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)

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)

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.

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.

DURBAN, Dec 5 – (TerraViva) Durbanite Prevan Chetty is the frontman of a rock outfit called Dismantling The Sky. This quintet combines heavy metal, classical Indian music, grunge, and R&B with an ecological message and an anti-consumerist sensibility.

The band’s distinctive sound is partly due to their use of instruments rescued from the scrap heap, such as reconditioned guitars as well as instruments built from scratch using materials like tins and plastic. Chetty dubs it “recycled metal”, suggesting the band’s fresh new take on heavy metal classics by groups such as Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin – which he credits as major influences.

Chetty is also an active campaigner for Greenpeace and considers his life as a musician an extension of his enviromental activism. He spoke to TerraViva on the sidelines of the People’s Space, the gathering organised by civil society parallel to the U.N. climate conference in Durban, South Africa.

Q: Who is your audience?
A: A cross-section of people interested in hearing new sounds and yearning for an alternative to the bling, consumerist lifestyle that is dominant at present.

Q: What is your own musical background?
A: I studied music formally both here (in South Africa) and in India – where I did a stint studying South Indian classical music – and of course I have always been an avid follower and listener of music.

Q: What is your band reacting against?
A: Against the money-driven corporatist world that is popular music today – that is emptied of all meaning for the sake of profit. We hope to reinject rock with its original rebelliousness and non-conformity.

Yes, it is rock, with wine, women and song, but it was and can be so much more, critically reflecting on society and even suggesting a way forward. Unfortunately, rock and pop lost this quite a while ago. I – and the band – want to recover it.

Q: What about the enviromental angle?
A: This is extremely important for us – and it has always been part of Indian classical music and the early pioneers of socially-conscious, issue-driven rock, like Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell. Their music is still so relevant today.

The warning signs that our planet is in danger and a need for awareness and balance was so beautifully articulated by these musicians. My band is in this tradition, but also tries to update it for the here and now.

Q: What about the Indian classical music influence on your ecological message?
A: Huge! The wisdoms contained in it are so simple but so real for us now confronted with a planetary and spiritiual crisis. Swara is both a musical term and a philosophy that talks of the self, connecting, hearing each other, communication.

Q: How many other groups like you are there in the Durban area?
A: Not many. We have a growing niche following. Recycled metal is small in this country, but international goups like Arctic Patrol does similar things.

Q: Why are you at COP 17?
A: Well, my formal education was in the area of the environment. But I have also worked for numerous environmental agencies, here and abroad, including the U.N. I was therefore naturally drawn to COP17.

Q: How can rock help in raising awareness of ecological issues?
A: Lots. It makes the message more accessible. Environmental politics tends to be a little too intellectual and elitist a times. And this can be a problem; it can alienate people with its language and terms no matter how well meant it is. In our music, we we kind of take the edge off the hard politics without diluting the message -like the troubadours of old. We are doing what musicians and performers have always done.

Q: Where can we find your music?
A: We are still working on our first CD, but we are on YouTube: just search for Dismantle the Sky.

* 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)

Busani Bafana speaks to the former head of the former Head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) OzonAction programme, RAJENDRA SHENDE.

Hailed as one of the most successful international environment agreements and a model for global cooperation, the Montreal Protocol has been signed by 196 nations – a feat not achieved by any other green treaty to date. The Montreal Protocol has galvanised governments all over the world to act on Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) which have been blamed for the thinning of the ozone layer – a layer of gas 25km above the atmosphere protecting the earth from the harmful ultra violet rays from the sun. To date 95 percent of ODS have been phased out. In 2012 the Montreal Protocol turns 60 when the first commitment phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires.

As the Kyoto Protocol awaits its fate at the Durban COP17, negotiators can take a leaf from the Montreal Protocol on taking action, says the former Head of the UNEP OzonAction programme, Rajendra Shende.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

Q: Can the Montreal Protocol contribute anything to the current negotiations for a climate change agreement?
A: The Montreal Protocol is older compared to the climate change treaty but today the Montreal Protocol is considered a sort of young brother and the Kyoto Protocol a big brother. The reason being that the climate change issue is much larger and encompasses the reduction of carbon dioxide along with other gases. At the same time, climate change is attracting more attention mainly because, in my view, nothing much is happening whereas we need to take urgent action to reach an agreement and action is what the Montreal Protocol can share with negotiators in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.

