques, l’agriculture est responsable de 15 à 30 pour cent des émissions mondiales de gaz à effet de serre, telles que le dioxyde de carbone, qui influence la température de la terre.

Les agriculteurs font campagne pour un accord qui comprend spécifiquement l’agriculture, qui sera fortement touchée par les changements climatiques en termes de baisse de rendements agricoles et de la faiblesse de la productivité. Pour eux, les termes ‘productif’, ‘durable’ et ‘fermes’ constituent l’assurance contre les risques des changements climatiques.

Notant les liens étroits qui existent entre les défis de la lutte contre les changements climatiques et le fait de nourrir une population mondiale croissante, Kanayo Nwanze, le président du Fonds international de développement agricole (FIDA), doit demander à la COP 17 de se concentrer sur l’aide à accorder à un demi-milliard de petits fermiers dans les pays en développement pour qu’ils produisent plus de nourriture d’une façon écologiquement durable.

Selon une étude menée par le Groupe consultatif pour la recherche agricole internationale, les changements climatiques feront baisser la productivité agricole, avec des projections d’une hausse des températures et d’une augmentation des sécheresses et des inondations, qui changeraient les saisons agricoles et entraîneraient une baisse des récoltes.

“Nos attentes en tant que fermiers d’Afrique australe, c’est que l’agriculture soit incluse dans le texte qui sera adopté à la fin de la COP 17 à Durban”, a souligné Stéphanie Aubin, chargée du développement des politiques à la SACAU.

“L’agriculture doit être incluse dans le texte spécifique afin qu’il existe un fonds particulier et une action spécifique qui soient mis en œuvre”.

Un projet de texte a été discuté et négocié au cours des réunions des COP passées, à Copenhague et à Cancun, mais a été abandonné parce que l’agriculture a été mise dans la même catégorie que les combustibles de soute.

“Il est important que l’agriculture bénéficie d’un traitement spécial lors des négociations de la CCNUCC parce qu’elle est spéciale en termes de moyens de subsistance pour des millions de personnes en Afrique et de sécurité alimentaire pour la planète, et c’est le secteur le plus sensible au climat qui peut en même temps contribuer aux efforts d’adaptation et d’atténuation”, a expliqué Aubin.

“Nous voulons un chapitre spécifique sur l’agriculture dans le texte et une action à long terme, puisque cela débloquera le financement dont le secteur agricole a besoin en Afrique pour répondre efficacement aux changements climatiques”.

Aubin était optimiste qu’avec la COP 17 qui est organisée actuellement en Afrique, les gouvernements africains feront l’effort nécessaire pour faire pression afin que l’agriculture soit incluse dans le texte final. (FIN/11)

	Delegados cruzan el puente de acceso al centro de convenciones de Durban donde se celebró la cumbre climática Crédito: Zukiswa Zimela/IPS

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 12 dic (Tierramérica) – El mundo se encamina a un peligroso calentamiento planetario. Pero cuando la decimoséptima cumbre climática concluía en Sudáfrica este domingo 11, los gobiernos aceptaron discutir un nuevo tratado global para abatir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.

Tras dos semanas de intensas y amargas discusiones, a las que se adicionaron otras 29 horas, los 193 países partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC) acordaron un complejo conjunto de documentos técnicos titulado Plataforma de Durban, por la oriental ciudad sudafricana donde se celebró la conferencia.

Los textos incluyen la continuidad del Protocolo de Kyoto, único tratado mundial obligatorio para reducir los gases invernadero, la estructura formal del Fondo Verde para el Clima y nuevos mecanismos de mercado, entre otros asuntos.

Pero el punto medular, logrado en el amanecer del domingo, fue el acuerdo de todos los gobiernos de que debe negociarse un nuevo tratado mundial para abatir las emisiones para 2015. Aunque esto pueda parecer la simple decisión de celebrar más reuniones, esta es la primera vez que todas las naciones aceptan ser gobernadas por un régimen específico en el marco de la CMNUCC.

De momento, las promesas voluntarias de recorte de emisiones formuladas en 2009 por los países industriales, China, Brasil, Sudáfrica, India y otros en el marco del Acuerdo de Copenhague, garantizan que la temperatura media del planeta se elevará 3,5 grados centígrados respecto de la era preindustrial, indica la ciencia climática.

Incluso algunos análisis afirman que la temperatura subiría más, entre cuatro y cinco grados, lo que pondría en peligro la supervivencia de la especie humana.

Pese a las declaraciones políticas de Estados Unidos, Canadá y la Unión Europea, lo cierto es que las naciones en desarrollo han prometido reducciones mayores que el mundo industrial que es responsable de 75 por ciento de todas las emisiones humanas causantes del calentamiento.

“Aún no hay nuevas promesas sobre la mesa, y lo aceptado en Durban en cuanto a elevar las ambiciones y los recortes es incierto en cuanto a su resultado”, dijo Bill Hare, director de Climate Analytics, un grupo asesor sin fines de lucro con sede en Alemania.

La presidenta de la 17 Conferencia de las Partes (COP 17) de la CMNUCC, la sudafricana Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, fue una de las rogaron a los gobiernos hacer a un lado sus intereses “por el bien superior del planeta y de sus pueblos”.

Países ricos como Estados Unidos, Canadá y Arabia Saudita bloquearon las conversaciones en muchos frentes, para frustración y amargura de los países más pequeños y desfavorecidos.

“La triste noticia es que los saboteadores conducidos por Estados Unidos se anotaron el éxito de incluir una cláusula de escape que podría impedir fácilmente que el próximo gran tratado climático sea legalmente vinculante”, dijo el director ejecutivo de Greenpeace Internacional, Kumi Naidoo.

Incluso si en 2015 se aprueba un estricto tratado legalmente vinculante, deberá ser ratificado por los gobiernos para entrar en vigor. El Protocolo de Kyoto se adoptó en 1997, pero no entró en vigor hasta 2005.

Esperar hasta 2020 para efectuar drásticas reducciones de la contaminación obligará a ir mucho más a fondo, con mayores costos, para mantener la esperanza de que la temperatura global no suba más de dos grados, dijo Hare a Tierramérica.

“La aspiración colectiva de reducción de emisiones debe elevarse muy pronto y de manera sustancial”, advirtió Alden Meyer, director de estrategia y política de la estadounidense Unión de Científicos Preocupados.

Varios estudios sostienen que las emisiones mundiales de gases invernadero deberían alcanzar su punto más alto entre 2015 y 2020 y luego declinar, si se busca una posibilidad razonable de controlar la temperatura a un costo alcanzable. Si el pico y la declinación se producen más tarde, los costos y los riesgos se dispararán.

“Los discursos contundentes y las cuidadas elecciones del lenguaje no pueden alterar las leyes de la física. La atmósfera responde solo a una cosa, las emisiones”, dijo Meyer.

Está claro que en las dos semanas pasadas los gobiernos escucharon a las corporaciones contaminantes y no a sus pueblos, sostuvo Naidoo en un comunicado.

La Plataforma de Durban incluye un segundo período de compromisos del Protocolo de Kyoto que debería comenzar en enero de 2013 para evitar una brecha tras el fin del primer plazo, en diciembre de 2012. Su duración y alcance serán discutidos en la COP 18 que se llevará a cabo en Qatar.

Los países en desarrollo insistieron en esta condición, pese a que el Protocolo solo obliga a pequeñas reducciones de los países industriales europeos, Canadá, Australia, Japón y unos pocos más.

Estados Unidos permanece fuera del Protocolo de Kyoto, y Canadá ignoró sus obligaciones y elevó las emisiones y ahora, junto con Japón y Rusia, afirma que no se sumará a un segundo período de compromisos.

La continuidad de Kyoto es “significativa”, dijo la secretaria ejecutiva de la CMNUCC, Christiana Figueres. Los países partes deben presentar sus ofertas de reducción para mayo de 2012.

Pero no hay una adopción formal del segundo período en el texto actual de los documentos, dijo Pablo Solón, exjefe de la delegación de Bolivia ante la Convención. “La decisión real se pospuso hasta la próxima COP”, y el Protocolo sigue “en terapia intensiva”, aseveró.

El único progreso del Fondo Verde para el Clima fue su diseño y administración. Se supone que debe distribuir unos 100.000 millones de dólares de asistencia a los países en desarrollo, a partir de 2020, para ayudarlos a reducir sus emisiones y adaptarse al cambio climático.

En Durban no hubo compromisos sobre el origen del dinero. Se acordó establecer un “plan de trabajo” para movilizar recursos de fuentes públicas y privadas. Estas últimas incluyen de manera explícita los mercados de carbono, pues los gobiernos del Norte industrial se escudaron en la crisis financiera y económica que les ata las manos.

La sociedad civil y algunos países en desarrollo destacaron que los gobiernos han entregado billones de dólares a bancos y entidades financieras y que el presupuesto militar mundial supera en más de 10 veces lo que necesita el Fondo Verde para el Clima.

Pese a que el mercado de carbono está en caída, el sector privado es considerado por Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea, Nueva Zelanda y Japón, entre otros, como socio clave para financiar la respuesta al cambio climático.

Los mercados de compra y venta de compensaciones de carbono son un sistema muy polémico y complejo en cuanto a mediciones y propiedad del carbono en el suelo o los bosques, entre otros aspectos. También subsiste el cuestionamiento ético de que los países ricos compensen su propia contaminación comprando bosques o tierras en naciones pobres.

“Mantengan las metas, dejen los mercados”, reclamó Oscar Reyes, de Amigos de la Tierra Gran Bretaña en los últimos días de la COP 17. “Nos preocupa que cuando el Fondo Verde tenga recursos se los prestará al sector privado para impulsar el mercado de carbono”, dijo Reyes a Tierramérica.

“Al mirar las pasadas conferencias, parece más efectivo que sus miembros salgan fuera de los recintos y planten árboles durante dos semanas. Probablemente lograrían más impacto”, dijo el joven de 14 años Felix Finkbeiner, de Alemania.

Finkbeiner lanzó una organización infantil llamada Planta para el Planeta que ahora trabaja en 70 países y ha cultivado casi cuatro millones de árboles en los últimos cuatro años. Su lema es “Basta de hablar, empieza a plantar”.

* Publicado por la red latinoamericana de diarios de Tierramérica. (FIN)

As the United Nations climate negotiations ended with the world’s nations still to agree on a new global treaty to reduce carbon emissions, others urge: "Stop Talking. Start Planting." Credit: Tinus de Jager/IPS

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 11 (IPS) – The world is increasingly committed to dangerous levels of global warming with yet another failure by nations of the world to agree to needed reductions in carbon emissions here in Durban. However, as the 17th Conference of Parties ended early Sunday morning, members did agree to talk about a new global treaty to reduce emissions.

After two weeks and an additional 29 hours of intense and even bitter negotiations, the 193 nations participating in the United Nations climate talks agreed to a complex and technical set of documents called the “Durban Platform.” These include the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, a formal structure for a Green Climate Fund, new market mechanisms, and more.

The biggest development reached at dawn Sunday is an agreement to negotiate a new global treaty to reduce emissions by 2015. While this may look like simply agreeing to more meetings, it is the first time all nations have agreed to be governed by a new global emission reduction treaty under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Currently the promised emission reductions by industrialised countries and those of China, Brazil, South Africa, India and others under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord guarantee a world that is at least 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer on average according to climate science. It will be double that over large parts of the world. Some analysis says this global average could be even higher rising to four or five degrees Celsius threatening our species with annihilation.

Despite the political posturing by the United States, Canada and even the European Union, the fact is that developing countries’ promised reductions are greater than the industrialised world that are responsible for 75 percent of the total human emissions in the atmosphere.

“There are still no new pledges on the table and the process agreed in Durban towards raising the ambition and increasing emission reductions is uncertain in its outcome,” said Bill Hare, Director of Climate Analytics, a non-profit climate science advisory group based in Germany.

COP 17 President, South Africa’s Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, and others pleaded with countries to put their self-interest aside “for the greater good of the planet and its people.” Rich countries like the U.S., Canada and Saudi Arabia blocked progress and numerous fronts leaving smaller nations bitter and frustrated.

“The grim news is that the blockers lead by the U.S. have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding,” said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.

Even if a strong legally binding treaty is agreed to in 2015, it will have to ratified by governments before going into force. It took several years to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that the U.S. backed and then failed to ratify following the election of George W Bush.

Waiting until 2020 to make major cuts means those cuts will have to be far deeper and far more costly to have any hope of keeping temperatures below two degrees Celsius, Hare previously told IPS.

“The world’s collective level of ambition on emissions reductions must be substantially increased, and soon,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Various analysis show that global emissions should peak between 2015 and 2020 to earn a reasonable chance of less than two degrees Celsius at doable cost. If the peak and decline comes later costs and risks of exceeding two degrees Celsius skyrocket.

“Powerful speeches and carefully worded decisions can’t amend the laws of physics. The atmosphere responds to one thing, and one thing only – emissions,” said Meyer.

It was clear that our governments these past two weeks listened to the carbon-intensive polluting corporations instead of listening to the people, Naidoo said in a statement.

The “Durban Platform” includes a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that will begin January 2013, avoiding a gap at the end of the first commitment period finishing next year. The length of the second commitment period is to be decided at COP 18 in Qatar.

Developing countries insisted on this condition because Kyoto is the only legally binding emissions reduction agreement. However, it only asked for small reductions from industrialised countries like those in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and a few others. The U.S. opted out and Canada ignored its obligations and increased emissions 24 percent. And now Canada, Japan and Russia have said they will take not take part in the second commitment period.

The continuation of Kyoto “is highly significant” said Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary. Participating countries are to submit their emission reduction offers by May 2012.

There is no formal adoption of a second commitment period based on the actual wording of the documents, said Pablo Solón, former lead negotiator for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. “The actual decision has merely been postponed to the next COP.” Kyoto remains on “life support” he said.

The only progress on the Green Climate Fund (GFC) was on its design and governance. The GFC is supposed to funnel 100 billion dollars in assistance annually starting in 2020 to help developing nations to reduce emissions and help them adapt to climate change. There were no commitments on where the money would come from. What was agreed is to set up a “work plan” to mobilise significant climate funds from both private and public sources.

Private sources explicitly include carbon markets as governments from the rich countries frequently cited the financial crisis has tied their purse strings. Civil society and some developing nations noted that governments have made trillions of dollars available for the bank and financial sector and that world’s military budget is more than 10 times what is needed for the GFC.

Even though the carbon market has crashed the private sector is considered by the U.S., EU, New Zealand, Japan and other countries to be a key partner in mobilising money for climate change. Creating private markets for the buying and selling carbon offsets remains highly controversial and very complex in terms measurement, ownership carbon in soil or forests and more. Then there the ethics of rich countries offsetting their own emissions by buying up forests or land in poor countries.

“Keep the targets lose the markets” Oscar Reyes of the Friends of the Earth UK urged negotiators in in the final days of COP 17. “We’re worried that when the GCF has money it will lend it to the private sector to drive carbon markets,” Reyes told IPS.

“Durban is a disaster” for a fair and functional Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) programme said experts with Ecosystems Climate Alliance, a coalition of forest NGOs. REDD is by far the biggest potential carbon market.

“From looking at past conferences (climate COPs) it would be more effective if members of the conference would come outside and plant trees for the two weeks. They’d probably make a bigger impact,” said 14-year-old Felix Finkbeiner of Munich, Germany. Finkbeiner launched an organizaton of children called Plant for the Planet that is now working in 70 countries and have planted nearly four million trees in past four years.

Their motto: “Stop Talking. Start Planting.”

(END/2011)

La comunidad de Olonana Ole Pulei es una tribu de la etnia maasai de Kenia. Crédito: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

Por Isaiah Esipisu*

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 9 dic (IPS)  Para la comunidad laibon, una tribu de la etnia maasai de Kenia, el bosque Loita, de 33.000 hectáreas, es un santuario.

“Nuestros dioses viven aquí. Juntamos hierbas de este lugar. Lo usamos para criar abejas. Por lo tanto forma parte de nuestro medio de vida”, dijo Olonana Ole Pulei sobre ese bosque ubicado en la occidental provincia keniata del Valle del Rift.

Ole Pulei estuvo en Durban, Sudáfrica, para representar a su comunidad en la 17 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP 17).

Según Nigel Crawhall, del Comité Coordinador de los Pueblos Indígenas de África (IPACC, por sus siglas en inglés), diferentes comunidades africanas poseen increíbles conocimientos indígenas que usan en la conservación de los bosques y la biodiversidad en general, y esto debería reconocerse en las negociaciones climáticas.

Crawhall puso como ejemplo a las comunidades de pigmeos bambuti y batwa, en el oriente de la República Democrática del Congo, que conservan los bosques utilizando métodos tradicionales. Ambos grupos dependen de la biodiversidad animal de los bosques ecuatoriales para sobrevivir.

“Por lo general saben identificar árboles que pueden talarse para crear una apertura única en la bóveda (forestal), lo que permite entrar la luz en los cerrados bosques del Congo. Luego la luz atrae a pájaros e insectos que ellos pueden cazar”, dijo Crawhall a IPS.

Esto ayuda a conservar la biodiversidad y, en particular, los bosques, porque este método solamente puede funcionar si la bóveda forestal está intacta.

En Kenia, la cultura maasai prohibe a los miembros de la comunidad talar árboles, ya sea para obtener leña o con cualquier otro fin. También está prohibido interferir con las raíces principales o eliminar toda la corteza de un árbol para extraer sustancias herbáceas.

Sus creencias indican que solo se pueden usar las ramas para hacer leña, y las raíces fibrosas como hierbas. Si la corteza del árbol tiene valor medicinal, solamente se puede aprovechar porciones pequeñas, tallando una “V” sobre ella. Luego ese corte se sella usando tierra húmeda.

Esta práctica se ha transmitido de generación en generación en la comunidad maasai. Entre los laibons, son los conocimientos indígenas los que han ayudado a conservar el bosque Loita.

Los miembros de la comunidad consideran que talar un árbol es atentar contra los dioses y contra su cultura.

Si bien todos los africanos son nativos de su continente, Crawhall señala que los grupos que conservan la definición de indígenas son aquellos que viven de la caza y la recolección, mientras otros practican la ganadería pastoril o la agricultura de secano.

Pese a que no hay una definición estándar sobre estas poblaciones, la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas (2007) reconoce que comunidades particulares, debido a circunstancias históricas y ambientales, se han encontrado fuera del sistema estatal y han quedado poco representadas en materia de gobernanza.

“Los bosquimanos de África austral, o la comunidad ogiek de Kenia, que viven en los bosques, son ejemplos típicos de grupos categorizados como indígenas”, dijo Crawhall.

África tiene más de 40 pueblos que sobreviven completamente gracias a la caza y la recolección, señaló.

IPACC trabaja estrechamente con 155 comunidades de 22 países africanos que se reconocen como originarias a causa de sus circunstancias históricas y ambientales.

En consecuencia, representantes de estas comunidades se han unido al resto del mundo en Durban para hacer oír sus voces, a fin de que sus aportes a la conservación forestal se reconozcan como parte de los esfuerzos de mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático.

“Creemos que los conocimientos ecológicos tradicionales africanos son el cimiento de políticas nacionales de adaptación adecuadas y efectivas”, dijo Crawhall.

A través de la secretaría de IPACC, las 155 organizaciones comunitarias existentes en África redactaron un borrador con su posición para la plataforma de negociación. Reclamaron que los negociadores representen a todas las partes africanas: organizaciones indígenas, autoridades y sistemas de valores tradicionales.

Exigen la formación de una entidad regional legalmente vinculante en el marco de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para manejar asuntos de conservación que son difíciles de tratar en el ámbito nacional.

“Una de las brechas dominantes en la mayoría de los países miembro de IPACC es que no hay (derechos reconocidos sobre la) tenencia de la tierra para las comunidades que viven en los bosques o dependen de ellos”, dijo Crawhall.

Sin embargo, varios países liderados por Kenia han empezado a responder a las necesidades de sus comunidades locales incluyéndolas en sus estrategias de adaptación al cambio climático.

Kenia está en proceso de redactar un proyecto de ley de adaptación al cambio climático. Y las comunidades indígenas aportarán su perspectiva en ese texto porque, según la Constitución, se las debe consultar al elaborar iniciativas legislativas.

“Atravesamos todo el país buscando opiniones sobre este proyecto. (…) Nuestra visión es participar y liderar en el desarrollo y la implementación de políticas sensibles al cambio climático, así como proyectos y actividades dentro y fuera de nuestras fronteras”, dijo John Kioli, presidente del Grupo de Trabajo de Kenia sobre Cambio Climático, presente en Durban.

* Este artículo es parte de una serie apoyada por la Alianza Clima y Desarrollo (CDKN).

Durban leading the African response to climate change? Credit: IPS Africa

By Stephen Leahy

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 9, 2011 (IPS) No one is happy late Friday at the very contentious U.N. climate talks that went into extra time on Saturday. As the lights flicker on a rainy night here, the partial power failure echoes the failure of the multilateral process, according to civil society and some countries.

“If countries agree to the text as it stands, they will be passing a death sentence on Africa,” said Nigerian activist Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International.

And yet African countries and other vulnerable countries might go along because they will be bullied or bribed, said Bassey.

When Bolivia stood up to the United States at the Copenhagen climate meet in December 2009, Washington pulled its development aid the next year.

“Delegates must show that they care about the devastation across the continent and small island states …. or are they going to yield to arm twisting because a few dollars are being hoisted about,” Bassey said.

So far African countries are not blocking an agreement at the 17th United Nations climate change summit, he told IPS.

Thursday night, a select group of ministers and senior delegates from 28 countries met until four a.m. to work on the key components, but failed to reach a consensus. The following day, when all countries began to review the details, wide disagreements arose over many of the same issues.

“Countries won’t agree to a second period of the Kyoto Protocol until the next COP (conference of parties),” said Pablo Solón, former U.N. ambassador from the Plurinational State of Bolivia and former chief negotiator at the Cancun COP 16, the last meeting prior to Durban.

“Kyoto Protocol will lose its heart…it will become a zombie,” said Solon, who had seen the confidential details that weren’t released publicly until late Friday night.

Countries will “only take note” of the science-based need to increase their emission commitments well before 2020. In addition, the key phrase “legally binding agreement” that nearly every country wanted is absent, he said.

“The U.S. is the big winner here…This will lead us to a future with more than four degrees of warming,” Solon warned.

This COP is a” disastrous failure”, said Praful Bidwai, former IPS correspondent and a political columnist and social scientist from India who has just published a book on the politics of climate change. It would be far better for the talks to collapse than to cobble together a “greenwash deal” that pretends to be addressing the climate crisis, he added.

“The U.S. can’t be trusted at these talks. They will never agree to anything legally binding,” Bidwai told IPS.

The U.S. was the chief architect of the Kyoto Protocol during climate talks in the early 1990s, but never ratified the treaty even though it only called for emission reductions of five percent by 2012. At the same time, Canada supported and ratified Kyoto but did nothing to comply, so its emissions soared 24 to 28 percent during the intervening years.

Europe is little better, even though its emissions appear have gone down more than 15 percent. Much of that is due to the collapse of the Eastern European bloc during the 1990s, and the shift to importing its goods from elsewhere and thus avoiding emissions. Spain, Italy, France and others have had major increases, Bidwai said.