Q: What kind of action?
A: We need to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, mainly carbon dioxide. Such actions are not difficult but take time and yet we are wasting time. For the last 20 years we have not done much; instead of reducing, these gases are increasing.

Q: What then have we learnt from the inaction?
A: One of the things that Kyoto Protocol can teach is to start small. When the Montreal Protocol was agreed, it was decided that it would reduce the production and consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances by only 50 percent – they did not think of 100 percent because people were not confident enough and were doing it for the first time. But then people started getting confident and it became bigger and tighter and a 100 percent phase out was achieved. Today in the climate change talks we are not even starting small. We are just debating and negotiating. The Montreal Protocol teaches us to get on the job because we know it will benefit mankind – which is what the Montreal Protocol did.

A second lesson from the Montreal Protocol is that there has to be global participation. Everyone has to take part and you cannot say I am not part of it. For example, the United States is not part of the treaty but if a country like the US is not part of the treaty, while not blaming the US, action is not possible because consensus is not possible.

Q: Should the current talks on Kyoto Protocol and the whole process be stopped then?
A: There are various ways of doing it. Negotiation is one thing and action is another. We either break with the Kyoto Protocol or have a new one or we continue beyond 2012. Coming from the private sector which implemented a successful model like the Montreal Protocol, what is needed today is tough action. We need a sort of action summit as a way forward.

Q: Are you then saying the Montreal Protocol produced a template from which the Kyoto Protocol can work on?
A: Yes it did. When we stated we wanted the Montreal Protocol to be the single focused multilateral environment treaty to protect the ozone layer. As we went along we got new technologies and found there are a multitude of benefits. It is not only the issue of protecting the ozone layer but the Montreal Protocol has helped save money. Remember CFCs are also greenhouse gases which are infact 5,000 to 10,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. But getting rid of CFCs fully as we did on 1 January 2010 helped in mitigating against climate change.

Q: Are you hopeful about a deal in Durban?
A:I am hopeful about people taking action on climate change, I may not be so hopeful about governments striking a deal. Maybe governments will strike a deal when they face disaster. I feel countries in Africa can start taking action. Whether you meet in Bonn, Cancun or Durban, people will not care about the future, they will start to take action because that matters.
(Ends)

Ann-Kathrin Schneider

Kristin Palitza speaks to ANN-KATHRIN SCHNEIDER, climate change coordinator of the German public body for environmental protection BUND, about the current state of the negotiations and the chances that COP17 will end with firm, binding commitments.

DURBAN, South Africa, Dec 2 (IPS) – As the 17th United Nations Climate Change Summit in Durban, South Africa, moves into its second week, two key decisions are being hotly debated: Will the Green Climate Fund, which is meant to support climate change mitigation and adaptation projects in developing countries, be signed off during the conference? And, how can a second period of the Kyoto Protocol – the only international, legally-binding pact that sets carbon emission targets in industrial countries – be secured?

Ann-Kathrin Schneider, climate change coordinator of the German public body for environmental protection BUND, says Canada’s decision to leave the Kyoto Protocol is a negative signal, but does not feel that it will throw the current negotiations off course.

Excerpts of the interview follow:

Q: What key topics have emerged during the first few days of the conference?
A: The most important theme is financing. The question is how we can achieve to mobilise annually 100 billion dollars for the GCF. At the moment, it doesn’t look good. It remains unclear where the money will come from and how much will be generated by public and private channels.
Importantly, the climate fund still needs to be signed off. Our hopes that the document will be agreed upon in Durban have shrunk, because countries like the United States, South America, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela want to reopen and change the document. Egypt and Nigeria are also unhappy with the current draft.

Q: How does the European Union (EU), potentially one of the biggest financiers, position itself?
A: The EU continues to support the current draft document, but has made clear that it regards a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, a mandate for a long-term, wide-ranging agreement for emission reductions that encompasses all countries as well as climate financing as a package deal. The effects of a failed GCF on this package deal remain unclear. But there are no signs from the EU that it would consider climate financing for developing countries without the GCF.