“It could all fall apart. Many low-income developing countries are very angry,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These are the world’s poorest countries, like Mali and small Pacific islands.

At Durban, Canada and the U.S. were awarded the “Colossal Fossil” prize by civil society for doing the most to block progress on a new climate agreement. (END)

¿Durban conduce la respuesta africana al cambio climático? Crédito: IPS Africa

Por Stephen Leahy

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 9 dic (IPS) Nadie estaba feliz al anochecer de este viernes 9 en las peleadas negociaciones climáticas de la ONU, que entraron en alargue hasta este sábado. Mientras las luces parpadeaban en la noche lluviosa de la ciudad sudafricana de Durban, el fallo eléctrico recordaba el fracaso del proceso multilateral.

“Si los países aceptan el texto negociado tal como está, será como una sentencia de muerte para África”, profirió el presidente de Amigos de la Tierra Internacional, el nigeriano Nnimmo Bassey. Pero los africanos y otros países vulnerables podrían ceder porque serán presionados y extorsionados, agregó.

Cuando Bolivia se puso de pie y resistió las presiones de Estados Unidos en la 15 Conferencia de las Partes (COP 15) de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático, celebrada en 2009 en Copenhague, Washington le retiró al año siguiente toda su ayuda al desarrollo.

“Los delegados deben demostrar que les preocupa la devastación de todo el continente (africano) y de los pequeños estados insulares… o se van a dejar torcer el brazo por unos pocos dólares”, cuestionó.

Hasta ahora, los países africanos no están bloqueando la posibilidad de llegar a un acuerdo, dijo Bassey a IPS.

El jueves por la noche, un grupo selecto de ministros y altos representantes de 28 países se reunieron hasta las cuatro de la madrugada de este viernes para trabajar en aspectos clave, pero sin llegar a un acuerdo total.

Este viernes, a medida que todos los países revisaban los detalles discutidos emergieron grandes diferencias respecto de muchas de las mismas cuestiones.

“Los países no van a acordar un segundo período de compromisos del Protocolo de Kyoto hasta la próxima COP, que se celebrará a fines de 2012 en Qatar, dijo a IPS el exembajador de Bolivia ante la ONU (Organización de las Naciones Unidas), Pablo Solón, quien encabezó la delegación de su país en la COP 16 de 2010 en Cancún, México.

El Protocolo de Kyoto, único tratado obligatorio para reducir la contaminación climática que expirará en 2012, “perderá su alma…, se convertirá en zombi”, dijo Solón, que había visto los puntos confidenciales discutidos por los delegados y que no fueron publicados hasta bien entrada la noche sudafricana.

Los gobiernos “solo tomarán nota” de la necesidad establecida por la ciencia de que se adopten compromisos mayores para abatir los gases que recalientan la atmósfera mucho antes de 2020. Además, la expresión “legalmente vinculante” que querían casi todos los países, está ausente, dijo Solón.

“Estados Unidos es el gran ganador… Esto nos llevará a un futuro con más de cuatro grados centígrados” de aumento de la temperatura mundial, añadió.

Esta 17 Conferencia de las Partes (COP 17) es un “desastroso fracaso”, dijo a IPS el indio Praful Bidwai, excorresponsal de esta agencia, columnista y sociólogo.

Sería mejor que las conversaciones colapsaran en lugar de redactar a las apuradas un “pacto de lavada de cara” con pretensiones de encarar la crisis, añadió Bidwai, que acaba de publicar un libro sobre la política del cambio climático.

“No se puede confiar en Estados Unidos en estas negociaciones. Nunca aceptará nada que sea legalmente vinculante”, sostuvo.

Washington fue uno de los principales arquitectos del Protocolo de Kyoto a inicios de la década de 1990, pero nunca lo ratificó pese a que el tratado solo exigía una reducción de emisiones de gases invernadero a volúmenes cinco por ciento inferiores a los de 1990 con plazo en 2012.

Canadá apoyo y ratificó el Protocolo, pero no hizo nada para honrarlo, y sus emisiones crecieron entre 24 y 28 por ciento.

La Unión Europea está apenas mejor, si bien parece que sus emisiones cayeron más de 15 por ciento. Gran parte de esa disminución obedece al colapso económico de Europa oriental en la década de 1990 y a una creciente importación de productos que le permitió evitar una parte de la contaminación doméstica.

España, Francia e Italia y otras grandes economías industriales registraron importantes aumentos de gases invernadero.

“Se podría desmoronar todo. Muchos países de bajos ingresos están furiosos”, dijo Alden Meyer, director de estrategia y política de la Unión de Científicos Preocupados de Estados Unidos en referencia a algunas de las naciones más pobres del mundo, como Mali y los pequeños estados insulares que desaparecerían por la elevación del nivel del mar.

Canadá y Estados Unidos se hicieron, una vez más, merecedores del Fósil Colosal, un premio que entrega en cada COP la sociedad civil a aquellos estados que más obstaculizan el camino para alcanzar un régimen climático internacional. (FIN)

Complejo de almacenaje de granos y oleaginosas en Mato Grosso. La agroindustria es clave en la promesa de Brasil de reducir sus emisiones de gases contaminantes. Crédito: Mario Osava/IPS

Por Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, dic (IPS) – Brasil pretende cumplir sus metas climáticas en el sector agrícola estimulando algunas técnicas ya conocidas, que reducen las emisiones de gas carbónico, pero que pueden incrementar el uso de agrotóxicos, según activistas.

La siembra directa, recuperación de pastizales, integración cultivos-ganadería-bosque, fijación biológica de nitrógeno, reforestación comercial y el aprovechamiento de residuos animales para producir biogás son las prácticas fomentadas por una línea de crédito blando, disponible desde agosto.

El Programa Agricultura de Bajo Carbono (ABC), adoptado por el gobierno, prevé eliminar de 142 a 173 millones de toneladas del gas carbónico que la agricultura liberaría hacia 2020.

Brasil asumió en 2009 en Copenhague, ante la 15 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático, el compromiso voluntario de reducir entre 36,1 y 38,9 por ciento del dióxido de carbono que lanzaría a la atmósfera en 2020 si no adoptase iniciativas mitigadoras.

Eso significa evitar la emisión de entre 1.168 y 1.259 millones de toneladas de dióxido de carbono equivalente, dependiendo del crecimiento que logre de su economía.

El mayor aporte a esa meta será reducir la deforestación. La Política Nacional sobre Cambio Climático, fijada en ley de diciembre de 2009, obliga a reducir 80 por ciento los índices de deforestación amazónica, hasta 2020, en comparación con el promedio de 1996 a 2005.

La agricultura cumplirá su parte con avances en las seis buenas prácticas fomentadas por una línea de crédito de 3.150 millones de reales (1.750 millones de dólares), con “tres ventajas” en sus préstamos, aseguró Carlos Magno Brandão, director de Sistema de Producción y Sustentabilidad del Ministerio de Agricultura.

La tasa de interés de 5,5 por ciento al año, inferior a la inflación actual, un plazo máximo de 15 años y hasta ocho años de gracia son las condiciones ofrecidas para intensificar las medidas, especialmente la recuperación de 15 millones de pastizales degradados en 10 años, que responde por 60 por ciento de la meta agrícola, destacó Brandão a IPS.

La siembra directa ya se diseminó por Brasil en las últimas décadas, alcanzando a casi 25 millones de hectáreas, cerca de la mitad del área sembrada de granos en el país, estimó Brandão. La propuesta es ampliarla en ocho millones de hectáreas hasta 2020.

Pero esa práctica los grandes productores agrícolas aumentan el uso de agrotóxicos, empleados para desecar y tumbar los restos de la siembra anterior y también para combatir los hongos, favorecidos por el aumento de la temperatura y de la humedad del suelo cubierto de paja, señaló el ingeniero forestal Luiz Zarref.

Los agrotóxicos liberan gases de impacto mucho más intenso que el dióxido de carbono (CO2) en relación al clima, como el óxido nitroso (NO3), 300 veces más potente, observó Zarref, activista de la red internacional no gubernamental Via Campesina.

Además, el ABC fomentará el empleo de fertilizantes químicos compuestos de nitrógeno, también fuente de óxido nitroso y de otros gases como los derivados del petróleo, acotó a IPS.

El programa neutraliza parte de ese aumento, al incentivar la fijación biológica de nitrógeno, una tecnología desarrollada por la Empresa Brasileña de Investigación Agropecuaria (Embrapa) que ahorra gran volumen de ese fertilizante, con el uso de bacterias que lo captan del aire y lo fijan en las plantas, especialmente en la soja.

Pero aparte de la soja, esa tecnología todavía es solo “una promesa”, ya que afronta dificultades para extenderse a otras siembras, según Jean Marc von der Weid, fundador y dirigente de Asesoría y Servicios a Proyectos de Tecnología Alternativa (ASPTA), organización no gubernamental de apoyo a agricultura familiar y agroecología.

En su opinión, solo el crédito barato y con montos pequeños no permite superar la “complejidad” y las trabas a una expansión de la siembra directa, la recuperación de tierras degradadas y la integración cultivo-ganadería-bosques.

Los activistas critican la ausencia de la agroecología en el programa gubernamental. Pero se trata de “una opción compleja que depende de desconcentrar la tierra, diversificar la producción y evitar insumos químico-industriales”, ajena al espíritu del ABC pensado para “latifundios y monocultivos”, sentenció Zarref.

Brandão, por el contrario, considera que el programa se dirige a agricultores de pequeña y mediana escala, limitando al máximo de un millón de reales (550.000 dólares) cada préstamo, para “socializar” los recursos disponibles. “Los grandes (empresarios) tienen otras fuentes de crédito”, arguyó.

Mas allá del programa ABC, la crisis climática abre “nuevas oportunidades” para la agricultura y la investigación sectorial en Brasil, evaluó el jefe del Centro de Medio Ambiente de Embrapa, Celso Manzatto.

Se trata de desarrollar una “agricultura verde”, que comprende, por ejemplo, “fertilizantes inteligentes”, de liberación lenta y menos volátil, por lo tanto más eficientes y de pérdidas reducidas. También incluye el pago de servicios ambientales a agricultores que, además de producir alimentos, fibras y energía, conservan recursos naturales.

El aumento de la productividad es una forma de mitigar el recalentamiento global, y en la actividad agropecuaria hay un espacio enorme para ese avance, destacó Manzatto, quien hace 16 años que es investigador de Embrapa, el organismo estatal que tuvo un papel decisivo en la conversión de Brasil en potencia agrícola tropical.

Hay muchos lugares en Brasil donde la ganadería extensiva mantiene en promedio un animal cada dos hectáreas, ante lo cual es fácil duplicar la productividad, con resultados importantes en los factores climáticos, como es evitar la deforestación cuando se amplía la tenencia de vacunos, destacó.

El programa ABC exige un gran esfuerzo de transferencia de tecnología especialmente a los pequeños agricultores, anteriormente “marginado” de los avances logrados incluso por Embrapa, admitió.

La adaptación de la agricultura al cambio climático también abre grandes oportunidades a Brasil, por haber vencido el desafío “casi imposible” de desarrollar en las zonas tropicales una agricultura competitiva ante los grandes productores de clima templado, concluyó.

El compromiso brasileño de reducir sus emisiones de carbono se planteó para contribuir a un acuerdo mundial que permita evitar que la temperatura promedio del planeta aumente más de dos grados en este siglo. Fue una oferta voluntaria, de un país hasta ahora no obligado a ese esfuerzo por no pertenecer al mundo industrializado.

La reducción de la deforestación amazónica en los últimos años fortalece la imagen brasileña en esas negociaciones. En cambio, las críticas de ambientalistas proliferan ante los cambios en el Código Forestal que estudia el parlamento y que, en caso de ser aprobados, flexibilizará las reglas y penalizaciones a los terratenientes que destruyen bosques.

WWF climate scientist Regine Günther. Credit: Kristin Palitza/IPS

Kristin Palitza spoke to REGINE GÜNTHER, climate protection and energy policy chief at the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), about the dangers climate change poses to security and livelihoods.

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 9 (IPS) - Despite the high risk, it remains difficult to convince politicians to take immediate action to prevent further climate change and make available the necessary funds to do so. Scientists have warned repeatedly of the effects of climate change: If governments will not act fast, they will cause an irreversible catastrophe.

IPS spoke to Regine Günther, climate protection and energy policy chief at the World Wide Fund for Nature, about the dangers climate change poses to security and livelihoods.

Q: What are the consequences if the 17th United Nations climate change summit in Durban ends without firm results and targets?

A: There are several scenarios. If countries stick to the voluntary commitments to reduce carbon emissions they have made during the last two summits in Cancun and Copenhagen, we will see an increase in average temperatures by between three and four degrees Celsius. If they manage to start a process in Durban that will lead to higher emission reduction targets by 2020, we could succeed in not going above a two degree Celsius rise.

But at the moment, it doesn’t look good. If we continue like before and don’t even implement the voluntary pledges, we will reach a dangerous temperature rise of six or seven degree Celsius.

Q: What happens if average temperatures increase by more than two degrees Celsius?

A: An increase of two degrees Celsius already has negative effects. If we go beyond it, climate change will become dangerous. Glaciers will melt, up to three billion people will suffer from severe water shortages, mainly in the developing world, we might lose up to 30 percent of our biodiversity, droughts will lead to food insecurity, large regions will be permanently flooded, including small islands, and so forth. That’s why climate change is not only an environmental problem. It’s a threat to livelihoods and economies.

Q: Everyone is talking about the drastic effects of climate change in developing countries. What will be the effects on the global North?

A: Think back to the major heat wave in Europe in 2003. It was a very hot summer (with several people dying from heat strokes). If we don’t get climate change under control, the summer of 2003 will be regarded as a normal summer in 2040. By 2060 it will be regarded as a cool summer. The United States have also felt the impact of changing weather patterns this year, with an unusual number of hurricanes and storms. So yes, the industrialised world will also experience a lot of change and will have to adapt.

Q: Will masses of people in developing countries have to migrate, as some scientists predict?

A: That is very possible. And this will effect the global North as well. If droughts and hunger increase in the South, people will be unable to continue living there. If there are thousands and thousands of climate migrants, the question is of course who will offer them refuge. Many will look expectantly to the North.

Q: When will it be too late to act?

A: If you measure the dangers of climate change based on the two degree Celsius limit, we will have to reach the peak of global carbon emissions within this decade. Scientists say that a drastic reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020 would still be an option, but the very last one. I believe, by 2020 it will be too late. Nonetheless, we have to continue making every effort possible, because it makes a big difference if we live in a world that is two, five or six degrees hotter.

Q: Why do you believe emission reductions by 2020 will be too late?

A: The later global carbon emissions peak, the steeper the necessary downward trend of reductions needs to be. Achieving this will not only become very expensive but also extremely difficult. There will be a point in time, when not enough can be done to keep climate change under the two degree Celsius limit. Once we have reached that limit, which means that a certain amount of greenhouse gases sit in the atmosphere, the process of trying to lower temperatures will take decades, because the atmosphere reacts to changes only slowly.

Q: Why does it remain so difficult to convince politicians to act, despite the horror scenarios?

A: The biggest drivers for man-made climate change, the coal, oil and gas industries, are the biggest beneficiaries of our current industrialised economies. They work with major lobbies and large amounts of money against the trend to reduce their share of the economy.

It is also important to note that politicians are elected for four or five years, not until 2040. Within four years, the effects of climate change are not felt very heavily. The big changes lie in the future and happen slowly. As a result, there is a gap between today’s reality and the scientific knowledge of the effects of climate change if we don’t act.

Q: Do climate sceptics influence governments’ hesitant commitment?

A: In the U.S., climate sceptics have massive influence in the debate. In Europe, science has the top hand. That climate change is largely man-made is widely accepted. People have understood that something can be done about it and are more willing to take action. In other countries in the world that’s unfortunately not the case.

Q: How expensive will it become to fight climate change if governments continue postponing mitigation and adaptation measures?

A: According to British economist Nicholas Stern, taking no action will cost up to twenty times more than taking immediate action. Countries like Germany and U.S. have been able to mobilise billions of dollars last year to bail out their banks.

Now, they are trying to tell us that the international community is unable to mobilise 100 billion dollars within a decade to finance climate change adaptation in developing countries. If countries would make climate change as much a priority as the financial system, they would reduce other expenditures to drum up the needed funds. Exactly like they did during the economic crisis. (END)

Casi nadie cree posible un segundo periodo de compromiso del Protocolo de Kyoto. Crédito: Zukiswa Zimela/IPS

Por Kristin Palitza

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 9 dic (IPS) – La conferencia climática de la ONU llega a su fin, pero casi nadie cree que se logre un acuerdo para un segundo periodo de compromiso del Protocolo de Kyoto para la reducción de emisiones contaminantes.

La 17 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP 17) está previsto que termine este viernes 9 en Durban, Sudáfrica, pero es posible que el debate se extienda incluso hasta la mañana del sábado.

El martes 6 llegaron casi 150 ministros y jefes de Estado, lo que hizo que las negociaciones pasaran al plano político.

Para que se logre un tratado posterior a la expiración en 2012 del Protocolo de Kyoto, firmado en 1997 y en vigor desde 2005, economías emergentes como China, India, Corea del Sur, México y Sudáfrica tienen que estar de acuerdo. Lo mismo ocurre con Estados Unidos, que ni siquiera suscribió el primer periodo del tratado climático.

El mismo hizo que 37 naciones industrializadas se comprometieran a reducir 5,2 por ciento sus emisiones de carbono, tomando como punto de partida los valores de 1990.

Otros grandes contaminadores, como Canadá, Rusia y Japón, ya proclamaron su desinterés en un segundo periodo de compromiso.

A comienzos de esta semana, las negociaciones parecieron promisorias, cuando el principal negociador de China, Xie Zhenhua, anunció que su país estaba abierto a un acuerdo internacional vinculante. Pero su declaración pronto resultó ser un juego estratégico.

Zhenhua no dijo que China estuviera dispuesta a “ser parte de” ese acuerdo.

Muchos expertos en clima creen que Estados Unidos jugó un rol particularmente fuerte en el enlentecimiento de las negociaciones.

“El gobierno de (el presidente estadounidense Barack) Obama evidentemente vino a Durban no para ser constructivo sino para frenar el avance de otros países. Sus excusas para la inacción van y vienen como la marea. Una vez que se elimina una excusa, aparece otra”, se lamentó la portavoz del Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza, Caroline Behringer.

Incluso el secretario general de la ONU, Ban Ki-moon, echó por tierra las expectativas durante la apertura del segmento de alto nivel de la cumbre, el martes 6. Un acuerdo exhaustivo y legalmente vinculante “puede estar fuera del alcance”, dijo entonces.

Mientras los negociadores intentan llegar a una decisión, se tensa la atmósfera en los corredores del centro de conferencias de Durban, donde se realiza la cumbre.

Ministros y jefes de delegaciones se retiran a salas separadas para debatir a puertas cerradas los contenidos del documento de 131 páginas, base para todas las negociaciones.

Afuera, los delegados hablan en voz baja. Hasta que se anuncie el resultado final, todos retienen el aliento.

La posibilidad de concluir con una hoja de ruta para un acuerdo sobre la reducción de emisiones a partir de 2015 y con plazo en 2020, que incluya a los principales contaminadores y a las economías emergentes, también está en terreno resbaloso.

“Vemos una falta de voluntad política entre algunos grandes emisores (de gases de efecto invernadero) para llegar en Durban a un resultado justo y ambicioso, que salve las vidas y los medios de sustento de millones de personas pobres y vulnerables afectadas por el cambio climático”, dijo Tonya Rawe, de la organización humanitaria internacional CARE.

“Algunas partes ya hablan de postergar las decisiones sobre un acuerdo legalmente vinculante hasta 2020. Esto es un desastre, dado que puede crear una década entera sin ningún avance”, agregó.

Los delegados temen que solamente se alcance una declaración no vinculante, a través de la cual los países declaren vagamente su disposición a acordar objetivos obligatorios de reducción en algún momento.

Hasta ahora, solamente la Unión Europea (UE) y algunos otros países europeos, como Suiza, han expresado que, en las horas que quedan para que termine la cumbre, continuarán impulsando compromisos entre los principales emisores de carbono que actualmente no son parte del Protocolo de Kyoto.

“Todas las principales economías tienen que comprometerse, por supuesto respetando las responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas. Si no se comprometen con un acuerdo en el futuro cercano, asumen una responsabilidad insoportable”, advirtió Connie Hedegaard, comisaria europea de Acción por el Clima.

Las negociaciones no solamente giran en torno a una extensión de los periodos del Protocolo de Kyoto. Otro asunto importante es la adopción del Fondo Verde para el Clima, mediante el cual se canalizará el apoyo financiero destinado a esfuerzos de mitigación y adaptación al cambio climático en los países pobres.

Pero los debates sobre este tema también han sido escabrosos, luego de que varios países –entre ellos Estados Unidos, Bolivia, Arabia Saudita y Venezuela- dijeron estar insatisfechos con el borrador del documento y querer realizarle enmiendas.

Además, la crisis económico-financiera del mundo industrializado, que se expande al resto del planeta, retrasó los avances en este sentido: los países ricos, que se supone financiarán parcialmente el Fondo Verde, dudan de asumir los compromisos presupuestarios.

Tal como están las cosas, es probable que el Fondo Verde se apruebe en Durban, pero sin planes tangibles para su financiación.

“No tenemos más tiempo que perder para salvar a los más amenazados por el cambio climático”, urgió Mizanur Rahman Bijoy, investigador de la Red sobre Cambio Climático en Bangladesh.

“Pero en vez de actuar, a los gobiernos principalmente les preocupan sus economías nacionales. De ese modo, no se tomará ninguna decisión importante y necesaria”, agregó. (FIN)

South African Bishop Geoff Davies (L) and Mardi Tindal, Moderator of the United Church of Canada

By Stephen Leahy

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 9 (IPS) - African and international faith leaders urged governments attending the final day of climate change negotiations to do what is right and necessary to keep global temperature from rising no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“The two degrees Celsius target is unacceptable because temperatures in much of Africa will be far higher,” said South African Bishop Geoff Davies.

Oil and coal companies along with other major polluting corporations are engaged in “crimes against humanity and the planet” because they continue to pollute the atmosphere when they have ability to do otherwise, said David Le Page of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI).

More than 130 African faith leaders have signed a declaration offering specific recommendations based science, honesty, morality and equity. They called on delegates negotiating a new climate treaty here at the 17^th Conference of Parties to live up to the African spirit of “ubuntu” – a way of living focused on people’s allegiances and relations with each other.

The current economic system encourages “people to get as rich as they can and forget about anyone else,” said Davies. “It’s an immoral system.”

“Historic polluters like the United States have to reduce their emissions dramatically” and their position here is “shocking” and “reprehensible”, he said. The children and grandchildren of U.S. congressmen will ask what they were doing to be so selfish and irresponsible, Davies said.

The U.S is the most religious society in the world but their behaviour is “sinful” in their refusal to reduce emissions that causing so much suffering among people, he said.

“When lifestyles of the wealthy hurt the lives of the poor….and future generations it is wrong,” Mardi Tindal, Moderator of the United Church of Canada, the country’s largest Protestant denomination.

“Climate change is a moral, ethical and spiritual issue. We need moral leadership not political leadership,” Tindal told IPS.

“South Africa has had courageous, moral leaders like Ghandi and Mandela. If our leadership shows the same moral courage the people will follow them.”

However, political leaders will have to lead by their deeds and personal examples, not words if they hope to bring people with them, she said.

Davies expressed deep disappointment regarding yesterday’s announcement that South Africa government will invest three billion rand to upgrade the Richards Bay Terminal export 81 million tonnes of coal annually by 2016.

Other countries here are expanding their oil production around the world and that is why climate talks will not bring the agreement we need, he said.

“You cannot underestimate the power and influence of the fossil fuel industry. We know they spend millions of dollars lobbying their governments. They are holding the world to ransom and causing the destruction of the environment.”

The good news is that the economically powerful countries like the U.S., Europe, Brazil, India and China could begin to turn this around in a matter of months with major programmes in renewables and energy efficiency. Money should flow to Africa, who is least responsible for climate change, to help them create low-carbon societies Davies said.

If this doesn’t happen “we all will suffer the consequences.” (END)

DURBAN, Afrique du Sud, 9 déc (IPS) – Les économies émergentes - la Chine, l’Afrique du Sud et le Brésil – ont manifesté leur ouverture aux objectifs légalement contraignants de réduction des émissions de carbone à partir de 2020 lors du sommet des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques à Durban.

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 9 (IPS) – For the Laibon community, a sub-tribe of Kenya’s Maasai ethnic group, the 33,000-hectare Loita Forest in the country’s Rift Valley Province is more than just a forest. It is a shrine.

Olonana Ole Pulei’s community is a sub-tribe of Kenya’s Maasai ethnic group. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

“It is our shrine. Our Gods live there. We gather herbs from the place. We use it for bee- keeping. It therefore forms part of our livelihood,” said Olonana Ole Pulei, who is in Durban, South Africa, to represent his community at the ongoing 17th Conference of Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

According to Nigel Crawhall, the Director of Secretariat for the Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC), different African communities have incredible indigenous knowledge that they use in the conservation of forests and biodiversity in general, and this should be recognised during the negotiations in Durban.

“Different communities have different practices that they use in forestry conservation,” he said.

Crawhall gave an example of how the Bambuti and Batwa pygmy communities, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, conserved the forest using traditional methods. Both communities depend on the biodiversity of animal life in the equatorial forests in order to survive.

“Usually, they know how to identify particular trees that can be cut down in order to create a unique opening on the canopy, which attracts light in the closely-packed Congo forests. The light then attracts animals, birds and insects, thus giving them an opportunity to hunt,” Crawhall told IPS.

This helps conserve the biodiversity, as well as the forests because this method can only work if the forest canopy is intact.

In Kenya, the Maasai culture forbids any community member from cutting down a tree, either for firewood or any other purpose. People are also forbidden from interfering with the taproots or removing the entire bark of a tree for herbal extraction.

According to their cultural belief, one can only use tree branches for firewood, and fibrous roots for herbs. If the bark of a tree has medicinal value, then only small portions of it can be removed by creating a “V” in the bark. The wound is then sealed using wet soil.

“We believe that the soil helps in healing the wound on a tree. This is cultural, and we all believe that it is an abomination for one to injure a tree, and not help it heal,” said Ole Pulei.

It is a practice that has been passed down from generation to generation among Maasai community members. Among the Laibon community, it is this indigenous knowledge that has aided in the conservation of the Loita Forest.

“All logging activities observed on Maasai land, including the destruction of the Mau Forest, are done by foreigners because the Maasai culture does not allow such activities. This is the indigenous knowledge that helps in forest conservation,” Ole Pulei told IPS.

Such beliefs make the forests part of the community, where community members have feelings for the trees, and where cutting down a tree could amount to an offence against the Gods and their culture.

“We have several other communities all over the continent who co-exist with forests. They include the Tuareg community in Algeria, Yiaku community in Kenya’s Laikipia region, the Ogiek community also in Kenya, the Kung community in Botswana among others,” said Crawhall.

Though according to Crawhall, all Africans are indigenous although there are some groups who live by hunting and gathering, while other groups practice pastoralism, and others practice dry-land farming.

Despite the fact that there is no standard definition of indigenous people, the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognises that particular communities, due to historical and environmental circumstances, have found themselves outside the state system and underrepresented in governance.

“The Bushmen of the Southern African region, or the Ogiek community in Kenya who live in forests are a typical example of groupings categorised as indigenous,” said Crawhall.

He points out that Africa has more than 40 groupings in different countries that survive entirely on hunting and gathering. However, IPACC works closely with 155 communities from 22 African countries who are recognised as indigenous because of their historical and environmental circumstances.

As a result, representatives from these communities have joined the rest of the world in Durban to have their voices heard, so that their contributions to forest conservation are recognised as part of the climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

“We believe that African traditional ecological knowledge is the foundation for appropriate and effective national adaptation policies,” said Crawhall.

Through the IPACC secretariat, the 155 community-based organisations in Africa have drafted their position for the Durban negotiation platform. They want the negotiators to come up with a position that is representative to African parties, indigenous African people’s organisations, traditional institutions, traditional authorities and value systems.

They are calling for the formation of a regional body that is legally binding under the United Nations, to handle issues on conservation that are difficult to deal with at national level.

“One of the prevailing gaps in most of the IPACC-member countries is that there is no land tenure for communities who live in forests, or depend on forests,” said Crawhall.

However, different countries have started responding to the needs of their local communities by including them in their national climate change adaptation strategies, with Kenya taking the lead.

The country is in the process of drafting the Climate Change Adaptation Bill. And the indigenous communities will have their say on the bill because according to the constitution, they must be consulted on draft legislation so that they can make contributions.

“We have traversed the entire country seeking views on this bill, where local communities have been able to give their contributions. Our vision is to participate and lead in the development and implementation of climate change sensitive policies, projects and activities within and outside our Kenyan borders,” said John Kioli, the chairman for the Kenya Climate Change Working Group, who is attending the Durban climate change negotiations.

* This article is one of a series supported by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (END)

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 9 (IPS) - The issue of money is still a substantial part of the negotiations at 17^thConference of Parties in Durban, South Africa. IPS spoke to Marcia Levaggi, manager of the Adaptation Fund Board, on the importance of ensuring that developing countries have the funds to deal with the effects of climate change.

Marcia Levaggi, manager of the Adaptation Fund Board. Credit: Zukiswa ZImela/IPS

The Adaptation Fund was established by the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its aim is to finance adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries.

Q: Talks in the previous COP’s tended to focus on mitigation but now increasingly the conversation is about mitigation and adaptation. Why is it important that developed countries have finance for adaptation plans?

A: First of all adaptation is one of the most pressing needs of developing countries to adapt to climate change. There are things that won’t change. Already the climate globally has changed and that has created difficult conditions for developing countries. There are new conditions in agriculture, there are droughts and food security is threatened. So it is important to address those issues and help those countries.

Q: One of the things stalling establishment and implementation of the Green Climate Fund is the question of where the almost 100 billion dollars per year needed by developing countries will come from?

A: The money comes from the two percent levy on the shares of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). That is an innovative feature of the fund, because it’s a tax on international corporations. We have also received some contributions from developed countries, namely Spain, Sweden and Germany, but our main source remains from the proceeds of the CDM.

Q: Can you give me an example of some projects that have been funded by the Adaptation Fund.

A: The Adaptation Fund started funding projects last year in September and in one year of operation it has funded eleven projects some in Mauritius, Senegal and Eritrea. The project in Senegal is a project about coastal protection. In South Africa we are working the South African National Biodiversity Institute we have heard that they are getting ready to submit a proposal.

Q: The Adaptation Fund relies on agreements made in the Kyoto Protocol. Other countries like Canada, Russia and Japan have already said that they are not going to be signing on for a second commitment period. What will this mean for you in terms of finance?

A:  Well I don’t know, but the situation will not get better if there are no clear signals after this meeting. We really plead with international community to strive for an agreement in Durban to help those countries. (END)

Los países que participan de las negociaciones sobre el clima admitieron públicamente que sus actuales recortes de emisiones contaminantes no podrán limitar el recalentamiento planetario en menos de dos grados. Crédito: Zukiswa Zimela/IPS

Por Stephen Leahy

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 8 dic (IPS) – Los países que participan de las negociaciones sobre el clima admitieron públicamente que sus actuales recortes de emisiones contaminantes no podrán limitar el recalentamiento planetario en menos de dos grados.

No obstante, los delegados en la 17 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP 17), que se lleva a cabo hasta este viernes 9 en esta oriental ciudad sudafricana, propusieron encarar la llamada “brecha de emisiones” en la próxima COP 18, que se celebrará en Qatar en 2012.

Documentos negociados en Durban reconocen que la reducción necesaria de emisiones de gases invernadero, según estudios científicos, debe ser de 25 a 40 por ciento para 2020. Esos recortes y plazos son vitales para impedir que el planeta se recaliente más de dos grados, lo que significaría una catástrofe ambiental aun mayor. El borrador señala que esa debe ser la meta definida en la COP 18.

“Necesitamos un acuerdo sobre esa meta, fundamentada en la ciencia, el año próximo a más tardar”, afirmó el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Granada, Karl Hood, y representante de la Alianza de Pequeños Estados Insulares.

“Y queremos que esos objetivos sean legalmente implementados antes de 2017″, subrayó.

Hood dijo a IPS que esperar hasta 2020 para cerrar la brecha era “inaceptable” y significaría un “desastre para los pequeños estados insulares”, que ya sufren los impactos del cambio climático.

El mundo tiene apenas meses para poder recortar las emisiones de gases generados por la quema de combustibles fósiles de forma que el recalentamiento planetario no supere los dos grados.

Si esto se demora unos años, las reducciones extraordinarias necesarias para revertir el proceso podrían llevar a la bancarrota a la economía mundial y revertirían avances en el desarrollo en la mayoría de los países, alertaron expertos en Durban.

“Estamos aquí para alertarle a los políticos de que nos acercamos peligrosamente a un punto en el que no podremos alcanzar la meta de menos de dos grados” en el recalentamiento planetario, dijo el científico Bill Hare, director de Climate Analytics, grupo sin fines de lucro asesor en temas climáticos con sede en Alemania.

Los actuales compromisos de reducción de emisiones, acordados en la COP 15 de Copenhague, en 2009, permiten un recalentamiento de hasta 3,5 grados, dijo Hare.

Hoy, esas promesas siguen esencialmente incambiadas, y eso significa que las opciones del mundo para no superar un recalentamiento de dos grados se hacen cada vez más pequeñas, subrayó en conferencia de prensa en Durban.

“Para decirlo claramente, cuanto más esperamos, menos opciones tendremos, más nos costará y mayor será la amenaza para los más vulnerables”, señaló.

Las emisiones mundiales generadas por la quema de combustibles fósiles se incrementaron 49 por ciento desde 1990 y alcanzaron un récord de 48.000 millones de toneladas de dióxido de carbono (CO2) en 2010, con la probabilidad de que lleguen a 50.000 millones este año, indicó el científico.

Gracias al efecto moderador de los océanos, el planeta se ha recalentado solo 0,8 grados en promedio. Sin embargo, muchas partes de la Tierra registraron un aumento de las temperaturas mucho mayor.

La ciencia muestra que las emisiones globales deben caer a 44.000 millones de toneladas para 2020 y seguir disminuyendo dos por ciento cada año, una meta que la comunidad internacional, fuertemente dependiente de los combustibles fósiles, encontrará “sumamente difícil” de alcanzar, pero aun así es realizable, aseguró.

Si los países prefieren limitarse a cumplir los compromisos asumidos en Copenhague, las liberaciones de gases invernadero mundiales probablemente crecerán entre 9.000 millones y 11.000 millones de toneladas por encima de la meta de 44.000 millones, creando una “brecha de emisiones” considerable, alertó Niklas Höhne, director de Políticas de Energía y Climáticas de Ecofys, organización consultora sobre energía.

“Nuestros resultados van de acuerdo con el Informe sobre Brecha de Emisiones del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUD), divulgado al inicio de las conversaciones en Durban”, dijo a IPS.

Llama la atención que muchos de los temas de intenso debate en la COP 17 –biocombustibles, agricultura, créditos del carbono para la protección de bosques, captura y almacenamiento de dióxido de carbono– no son considerados importantes por los científicos para reducir las emisiones.

“Con los biocombustibles hay que estar muy seguros de que no deriven en un incremento de las emisiones”, dijo Höhne.

Varios nuevos estudios sobre biodiésel en base a aceite de palma y etanol de maíz indican que sus emisiones netas son más altas que las generadas por la quema de combustibles fósiles cuando se calcula todo su ciclo de vida.

Los biocombustibles no tienen probabilidades de constituir un método significativo para reducir las emisiones, coincidió Höhne, y la agricultura está en la misma categoría. Las prácticas de cultivo pueden ser alteradas para recortar las liberaciones de gases pero, según estudios de diversos escenarios, solo llenarían parte de la brecha.

La brecha de emisiones solo puede ser salvada con una combinación de una mejora de la eficiencia energética en todos los sectores con un significativo incremento del uso de fuentes renovables, incluyendo biomasa, pasando del uso del carbón al gas natural. El costo de este cambio es relativamente bajo: 38 dólares por tonelada de CO2 que no es liberada a la atmósfera.

Pero esperar hasta 2020 sería mucho más caro. Cada dólar que no se destine a la reducción de emisiones del sector energético requerirá una inversión adicional de 4,3 dólares luego de ese año, para compensar todas las liberaciones de gases contaminantes producidas hasta entonces.

Así lo señala el informe “Perspectiva Mundial de Energía 2011″, de la Agencia Internacional de Energía.

Esperar hasta 2020 “es un riesgo que no queremos tomar”, dijo Höhne. Pero los delegados en Durban parecen no comprenderlo. “No actúan como si lo comprendieran”, dijo, señalando que en 17 años de negociaciones no se ha llegado a un acuerdo para reducir sustancialmente las emisiones. (FIN)

DURBAN, Dec 8 – (TerraViva) For a second time, people dressed in the green track suits issued to city volunteers helping out with the U.N. climate conference have clashed with protesting members of civil society. The latest incident took place at Durban’s City Hall – in the presence of South African President Jacob Zuma.

Zuma was meeting with civil society on issues of climate change, with their demand for a second commitment to replace the Kyoto Protocol top of their concerns. Civil society fears that developed countries – historically responsible for the majority of pollution – will refuse to commit to new emissions reduction targets before Kyoto expires in 2012. There are also fears that the Green Climate Fund which would pay for adaptation measures in developing countries may not be realised when the 17th Conference of Parties ends.

The Rural Women’s Assembly was represented, as were the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the National Union of Mineworkers, the South African Council of Churches and numerous environmental organisations.

Activist Rehad Desai was forced out of the public meeting with President Zuma. Credit: Ramatamo wa Matamong/TerraViva

While KwaZulu-Natal Premier Zweli Mkhize was introducing the event, a campaigner held up a sign reading “Stand with Africa! No to Durban Mandate!” Volunteers in the green track suits moved to take it. When film-maker and activist Rehad Desai tried to intervene, and he and several others were wrestled out of the hall.

“They pushed me to the floor and kicked me in the face,” said Desai.

“We were called to come here and express our feelings, this message on the placards is exactly how we feel,” said Samson Mokwena from the Vaal Triangle. “I think these volunteers are being used for cheap political campaigning.”

The action recalls what happened of the start of the Global Day of Action march on Saturday, when volunteers wearing the official tracksuits, issued by the City of Durban to its COP 17 volunteers disrupted the beginning of the march, which had been organised by a coalition of environmental groups including Greenpeace.

Mkhize, convener of the meeting, called everyone to order and stressed that the gathering was not intended for demonstrations, but as an interaction between President Zuma and civil society. “We need to respect each other and raise our views accordingly.”

Taking the floor, rural women told the president to take the lead as the hosting country to encourage parties to commit to Kyoto 2, otherwise small-scale farming will continue to suffer. COSATU said hosting COP 18 in Qatar was inappropriate, given that country’s infamously repressive labour laws.

“As labour movement, we don’t see it a desirable destination, it is not clear how our role is going to be or ever we will be allowed to go there,” said COSATU President Sdumo Dlamini.

Other civil movements said if there is no commitment to a successor to Kyoto, hundreds of millions of people across Africa – people who bear no responsibility for the ruin of the planet – have been condemned to misery, insecurity, dislocation and death.

The world is currently headed for a minimum average temperature rise of four degrees – which would spell an increase of between six and eight degrees for most parts of Africa.

Before responding to the concerns raised by activists, Zuma also condemned the commotion that had unfolded before his eyes. “We defeated the apartheid regime by talking and debating around the table, not with violence. We are here with different views, but let’s tolerate each other.”

Zuma then attempted to dispel the rumour that South Africa has broken away from other African Countries in negotiations. “This is not true. As Africans, we remain united and are one voice for a common goal.”

He said he had taken note of their concerns, but seemed to have disappointed some when he said there are some countries that are more powerful than others.

“Unfortunately there is nothing we can do, we will never be equal. There are those countries in the history of United Nations that have veto rights. Even if we vote on issues, if they don’t want to participate, they are free to do that,” he said.

“However as African colleagues, we remain committed on adaption and mitigation. The rich countries must help developing ones through the Green Climate Fund,” he concluded.

Civil society was not satisfied. “He was vague and lacked details. We are calling for a fair and a binding agreement,” said Desmond D’Sa, a leader of the South Durban Community for Environmental Alliance.

“Zuma must listen to people. South Africa has enough power to influence both EU and U.N. to push the boundary of poverty and inequality.”

* Community media coverage of COP 17 is being supported by the Media Development & Diversity Agency of South Africa, which is promoting the participation of local journalists through a programme of training and reporting on climate change.

(END)

Loopholes in the CDM must be sealed to allow participation of African countries. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

By Isaiah Esipisu

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 8 (IPS) As the United Nations climate change negotiations comes to a close, environmental experts agree that carbon markets could provide the funds for climate change adaptation and mitigation projects, but only if existing loopholes are sealed to allow participation of African countries.

“When the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was introduced under the Kyoto Protocol, we all knew that it was a fantastic idea because it was, and still is, the only mechanism that enables developing countries to take action against global warming,” said Mithika Mwenda, a climate change expert and the Coordinator for the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance. The CDM allows emission reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one ton of CO2. These can be traded.

Currently, there are more than 3,600 registered CDM projects in 72 developing countries worldwide, with about three percent of them in Africa.

However, according to Mwenda, the architectural designs for implementing projects such as the CDM is far beyond the reach to most African organisations, institutions and communities because of the investment cost and the conditions attached.

“It has worked well in other countries like China, but less can be achieved from the African continent, which unfortunately is bearing the biggest burden of climate change,” he told IPS.

Mwenda cautions that there is a danger that the developed world will use carbon credit markets as an excuse to pollute more.

“In many cases under the markets’ architecture, the developed countries are allowed to pollute, and then buy credits from developing countries that sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Yet, what we need first is a commitment to reduce carbon from the atmosphere and to then use the markets as a supplement,” he said.

Lessons about carbon funding projects in Africa can be drawn from the Green Belt Movement, a non-governmental organisation implementing a CDM project in Kenya.

“It is clear that it requires massive investment to kick-start and sustain a CDM project,” Benjamin Kimani Kiuru, the senior project officer in charge of Climate Change and Carbon Projects at the Green Belt Movement, told IPS.

He said there were limiting conditions in the Kyoto Protocol that made it difficult for Africa to benefit from the CDM.

“One of the most limiting conditions as stipulated under the Kyoto Protocol is that the site where trees are to be planted must have been deforested before 1990. Yet given the fact that most forests in Africa have been intact until after the 1990s when people started destroying them, it makes it very difficult for investors to locate appropriate sites suitable for such projects,” said Kiuru.

His sentiments were echoed by David Lesolle, a climate change expert at the University of Botswana’s Department of Environmental Science.

“The way CDM was structured is that you need it only if you are ‘dirty’ (where countries have destroyed their carbon sinks). Yet Africa is not dirty,” he told IPS at the 17^th Conference of Parties.

But he quickly pointed out there is need to continue implementing the CDM because it still plays a role in climate change mitigation.

Also, Africa does not have experts to develop CDM project designs.

“We have to rely on experts from the developed world, which is an extremely expensive affair,” Kiuru said.

Lack of upfront funding from the World Bank for CDM projects was listed as another limiting factor.

So far, the Green Belt Movement has planted 1.5 million trees on 1,500 hectares in Kenya under the CDM, but the first disbursement of money from the World Bank is expected to come through only next year when the project is supposed to be assessed.

“It is important to note that two percent of money generated under the CDM projects worldwide is supposed to be used for adaptation. And today, the Climate Adaptation Fund has over 160 million dollars, which countries and organisations are supposed to apply for – but they haven’t,” said Lesolle.

However, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change believes the CDM has been successful.

“CDM is a success story of the Kyoto Protocol. It has incentivised investment in projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to sustainable development in some 72 countries.

“The object of the dialogue is to reflect on the CDM experience – both the good and the bad – and build on this important mechanism for the future,” Figueres told the media during launch of a high-level policy dialogue on the CDM. (END)

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 8 (IPS) – The last hours of the 17th United Nations climate change summit in Durban have begun. Since the arrival of almost 150 ministers and heads of state on Tuesday, negotiations have moved to the political level. They are expected to debate the way forward until late Friday night, or even Saturday morning.

Almost nobody believes that a second, comprehensive commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is still possible. / Zukiswa Zimela/IPS

Hopes for a breakthrough, or at least tangible results, are slim. Almost nobody believes that a second, comprehensive commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the only international legally binding instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which includes all major emitters, is still possible.

For this to happen, emerging economies like China, India, Korea, Mexico and South Africa would have to come on board, as well as the United States, a country which has not even ratified the first period of the protocol. Other major emitters, like Canada, Russia and Japan have already proclaimed their disinterest in a second commitment period.

The initial commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, under which 37 industrialised nations have committed to an average of five percent carbon emission reductions compared to emission levels in 1990, will expire at the end of 2012.

Earlier this week, negotiations briefly looked somewhat promising, when China’s head negotiator Xie Zhenhua announced his country was open to internationally, legally binding agreements. But his statement soon turned out to be part of a strategic game. But Zhenhua did not say that China was willing to “be part of” those binding agreements as well.

Many climate experts believe the U.S. has played a particularly strong role in slowing down the progress of the negotiations.

“The Obama administration has apparently come to Durban not to be constructive, but to hold other countries back. Their excuses for inaction ebb and flow like the tide. Once one excuse is removed, another emerges,” lamented World Wide Fund for Nature spokesperson Caroline Behringer.

Even U.N. secretary general Ban Ki-moon dampened expectations during the opening of the high-level segment of the summit on Tuesday. A comprehensive, legally binding agreement “could be out of reach”, he said.

While negotiators try to come to a decision, the atmosphere in the corridors of the Durban conference centre, where the summit is taking place, remains tense. Ministers and heads of delegations have retreated to conference rooms to further debate the contents of the 131-page document, the basis for all negotiations. Outside of the closed doors, delegates talk with lowered voices. Until the official announcement of the end-result, everyone is holding their cards close to their chests.