Q: How will the negotiations proceed from here?
A: The question is how much progress the delegations and their negotiators can achieve before next Monday [the second week of the summit] when the ministers will arrive, and which aspects of the negotiations are mainly regarded as political decisions. If there is too much disagreement among the delegates and they are unable to achieve anything, the future of the fund will be decided on the next, the political level. Supporters of the climate fund should have created more momentum to ensure it doesn’t come that far.

Q: What is the likelihood of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol being signed off?
A: I am forcefully positive. Most discussions about the length of a second period revolve around the decision if a second period should be five or eight years long. I interpret this as a sign that it’s about the “how”, not the “if”. The EU says, however, that it will only commit to a second commitment period if all countries agree to a mandate for an encompassing, legally-binding agreement by 2020 at the latest. This would include emerging economies. That’s an important decision that needs to be made here, in Durban.

Q: Will it be enough to set firm emission reduction targets for all countries only from 2020 onwards?
A: No, by 2020 it will be too late. The danger is that climate change will worsen until then and that reduction targets will then need to be much stricter than today’s assessments to avoid an increase in temperature by more than two degrees Celsius.

Q: What emission reduction targets can we expect for a second Kyoto period?
A: That’s still in the open. No new reduction targets have been set – neither for Kyoto, nor for the mandate that is expected to come into play later. At the moment, delegates are discussing the legalities of the protocol, but they mustn’t neglect the protocol’s content. If they set weak reduction targets in Durban, it won’t be enough. In that case, we won’t be able to stem climate change.

Q: What are strategies to calculate the new emission targets? 
A: That’s the big question: who has to reduce emissions by how much? There are two options how to calculate this. There is the “bottom-up” approach, where countries can decide for themselves how many emissions they want to reduce. That strategy is supported by the US, for example. Then there is the “top-down” approach that is based on scientifically drawn up global carbon budgets that define reduction plans for each country.

Q: How would a “top-down” strategy be calculated?
A: One suggestion is to calculate a reduction plan based on per capita emissions. The US emits, for example, 18 tonnes of carbon per capita per year, Germany nine tonnes, Sweden six tonnes, China five tonnes and India only one tonne. Scientists say we need to keep emissions around two tonnes per capita per year to keep up the much talked about two degree Celsius border.

Q: Would India not need to set any reduction targets in that case?
A: No, they would have to, because one mustn’t ignore industrial development. In industrialised nations, the trend is going towards emission reduction, while emerging economies experience incredible growth and with that come increasing emissions. If you want to make long-term plans, you have to consider such trends.

Q: What does the EU, the biggest Kyoto supporter, expect from emerging economies?
A: The EU hopes for a positive signal from emerging economies that they will in future be willing to sign a mandate for an international, binding protocol, even if they are not prepared to sign immediately. Emerging economies have never officially promised to participate in emission reductions based on their development level.

Q: What impact is Canada’s potential resignation from the Kyoto-Protocol likely to have on a second commitment period? 
A: Canada’s decision is a negative signal, but I don’t have the feeling that it will throw the current negotiations off course. Like Japan and Russia, Canada already announced its unwillingness to recommit to Kyoto before the start of the summit. However, if Canada abandons Kyoto, pressure on emerging economies will increase.

Q: How are the negotiations around a second commitment period of the Kyoto-Protocol likely to proceed from here?
A: There are three options. The worst is that the decision will be postponed until the next climate change summit. The second best option is that a vague, political decision is taken, without detailing emission reductions. The best option would be that, through changes of the rules of the protocol here in Durban, a second period with concrete emission reduction targets is decided upon. Right now, there is still hope that the best option is possible.

(ENDS)

Hans-Holger Rogner of the IAEA

More than 190 countries have sent delegates to Durban, South Africa, to take part in COP 17 and thrash out a new deal on energy and climate change. One of the options to reduce carbon emissions, however unpopular, is nuclear power. Tinus de Jager asked Hans-Holger Rogner, of International Atomic Energy Agency, about the current negative global attitude towards atomic energy.