The possibility of concluding with a roadmap for an agreement to negotiate emission reductions from 2015 that will include major emitters and emerging economies, also stands on shaky ground. Under the agreement, all major carbon emitters would agree to internationally legally binding reductions by 2020 at the latest.

“What we are seeing is a lack of political will by some major emitters to reach an outcome in Durban that is fair and ambitious and that saves the lives and livelihoods of millions of poor and vulnerable people who are affected by climate change today,” says Tonya Rawe, senior policy advocate of global humanitarian organisation CARE.

“Some parties are already talking about delaying decisions on a legally binding agreement until 2020. This is a disaster as it can create an entire decade of zero progress,” he added.

Delegates fear that only a non-binding declaration will be reached, through which countries will vaguely declare their willingness to agree to binding reduction goals at some point in the future.

So far, only the European Union (EU) and some other European countries, like Switzerland, have vouched to continue pushing for commitments from major carbon emitters that are currently not part of the Kyoto agreement over the remaining hours of the summit.

“All major economies need to commit, of course respecting common but differentiated responsibilities. If they will not commit to an agreement in the foreseeable future, they take on an unbearable responsibility,” warned Connie Hedegaard, commissioner for climate action at the European Commission who spoke on behalf of the EU.

The negotiations do not only revolve around an extension of the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. Another important subject is the adoption of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) through which financial support for climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts will be channelled to developing countries. By 2020, 100 billion dollars should be mobilised annually from public and private funds.

But the discussions around the GCF, too, have been staggering, after several countries, including the U.S., Bolivia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela announced they were dissatisfied with the draft document and would like to re-open the text for amendments.

In addition, the global financial crisis has slowed down progress on the fund: rich countries, that are supposed to partially finance the GCF, are hesitant to make budgetary commitments. As it looks, the fund is likely to be signed off in Durban, if at all, but as an “empty shell”, without tangible plans on how it will be financed.

“We don’t have any more time to lose to safe those who are most threatened by climate change,” urged Mizanur Rahman Bijoy, a researcher with the Network on Climate Change in Bangladesh. “But instead of taking action, governments are mainly concerned about their national economies. That way, no important and necessary decisions will be made. (END)

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 8 (IPS) – Countries at the United Nations climate change negotiations have publicly acknowledged their current pledges to reduce carbon emissions will not result in limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius.

Reducing carbon emissions will not result in limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius. Credit: Zukiswa Zimela

To bridge their shortfall, delegates at the 17th Conference of Parties (COP 17) climate talks proposed on Wednesday to address this so-called “emissions gap” at COP 18 in Qatar next year.

Documents under negotiation in Durban, South Africa acknowledge the science-based emissions reduction target of 25 to 40 percent by 2020. Those reductions and that timeline are what is needed to stay below two degrees Celsius. The draft text says this would be the target to be agreed on at COP 18.

“We need agreement on that science-based target next year at the latest,” said Karl Hood, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Caribbean island of Grenada and representing the Alliance of Small Island States.

“And we want those targets to legally come into force before 2017.”

Hood told IPS waiting to close the gap until after 2020 is “unacceptable” and a “disaster for small island states” who are already suffering the impacts of climate change.

The world has months to curb emissions from burning fossil fuels before two degrees Celsius of warming will be impossible to stay below. Delay a few years and the extraordinary emission cuts needed could bankrupt the world’s economy and reverse development gains in most countries, climate experts warned at the largely deadlocked United Nations climate change conference here.

“We’re here to warn policy makers that we are dangerously close to not being able to meet the less than two degrees Celsius target,” said Bill Hare, Director of Climate Analytics, a non-profit climate science advisory group based in Germany.

The current pledges made by countries to cut emissions after the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009 will result in global warming of 3.5 degrees Celsius, said Hare a climate scientist. Two years later, those pledges remain essentially unchanged and that means the world’s options to stay below two degrees Celsius are narrowing Hare said in press conference during the COP 17 negotiations that conclude Friday.

“To put it bluntly, the longer we wait, the less options we will have, the more it will cost …and the bigger threat to the world’s most vulnerable,” he said.

Global emissions of fossil fuels have increased 49 percent since 1990 and reached a record of about 48 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2 in 2010 and likely 50 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 this year, he said. Thanks to the moderating affect of the oceans, the world has warmed only 0.8 degrees Celsius on average, however, many parts of the world are much warmer than that.

The science shows that global emissions need to fall to 44 Gt by 2020 and continue to decline by two percent per year, a rate that our fossil fuel-dependent world will find “extremely challenging” but still doable, he said.

If countries live up to their pledges made in Copenhagen global emissions are likely to rise nine to 11 Gt above the 44 Gt target creating an “emissions gap” that is quite considerable, said Niklas Höhne, Director Energy and Climate Policy of Ecofys, an energy consulting organisation.

“Our results are in agreement with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Bridging the Emissions Gap Report released at the opening of the Durban climate talks,” he told IPS.

The new UNEP report calculates a similar emission gap and outlines the way reductions can be made between now and 2020 to bridge that gap. Shockingly many of the items under intense debate at here at the COP 17 – biofuels, agriculture, carbon credits for forest protection, carbon capture and storage – are not considered important pathways to reduce emissions by scientists.

“With biofuels you have to be very sure they won’t result in a net increase in emissions,” said Höhne.

A number of new studies of palm oil biodiesel and maize ethanol show their net emissions are higher than fossil fuels when their entire lifecycle is calculated.

Biofuels are unlikely to be a significant method for reducing emissions, agreed Höhne. Agriculture is in the same category. Farming practices could be altered to reduce emissions but based on analysis using various reduction scenarios they would only be a small part of the “bridge”.

The emissions gap can only be bridged with a combination of improving energy efficiency in all sectors, significant increase in renewable energy including biomass power and shifting from coal to natural gas. The cost of making this shift is relatively low at 38 dollars a ton of CO2 avoided.

Wait until after 2020 and costs skyrocket. Every every dollar not invested today to reduce emissions from the power sector will require an additional investment of 4.3 dollars after 2020 to compensate for all the additional emissions between now and then said the International Energy Agency in its “World Energy Outlook 2011″ report.

Waiting till 2020 is “a risk we don’t want to take,” said Höhne. Delegates here do understand all this, he believes. “They don’t act as if they understand,” he said referring to the lack of progress on a deal to substantially reduce emissions despite 17 years of negotiations.

These scenarios do not include potential emissions from natural sources — feedbacks — like thawing permafrost as the Arctic region rapidly warms. Permafrost hold huge volumes of carbon and methane accumulated over the past 750,000 years.

The first estimate of the near-term volume of global warming gases from permafrost thaw may be 170 Gt of CO2 over the next three decades a team of 40 scientists reported last week. That means global warming could be “20 to 30 percent faster than from fossil fuel emissions alone,” said Edward Schuur of the University of Florida in a release.

“At the moment climate change is not high on the agenda of all heads of states,” said Höhne.

(END/2011)

Credit: Stephen de Tarczynski/IPS

Busani Bafana

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 8 — Coal currently fuels 40 percent of global electricity needs, according to the World Coal Association, which argues there is a place for the abundantly available fuel even in a future with reduced emissions.

“Just as there are some bad examples of coal, there are good ones as there are many governments around the world that want to use coal in a way to fuel their economic growth and alleviate poverty, ” WCA CEO Milton Catelin told a side event on the role of coal in climate change at the 17th Conference of Parties in Durban.

“The trick from a policy and activity perspective is how do you make companies and governments that mine the coal to gasify it in a way that is environmentally sustainable.”

According to Catelin, the world has an estimated 984 billion tonnes of  proven reserves of coal, but environmentalists have argued that coal should be done away with as energy source because it pollutes the environment.

The current negotiations for a new agreement on climate change hinge on cutting global emissions. The Coal Industry Advisory Board – a group of high level executives which advises the International Energy Agency – says coal is responsible for more than 40 percent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

Speaking at the same side event in Durban, Norman Mbazima, CEO of mining giant Anglo American, said coal companies support cleaner use of coal. One way to achieve this is to improve the efficiency of coal plants in the world.

“The biggest contribution to emissions reduction comes from efficiency. We must  all have more efficient cars, more efficient ships and more efficient planes, but most importantly more efficient coal-powered power plants,” said Mbazima.

Carbon capture and storage is also being touted as a way to save coal’s dirty face. The concept involves capturing, compressing and storage of carbon emissions from generating plants, preventing them from entering the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. CCS has been identified by the coal industry as a key technology that could help it cut greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal, but it has not yet been demonstrated to be effective. Critics say even if the technique is developed and commercialised, it will likely prove to be prohibitively expensive.

Mbazima told the side meeting that 1.4 billion people in the world still lack access to electricity – 600 million of those in sub-Saharan Africa. He said coal was the answer to providing electricity to these people because it was plentiful and cheap even though it was not clean.

The WCA argues that if current coal-powered plants were replaced with more efficient plants, greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by six percent. Carbon capture would enable further reductions.

But environmentalists say coal has no place in cleaner, greener future – or in the climate change mitigation agenda.

“We see coal as an unacceptable energy resource because of the extreme impacts it has on human health,” said Cesia Kearns, campaign organiser for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “We need to act now and the negotiators at COP17 need to pay attention to the conversation happening outside the venue and remember how much the weight their decisions will have on people from all nations who are bearing the burden of climate change. They need to get us quickly onto the path of doing away with coal and fossil fuel industries that have created the problem of climate change.”

Kearns said there are numerous alternatives to coal. Africa has abundant in solar and wind resources that should lead the way for green energy.
Jennifer Morgan, Director of Climate and Energy programme at environmental think-tank the World Resources Institute, says the argument about universal energy access depending on electricity from coal-fired plants has no basis.

Taking India as an example, she said the reason more than 400 million of people have no access to electricity is not so much the cost of expanding generation, as it is that urban areas, and industries in particular are prioritised for electricity supply – and in some cases sold power at very low prices, the government depriving itself of resources for rural electrification.

“We do not have time to act as if we have a lot of the atmosphere left,” Morgan warned. Her institute is crafting a policy framework for renewable energy and energy efficiency to help in promoting the development of renewable energy sources.
(Ends)

Kofi Annan says lack of funds must not hold back the fight against climate change. Credit: Zuki Zimela/IPS

By Busani Bafana

Durban, Dec. 7 — The global financial crunch is not a reason to avoid climate-friendly investments that will help Africa’s agriculture grow says former UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan.

“Global leaders are struggling with continuing financial turmoil, rising unemployment and increasing social tension,” Annan said at a panel discussion on climate-smart agriculture on the sidelines of COP 17 in Durban, South Africa.

Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) involves conservation agriculture: this would include crop rotation, agro forestry, better weather forecasting and integrated crop-livestock management. CSA is aimed at environmentally friendly increases in food production, thereby reducing carbon emissions from agriculture. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated emissions from farming to be at 14% of the world total in 2007.
Annan says world leaders cannot ignore the crises faced by food production through climate change.

The former UN chief wants the developed world to own up the $100 billion they pledged in Copenhagen for the Green Climate Fund by 2020.

“The financial crisis has shown the gravity of waiting for disaster to strike before taking action.”

According to the Action on Climate Smart Agriculture policy brief, compiled by the African Union and South Africa’s Ministry of Agriculture, food security, poverty and climate change should be seen as one entity in the fight against climate change.

South Africa’s Minister of Agriculture, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, says transformation of African agriculture is key through Climate Smart Agriculture.

Joemat-Petterson, however, wants the equivalent of a political revolution to deal with climate change.

“We need alternative ideas to overthrow what is holding the continent and the globe at ransom,” said Joemat-Pettersson. “We must end this dictatorship of climate change. We want to make sure that we all have an action plan for CSA. We have done the talking and now is the time for us to pick up our axe, to pick up our spade and roll up our sleeves and do the work.”

The World Bank, which is working with African Union to reach target set in Maputo in 2003 of 10 percent of national budgets spent on agriculture, agreed that climate-smart farming needs greater attention to transform African agriculture.

Finally, adding to the climate-smart agriculture discussions, the Africa Union Commission Chairperson, Jean Ping, wants water management high on Africa’s climate change agenda.

“Let us not neglect water, water is an important resource … we can eradicate famine with the management of water.”
(Ends)

Credit: Naimul Haq/IPS

Entire societies will be lost forever if we delay reaching a climate change agreement in Durban, warns Rezaul Karim Chowdhury of the Coastal Association for Social Transformation Trust (COAST).

“Let us not be witness to that unfortunate happening. Extreme events beyond everybody’s expectation are now observed more and more frequently and we know the consequence of that,” Chowdhury said.

Governments of low-lying island states such as the Maldives, the Bahamas, or the Pacific nation of Kiribati say their very physical existence is threatened by sea level rise of one metre – anticipated to take place by 2100.

Chowdhury’s home country, Bangladesh, is also caught in the crosshairs of global warming – rising temperatures and sea levels, changing weather patterns increasing catastrophic flooding from both swollen rivers and storm surges from intensifying monsoons will hit this low-lying, agriculture-dependent country full in the face.

A map produced by the United Nations Environment Programme shows that an area of this South Asian state that is home to 15 million people will be entirely submerged by a one-metre rise in sea levels. Long before then, increasing numbers of floods will erode riverbanks, and destroy homes, farms, roads and other infrastructure while taking longer to recede, hampering agriculture. Lingering floodwater will test public health systems wrestling with waterborne diseases.

The fears of Bangladesh and other low-lying states are an urgent reminder as the 17th Conference of Parties remains unlikely to agree on even a minimal programme of emissions reductions by developed countries – historically the worst polluters – or financial assistance for vulnerable developing nations.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon poured cold water on the talks Tuesday Dec. 6 when he told delegates that a global, legally-binding deal on climate change could well be off the agenda for now. He blamed grave economic troubles in many countries for overshadowing the talks, which are now in their second week but little tangible progress before they conclude on Dec. 10.

South African Bishop Geoff Davies head of the Anglican Church compared rich countries’ behaviour in Durban to apartheid, saying wealthy nations were trying to keep power and wealth for themselves. “Decision makers need to put the needs of people and the planet before profits.”

The parties remain sharply divided. Coastal states, small island nations and the Africa group are pushing for a second commitment by developed countries to reduce emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The U.S. and Canada say any new commitment should be delayed until after 2020. These two governments are also rejecting a legally-binding global agreement. Japan at one point threatened to pull out altogether.

The European Union has taken up a position somewhere in the middle, proposing a second commitment period to start somewhere around 2015. The EU also says this is on condition that other polluters – such as fast-growing China – are brought on board.

“We have committed under Kyoto and we have actually over achieved in the first commitment period,” said Connie Hedegaard, the European Commissioner for Climate Action. “But Europe only accounts for 11 percent of global emissions and that is why we are saying two things. We are ready to agree a second commitment period even though the family of countries who are ready to do so is shrinking; however we need reassurance that if we lay down a bridge to the future, then others will follow.”

The Congolese chair of the Africa Group, Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, says it’s hard to understand why the developed countries are behaving as they are.

“They says they want rules on climate change, but they don’t like the Kyoto Protocol. It’s hard to comprehend. If you want the mango, then you have to like the mango tree also,” he said. “If you want the carbon markets to continue, you must have robust transparent rules to continue – you have to keep the mango tree (binding emissions reduction agreements).”

He said the Africa Group is looking to the rich countries which have enjoyed a certain level of development at the cost of everyone’s atmosphere to now show leadership on climate change.

“They have shown us economic leadership, they have shown us political leadership and sometimes even military leadership, so let’s see them show us climate leadership.”

The pessimsism expressed by Secretary General Ban and COAST’s Chowdhury hangs over the conference venue, but some – like Paul Mafabi, a negotiator from Uganda – say it was already foregone conclusion that a deal would not be struck because of the economic crisis gripping the biggest offenders.

It’s perhaps worth remembering that small island and developing states are threatened not just by economic crisis, but by devastating and permanent disaster. And the real baseline demand of small island and developing states – measures to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and avoid devastating changes in these vulnerable states – is not even on the table.

(Ends)

Credit: Yanethe Gamboa/IPS

Joshua Kyalimpa Interviews JOAO SAMUEL CAHOLO, Deputy Executive Secretary, Southern African Development Community (SADC)

DURBAN, Dec — The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has devised a plan to mainstream water resources management. On the sidelines of the U.N. climate change conference taking place in Durban, there have been efforts to establish water as an agenda item in its own right in climate change negotiations.

Water experts say this will lead to greater focus on developing policy, and attract more resources into the water sector through adaptation programmes.

Q: SADC has been part of efforts to get water into the United Nations on the agenda of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – thus far without success.

A: Questions of climate change are matters of global responsibility, so we shall continue with the issue. There is the Rio+20 conference next year,  there is also COP 18 next year: we should continue to discuss within our constituencies and plan for how the issues of water can be brought to the larger agenda of climate change.

Q: What is SADC’s next step?
A: We already have political consensus, enshrined in the SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses, so the political commitment in SADC is already there. The next step is for us to establish real institutions to address the issues at the national level and also develop transboundary  water resources.

Q: But how are you going to achieve this when water is not mainstreamed? Where will you get the financial resources to have develop water resources?

A: For us, money is not actually the issue. It’s a question of a commitment to implement what we have agreed upon, because money can be found in different ways. It can come from various international sources, but also it can come from our own treasuries and SADC has best practices in this regard.

Q: What are you doing to raise the general awareness of water issues in the region?

A: As SADC, we have the protocol which recognises the need for transboundary water resources to be managed jointly. That program is being implemented. I don’t want to say that SADC is singling out just one issue with water, but we are confident it will be accorded due attention in future negotiations.

Camino en la selva amazónica de Acre para transportar árboles caídos. Crédito: Mario Osava/IPS

Por Fabiana Frayssinet

RÍO DE JANEIRO, 7 dic (IPS) El Senado de Brasil aprobó un nuevo Código Forestal en medio de críticas ecologistas y elogios de sectores vinculados a la gran agricultura. El proyecto debe volver a la cámara baja y ser sancionado por la presidenta Dilma Rousseff para convertirse en ley.

Para los ambientalistas, el texto constituye un estímulo a la tala de la Amazonia, mientras el poderoso sector agropecuario ve en él un avance para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria de este país de 192 millones de habitantes.

La reforma, aprobada el martes 6 por 59 votos a favor y siete en contra, reglamenta la preservación de los bosques en relación a las actividades económicas que utilizan el suelo y los recursos naturales.

Se modifica así el Código Forestal vigente desde 1965, convirtiéndolo no en una “ley ambiental, sino en una ley más de uso agropecuario del suelo”, lamentó en un comunicado la organización Greenpeace.

El texto “tiene tres problemas: estimula la deforestación, amnistía delitos del pasado y disminuye la protección de las selvas todavía en pie”, resumió para IPS el coordinador de la campaña de Amazonia de Greenpeace Brasil, Márcio Astrini.

El punto más polémico es el que amnistía a los propietarios que hayan deforestado las  áreas de preservación permanente (APP) hasta 2008, si bien para evitar las multas el responsable tendrá que recuperar parte de lo talado y registrar su propiedad para futuras fiscalizaciones. En Brasil hay unos cinco millones de propiedades rurales.

Según al actual Código Forestal, las APP son aquellas que, “cubiertas o no por vegetación nativa, (tienen la) función de preservar los recursos hídricos, el paisaje, la estabilidad geológica, la biodiversidad, el flujo genético de fauna y flora, proteger el suelo y asegurar el bienestar de las poblaciones humanas”. Por ejemplo, las márgenes y nacientes de ríos y las cumbres y laderas de cerros.

De acuerdo con el Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza (WWF) la superficie de las APP sujetas a indulto suma 79 millones de hectáreas, equivalentes a los territorios combinados de Alemania, Austria e Italia.

“Será una tragedia para Brasil y para el mundo si ahora el país da la espalda a más de una década de conquista y vuelve al tiempo de las tinieblas de la deforestación catastrófica”, advirtió WWF en un comunicado.

El nuevo texto mantiene porcentajes de protección de la reserva legal, una zona “ubicada dentro de una propiedad o posesión rural, con excepción de la APP, necesaria para el uso sustentable de los recursos naturales”, según el código vigente.

En la Amazonia legal –delimitación política que incluye los estados parcial o totalmente cubiertos por ese bioma– la proporción de reserva legal en los predios agrarios en zonas selváticas es de 80 por ciento.

Si la propiedad se encuentra en zonas de sabana tropical de la Amazonia legal, la reserva es de 35 por ciento, y de 20 por ciento en el resto del país.

El proyecto, que debe volver a la cámara baja y después ser sancionado por Rousseff, exime de la reforestación a todos los predios de entre 20 y 400 hectáreas, según la región.

Si la propiedad se encuentra en estados amazónicos con más de 65 por ciento de su territorio ocupado por tierras indígenas o por unidades de conservación –parques naturales, áreas protegidas, etcétera– la superficie que debe preservar el productor disminuye de 80 a 50 por ciento.

“La legislación ambiental de Brasil era considerada como una de las más avanzadas. Esta alteración del Código Forestal destruye totalmente esta noción”, dijo a IPS la abogada ambientalista Rachel Biderman, consultora senior en Brasil del World Resources Institute.

“Este momento en que Brasil vive un gran crecimiento económico es acompañado por la banalización y debilitamiento de la legislación ambiental”, añadió.

El gobierno, que intentó mejorar algunos puntos aprobados previamente en la cámara baja, considera que el proyecto no es ideal pero es “el mejor posible”.

El senador Jorge Viana, del gobernante Partido de los Trabajadores y relator del proyecto, estimó que se cumple la misión de dar tranquilidad a los brasileños que necesitan tanto de alimento como de preservación ambiental.

“No conozco actividad como la agrícola que necesite más del ambiente para crear y producir. Así que no tiene sentido este enfrentamiento entre ruralistas y ambientalistas”, opinó.

Las autoridades creen que con controles más estrictos, ya en marcha, se conseguirán restaurar 24 millones de hectáreas deforestadas en reservas legales o APP.

Adriana Ramos, secretaria ejecutiva adjunta del Instituto Socioambiental, sostuvo que la ley “permite actividades agropecuarias en áreas críticas que en cambio tendrían que ser recuperadas”. Se trata de  un “mal proyecto” que “refuerza la cultura de la impunidad”, dijo a IPS.

Brasil es uno de los principales productores de alimentos, y es el primer exportador mundial de carne vacuna, café y jugo de naranjas. También es un gran productor de soja y maíz.

Para los representantes del agronegocio, como la senadora Katia Abreu del Partido Social Democrático, empresaria ganadera y presidenta de la Confederación Nacional de Agricultura y Pecuaria, se “pone fin a años de dictadura ambiental”.

El lunes 5, el Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Espaciales (INPE) reveló que la deforestación amazónica sigue cayendo. La registrada entre agosto de 2010  y julio de 2011 fue de 6.238 kilómetros cuadrados, 11 por ciento menor a la del período 2009-2010.

Es, además, la menor tala registrada desde que el INPE inició estos controles satelitales, en 1988. Por entonces, la deforestación era de 29.000 kilómetros cuadrados por año.

Por eso Abreu insistió en que es posible compatibilizar la producción de alimentos con la preservación de la selva.

Pero esto no convence a los ambientalistas.

“Brasil pierde la oportunidad” de construir “un código de desarrollo sostenible” basado en prácticas modernas “como el pago por servicios ambientales y promoción de sistemas agroforestales sostenibles, con apoyo y desarrollo de comunidades locales”, opinó Biderman.

Astrini apuntó que el país podría incumplir tratados ambientales internacionales y socavar los esfuerzos para frenar el cambio climático.

Las organizaciones que integran el Comité de la Floresta se movilizarán para exigir un veto de la presidenta Rousseff. “Le cobraremos el compromiso que hizo por escrito de que no aceptaría un texto que tuviese amnistía y promoviera más deforestación”, recordó Astrini.

Este país adoptó la meta de reducir sus emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero entre 36 y 39 por ciento para 2020, dependiendo del crecimiento del producto interno bruto, para lo cual necesita disminuir en 80 por ciento la deforestación amazónica respecto del período 1996-2005.

Brasil es el sexto mayor emisor de gases invernadero en el mundo. Y la principal fuente es la pérdida de su selva tropical, causada en gran medida por la expansión agropecuaria. (FIN)

Para Ban, se necesita una combinación de recursos públicos y privados para combatir el cambio climático. Kristin Palitza/IPS

Por Kristin Palitza

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 7 dic (IPS) – Fijar un precio a las emisiones de dióxido de carbono (CO2) en todo el mundo es la clave para nutrir el Fondo Verde para el Clima (FVC), que financiará proyectos de adaptación al recalentamiento planetario en los países del Sur.

A esta conclusión llegó el primer ministro de Noruega, Jens Stoltenberg, quien preside el grupo asesor de alto nivel de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) sobre financiamiento contra el cambio climático.

“Si puedes crear una amplia y más completa financiación del carbono, se podrán atraer más fondos privados”, explicó.

Se habla de “financiamiento del carbono” cuando se establece un precio a las emisiones de CO2 u otros gases invernadero, causantes del recalentamiento del planeta.

Según Stoltenberg, fijar un valor al dióxido de carbono tendría tres beneficios fundamentales:  estimularía a la industria a reducir las liberaciones de gases contaminantes, contribuirá al desarrollo de tecnologías limpias para recortar emisiones y generaría ingresos, que podrían ser utilizados con fines
gubernamentales pero también en acciones climáticas.

Ya varios países demostraron que los sistemas de comercio de carbono o los impuestos a las emisiones pueden ayudar a reducir la contaminación, a la vez que promueven el crecimiento económico, dijo Stoltenberg.

“La Unión Europea cuenta con un completo sistema de comercio de carbono y un régimen de emisiones. Australia acaba de crear un impuesto al carbono. China está fijando precios al carbono, y Sudáfrica también quiere desarrollar un gravamen”, indicó.

“Lo bueno de fijar un precio es que logra menos contaminación y más financiamiento”, añadió.

En los últimos 10 días de la 17 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP 17), que se desarrolla hasta este viernes 9 en la oriental ciudad sudafricana de Durban, el tema de cómo obtener recursos para el FVC fue el protagonista.

La crisis global y las medidas nacionales de austeridad han reducido la disposición de los países ricos a comprometerse a llenar los cofres del fondo con dineros públicos.

“Las crisis financiera y de deuda, especialmente en Europa y en Estados Unidos, se han agravado. Por tanto, debemos procurar tanto financiamiento público como de fuentes privadas”, subrayó Stoltenberg quien, como co-presidente del grupo asesor, presentó a la ONU un análisis proponiendo medidas para generar financiamiento a largo plazo.

“Nuestra primera conclusión es que constituye un reto, pero es viable movilizar 100.000 millones de dólares al año”, dijo.

Stoltenberg aludía un acuerdo alcanzado en la COP 16, celebrada en la sudoriental ciudad mexicana de Cancún el año pasado, según el cual la financiación por vía rápida de 10 millones de dólares anuales entre 2010 y 2013 debía ser incrementada a 100.000 millones anuales para 2020.

“No tiene ningún sentido tener un fondo si no cuentas con dinero para él”, señaló.

Por su parte, el secretario general de la ONU, Ban Ki-moon, coincidió en que las metas de financiamiento de corto y largo plazo solo podrían alcanzarse a través de una combinación de recursos públicos y privados. Esto no significa que los gobiernos pierdan control político sobre los mecanismos de
financiamiento del FVC, algo en lo que los países expresaban preocupación.

“Hay una variedad de posibles opciones de financiamiento, como los impuestos al carbono, al transporte, etcétera. Dependerá de cada país decidir qué regulaciones quiere implementar a nivel nacional”, indicó Ban.

Sin embargo, no exoneró a los gobiernos del Norte.

“Los países industrializados deben mostrar liderazgo inyectando suficiente capital de inmediato”, afirmó. “Es verdad que los gobiernos luchan con crisis, pero el cambio climático no es una opción, es un imperativo. Necesita un compromiso político unívoco y transparente”, subrayó.

No habrá avance en la lucha contra el cambio climático sin más financiamiento, dijo por su parte el primer ministro de Etiopía, Meles Zenawi.

“Necesitamos crear una estructura de precios que atraiga al sector privado para invertir en el financiamiento del clima. Fijar precios al carbono enviará una señal al sector privado indicando que la tecnología verde es redituable”, opinó Zenawi.

“La tecnología del futuro es verde. Hay una carrera. El que llega tarde quedará rezagado”, añadió.

No obstante, expertos económicos dudan que los países industrializados tengan un verdadero interés en proveer fondos para la adaptación en el Sur.

“No necesitamos más informes, necesitamos voluntad política”, dijo el economista Nicholas Stern, consejero del gobierno de Gran Bretaña.

Cuando más rápido actúen los políticos, más barato les costará, coincidió el presidente de México, Felipe Calderón, presionando para que el FVC comience a funcionar antes de que termine la reunión en Durban.

“Una economía baja en carbono no sale barato. Costará cientos de millones de dólares al año, dependiendo de cuán rápido actuemos. Lo más pronto actuemos, menos nos costará”, indicó.

Caio Koch-Weser, vicepresidente del Deutsche Bank, uno de los grupos bancarios más grandes del mundo, expresó su preocupación sobre el lento progreso para la creación del FVC. La industria esta dispuesta a invertir en una economía verde, aseguró.

“Dennos un precio para el carbono, dennos una política confiable y el sector privado hará la mayor parte del trabajo. Ya hemos visto una gran vibración de parte de la comunidad empresarial en interacción con los gobiernos”, dijo. “Por supuesto, todavía no a la escala y velocidad que necesitamos”.

Koch-Weser además señaló que la actual crisis económica mundial presentaba una oportunidad para que los gobiernos y negocios se transformaran y encontraran nuevos motores de crecimiento.

Para poder recolectar 100.000 millones de dólares al año para 2020, con el fin de financiar la adaptación al cambio climático, “necesitamos nuevas asociaciones público-privadas que proveen marcos transparentes, seguros y de larga vida”, dijo Koch-Weser. (FIN)

Credit: Tinus de Jager/IPS

By Stephen Leahy

Civil society said negotiations are going backwards with no nation willing to step up and lead the way forward here at the United Nations climate change conference Wednesday.

“No-one is a champion here. Who will step forward and call the other countries’ bluffs?” asked Tove Ryding of Greenpeace International.

Without that champion stepping forward in the next two and half days, “the world is heading to four degrees Celsius of warming while countries are playing a game of poker,” said Ryding.

“We are going backwards here. The EU put out a new mandate today that suggest a 10 year delay for increasing emissions reductions,” said Bobby Peek of Friends of the Earth South Africa.

“Corporate power is in charge here. Governments must act for the benefit of their people,” said Peek.

“There is still time to break the deadlock but need clear commitments from the members,” said Srinivas Krishnaswamy of the Climate Action Network – South Asia.

Big decisions at previous meetings were often made in the final hours, he noted.

China has made an “unprecedented” proposal to agree to binding commitments but the US and European Union are pretending this is nothing new, said Samantha Smith of WWF International.

China, as well other large developing nations, are waiting for the US and other developed countries to fulfill their promises made in the Bali (2008) and Copenhagen (2009) climate talks, Smith said.

But even those aren’t good enough to ensure less than two degrees of warming. Greater emissions cuts are needed from the developed that current pledges. “The climate can’t wait for that in 2020 as the US suggests.”

(Ends)

Dorah Marema, coordinator of Gender and Climate Change in Southern Africa. Credit: Zukiswa Zimela/IPS

And those in rural areas, who depend on agriculture for survival, will be even worse off.

Dorah Marema, coordinator of Gender and Climate Change in Southern Africa, a network of gender civil society organisations, activists, and experts spoke to IPS about the importance of highlighting gender at the climate negations at the 17^th Conference of Parties (COP17) in Durban.

Excerpts of the interview follow:

Q: Do you find that enough attention is being paid to gender issues at this year’s climate change negotiations?

A: Well there has definitely been a shift when we consider how gender issues have been considered in the previous COP’s. At this COP there is a lot of motioning of gender issues, there are over thirty side events focusing on women and climate change. Whether this indicates a substantive positive change we don’t know, so we are unable to evaluate whether they are making an impact.

Q: You advocate for climate justice as gender justice. Can you explain why you want to separate gender from the mainstream conversation and place it as a top priority on the climate change agenda?

A: When we talk about climate change and the issue of justice we talk about the global South being impacted the most. We then zoom in and say that Africa will be the worst affected in the South, simply because it is a poor continent.

…Although climate change will affect all countries, its impacts will be differently distributed among various regions, generations, age and income groups, occupations and genders. The poor, the majority of whom are women, will be disproportionately affected.

Over the past decade, the relationship between climate change and poverty in countries where people’s livelihoods depend on natural resources and environmental services has increasingly become a developmental issue.

This relationship between climate change and people’s livelihoods is seen to have strong linkages to poverty. To this nexus is an added strong gender component, which if ignored could lead to inappropriate policy measures and increased poverty, especially amongst the disadvantaged, poor population.

We say that women are poor in those nations and we say that women are the majority of the poor and we know that they are very reliant on natural resources.

They are also the food producers who are very reliant on agriculture. Those two things, including water (scarcity), mean that they are vulnerable because they are dependent on rain, and they are dependent on rain-fed agriculture.

Q: What sort of recourse are you looking for for women and how do you think they can be better empowered to adapt to climate change?

A: One example that I can give is that now there is the conversation around finance, the Green Climate Fund. What we are asking for is direct access to the funds.

(We want access) not just for countries, but also for organisations with projects that work with empowering women. They need that money so that they can implement adaptation and mitigation projects.

Also in terms of mitigation we need to consider the gender issues there. There are a lot of high-tech mitigation projects, which are not talking about empowering women.

So what we are doing is advocating for jobs that are decentralised so that women would be able to benefit by getting jobs. (END)

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 7 (IPS) – Carbon pricing will be the core mechanism to finance the Green Climate Fund and with it climate change adaptation projects in developing countries.

U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said there is a pool of possible financing options for the Green Climate Fund. Credit:Kristin Palitza/IPS

“If you can establish broader and more comprehensive carbon financing, we will attract more private funding,” explained Norway’s Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who co-chairs the United Nations high-level advisory group on climate change financing.

Carbon finance puts a price on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

According to Stoltenberg, putting a price on carbon emissions would have three key benefits: it will encourage industry to reduce harmful emissions (to avoid being charged for them); it will contribute to the development of clean technologies to reduce emissions; and it will generate revenue, which can be used for government purposes but also to take climate action.

There are already a number of countries that have shown that carbon trading systems or taxes can help reducing emissions while promoting economic growth, said Stoltenberg: “The European Union has a comprehensive carbon trading system through an emission scheme. Australia just introduced a carbon tax. China is introducing carbon pricing, and South Africa also wants to develop a carbon tax.”

It was therefore plausible that carbon pricing could assist in providing urgently needed finance for the GCF as well.

“The beauty of carbon pricing is that you will get less pollution but more finance,” Stoltenberg added.

During the past 10 days of the 17th Conference of Parties, which currently takes place in Durban, South Africa, the question on how to generate funding for the GCF has taken centre stage. The global economic crisis and national austerity measures have reduced the willingness of rich countries to commit to filling the coffers of the fund with public monies.

“The financial and debt crisis, especially in Europe and the United States, have developed further. We therefore have to look for both public funding but also private sources,” stressed Stoltenberg who, as co-chair of the advisory group on climate change financing, recently submitted to the U.N. an analysis of how long-term financing should be generated.

“Our main conclusion is that it is challenging but feasible to mobilise 100 billion dollars annually,” he said, referring to an agreement from last year’s climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, that fast-track financing of 10 million dollars per year between 2010 and 2013 should be scaled up to 100 billion dollars annually by 2020.

“There is no sense in having a fund, if you don’t have money for it,” Stoltenberg said.

U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon agreed that short-term and long-term financing goals could only be reached through combination of public and private resources. This would not mean governments lose political control over the financing mechanism of the GCF, a point some countries said they were concerned about during the climate negotiations.

“There is a pool of possible financing options, such as carbon taxes, transport taxes, and so forth. It will be up to each country to decide which regulations it wants to adopt and implement nationally,” said Ban.

However, this did not release governments of rich nations off the hook.

“Industrial countries must show leadership by injecting sufficient capital immediately,” said Ban. “It’s true that governments struggle with austerity crisis, but climate change is not an option, it’s an imperative. Need unambiguous political commitment and transparency.”

There will be no forward movement in the fight against climate change without movement on climate finance, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi agreed.

“We need to create a price structure that will attract the private sector to invest in climate financing. Carbon pricing will send the signal to the private sector, that green technology will be profitable,” said Zenawi. “The technology of the future is green. There is a race. Who comes too late will be left behind.”

But right now, days of staggering negotiations about the operationalisation and financing of the GCF, have raised doubts among economic experts that governments of industrialised countries are truly willing to make available parts of the finance necessary to fund climate change adaptation in the global South.

“We don’t need any more reports, we need the political will,” said economist and British government advisor Lord Nicholas Stern.

The faster politicians acted, the cheaper it will cost them, agreed Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon, trying to push for the GCF to be operationalised before the end of the climate change summit on Dec 9. “Low carbon economy doesn’t come cheap. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year, depending on how fast we act. The sooner we act, the less it will cost us,” he said.

Caio Koch-Weser, the vice chair of Deutsche Bank, one of the biggest banking groups worldwide, expressed his concern about the slow progress of establishing the GCF. Industry was ready to invest in the green economy, he said.

“Give us a carbon price, give us a reliable policy, and the private sector will do most of the job. We have already seen great vibrancy from the side of the business community in interaction with governments,” he said. “Of course it’s not yet of the scale and the speed we need.”

Koch-Weser further noted that the current global economic crisis also presented an opportunity for governments and businesses to transform, to find new drivers of growth.

To be able to raise 100 billion dollars annually by 2020 to finance climate change adaptation, “we need new private-pubic partnerships that provide transparent, long-lived and certain frameworks. We hope that the GCF will have a strong private sector facility and will be professionally run,” Koch-Weser said.

(END/2011)

Protest at the ICC in Durban. Credit: Tinus de Jager/IPS

During the second and final week of climate change negotiations at COP 17 in Durban, Civil Society is calling for more commitment to fighting global carbon emissions. Zukiswa Zimela reports from the ICC.

By Kristin Palitza

DURBAN (IPS) – The goal of a comprehensive and binding agreement may be beyond the reach of the 17th United Nations climate change negotiations, says the organisation’s secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.

Ban was speaking at the official opening of the high-level talks on climate change in Durban, South Africa, on Tuesday.

He cautioned delegates not to set their hopes too high. “We must be realistic about expectations for a break through in Durban,” Ban said. The reasons for more cautious expectations were well known, he added, such as the global financial crisis, which has led to fiscal austerity with countries prioritising national budgets before international needs.

“But none of these uncertainties should prevent us from making real progress here in Durban,” Ban urged, noting that serious proposals and persistence were needed to proceed. “It’s like riding a bicycle. As long as you move forward you keep your momentum,” he explained.

“The future of our planet is at stake,” Ban warned. “Time is not on our side. We are reaching the point of no return and must walk away from the abyss.”

South African President Jacob Zuma stressed that climate change was a global challenge that required worldwide solutions. He said it was critical to find common ground to reach an agreement.

“Different positions still prevail on different points,” he concluded after more than a week of often staggering negotiations, reminding delegates “we all agreed that the earth is in danger and that we must do something about it.”

“We need to show the world that parties are willing to solve problems in a practical manner and forego national interests, at times, for the interests of humanity, no matter how difficult this may be,” Zuma added. He demanded that delegations rebuild trust in each other.

The South African president said that the 17th Conference of Parties is still a decisive moment for the multilateral system, which has evolved over many years under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol.

“The first period of the Kyoto Protocol is about to come to an end. The question left unanswered is the second commitment period. It is clear that if this question is not resolved, the outcome on other matters will become extremely difficult,” Zuma said.

Industrialised nations needed to adopt a second period of the Kyoto Protocol, while developing countries needed to agree on voluntary pledges. “All parties will have to collectively do more, with common but differentiated responsibility,” explained Zuma.

With twelve heads of states and 130 ministers having arrived at the summit on Tuesday, the last three days of the climate change summit are expected to bring about important, far-reaching political decisions. “For the first week, negotiators have been hard at work, but the ministers will have to take leadership,” said Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and the summit’s chair.

She noted that it was important for political leaders to consider the memorandums written by thousands of concerned citizens, which were handed to the conference leadership throughout the summit: “They expect leadership from us. We have a responsibility not to disappoint them.”

Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, said “good progress” had been achieved on a number of issues, which included headway on financial support to developing countries, particularly regarding adaptation projects, the Green Climate Fund and deforestation. She was also confident that the Durban conference would fully operationalise the Cancun agreements before it ended on Dec 9.

However, Figueres stressed that a number of issues still needed progress and further guidance on a ministerial level. “The time has come to address the thorny political issues before us, such as long-term funding, a second Kyoto Protocol and the framework under the Convention,” she said.

From today on, it was up to the government ministers to develop solutions to the issues at hand. “They need to ensure there is clarity on contours of a second Kyoto Protocol and that gaps are ruled out. We also need clarity on how to avoid an ambition gap and on how funds will be scaled up from now until 2020.”

Connie Hedegaard, commissioner for climate action at the European Commission who represented the European Union (EU) spoke about the need for a new, comprehensive, legally binding international framework. “Only then can we bring the actions to the scale we need, with the speed we need,” she noted. “We would like the D in Durban to be a D for decisions and a D for delivery.”

Hedegaard acknowledged that not all developing countries were ready to commit to legally binding agreements immediately. The EU had therefore made the “significant offer” of a roadmap, which suggests emerging economies come on board by 2020 at the latest.

“All major economies need to commit, of course respecting common but differentiated responsibilities. If they will not commit to an agreement in the foreseeable future, they take on an unbearable responsibility,” she warned.

Speaking on behalf of the African Union, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi urged the EU not to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, no matter what commitments other countries were prepared to make: “The Kyoto Protocol is too important to be sacrificed for tactical advantages on negotiating table.”

Another “top priority” should be ensuring that the agreements reached at the previous climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, will be implemented, Zenawi added, because, for the African continent, funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation programmes were of “utmost importance”. “We are deeply disappointed that fast-track funding promised to us in Copenhagen has largely failed to materialise,” he complained.

Argentina’s Vice-minister of Foreign Affairs Alberto Pedro D’Alotto agreed with Zenawi, while speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 plus China, a bloc of 131 developing countries. He said he was seriously concerned about the “key lack of financial resources” made available to developing countries.

Nauru’s President Sprent Dabwido, who spoke on behalf of the small pacific island states, brought home the urgency of tangible decisions being made at this year’s summit. “For us, climate change is a matter of life and death,” he said. “Unless action is taken, a large part of my region could be rendered uninhabitable within the lifetime of my grandchildren. The time for small incremental steps ended long ago. Great strides must be made.”

The high-level talks will be concluded on Dec 9.

(END/2011)

SSESE ISLANDS, Uganda, Dec 7 (IPS) – From a distance, Bugala Island in Lake Victoria is a patchwork of green and brown. The pattern is a result of dense forest retreating in the wake of recently planted palm tree plantations.

Workers on Bugala Island work to clear the rainforest to make way for an expanding palm tree plantation. Palm oil production is one of Uganda's rising industries. Credit: Will Boase/IPS

The island, the largest of Uganda’s Ssese Islands, is at the center of one of the country’s newest economic endeavors – palm oil processing – and the formerly lush rainforest has fallen quickly, taking with it some critical jobs for the island’s poorest women.

Now, five years after the first phase of that process was completed, residents are starting to measure the impact of the initiative. Many speak glowingly of the jobs and activity the plantation has created. But for some of the island’s poorest residents – especially widows and the wives of often-traveling fishermen – continued deforestation has robbed them of their sole source of income.

Sarah Namwanje used to collect timber and charcoal from the forests that she could sell to people around the island. Now the 28-year-old mother of seven has no way to make money.

“No timber is seen,” she said. “We’re searching for firewood and trying to get money, but my job has stopped.”

Ahead of the palm oil project’s start, activists had clashed with the government over the potential environmental ramifications of the deforestation. But, with assurances from Bidco –the company behind Uganda’s palm oil industry – that the development would have little environmental impact and a stamp of approval from the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), the dazzle of a new industry and more jobs eventually won out.

What was never communicated to some of the poorest residents was how the project would affect both their livelihoods and their health. Especially the small groups of women who live on an island mostly populated by fishermen.

Some are widows, their husbands lost to AIDS or fishing accidents. Others are left alone for long stretches of time, their husbands chasing schools of fish around the archipelago of 84 islands. Until the men return with money from their catch, the women must scramble for resources.

The available jobs for these women are scarce and Mary Nampomwa, a local health worker, said it is difficult for many of them to get by without resorting to commercial sex work.

Before the palm plantations arrived, women who refused to turn to sex work had small-scale jobs, like gathering firewood. They had relatively free access to the timber in national forests or on privately held, underdeveloped plots, according to Richard Kimbowa, the programme manager for Uganda Coalition for Sustainable Development (UCSD).

But many of those landowners, offered an opportunity to make good money off of unused land, sold out or cleared the forest themselves to create subsidiary palm plantations.

Now the island’s poor women are “being marginalised,” Kimbowa said, in the “craze for expanding this palm.”

Namwanje said the only thing she knows to do is encourage people to start planting more trees, so that she has renewed access to firewood and charcoal. But that is not going to happen anytime soon. Other women have taken up jobs drying small mukene fish on the sand next to Lake Victoria.

What is particularly galling to Edisa Katusime, a single mother of six children, is that local officials had for years been warning residents about cutting down trees. She was told that the forest was critical for preserving the island’s animal life and she had to be secretive about gathering timber.

But the government is “not preventing Bidco because it’s a company,” she said. “They are allowed to cut when the government is telling us the importance of the trees.”

Kimbowa predicts that the small-scale job loss might be only the first of the problems the palm plantations are going to create. Eventually, he said, there are going to be issues with food security as land previously used for raising crops turns to palm trees. And already some of the women are reporting that the absence of forest covering is creating health issues.

The loss of the forest means there is no longer a shield from the strong winds that sometimes blow across Bugala Island. The wind now “sounds as if it’s going to knock the house down,” Katusime said. The dust it carries sometimes leaves her children in coughing fits and has been particularly dangerous for asthmatic residents.