Dr. Tomaz Salomão. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

Isaiah Esipisu s’entretient avec DR TOMAZ SALOMÃO, le secrétaire exécutif de la Communauté de développement d’Afrique australe (SADC)

DURBAN, Afrique du Sud, 29 nov (IPS) – Les dirigeants africains ont exhorté la communauté internationale à amener les négociations des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques, qui ont commencé lundi à Durban, en Afrique du Sud, à un niveau différent, et à prioriser l’adaptation pour le continent.

Le président sud-africain, Jacob Zuma, a indiqué que l’Afrique a fait du chemin depuis que des négociations similaires ont eu lieu à Copenhague et à Cancun, au cours des deux dernières années. Il a déclaré que Durban doit amener le monde vers une “solution qui sauve l’avenir dès aujourd’hui”.

Bon nombre d’experts en environnement se sont réunis à Durban, espérant que la conférence décidera du sort du Protocole de Kyoto. Ce protocole, qui expire en 2012, fixe des objectifs contraignants pour 37 pays industrialisés et la Communauté européenne, visant à réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

Dr Tomaz Salomão, le secrétaire exécutif de la SADC, était à la 17ème Conférence des parties (COP 17).

Il a expliqué à IPS pourquoi il était important que la COP 17 s’organise en Afrique, et ce que la région attend de cette plateforme de négociation.

Voici des extraits de l’entretien:

Q: Quelle est l’importance de l’organisation de la 17ème Conférence des parties dans la région d’Afrique australe?

R: Le continent, et en particulier la région d’Afrique australe, est menacé par les effets du changement des conditions climatiques. Les experts ont tout dit. Ils ont prédit une augmentation des conditions météorologiques extrêmes, et les sécheresses sont manifestement devenues plus fréquentes que par le passé récent. Tout le monde est conscient des changements dans les précipitations, qui ont (eu) un effet dévastateur sur des millions de personnes qui dépendent de l’agriculture pluviale, spécifiquement en Afrique.

C’est donc d’un exploit louable pour l’Afrique, pour la région de la SADC, et aussi pour l’Afrique du Sud de faire organiser la COP 17 dans cette région. C’est une indication claire que nous, Africains, savons où nous en sommes, les défis auxquels nous sommes confrontés, et comment les relever. Ce qui est requis, c’est de renforcer nos capacités afin que nous soyons dans une meilleure position pour affronter par nous-mêmes ces défis.

Q: Quelle est l’attente régionale de cette conférence?

R: L’attente est que des recommandations seront formulées pour fournir l’appui financier qu’il faut afin que l’Afrique soit dans une meilleure position pour affronter les défis qui accablent actuellement le continent. C’est mon espoir, et c’est notre espoir.

Q: Y a-t-il une nouvelle approche en termes de position régionale par rapport à la COP 17?

R: Je pense que nous ne pouvons pas changer de position de temps en temps. Nous devons nous concentrer sur les positions que nous avons adoptées lors de la conférence de Copenhague, appelée aussi COP 15. Pour la première fois, les pays africains se sont réunis pour avoir une voix commune, et cela a constitué la position africaine. J’espère que le même esprit prévaudra à Durban.

Q: De quoi l’Afrique a-t-elle besoin pour le moment, afin de lutter contre les changements climatiques?

R: Nous avons besoin de développement. Et nous ne pouvons pas être davantage pénalisés du fait des changements climatiques, qui se présentent comme une conséquence des problèmes qui ont été causés par d’autres. C’est notre point de départ. Et c’est pourquoi nous disons que nous avons besoin de soutien pour relever ces défis. Avec cela, nous ne demandons pas trop.

Q: Pourquoi les négociateurs mettent-ils du temps à conclure un accord qui durera?

R: Ce n’est pas une chose facile à faire parce que le sujet est assez compliqué. Il aborde d’autres aspects très importants qui sont fondamentaux pour la vie. Ils comprennent, entre autres, l’agriculture et la sécurité alimentaire, les questions de santé, et l’emploi. Au même moment, demander aux pays de réduire leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre effleure directement leurs voies de développement.