And despite assurances from Bidco that it is following the plan laid out by NEMA to minimise environmental impact, UCSD is still monitoring the situation, concerned about issues like soil erosion and seepage of agrochemicals into Lake Victoria. Despite the jobs that Bidco has brought, most of the people on Bugala still live and die by fishing. If fish stocks are reduced, there will suddenly be a lot more people on the island without a source of income.

For now, the warnings of environmental groups and the complaints of women like Katusime and Namwanje are muted by widespread enthusiasm for the island’s palm oil industry. And it’s still growing. According to Bidco, the palm oil plantation will eventually cover 40,000 hectares and be the largest plantation in Africa.

There is division even within the small group of women infected with or affected by HIV/AIDS that Katusime and Namwanje belong to. Unlike those two women, Annette Nnamukasa was able to harness enough money to take advantage of the palm oil boom. She bought about two acres of land and had it cleared. In its place she planted palm trees and now sells the crop to Bidco.

“It is almost the same,” she said. “The palm trees are almost forests.” (END)

Cartel del IPCC en Durban. Crédito: IPS Africa

Por Kristin Palitza

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 6 dic (IPS)  Suecia, Gran Bretaña y Alemania ocupan los primeros lugares en el Índice de Protección Climática 2012, cuyos resultados fueron publicados este martes en la conferencia de las Naciones Unidas que se realiza en esta oriental ciudad sudafricana.

Con todo, los tres primeros lugares de la clasificación quedaron vacíos porque ningún país hace lo suficiente para contener el cambio climático, de acuerdo a los criterios del Índice.

De acuerdo a criterios estandarizados, el Índice evalúa y compara la conducta de protección climática de 58 países que, juntos, son responsables de más de 90 por ciento de las emisiones mundiales de dióxido de carbono (CO2) vinculadas a la producción y consumo de energía.

Suecia, con baja cantidad de emisiones de CO2, 50.600 toneladas por año y una tendencia positiva de reducción, según los últimos datos de la Administración de Información de Energía de Estados Unidos (EIA), ocupa el cuarto lugar.

El Índice es realizado todos los años por las organizaciones Germanwatch y la Red de Acción Climática (CAN por sus siglas en inglés).

“Los resultados de este año muestran que, pese a que las emisiones globales siguen aumentando, ninguno de los grandes contaminantes hizo los verdaderos cambios que se necesitan”, indicó el director de CAN Europa, Wendel Trio. “Ninguno hizo lo suficiente”, añadió.

La política climática de Suecia no fue lo bastante ambiciosa y se quedó corta en cuanto al objetivo de que la temperatura media mundial no aumente más de dos grados centígrados, un umbral que podría dar paso a un cambio climático desastroso.

En tanto Gran Bretaña, en quinto lugar, no logró ajustar los topes de las emisiones de carbono. Mientras, los gases liberados por Alemania siguieron muy altos como para ubicarla mejor que el sexto lugar.

“La calificación promedio de las políticas nacionales e internacionales es baja”, señaló el investigador Jan Burck, de Germanwatch, uno de los autores del estudio.

“La mayoría de los especialistas no están ni de cerca satisfechos con los esfuerzos de sus gobiernos para no sobrepasar el límite de dos grados”, agregó.

Países como Turquía, en el lugar 58, Polonia, 56, y Croacia, 53, están en las peores posiciones debido a la evaluación de sus políticas climáticas.

Mientras ejerció la presidencia del Consejo de la Unión Europea, Polonia bloqueó la propuesta de reducir en 30 por ciento las emisiones contaminantes del bloque hasta 2020.

La tendencia de las emisiones y la desfavorable evaluación de sus políticas hicieron que Holanda (42) perdiera 12 lugares.

“Es de especial preocupación que no cese la tendencia global de quemar carbón” y petróleo de las arenas alquitranadas, alertó Burck. “Es la principal razón de que aumenten las emisiones respecto del producto interno bruto en muchos países”, añadió.

Suiza quedó en el noveno lugar, detrás de Brasil y Francia. El país sudamericano solía ser un ejemplo a seguir, pero perdió su posición por el aumento de sus emisiones de gases invernadero, incluso las liberadas por la deforestación.

Estados Unidos subió dos lugares y se ubica en el 52 debido a la disminución de emisiones, consecuencia de la crisis económica y financiera. Pero sigue en lo más bajo de la clasificación por la mala evaluación de sus políticas y la enorme cantidad de gases que arroja a la atmósfera.

India, una de las economías emergentes, bajó 13 lugares por su peor rendimiento, en especial en la tendencia de las emisiones.

“El Índice ofrece datos duros y tendencias en el contexto de unas negociaciones climáticas que suelen permanecer difusas. Esperamos que los países lo utilicen como motivación para elevar sus ambiciones en la lucha contra el cambio climático”, indicó Trio.

El desempeño de China está lleno de contradicciones, según los autores del estudio. Es el mayor emisor de dióxido de carbono, con 7,7 millones de toneladas al año, según la estadounidense EIA, y registra un drástico aumento de gases liberados a la atmósfera, pero su política nacional para reducirlos se intensifica con rapidez.

“China está construyendo la mitad de la capacidad mundial instalada de energías renovables al año”, indicó Burck, quien prevé que su ubicación en el Índice “mejore drásticamente” en cuanto esto empiece a reflejarse en la tendencia de las emisiones.

El gigante asiático, México, Corea del Sur y Sudáfrica tienen las evaluaciones más favorables en materia de políticas para contener el fenómeno climático.

Sudáfrica muestra un mejor desempeño año a año, pero está en el lugar 38 porque sus emisiones son todavía relativamente altas y mantiene su dependencia del carbón.

Australia tomó medidas alentadoras y trepó 10 lugares. Los especialistas reconocieron el nuevo impuesto al carbono como una iniciativa muy positiva. Pero sus emisiones muy altas hacen que permanezca entre los más contaminantes, en el puesto 48.

Pese a su mala ubicación, “Australia presenta una tendencia muy positiva”, señaló Trio. “Se unió al Protocolo de Kyoto solo en 2007, pero ahora adoptó nuevas e importantes políticas para reducir sus emisiones de dióxido de carbono”, añadió.

El tratado, firmado en 1997 y en vigor desde 2005, obliga a los países industriales que lo ratificaron a reducir sus emisiones para 2012 a volúmenes 5,2 por ciento inferiores a los de 1990.

La 17 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas contra el Cambio Climático está reunida en Durban desde el 28 de noviembre hasta este viernes 9 para discutir nuevos compromisos de reducción de gases contaminantes.

Los países peor ubicados en la tabla son Kazajstán, Arabia Saudita y Estonia. (FIN)

La falta de acceso al agua requiere una solución urgente en África austral. Crédito: Mantoe Phakathi/IPS

Por Joshua Kyalimpa

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 6 dic (IPS) Cobran impulso los esfuerzos para que el agua se incluya como capítulo con peso propio en las negociaciones internacionales sobre el cambio climático que se desarrollan hasta este viernes 9 en Durban, Sudáfrica.

Según expertos en temas hídricos, se lograría así más énfasis en el desarrollo de políticas y en la atracción de recursos hacia este sector mediante programas de adaptación.

“Lo primero que cada uno de nosotros usa al levantarse es agua, y también cuando se va a la cama. De todos modos la damos por sentada”, dijo Chris Moseki, gerente de investigaciones en la sudafricana Comisión de Investigación del Agua, que integra la Asociación Mundial para el Agua.

La falta de agua es un problema grave en África austral, donde afecta a casi 100 millones de personas. La región se volverá más caliente y más seca en los próximos 50 y 100 años, lo que pondrá en riesgo el suministro hídrico de establecimientos agrícolas, industrias y hogares, además de amenazar los ecosistemas, indican modelos trazados por el sudafricano Consejo de Investigación Científica e Industrial.

A expertos y políticos les preocupa que la planificación sobre cambios en la disponibilidad de agua no esté recibiendo el destaque que merece.

El secretario ejecutivo del Consejo de Ministros Africanos sobre el Agua, Bai-Mass Taal, dijo que el grupo está trabajando para elevar el perfil de los temas hídricos en la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático, cuya 17 Conferencia de las Partes (COP 17) tiene lugar en Durban.

“Les decimos a las partes: apreciamos lo que están haciendo en otros sectores, pero sin abordar los temas hídricos directamente todo eso habrá sido en vano”, dijo Taal.

De momento, los asuntos relativos al agua se discuten como parte de la planificación, adopción de prioridades e implementación de la adaptación a un clima cambiante.

Mientras se espera que cada vez más países padezcan escasez hídrica, la actual posición del agua en las conversaciones climáticas es inadecuada, dijo la secretaria ejecutiva de la Asociación Mundial para el Agua, Ania Grobicki.

“El producto interno bruto (PIB) de muchos países menos adelantados depende del agua. Más de 50 por ciento de los alimentos del mundo procederán de África en el futuro, y esto depende de la disponibilidad de agua”, señaló.

“Es por eso que este debate debería ir más allá”, agregó.

Más de 70 por ciento de la población de la Comunidad para el Desarrollo de África Austral depende directamente de la agricultura, principalmente de la que se obtiene solo con agua de lluvia.

Las proyecciones del Consejo de Investigación Científica e Industrial están entre las muchas que llaman la atención sobre el efecto que tendrán sobre la población africana los cambios pronosticados en los patrones de lluvias, los limitados recursos destinados a la adaptación y la falta de instituciones para regular el aprovechamiento de los ríos.

Desafíos similares se pronostican para el resto del mundo, pero la falta de riego y de infraestructura general en África es un factor que multiplica la necesidad de una intervención urgente.

La respuesta de África

Al cambiar los patrones de las precipitaciones, África enfrenta crisis importantes. En 2010, millones fueron víctimas de la hambruna en Níger y Mali a raíz de una sequía que afectó a los productores agropecuarios.

Este año, el Cuerno de África padece su peor sequía en 50 años, y millones sufren hambre por ese motivo.

Según el Programa Mundial de Alimentos (PMA) de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, unos 12,3 millones de personas necesitan asistencia de emergencia en esa zona.

La comisionada de la Unión Africana para la Economía Rural y la Agricultura, Rhoda Peace, señaló que cuando los líderes del continente hablan sobre el cambio climático invariablemente se refieren a sequías e inundaciones, lo que muestra que el agua ya es una prioridad.

En 2008, los jefes de Estado africanos resolvieron colocar el agua y el saneamiento como prioridad continental.

“Los gobernantes acordaron asignar por lo menos 0,5 por ciento de su presupuesto nacional al agua”, dijo Peace.

“Que ese sea realmente el caso es otra historia, pero a algunos países les está yendo muy bien y pueden lograr sus objetivos”, agregó.

Brindar un acceso adecuado al agua en toda África costará miles de millones de dólares. Y para los muchos gobiernos africanos que no honran compromisos previos, no será posible recaudar las sumas necesarias sin apoyo.

El coordinador para África oriental de la Asociación Mundial para el Agua, Simon Thuo, dijo estar sorprendido de que incluso las propuestas del grupo de negociadores africanos mencionen el agua solo superficialmente.

Como otros expertos, Thuo cree que aun si las negociaciones climáticas abordan de manera específica la administración de este elemento esencial, no recibirá la atención ni el financiamiento necesarios.

Poster at the ICC in Durban. Credit: Tinus de Jager/IPS

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 6 – South African President Jabob Zuma, leading British economist Sir Nicholas Stern, Nobel prize-winning scientists and leading policy experts have urged negotiators to act on the science of climate change at a special high-level event on the sidelines of the United Nations climate change conference here in Durban.

“We want to inject some positive energy into the climate talks which seem paralysed,” said Johan Rockström, Executive Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute and co-host of the 3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability. The brief invitation-only symposium was an unusual gathering of 35 high-level policy makers and experts from around the world.

“We cannot give up on the U.N. process. The pace of change needed to meet the climate and sustainable development challenge is so large we need everyone to move together,” Rockström told IPS in an interview.

“President Zuma called on delegates and their countries to set aside their individual interests to realize collective action,” said Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s Minister of Science and Technology.

“Only when we act globally can we respond to the climate change challenge,” Pandor said in a press conference.

Climate talks here at the 17 Conference of Parties as well recent past ones seem to be in a state of paralysis Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told IPS. That paralysis stems from political situation within and between nations said Pachauri.

Negotiators here must “get away from short term and narrow interests,” he said. “Leaders and the public need to understand there are huge co-benefits to reducing greenhouse gases — health benefits, energy security, more employment, ensure food security, and more.” 

Several government ministers also attended the Symposium, which issued a “Durban Vision” statement. That statement calls on world leaders to “adopt a new mindset to listen to the voice of science…and address the unavoidable interconnections between global sustainability, poverty eradication, social justice and economic development in an environmentally constrained world.”

“The unsustainable growth path we’re on can’t continue forever,” said Stern.
Stern acknowledged that the current financial crisis is being used by some governments for inaction. “Finance can be raised using the right kinds of incentives to make the transition to a low carbon economy.”

Continuing along the same path makes no sense economically, agreed Pachauri. Extreme weather events cost the world hundreds of billions of dollars a year and it will only get worse. Already some small islands states suffer losses amounting to one to eight percent of their gross domestic product, he said.

“It’s time for some nations to wake up to this reality. We have the solutions to address climate change but lack the political will.”

Rockström also said emissions reductions alone aren’t enough for a safe climate future. “We now urgently need a world transition to global sustainability. Conserving biodiversity, sustainable management of our landscapes and seascapes, reduction of pollution … need to be integrated with our responses to climate change,” he said.

“Staying below two degrees Celsius global warming is not just an environmental goal but crucial development goal,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Schellnhuber told IPS that there is vital need for more dialogue between science and policy makers. Although he admitted that leaders in countries like the United States and Canada are not listening to their science advisors.

Symposium participants, including Canada’s Minister of Environment Peter Kent, broadly agreed the more than 400 billion dollars in annual subsidies for fossil fuels need to eliminated and there is a need for a price on carbon said Lena Ek, Sweden’s Minister for the Environment.

“When we feel sense of urgency then we make changes. We must bend the growth curve (of carbon emissions) downwards by 2015. That is very little time,” Ek said.
(Ends)

Electric cars reduce urban air pollution. Credit: Zukiswa Zimela/IPS

Kristin Palitza

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 6 – Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany are the top countries to fight climate change, according to the 2012 Climate Change Performance Index, whose results were published at the United Nations climate change summit Tuesday.

Sweden, the country with the lowest emission levels of 50,600 tonnes of CO2 emissions, according to the latest data from the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), and good emission trends worldwide, was ranked 4th.

Experts said they could not award any country with the top three rankings, as no nation was doing enough to prevent climate change.

The three lowest-ranking countries are Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and Iran. The index is compiled each year by environmental lobby organisation Germanwatch and the Climate Action Network (CAN), which evaluate and compare the climate protection performance of the 58 countries worldwide which are together responsible for more than 90 percent of global energy-related CO2-emissions.

“This year’s results signify that although globally emissions are still growing, none of the big emitters make the real shifts that are needed,” said CAN Europe director Wendel Trio. “None of them is considered as doing enough.”

Sweden’s climate policy was not ambitious enough, while the UK, ranked 5th, had recently shown worrying signs. It had failed to tighten up its carbon budgets, while Germany’s emission levels remained too high for a placement higher than rank 6.

“The average grades for the national and international policies are weak,” said Germanwatch researcher Jan Burck, one of the authors of the report. “Most experts are not satisfied by far with the efforts of their governments with regard to the 2°C limit”, which refers to the rise in global temperatures that scientists have found may not be exceeded if they world wants to win the fight against climate change.

However, within Europe, countries such as Turkey (58), Poland (56) and Croatia (53) hold some of the lowest positions in the overall ranking. This is partly due to their policy evaluations. During its presidency of the European Council, Poland blocked the proposed European Union’s 30 percent reduction target until 2020, for example. Poor emissions trends and poor policy evaluations made the Netherlands (42) lose twelve ranks.

“It is especially worrying that global trend towards burning coal (and oil from tar sands) has not been stopped,” warned Burck. “This is the main reason why we see emissions per gross domestic product (GDP) increasing in many countries.”

Switzerland was ranked 9th, after Brazil and France. Brazil, which used to be among the role model countries, has lost its top ranking because of increasing carbon emissions as well as emissions from deforestation.

The United States has climbed up two ranks to 52, mainly due to its reduction in emissions as a result of the economic crisis. It remains, however, at the bottom end of the index because of poor policy evaluations and a very high emissions level.

Emerging economy India dropped 13 ranks because of a worse overall performance, especially in terms of its emissions trend.

“The index provides hard data and trends in the context of climate negotiations that often remain vague. We hope countries use the index as a motivation to increase their ambitions to fight climate change,” said Trio.

China’s climate performance is full of contradictions, the authors said. While China is one of the world’s largest CO2-emitters, producing 7,7 million tonnes of CO2 according to the EIA, and with dramatically growing emissions, its national emissions reduction policy is rapidly intensifying.

“China is installing about half of the global renewable energy capacity per year,” said Burck. He expects China’s ranking to “dramatically improve” as soon as these positive trends will influence its emissions trend.

China, Mexico, Korea and South Africa are the countries with the best policy evaluation. South Africa has been showing an improved performance in the field of national climate policy each year, but is only ranked 38 because their emissions are still relatively high and the country remains addicted to coal.

Australia has made encouraging steps towards improved climate policy and climbed ten ranks. The experts recognised its new carbon tax as especially positive. But due to its continuously high emissions, the country remains in the last quarter of emitters, on a poor rank 48.

Despite the low ranking, “Australia shows a very positive trend,” said Trio. “It only joined the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 but now adopted important new policies to reduce carbon emissions.”

The countries with the worst score in the indicator ‘emissions levels’ are Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia and Estonia.

The UNFCCC has a consensus process to reach agreements on climate change, which, in effect, could lead to countries exercising a veto to stop progress. IPSs Stephen Leahy asks Alden Myer, director of strategy & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, if the process could ever work.

Tinus de Jager reports from COP 17 in Durban at the start of the high-level meetings on combatting climate change.

By Stephen Leahy

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec6 – The United States has become the major stumbling block to progress at the mid point of negotiations over a new international climate regime say civil society and many of the 193 nations attending the United Nations climate change conference here in Durban.

“The U.S. position leads us to three or four degrees Celsius of warming, which will be devastating for the poor of the world,” said Celine Charveriat of Oxfam International.

“They are proposing a 10-year time out with no new targets to lower emissions until after 2020,” Charveriat said.

At COP 15 in Copenhagen the U.S. committed to reducing its emissions 17 percent from 2005 by 2020. This is far short of what is widely agreed as necessary: cuts in fossil fuel emissions 25 to 40 percent below those in 1990 by U.S. and all developed nations.

Scientists have repeatedly warned that global emissions must peak by mid-decade and then decline every year thereafter. But U.S. negotiator Jon Pershing said their Copenhagen emission reduction pledge is sufficient until 2020.

“There is a huge failure of ambition. Nothing here will keep us out of catastrophic climate change,” said Jim Leape, Director General of the World Wide Fund for Nature International. The U.S. has already suffered record-breaking losses due to severe weather this year with only 0.8 degrees Celsius of warming, Leape said.

“If they (U.S.) won’t moderate this stance they should step aside,” Leape.

That sentiment was echoed by Greenpeace’s Kumi Naidoo who also said: “Delegates must listen to the people not to certain corporate interests.”

The Obama White House is betraying the American people, as well as the municipalities and companies in the U.S. who are taking serious action to reduce their emissions, Naidoo said.

Pa Ousman Jaru of The Gambia, a delegate representing the Least Developed Countries block, also asked the U.S. to step aside and stop blocking progress for the rest of the final week.

Jaru reiterated the developing world’s commitment to a second phase of the Kyoto Protocol after the first one expires in 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol all industrialised nations, with the exception of the U.S., are legally bound to reduce emissions five percent from 1990 levels.

Canada’s emissions are close to 30 percent higher than in 1990 and said they will not participate in a second phase. Japan and Russia will also not participate leaving the Kyoto Protocol to regulate only about quarter of current global emissions.

There had been expectations that the Kyoto Protocol would die here in Durban but United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change climate chief Christiana Figueres said it would live on.

Nadioo agreed that the Kyoto Protocol would live but it would be on “life support for the next two years” of additional negotiations.

Jaru said that the other “track” of negotiations to regulate and reduce the remaining 75 percent is vitally important and must result in ambitious reductions. That is the track the U.S. is reluctant to participate in beyond its Copenhagen commitments because China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, refused to agree to binding reductions for itself.

Now, for the first time China said it will agree, a move that Figueres called “very positive”. She said it was part of the progress being made in Durban, which she expected to escalate with the arrival of ministers for the high level negotiations beginning Tuesday.

Another major issue includes the establishment of a Green Climate Fund, which is to scale up to 100 billion dollars a year in funding to help developing countries adapt to climate change. That is bogged down in how to set up and structure the fund. The more difficult issue of where the money is going to come from is on the back burner.

There was progress on talks to reduce deforestation, a major source of emissions. The United Nations programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+) negotiation focused on thorny details of how to verify reductions with progress expected by end of the week. Decisions on financing for REDD+ have been postponed until COP 18 in Qatar next year.

DURBAN, Afrique du Sud, 6 déc (IPS) – A quelques jours des négociations des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques, de profondes divergences sur les questions clé de la conférence ont surgi. De sérieux doutes sur l’adoption du Fonds vert pour le climat sont apparus, tandis qu’une deuxième période du Protocole de Kyoto semble être de plus en plus improbable.

Un certain nombre de pays d’Amérique du sud, les Etats-Unis, l’Arabie Saoudite, l’Egypte, le Nigeria et le Venezuela ont exprimé des réserves par rapport à la signature du Fonds vert pour le climat (FVC), évoquant la nécessité de revoir certaines de ses clauses. L’Union européenne (UE), qui continue de soutenir le projet de document du fonds, a exhorté les pays à ne pas retarder ses progrès, avec pourtant peu de succès jusqu’ici.

“Il devrait être possible de s’entendre sur le projet d’instrument tel qu’il est. Il est un bon compromis. Dans sa forme actuelle, il attirerait des fonds importants”, a déclaré le négociateur de l’UE, Tomasz Chruszczow. “Ce serait contreproductif d’entreprendre de nouvelles discussions techniques sur cet instrument”.

Des organisations non gouvernementales et des militants du climat conviennent que la réouverture du texte de négociation compromettrait sérieusement les chances de finaliser le FVC avant la fin du sommet de la 17ème Conférence des parties (COP 17) en cours à Durban, en Afrique du Sud.

“Cela signifierait qu’il n’existe aucun instrument dans lequel l’argent pourrait entrer. Nous comprenons qu’il y ait des inquiétudes provenant de certaines parties, mais ce texte de négociation représentait un compromis politique bien équilibré et a mis des mois avant d’être finalisé”, a déploré Tasneem Essop, le directeur de la stratégie internationale sur le climat du Fonds mondial pour la nature.

Plus de 190 pays participant aux négociations climatiques mondiales à Durban étaient censés signer le FVC, qui est destiné à aider les pays en développement avec 100 milliards de dollars par an, d’ici à 2020, à s’adapter aux effets des changements climatiques.

Dans un effort pour réaliser un consensus, la présidente de la COP 17, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, a indiqué qu’elle contacterait les différents pays à travers “des discussions transparentes et informelles” dans les jours à venir. Il n’existe, cependant, aucun processus ou délai définitif pour ces négociations. Les partisans du FVC attendent maintenant avec impatience la présentation de son rapport.

Certains experts suggèrent qu’au lieu de rouvrir les négociations, il devrait exister un texte supplémentaire pour le projet de document qui résout certaines des préoccupations les plus pressantes, tandis que d’autres questions pourraient être discutées par le conseil du FVC, une fois élu.

Economie d’adaptation

Un financement immédiat pour l’adaptation et l’atténuation permettra non seulement d’aider les pays à faire face aux changements climatiques, mais aura aussi un bon sens économique. La Banque mondiale et la ‘United States Geological Survey’ (Enquête géologique américaine) ont estimé que des pertes économiques à travers le monde dues aux catastrophes naturelles dans les années 1990 auraient pu être réduites de 280 milliards de dollars, si seulement 40 milliards de dollars avaient été investis dans la prévention des catastrophes.

Mais deux ans après s’être engagés à mobiliser 100 milliards de dollars par an pour l’atténuation et l’adaptation aux changements climatiques, lors de la COP 15 à Copenhague, les pays développés n’ont pas encore indiqué la source de provenance de ces fonds publics promis. Ils se sont plutôt concentrés sur les moyens de mobiliser le secteur privé.

“Si ce fonds vient avec un coffre vide, il n’aura pas de sens”, a averti Ilana Solomon, conseillère politique à ‘ActionAid’ aux Etats-Unis. “Nous savons que les temps sont durs pour une aide financière et que les budgets sont serrés”, a-t-elle déclaré, en référence à la crise dans la zone euro, “mais la vérité est que les pays riches peuvent réunir cet argent”.

Les difficultés à obtenir un financement pour le FVC sont alarmantes, car même si les pays finalisent en fin de compte tout le budget, il ne sera pas suffisant. Des estimations récentes effectuées par la Commission européenne et la Banque mondiale montrent qu’au moins le double du montant qui sera réuni pour le fonds est nécessaire pour l’adaptation et l’atténuation dans les pays en développement. D’autres experts soulignent que le monde aura besoin de 5,7 trillions de dollars d’ici à 2035 pour faire face aux effets des changements climatiques.

Des experts des changements climatiques indiquent également qu’une action est désormais nécessaire, parce qu’il faudra sept fois plus de temps pour inverser les effets négatifs des changements climatiques, que d’investir dans la prévention.

“Il semble que nous parlons beaucoup d’argent, mais le coût de l’inaction est bien plus élevé que celui de l’action”, a affirmé Kelly Dent, conseillère politique sur les changements climatiques à ‘Oxfam International – Australie’. “Nous avons besoin d’argent pour approvisionner le fonds. Et nous voulons qu’il soit disponible et rapidement opérationnel”.

Jusqu’à présent, les pays n’ont pas pu s’entendre sur un mécanisme unique pour attirer des fonds publics.

Kyoto – une COP morte?

Au milieu des discussions houleuses sur le fonds pour le climat, les chances que les pays acceptent une deuxième période d’engagement du Protocole de Kyoto, qui expirera à la fin de 2012, sont devenues aussi faibles. En dehors de l’UE, aucune autre nation industrialisée ne soutient actuellement l’idée d’une extension.

Les Etats-Unis, la Russie et le Japon ont clairement affiché leur désintérêt, tandis que le Canada a provoqué un tollé général il y a une semaine lorsque tout le monde a su qu’il veut abandonner le protocole, probablement pour éviter de payer des amendes pour n’avoir pas atteint ses objectifs de réduction des émissions.

“Nous ne pouvons pas laisser la distraction de la manœuvre du Canada détourner notre attention sur de très réels progrès qui peuvent être faits avec l’UE et d’autres, comme un pas crucial e avant pour un régime juridiquement contraignant et des réductions des émissions”, a exhorté Dent.

Même l’UE est en train de changer légèrement de tactique. Elle veut désormais que les plus grands émetteurs du monde s’accordent d’ci à 2015 sur un pacte contraignant à mettre en vigueur d’ici à 2020 au plus tard et offre en échange une extension de ses objectifs de réduction du carbone conformément au Protocole de Kyoto. L’UE a déclaré qu’elle espère sortir les négociations de l’impasse et trouver un “terrain d’entente” avec la Chine et d’autres économies émergentes.

Mais des experts des changements climatiques croient qu’attendre jusqu’en 2020 pour définir des objectifs fermes de réduction des émissions fera qu’il sera trop tard. “Nous avons besoin d’ambition pour augmenter les objectifs de réduction des émissions à partir de 2012. 2020 est trop tard”, a souligné Dent. (FIN/IPS/11)

La secretaria ejecutiva de la CMNUCC, Christiana Figueres, en la conferencia de Durban. Crédito: Zukiswa Zimela/IPS

Por Stephen Leahy

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 5 dic (IPS) Cuando la cumbre de las Naciones Unidas sobre el clima entra en su recta final en la ciudad sudafricana de Durban, Estados Unidos se yergue como el mayor obstáculo para lograr un nuevo régimen climático internacional.

“La postura estadounidense nos puede llevar a un calentamiento de tres o cuatro grados centígrados, que será devastador para los pobres del mundo”, dijo la activista Celine Charveriat, de Oxfam International. “Propone una década muerta sin nuevas metas para reducir las emisiones hasta después de 2020″, dijo.

En la 15 Conferencia de las Partes (COP 15) de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC), celebrada en 2009 en Copenhague, la delegación estadounidense había prometido disminuir las emisiones de ese país de gases de efecto invernadero en 17 por ciento entre 2005 y 2020.

Esto está muy lejos de lo que se reconoce como necesario para controlar el cambio climático: un recorte de emisiones de entre 25 y 40 por ciento respecto de los volúmenes emitidos en 1990 por Estados Unidos y todas las demás naciones ricas.

La ciencia ha reiterado que la contaminación climática –los gases invernadero que liberan actividades humanas como la deforestación, la agricultura, el transporte y la industria– debe alcanzar su punto más alto a mediados de esta década y luego empezar a declinar año tras año.

Pero el negociador estadounidense Jonathan Pershing insiste en que el compromiso de Copenhague es suficiente hasta 2020.

“Así no evitaremos un cambio climático desastroso”, dijo el director general del Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza (WWF), Jim Leape.

Con el actual aumento de la temperatura media mundial de apenas 0,8 grados respecto de la era preindustrial, el propio Estados Unidos sufrió este año pérdidas sin precedentes por las severas condiciones climáticas en su territorio, apuntó Leape.

Si Washington “no modera esta postura, debería apartarse” de las negociaciones, agregó.

Para el director ejecutivo de Greenpeace, Kumi Naidoo, “los delegados deben oír a sus pueblos y no a algunos intereses corporativos”. El gobierno de Barack Obama está traicionando al pueblo estadounidense y a los municipios y a las empresas que están adoptando acciones serias para reducir sus emisiones, añadió.

Un delegado del bloque de Países Menos Adelantados, el gambiano Pa Ousman Jarju, también reclamó que Washington diera un paso al costado y dejara de bloquear las conversaciones de la COP 17, que comenzaron el 28 de noviembre e ingresarán a partir de este martes 6 en sus segmentos de alto nivel para concluir el viernes 9.

Jarju reiteró el compromiso del mundo en desarrollo con un segundo período del Protocolo de Kyoto, que expirará en 2012 y que establece obligaciones para todas las naciones ricas –excepto Estados Unidos– de abatir sus emisiones de gases invernadero a volúmenes 5,2 por ciento inferiores a los de 1990.

Las emisiones de Canadá son casi 30 por ciento mayores que las de 1990, y el gobierno de este país ya anunció que no se sumaría a una segunda fase de obligaciones. Japón y Rusia tampoco están dispuestos. Y así el Protocolo de Kyoto regularía solamente un cuarto de las actuales emisiones globales.

Había rumores de que el Protocolo adoptado en la ciudad japonesa de Kyoto en 1997 encontraría la muerte en Durban, pero la secretaria ejecutiva de la CMNUCC, Christiana Figueres, lo desmintió.

Naidoo admitió que Protocolo no ha muerto, pero estará “en terapia intensiva en los próximos dos años” de nuevas negociaciones.

Para Jarju, más allá de Kyoto, es crucial el carril paralelo de discusiones para regular y reducir el otro 75 por ciento de la contaminación climática.

Es en este carril en el que Washington se muestra renuente a ir más allá de lo que prometió en Copenhague, porque China, el principal emisor mundial de dióxido de carbono, se negaba hasta ahora a asumir reducciones obligatorias.

Pero, por primera vez, China ha dicho que aceptaría adoptar ese compromiso a partir de 2020, un cambio que Figueres considera “muy positivo” y que forma parte de los avances que ella espera se acrecienten con el arribo de los ministros a Durban a partir de este martes.

Además de China, otras dos grandes potencias emergentes, Brasil y Sudáfrica, han mostrado su voluntad de sumarse a reducciones obligatorias desde 2020.

India es el único país del grupo Basic –que conforma con Brasil, Sudáfrica y China– que sigue negándose.

La otra gran cuestión es la puesta en marcha del Fondo Verde para el Clima, que debe ofrecer unos 100.000 millones de dólares por año para financiar la adaptación de los países en desarrollo al cambio climático, pero está empantanado porque no hay acuerdo sobre su estructura y funcionamiento, aunque lo más complicado es decidir de dónde vendrá el dinero.

En cambio, hay modestos avances en las conversaciones para abatir la deforestación, una gran fuente de gases invernadero.

La negociación del programa de Reducción de Emisiones Provocadas por Deforestación y Degradación de los Bosques  (REDD+) se ha centrado en asuntos complejos como la verificación de las reducciones, mientras la cuestión de cómo financiar estos planes quedó pospuesta hasta la COP 18, que se llevará a cabo el año próximo en Qatar. (FIN)

Access to water is an urgent issue here in the Southern Africa region. Credit: Mantoe Phakathi/IPS

By Joshua Kyalimpa

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 5 (IPS) – Efforts to establish water as an agenda item in its own right in climate change negotiations are gaining momentum in Durban, South Africa. Water experts say doing this will lead to a greater focus on developing policy, and attract more resources into the water sector through adaptation programmes.

“For every one of us, the first thing you use when you wake up in the morning is water, and when we are going to bed, it is water. Yet, it’s taken for granted,” says Chris Moseki, research manager at the Water Research Commission (WRC) in South Africa. WRC is a member of the Global Water Partnership (GWP) – a global alliance of organisations working on water issues.

Access to water is an urgent issue here in the Southern Africa region, where nearly 100 million people lack adequate access to water. Modelling by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa shows the region will become hotter and drier over the next 50 to 100 years, putting farms, industry, domestic water supply and natural ecosystems at risk.

International water experts and policy makers are concerned that planning for changes to water availability is not getting the prominence it deserves. Bai-Mass Taal, the Executive Secretary of the African Ministers’ Council on Water (AMCOW), says they are working to raise the profile of water within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“We are saying to the parties, look: we appreciate what you are doing in other sectors, but without addressing water directly, all of that will be in vain,” says Taal.

At this point, water issues are being discussed by treaty negotiators as part of wider planning, prioritising and implementing of adaptation to a changing climate.

Dr. Ania Grobicki, GWP Executive Secretary, says that with growing numbers of countries expected to experience water scarcity, the current position of water in climate talks is inadequate.

“The GDP of many countries in the least developed countries is dependent on water. More than 50 percent of food for the world will come from Africa in the future, and this is dependent on availability of water,” she says. “That is why this discussion should go beyond where it’s now.”

More than 70 percent of the Southern African Development Community’s population depends directly on farming, overwhelmingly on rain-fed agriculture. The CSIR’s projections are among many drawing attention to how predicted changes to rainfall, limited resources for adaptation and a lack of institutions and capacity to regulate river and stream flow will leave people in Southern Africa and across the continent extremely vulnerable.

Similar challenges are predicted not only for Africa, but across the world as weather patterns change, but Africa’s lack of irrigation and other infrastructure is a factor that magnifies the need for urgent intervention.

Africa’s response

As rainfall patterns change, Africa is facing major crises. Millions faced famine in Niger and Mali in 2010 after drought hit farmers and herders. This year, the Horn of Africa has been facing its worst drought in 50 years and millions are suffering from hunger. According to the U.N. World Food Programme, some 12.3 million people in the Horn are in need of emergency assistance.

Rhoda Peace, the African Union Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture, points out that when African leaders talk about climate change; they invariably talk about droughts and floods’, showing that water is already a high priority.

In 2008, African heads of state agreed to make water and sanitation a priority.

“Leaders agreed to allocate at least 0.5 percent of their national budget to water,” says Peace. “Now whether that is actually the case is another story, but some countries are doing very well and may reach their targets.”

Providing adequate access to water across Africa will cost billions of dollars. And for the many African governments which are failing to honour earlier commitments will not be able to raise the required amounts without support.

Simon Thuo, the Eastern Africa coordinator for GWP, says he is surprised that despite the clear need, even the African negotiating group’s proposals mention water only in passing. Along with other experts, he believes that if climate negotiations address management of this essential commodity specifically, it will not receive the necessary attention and funding.

(END/2011)

By Kristin Palitza

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 5 (IPS) – Emerging economies China, South Africa and Brazil have indicated their openness to legally-binding carbon emission reduction targets from 2020 during the United Nations climate change summit in Durban, South Africa.

Climate experts say the three countries’ willingness to consider legally binding commitments, even if they will not take immediate effect, was potentially “a great step” to unlock one of the big political issues of this year’s climate change talks.

Only India continues to refuse to commit.

The European Union (EU) proposed a “roadmap” last week, which stipulates that all major economies, including emerging countries like South Africa, Brazil, India and China, generally called the BASIC group – and not only industrialised nations as currently under the Kyoto Protocol – will be subject to legally binding carbon emission targets.

BASIC countries all face developmental challenges but are at the same time significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Major emerging economies and other developing nations already emit more than half of current carbon emissions. Within the next 20 years, they are projected to account for two- thirds.

The 194-nation climate talks, which will wrap up on Dec. 9, are abuzz with speculation on the prospect of emerging economies agreeing on the proposed roadmap.

In a move that surprised many after a tough week of negotiations that brought to the fore deep rifts between different countries’ demands and expectations, China announced for the first time it would accept a legally-binding climate deal after 2020, when current voluntary pledges will run out. After first insisting the demands of the EU roadmap were “too much,” China now seems open to finding a middle ground, especially with Europe.

“But there are pre-conditions,” said China’s top climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua. “A second Kyoto commitment period is a must for rich nations. After (the second period has ended), we need to review what has been done. Based on this assessment can we start negotiating what we shall agree after 2020.”

China laid out five conditions under which it would consider a legally-binding carbon reduction deal. Apart from a second commitment period of carbon-reduction pledges by industrialised nations under the Kyoto Protocol, they include hundreds of billions of dollars in short- and long-term climate financing for developing countries.

China also wants to see the Green Climate Fund signed off during the summit and demands the implementation of a range of agreements outlined at the 2009 Copenhagen summit, which were integrated into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at last year’s climate gathering in Cancun. These include initiatives for technology transfer, adaptation to climate change and new rules for verifying that carbon-cutting promises are kept.

South Africa and Brazil – two countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of global warming, especially with regards to agriculture and biodiversity – have also shown interest in the roadmap.

South Africa’s Minister of Environment Edna Molewa said the EU roadmap was “seen favourably”, but noted that South Africa would, like China, want to place “conditionalities” on any binding agreements.

“We would like to work towards a legally binding outcome. As South Africa, we’re of the opinion that the seriousness with which we will deal with the level of contributions that South Africa can make in the global arena is understood in the context of articles 4.1 and 2 of the UNFCCC,” confirmed South Africa’s second negotiator Xolisa Ngwadla.

UNFCCC article 4.1 refers to “common and differentiated responsibilities” depending on the gross domestic product (GDP) of each country, while article 2 refers to the stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions at a level that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner – a point important for countries that heavily feel the effects of climate change.

“Our future commitments will also depend on finance, technology transfers and capacity building,” Ngwadla added.

Contrary to South Africa, Brazil said it is not placing any conditions on committing itself to an internationally legally binding instrument to reduce carbon emissions as long as such a treaty helped the fight against climate change based on scientific studies.

“We could agree already today on an internationally legally binding instrument, but not on any. It has to be robust, respond to what science is telling us is needed and therefore something that will make a difference in the fight against climate change,” explained Ambassador Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, head of Brazil’s delegation. “We would not adapt a legally binding instrument for the sake of it.”

Currently, Brazil has set voluntary carbon reduction targets, which have been passed into national law. Figueiredo said he is aware this commitment will have to increase over time: “We understand that this regime will have to evolve over time. We think voluntary actions alone usually don’t add up to the level of international response that science tells us is needed. We are willing to play our part in the future evolution of the international fight against climate change.”

As part of the Group of 77 and China negotiating bloc, a group of 132 developing countries, Brazil is pushing for the adoption for a second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol before the end of the climate change summit on Dec 9. The country is also lobbying for a sign off of a fully functional Green Climate Fund, which will have short-term and long-term financing mechanisms so that developing nations can adapt to climate change.

Delegates from BASIC countries have repeatedly noted that South-South cooperation is important to them, not only economically but also with regards to decisions made during the climate change summit, and have indicated that they would support each other’s positions.

India, however, the fourth member of the BASIC group, does not seem to fall into line. It has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the EU roadmap, as it is not willing to consider signing a legally binding agreement to cut carbon emissions.

India said it felt implementing its voluntary target of reducing the emission intensity of its GDP growth by 20 percent to 25 percent by 2020, compared to 2005, was sufficient. Having one of the smallest per-capita-carbon footprints in the world, tougher targets weren’t necessary, said India’s lead negotiator J.M. Mauskar: “We are not a major emitter.”

India was only willing to negotiate “mutual reassurances”, he said. “In terms of the Cancun pledges, developing countries’ voluntary pledges by 2020 amount to more mitigation in absolute terms than that of developed countries,” Mauskar further explained, insisting that rich nations, not developing countries and emerging economies must ramp up their commitments.

India has criticised industrialised nations, especially the United States, for not making firm commitments to cutting green house gas emissions. “We are deeply concerned that there has been hardly any progress in achieving a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol,” said Mauskar.

Russia, a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, which belongs with South Africa, China, Brazil and India to the BRICS economic bloc, has blankly refused to consider a second commitment period.

(END/2011)

By Busani Bafana

Durban, 5 Dec. — Negotiators at the 17th Conference of Parties owe it to the world’s more than seven billion people to deliver a deal with a work plan for agriculture, a sector that is expected to be the worst affected by climate change.

Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, CEO of Food Agriculture Natural Resources Policy Advocacy Network told participants at the Agriculture and Rural Development Day (ARRD) event on the sidelines of COP 17 that what was need was a work programme for agriculture. She said she hoped that South Africa’s minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Tina Joemat Patterson would take up the cause.

“We believe she will send the message to the right messenger to make sure we deliver a deal that will talk to farmers, the private sector and everybody who needs food to survive,” Sibanda said.

On behalf of a grouping of agriculture and advocacy organisations, Sibanda presented an open letter to Patterson calling for the inclusion of agriculture as an adaptation approach in the text to be agreed on by climate change negotiators. The groups have warned that COP 17 should be the show time for agriculture, which has been repeatedly taken off the agenda in two previous climate change negotiations.

“The turnout for COP 17 has been overwhelming and we believe we are on the right track,” said Sibanda. “This is a sign of commitment and sign of more ambassadors for our message that we are presenting to the minister to take to the boys and girls upstairs.”

Cash for crops
A work programme for agriculture is a blueprint for action that agriculture groups, farmers and development actors believe will unlock the cash to help agriculture, on which millions of smallholder farmers globally depend for their livelihoods, adapt to climate change.

In a firmly worded letter, the 16 agricultural groups said farmers have demonstrated their resilience to producing food in difficult conditions by experimenting with options for achieving climate-change adaptation and mitigation through more sustainable crop production, livestock rearing and management of soils, water, fish, forests, agro forestry species, and other biodiversity.

“The most vulnerable regions of the world – developing countries – are disproportionately affected by climate change, despite contributing little to carbon emissions,” said the letter. “People in developing countries depend heavily on agriculture for their livelihoods, yet are increasingly challenged in their ability to produce sufficient food for their families and for markets.”

Climate smart agriculture, the letter said, will enable the transformation of agriculture, especially in Africa.

The letter further said that despite agriculture’s potential to provide a solution to climate change, it was underfunded. As a percentage of total investment, agriculture has dropped from 22 percent in 1980 to approximately six percent today.

Fair deal
The groups including the World Bank, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), FANRPAN, the Global Forum on Agricultural Research, Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) and the World Farmers’ Organisation, said nothing should be short of a fair deal that includes agriculture.

Accepting the letter, Pettersson said agriculture, climate change and food security were inseparable. She cited the need to scale up and transform food and farming systems which need to be supported by
policy change and investment.

“There are people around the world who have come to Durban with a lot of expectations,” Pettersson said. “We would request that whoever goes to the negotiation and who even has the slightest influence on any negotiations will help us make our ambitions a reality and help us make climate smart agriculture a reality.”

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 925 million people in the world go hungry every day. As the ballooning world population set to hit the 10 billion mark in 40 years will need food, the focus is on climate smart agriculture to deliver even though the sector has the lion’s share of global water use.

Speaking at the same event, Ireland’s former President Mary Robinson, who is presentation her foundation which bears her name, said innovation and progress on practical tools for climate smart agriculture are emerging but knowledge gaps underlie the need for more agriculture research.

“This is the logic behind the call for a work programme on agriculture under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” said Robinson adding that, “This COP must deliver action on the links between climate change and food and nutrition security. I hope that a high-level decision can be agreed which acknowledges the importance of agriculture to Africa and the rest of the world.”

Prior to the ARRD event, the agricultural organisations briefed negotiators on the need for a work programme. During the briefing, questions were raised on what comes first, the text or the work programme.

“We have had meetings on this and we are frustrated by the absence of a work programme,” SACAU CEO, Ishmael Sunga lamented. “We have discussed whether we need to have the content of the work programme before the text or not and we think it does not really matter. The fight for now is to have that defined and we can work on the details later.”

The International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) bemoaned that while the discussion of agriculture was important in the climate change negotiations, farmers had to be represented in person.

“How are farmers being involved so that they can actively inform this process?” asked an IFOM representative. “This is like discussing gender issues without having any women in the room that is what it feels like to us and we would really appreciate for a major effort that we are represented physically in this process.”

Senior trade policy advisor in the United States Department of Agriculture, Mark Manis, told the briefing of negotiators organised by the grouping of agricultural organisations that the issue of a work programme had been clearly articulated and agreed on the need to bring farmers into the dialogue through the work programme.

“In terms of the negotiating positions, we are here to get a deal and are willing to talk and will do our best to make that happen,” said Manis. “We can spend a lot of time on what we think should be in the work programme but this has been article and should not be an impediment to initiating the exercise. But if we do not get a decision here there is nothing and frankly that is not acceptable and on the basis of a positive note we are going upstairs to make it happen.”