 Il existe actuellement un argument selon lequel les voies de développement des pays en développement ne devraient pas être arrêtées à cause des émissions créées par d’autres pays il y a plusieurs années, alors qu’ils étaient sur leur chemin de développement.

Q: Que se passera-t-il si le Protocole de Kyoto n’arrive pas à survivre après la COP 17?

R: Non, je ne pense pas que l’accord de Kyoto soit dans une position de mourir à l’instant. Ce dont nous devons nous rendre compte est que les gens doivent s’unir pour sauver l’humanité, la terre et s’assurer que les générations futures auront un avenir meilleur. (FIN)

MIchelle Bachelet, directrice exécutive de l'ONU-Femmes. Credit: Sriyantha Walpola/IPS

Rousbeh Legatis s’entretient avec MICHELLE BACHELET, directrice exécutive de l’ONU-Femmes

NATIONS UNIES, 28 Nov (IPS) – Impliquer les femmes dans la prise de décisions et la gestion des ressources est une nécessité fondamentale pour toute mesure efficace visant à faire face aux conséquences multiformes, menaçant la vie, des changements climatiques, affirme la directrice exécutive de l’ONU-Femmes.Se tournant vers Durban, en Afrique du Sud, où les dirigeants du monde discuteront des politiques futures de lutte contre les changements climatiques du 28 novembre au 9 décembre, Michelle Bachelet demande aux dirigeants d’assurer que “les paroles deviennent réalité”, pour une participation totale des femmes à tous les niveaux des négociations, et une “conclusion qui répond aux besoins des femmes et fait la promotion de leur autonomisation”.

Les femmes et les filles – qui constituent la majorité des pauvres au monde – ont un accès beaucoup plus limité à l’information et aux ressources financières que les hommes; un fait qui les expose à un risque plus élevé des graves effets des changements climatiques, a souligné Bachelet.

Dans la conception et la mise en œuvre des instruments financiers comme le Fonds vert pour le climat, elle exhorte les délégués des gouvernements, les experts internationaux et les acteurs de la société civile réunis à Durban à retenir une approche sensible au genre pour améliorer le sens de la responsabilité.

“Le financement climatique devrait être équitable et répondre aux besoins pressants de tous les membres de la société, et les questions de l’égalité entre les sexes doivent être prises en compte à toutes les étapes du processus de financement”, a-t-elle déclaré à IPS.

Le risque de blessure et de décès dus aux catastrophes naturelles – telles que les inondations, les sécheresses et les glissements de terrain – est systématiquement plus élevé chez les femmes et les enfants, a-t-elle expliqué. “Dans les sociétés injustes, plus de femmes que d’hommes meurent des catastrophes”.

Spécialement les femmes et les filles des zones rurales dans des pays en développement “portent un fardeau particulièrement lourd des changements climatiques” en raison du stress environnemental et de leur responsabilité d’assurer l’eau, la nourriture et l’énergie pour la cuisine et le chauffage.

Elles passent plusieurs heures par jour à collecter et transporter de l’eau, par exemple, et cela devient beaucoup plus difficile dans les zones touchées par la sécheresse, a indiqué Bachelet. “Pour beaucoup de filles, cela signifie rater l’école et perdre une éducation”.

Entre 1980 et 2010, le nombre moyen d’événements météorologiques extrêmes a plus que doublé, soulignant le “besoin pressant d’investir dans les femmes et les filles et de promouvoir l’égalité des sexes”.

Bachelet a parlé au correspondant d’IPS à l’ONU, Rousbeh Legatis, des besoins des femmes dans le contexte des changements climatiques et de la manière de remodeler la politique mondiale sur le climat.

Voici quelques extraits de l’entretien.

Q: Quels sont les besoins des femmes, et ont-elles un rôle particulier à jouer quand il s’agit des changements climatiques et des stratégies d’adaptation?