Bruce Campbell, Director, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security told IPS that momentum is building for the inclusion of a Work Programme on agriculture at the climate negotiations this year. He said this was clear from the more than 500 participants at this year’s Agriculture and Rural Development Day that this is the single priority issue that needs to be addressed.

“Leading agricultural groups, from farmers and researchers to policymakers and development organisations, have all come together to call on COP17 negotiators to address the need for a Work Programme on agriculture,” Campbell said. “Now, it is up to negotiators to heed our joint call-to-action and allow agriculture to play its part in building resilience amongst vulnerable populations, helping farmers adapt to more unpredictable and extreme weather conditions and mitigating future climate change.”

End/

DURBAN, Dec 5 – (TerraViva) “Durban is green! I can see it!” exclaimed Nomasikizi Khonza, Mayor of Amathole Municipality in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province.

Khonza led a delegation of eight from East London to attend the 17th Conference of Parties and the deliberations over a response to climate change.

Tornado damage in Amathole, Eastern Cape. Credit: TerraViva

The Eastern Cape is one of the provinces highly affected by climate change. In recent years there has been poor rainfall as well increasing numbers of extreme weather events such as tornadoes.

Farmers in a province already struggling with poverty must now cope with damage to their homes, reduced harvests and loss of livestock.

In June 2009, Khonza’s Amathole Municipality hosted a provincial conference on climate change, attended by representatives of provincial departments as well as academics, teachers and schoolchildren.

That meeting was a response to the drastic changes in weather patterns in the district. Local authorities in Amathole commissioned a study on vulnerability to climate change, and this year adopted a plan to address these weaknesses – the first municipality in the Eastern Cape to do so.

Amathole District delegation at COP 17. Credit: Phumza Sithole/TerraViva

The plan focuses on sanitation, air pollution, disaster management and infrastructure development to contain the damaging impacts of climate change.

Khanyiso Wonci, who is the municipality’s biodiversity environmental officer, said, “Amathole is participating in COP 17 by exhibiting about both funded and unfunded environmental projects, which contribute (to the response to) climate change.”

The climate conference has also given the municipality a chance network and interact with potential funders, while also getting new ideas from other stakeholders who may face similar challenges.

* Community media coverage of COP 17 is being supported by the Media Development & Diversity Agency of South Africa, which is promoting the participation of local journalists through a programme of training and reporting on climate change.

(END)

Nalifu Yussif holds a few Bolga baskets at the ongoing COP 17 in Durban, South Africa. Materials for making these hand woven baskets are becoming more difficult to source due to climate change. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

By Isaiah Esipisu

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 5 (IPS) – Talata Nsor, a 54-year-old woman from Bolgatanga community in Northern Ghana, has been weaving the cultural Bolga baskets, which are named after her community, her entire life.

It has been a successful enterprise for her, and she has even managed to put her children through school with proceeds from her sales.

However, she is concerned that soon her community may no longer be able to continue making the baskets, which are famous in the entire West African region, with a market in Europe and America.

This is because the raw material used to make the baskets, commonly known as elephant grass or Veta vera as it is known scientifically, is becoming extinct due to what Nsor refers to as changing climatic conditions.

“Just 10 years ago, I would walk to any nearby wetland area within Northern Ghana and harvest the grass free of charge. But today, I have to walk very far, or travel to Kumasi, about 400 kilometres away, in order to buy the raw material,” said Nsor.

The elephant grass can only grow in wetlands. But according to experts from the area, people are converting wetlands into agricultural land as a means of coping with the lack of rain and rising food insecurity.

“People prefer turning wetlands into horticultural zones because rain-fed agriculture is failing. Rain patterns are no-longer reliable, and people need to farm in places where they are assured of water for irrigation,” said Nafisatu Yussif, Programme Officer at ABANTU, an organisation that engages policies from a gender perspective in Africa.

She is one of the many women representing their communities from all over the world who have made their way to the ongoing United Nations climate change negotiations in Durban, South Africa, in order to have their voices heard.

“We are hosting different women from different walks of life,” said Samantha Hargreaves of ActionAid International, one of the conveners of the Rural Women’s Assembly running alongside the 17th Conference of Parties.

“More than 500 women in this forum are sharing experiences from different countries, suggesting the way forward, and showcasing their best practices. The outcome of the assembly will be presented to the African Group of Negotiators as a common position of women from the world’s poor countries,” said Hargreaves.

However, according to the assembly’s participants, women from poor countries have predicaments that are almost similar.

“In my country, women toil on the farms, but when it comes to harvesting, the men take the responsibility of collecting the money. I have just learnt that the situation is the same in Africa and other Asian countries,” said María Estela Jocón González, who is representing rural women from three rural regions in Guatemala.

The western, southern and northern regions of Guatemala are areas prone to floods, a situation which has worsened in the recent past, González said.

“When the floods come, the water wells get soaked up with dirty flooding water. Yet according to our culture, it is the sole responsibility of a woman to ensure that the family has enough safe water for drinking and other domestic uses,” she told IPS.

She is calling for the international community meeting in Durban to ensure systems are put in place to keep in check the increasing floods.

“I want to hear of commitments for countries to reduce emissions of gasses that cause global warming. It is good to think about development, but development without a sound environment is useless,” she said.

While there is flooding in Guatemala, southern Senegal is experiencing a lack of rainfall. Faty Khody from Kaulak, a rural community found in the southern part of Senegal, told IPS that rainfall in the area has dropped from an average of 900 millimetres in 2001, to between 300 and 400 millimetres currently.

“We used to grow vegetables and sell them in the local market. But currently, this is not possible unless it is done through irrigation,” said Khody, who works as a promotional officer for Interpench, a community-based organisation that brings together over 7,700 women from rural Senegal.

“The rain patterns have changed, droughts have become extreme, and when it rains, it results in floods, which often cause suffering to the rural people, especially women and children.”

With support from the non-governmental organisation Horizon 3000, Interpench has started a project called “One woman, one fruit tree” as a way of adapting to climate change.

“We say one tree because it is the first step. The seedling for the one tree is given out free of charge, and it is named after whoever plants it as a reminder. However, it is supposed to be a motivation for women to participate largely in not only the planting of trees, but planting fruit-producing trees,” Khody said.

“We are hoping that the deliberations at COP 17 will come up with ideas that will support such women- driven climate change adaptation initiatives,” said Hargreaves.

However, she insists that for such projects to succeed, they must be built on indigenous knowledge systems.

“The African Group of Negotiators must not succumb to the pressure from the developed countries at COP 17,” she said.

Similar views were shares by Elizabeth Kakukuru, the Programme Officer for the Gender Unit at the Southern African Development Community.

“Most negotiations have always been done in boardrooms without involving the person on the ground. Yet the recommendations made are supposed to be implemented by a woman who lives in a rural area. Time has come for the affected parties to be involved directly in such important negotiations,” she said.

With regards to the use of technology transfer for climate change adaptation, Kakukuru observed that all projects must be appropriate, and should be developed in consultation with indigenous communities.

(END/2011)

photos by Khanyisa Sinqe – Zithethele Community Newspaper*

DURBAN, Dec 4 – (TerraViva) “Unite against climate change” was the order of the day on Dec. 3, when Greenpeace successfully coordinated a march through the streets of Durban. Several thousand people took part, including both South African activists and campaigners from around the world who have come to Durban to make their voices heard on the issue of responding to global warming.

“World leaders are discussing the fate of our planet, but they are far from reaching a solution to climate change,” said Desmond D’Sa, a Durban environmental activist and one of the protest’s organisers.”

“Never trust a COP”, “Climate Justice Now” and “Ensure the survival of coming generations” were just some of the messages held aloft by demonstrators.

The march had to overcome an early conflict at its outset in Durban’s Botha Park, when a group of young people dressed in the green tracksuits issued to COP 17 volunteers attempted to take up a position at the head of the procession. They said they represented the African National Congress Youth League and had come to show support for President Zuma who they felt was being unfairly targeted by some of the placards and banners posters displayed by protesters.

Marshals managed to contain briefly violent confrontation between this group and members of the Democratic Left Forum; organisers negotiated an agreement that the Youth League group would march further back, with the steadying presence of members of the Rural Women’s Association between them and the DLF marchers.

The march route led through the city centre, pausing outside the International Convention Centre where the 17th Conference of Parties (COP 17) deliberating over global climate treaty is taking place. Here marchers listened to speeches from representatives of youth, organised labour and the environmental movement.

A list of demands was presented to COP 17 president Maite Nkoana-Mashabane and United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres.

Responding to the marchers’ call for greater attention to adaptation and strong support for women who form the backbone of Africa’s food production, Figueres acknowledged the importance of civil society to the process. “These are the voices we hear from the developing countries. We will make sure that the decisions taken at COP 17 will take adaptation forward.”

On her part, Nkoana-Mashabane promised the summit would be run in a transparent and manner inclusive manner. “We will ensure that we use this gathering to make sure that the demands of the many people you are representing are heard.”

* Community media coverage of COP 17 is being supported by the Media Development & Diversity Agency of South Africa, which is promoting the participation of local journalists through a programme of training and reporting on climate change.

(END)

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 4 (IPS) – The combined effects of ballooning populations, poor productivity and threatened water resources present fresh pressures on agriculture to deliver food, money and livelihoods in Africa.

The food system needs urgent reform in the face of climate change which accelerating the speed of change on the farms and on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers.

Kanayo F. Nwanze, President, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) told IPS reporter Busani Bafana that changing the course means a new agriculture revolution that delivers smart solutions to the current challenges posed by climate change.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

Kanayo F. Nwanze

A: The whole discussion we are having right now is basically how to achieve a climate smart agriculture which essentially means getting the maximum out of smallholder farmers who make up the large population of farmers in Africa and who are mostly women. They have to have access to basic inputs and financial services. If it will be climate smart, it has to respond to all the current issues that have to do with the impact of climate change on agriculture.

We have to talk about sustainable agricultural systems. The Green Revolution was successful because it focused on very clear messages: increase fertiliser use, increase improved seeds and irrigation. But we found out in the long term that it is not sustainable. So now we need to look for sustainable approaches to production that do not destroy the environment and are available to a wide spectrum of farmers in Africa and in the world as a whole and that help farmers to adapt to climate change and to be able to mitigate by their own activities. This is sustainable intensified agriculture.

A new green revolution is needed to meet the challenge of feeding more than nine billion people in 2050. There is no magic bullet for eliminating hunger overnight because I do not believe that ideas can feed people. Ideas for a new green revolution are needed and climate smart agriculture can deliver those ideas.

Q: Agriculture is threatened by many factors, what is the first step to make it sustainable?

A: The first step we need to take is on the policy agenda. We must have a commitment from the highest level of policy makers of government to say agriculture is a priority and they must put their money where their mouth is.

Q: You have expressed concern with the slow progress of negotiations. What are your expectations?

A: We are dealing with an issue that transcends what we call simple equations. You are dealing with an issue that brings a lot of political arguments and then people lose the sense of priority. It becomes very slow.

We are negotiating a political issue and there are a lot of things at stake. We are negotiating simple issues that are founded on facts and are fact-based arguments. Some people today are still denying there is climate change. How do you negotiate with someone who does not believe? That is the problem we have. We need real leadership. South Africa is doing a fantastic job leading this whole argument of putting agriculture on the agenda.

One sentence on agriculture is key. What is it? Agriculture drives economic growth and social development.

It is impacted by climate change but agriculture is also a solution to climate change because agriculture is at the cross roads of food security and climate change. So we cannot ignore it in climate smart business.

Q: Agriculture is facing challenges, but what have we done well in agriculture development in Africa?

A: Ten years ago you would not hear people talking about agriculture because it was always at the bottom of the pile but with the events of 2007/8 with the (food) price hikes and volatility, with riots, now people say agriculture equals food security, food security equals political stability and global peace. With that kind of linkage, you cannot ignore agriculture and that is something we have done well.

(Ends)

Por Kristin Palitza

DURBAN, Sudáfrica, 3 dic (IPS) Con ruidosos cantos, miles de personas recorrieron las calles de la ciudad sudafricana de Durban hasta la sede de la cumbre de las Naciones Unidas sobre cambio climático para reclamar “una inmediata y drástica” reducción de emisiones de carbono destinada a salvar el planeta.

En este sábado 3 de diciembre, Día Mundial de Acción, manifestantes de organizaciones no gubernamentales nacionales e internacionales y de grupos de trabajadores, mujeres, jóvenes, académicos, religiosos y ecologistas se unieron para hacer oír ante los gobiernos del mundo la demanda de una acción firme de combate al cambio climático.

En esta ciudad del este de Sudáfrica se celebra desde el 28 de noviembre hasta el 9 de este mes la 17 sesión de la Conferencia de las Partes (COP 17) de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC).

“Pedimos un cambio de 100 por ciento. Hoy nace un poderoso movimiento que desafía a las naciones ricas del mundo”, dijo el integrante del comité organizador del Día Mundial de Acción, Desmond D’Sa. “Los dirigentes mundiales discute la suerte de nuestro planeta, pero están lejos de lograr una solución al cambio climático”.

Es hora de que los negociadores escuchen la voz de la gente común, dijeron los manifestantes. Algunos portaban pancartas con las leyendas “Nunca confíes en la COP 17″, “Unidos contra el cambio climático”, “Justicia climática ya” y “Aseguremos la supervivencia de las futuras generaciones”.

Había en la calle el sentimiento generalizado de que la gente común sigue excluida de debates cruciales sobre asuntos que afectan sus vidas.

“Queremos que el uno por ciento que está dentro (de la conferencia) escuche lo que tiene para decir el 99 por ciento que está afuera”, explicó Bobby Peek, uno de los organizadores de la protesta y director de Amigos de la Tierra África. “Reclamamos cortes inmediatos y drásticos de las emisiones a los países ricos que han causado el cambio climático”.

Era palpable el disgusto sobre el avance lentísimo de las negociaciones en la primera semana de la COP 17, mezclado con el temor de que la cumbre termine sin resultados tangibles.

Peek sostuvo que estaba muy decepcionado por el estado de las conversaciones. “Fue una semana desastrosa. No hay señales de avance en metas” de reducción de las emisiones que están causando el calentamiento global, aseveró.

El director ejecutivo de Greenpeace, Kumi Naidoo, acusó a Estados Unidos por no haber ratificado nunca el Protocolo de Kyoto, el único instrumento internacional obligatorio para abatir la contaminación climática.

“Esto no es un ensayo general. Esta semana de beligerancia, riñas y puñaladas por la espalda debe dar paso a acuerdos reales sobre el futuro del planeta. Quienes no estén interesados en salvar vidas, economías y ambientes, como Estados Unidos, deben apartarse y permitir avanzar a los que tienen voluntad política”, dijo Naidoo.

Una ruidosa columna de manifestantes se dirigió desde el centro de Durban hasta la entrada del Centro Internacional de Convenciones, donde se celebra la COP 17, para entregar a la secretaria ejecutiva de la CMNUCC, la costarricense Christiana Figueres, una lista con todos los puntos que los gobiernos deberían lograr antes de que concluya la reunión:

• Asegurar que el punto más alto de emisiones mundiales de gases de efecto invernadero se alcance en 2015.
• Prorrogar el Protocolo de Kyoto y asegurar que contenga un mandato para establecer un amplio instrumento legalmente obligatorio.

• Entregar la financiación necesaria para hacer frente al cambio climático.
• Establecer un marco de protección para los bosques de los países en desarrollo.
• Asegurar la cooperación mundial en materia de tecnología y financiación energética.
• Asegurar un sistema internacional transparente para medir y fiscalizar los compromisos y acciones nacionales.

Los activistas criticaron a las naciones ricas e industriales por usar la crisis económica mundial como excusa para dar prioridad a los intereses nacionales sobre los internacionales. Tras una semana de conversaciones, sigue sin saberse cómo se obtendrán los recursos para financiar proyectos de mitigación y adaptación, particularmente cruciales para los países pobres.

“Por ahora no sabemos de dónde vendrá el dinero. Hay un verdadero riesgo de que nos vayamos de Durban con los bolsillos vacíos. Y este fracaso se medirá en vidas, economías y hábitats”, advirtió el coordinador de política climática de Greenpeace, Tove Ryding. “Si los gobiernos no avanzan, el acuerdo final estará desprovisto de toda capacidad de proteger el clima”.

La marcha de este sábado interpela especialmente a los ministros y jefes de Estado y de gobierno que empezarán a llegar a la cumbre el lunes 5.

“No podemos seguir hablando y perdiendo el tiempo”, apuntó el coordinador de ActionAid Internacional, Harjeet Singh. “Marchamos hoy para mostrar nuestra indignación. Queremos dejarles a los ministros un mensaje claro: No pueden seguir poniendo pretextos”. (Fin)

By Kristin Palitza

Dubbing Saturday the “Global Day of Action”, demonstrators from international and national non-governmental groups as well as labour, women, youth, academic, religious and environmental organisations came together to highlight civil society’s demands for politicians all over the world to take serious action to fight climate change.

“We are asking for 100 percent change. Today will be the beginning of a strong movement that is going to challenge the rich nations of the world,” said Global Day of Action subcommittee convenor Desmond D’Sa. “World leaders are discussing the fate of our planet, but they are far from reaching a solution to climate change.”

Protesters said it was time for climate change negotiators to listen to the voices of ordinary people. They marched holding banners which said: “Never trust COP17”, “Unite against Climate Change”, “Climate Justice Now” and “Ensure the survival of coming generations”.

There was a general feeling that ordinary people remained largely excluded from important debates on important issues that directly affected their lives.

“We want to ensure that the one percent on the inside [of the conference] will hear what the 99 percent on the outside have to say,” explained Bobby Peek, one of the organisers of the protest and director of Friends of the Earth South Africa. “We demand immediate, drastic emission cuts by rich countries that have caused climate change.”

Widespread anger could be felt about the slow progress made during the first week of the climate change negotiations, mixed with fear that the summit will end without tangible results.

Peek said he was gravely disappointed about the outcomes of the first week of negotiations. “It was generally a disastrous first week. There is no evidence of moving forward on [emission reduction] targets.”

Greenpeace international executive director Kumi Naidoo agreed, lashing out at the United States for never having ratified the Kyoto-Protocol, the only global, legally binding instrument to cut carbon emissions: “This is not a dress rehearsal. A week of belligerence, bickering and backstabbing needs to now give way to real deals about the future of our planet. Those who are not interested in saving lives, economies and environments, like the US, must now stand aside and let those with the political will move forward.”

Chanting slogans and signing protest songs, a large throng of demonstrators walked from Durban’s city centre to the entrance of the International Convention Centre where the climate change summit is being held, to hand over a list of their demands to Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Civil society requests that governments meet the following targets by the end of the conference on December 9:

• Ensure a peak in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2015.
• Ensure that the Kyoto Protocol continues and provide a mandate for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument.
• Deliver the necessary finance to tackle climate change.
• Set up a framework for protecting forests in developing countries.
• Ensure global cooperation on technology and energy finance.
• And ensure international transparency in assessing and monitoring country commitments and actions.
Activists criticised rich, industrialised nations for using the global financial crisis as an excuse to give national interests priority before international ones. After a week of negotiations, it remained unclear how money to finance climate mitigation and adaptation projects – measures particularly important to developing nations – will be generated.

“So far we don’t even know where the money will come from. There is a real risk we walk away from Durban with empty pockets. And that failure will be measured in lives, economies and habitats,” warned Tove Ryding, Greenpeace co-ordinator for climate policy. “If governments don’t move forward, the final agreement will be stripped of any possibility of protecting the climate.”

Demonstrators voiced strong concern about a lack of political commitment to put in place legally binding and comprehensive agreements. The protest march was therefore particularly meant as a message to the heads of state and ministers from around the globe, which are expected to arrive at the summit on December 5.

“We demand urgent and strong action on climate change. We can’t just keep talking and keep wasting time,” said ActionAid international climate justice coordinator Harjeet Singh. “We march today to show our outrage. We want to give the ministers, who will arrive next week, a clear message: You cannot continue to make excuses.”

(Ends)

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 3 (IPS) – The world’s oceans are becoming hot, sour and breathless – threatening a vital source of food for a billion people mainly in the developing world experts warned today at a special Oceans Day event at the UN climate negotiation.

Oceans are home 80 percent of all life on the planet and emissions from fossil fuels are turning them increasingly acidic, raising water temperatures and reducing the amount of oxygen in some regions said oceanographer Carol Turley from Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK.

“We don’t know what all the consequences will be. We suspect the combination of all three will be far worse than one alone,” Turley told IPS in an interview on the sidelines of climate treaty negotiations known as COP 17.

It was only a few years ago that researchers realised that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) was making the surface waters of oceans more acidic. The oceans naturally absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and have now absorbed about a third of all human emissions. That has kept the climate from warming faster but the additional carbon is altering the oceans’ chemistry making them 30 percent more acidic.

One documented impact is that shell-forming creatures like plankton produce thinner shells in more acidic ocean waters. These species are often very important parts of the marine food chain. As emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere increase the more the ocean sours.

In less than ten years at least 10 per cent of the Arctic Ocean surface waters will be too acid for shell-forming species like plankton. By 2040 most of the Arctic Ocean will be too acidic as will significant areas of the Antarctic Ocean said Turley.

The cold waters of the polar regions allow more CO2 to be absorbed faster. The oceans haven’t seen a rapid change like this in 60 million years, she explained.

“But there will also be strange impacts. New research is showing changes in growth, behaviour and reproduction in a variety of non-shell forming species.” 

Estuaries and ocean upwelling zones that are often important fishing grounds are also regions where acidification is fastest. Those areas are also subject to low oxygen levels and increasing temperatures creating new conditions in the oceans that no marine species has ever had to cope with.

Oceans are also absorbing most of the extra heat trapped by the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, without this land temperatures would far higher and extreme weather events far worse.

“There is some evidence that some crab species cannot tolerate higher temperatures when ocean is more acidic,” she said.

The changes in the oceans are very worrying for developing countries who will be most affected and have little capacity to cope with this she said.

The only solution is to cut emissions although it may be possible to grow algae to absorb carbon and then remove it and use it for food or biomass or some other purpose that keeps the carbon out of the ocean or atmosphere she said.

Despite their fundamental importance and role in the planet’s climate system, oceans have not been part of previous climate negotiations. Efforts are being made to include oceans in the formal negotiations of COP 17. Not that will help the oceans without commitment to make significant cuts in CO2 emissions which reached their highest level ever in 2010.

“Some countries are fighting like the devil here in Durban against emission targets that the science says we need. You have to ask in whose interests are they working for,” said Nick Nuttall spokesperson for the UN Environment Program (UNEP).

Those counties need to be publicly held to account for “not doing the right thing”, Nuttall said.

Another thing that needs to change are the more than 600 billion dollars a year in public subsidies governments spend on fossil fuels. Stop the subsidies and use the money to improve fuel efficiency and fund alternative energy Nuttall said.

“Ocean plankton provides 50 percent of the oxygen we breathe – far more than tropical forests,” said Philippe Vallette, co-President, World Ocean Network. 

Despite these huge environmental challenges humanity can find ways to live sustainably and ensure the health of the world’s ecosystems.

“This is very exciting moment for humankind. We need to reinvent a world taking into account the limits of the earth,” Vallette said.

(Ends)