R: Les femmes ont besoin de chances égales et de droits égaux. Cela comprend le droit de participer aux décisions relatives aux changements climatiques. Les femmes ont besoin d’être activement engagées dans les processus qui affectent leur vie – de l’urbanisme qui vise à renforcer la résistance des communautés aux chocs climatiques, en passant par la fourniture de services tels que l’eau potable et des projets d’irrigation dans une communauté rurale, au développement d’une technologie d’énergie propre qui vise à réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

Trop souvent, les femmes sont exclues des consultations. Elles ne sont pas à la table de prise de décisions et leur absence rend les programmes et stratégies moins sensibles et efficaces. Il existe des preuves empiriques pour montrer que l’implication des femmes dans la prise de décisions et la gestion des ressources peut produire des résultats environnementaux positifs.

Des preuves provenant de l’Inde et du Népal suggèrent que l’implication des femmes dans la prise de décisions soit associée à une meilleure gestion des ressources communautaires, telles que les forêts. Une étude menée dans 130 pays a révélé que les pays ayant une représentation plus élevée de femmes au parlement étaient plus enclins à ratifier les traités internationaux sur l’environnement.

En plus du fait d’engager les femmes dans la prise de décisions, les stratégies climatiques doivent intégrer des considérations de genre qui sont spécifiques à chaque situation. Dans des zones rurales en Afrique, par exemple, il faut tenir compte des besoins des femmes agricultrices, qui sont responsables de 60 à 80 pour cent de la production alimentaire ainsi que de la nutrition de leurs familles. Trop souvent, les femmes agricultrices n’ont pas accès aux droits à la propriété, la terre et au crédit, et cela réduit les rendements des cultures et menace la sécurité alimentaire.

L’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture souligne que l’élimination de l’écart entre les hommes et les femmes dans l’accès aux ressources et aux intrants agricoles augmenterait les rendements dans les fermes des femmes de 20 à 30 pour cent et accroîtrait la production agricole dans les pays en développement de 2,5 à 4,0 pour cent, ce qui pourrait à son tour réduire le nombre de personnes sous-alimentées dans le monde de 12 à 17 pour cent ou de 100 de 150 millions de personnes.

Q: Voyez-vous assez de sensibilisation sur la situation spécifique des femmes, et l’implication des perspectives et expériences des femmes lorsque les décideurs engagent des discussions sur la façon d’affronter les changements climatiques et sur comment s’adapter au changement des circonstances environnementales?

R: La sensibilisation s’est certainement intensifiée sur cette question, en particulier parmi les dirigeants et les décideurs politiques. Nous notons des changements dans les attitudes et les politiques. Le secrétaire général de l’ONU, Ban Ki-moon, a encouragé la participation égale des femmes pour relever les défis des changements climatiques en 2009; certains gouvernements parlent des dimensions relatives au genre dans les changements climatiques et l’égalité des sexes est incluse dans l’Accord de 2010 à Cancun.

La prochaine étape, c’est de s’assurer que les paroles deviennent réalité sur le terrain et que les femmes participent aux processus de prise de décisions. Si nous considérons le financement du climat, par exemple, les considérations relatives au genre ont une histoire de ne pas être systématiquement intégrées dans leur conception.

En réponse, l’ONU-Femmes travaille avec des partenaires pour s’assurer que le nouveau Fonds vert pour le climat ne répète pas cette erreur et intègre la question de genre dès le début en incluant le principe de l’égalité des sexes dans ses activités et son suivi des impacts et des résultats.

En plus du niveau de la politique internationale, les femmes doivent être pleinement engagées au niveau national, sur le ‘front intérieur’, où des stratégies nationales sont conçues et mises en œuvre, des budgets sont élaborés, et des services fournis afin d’atténuer ou de s’adapter aux changements climatiques.

Malheureusement, les femmes demeurent sous-représentées dans les parlements nationaux et spécialement dans les ministères qui sont au cœur de la prise de décisions sur les changements climatiques et leur viabilité. Globalement, les femmes occupent seulement 16 pour cent des postes ministériels et parmi celles-ci, seules 19 pour cent sont dans la finance et le commerce; sept pour cent dans l’environnement, les ressources naturelles et l’énergie, et seulement trois pour cent dans les sciences et la technologie.

L’absence des femmes dans les prises de décisions nationales entrave leur capacité à influencer les politiques et les budgets. Cela limite l’inclusion des considérations relatives au genre dans l’agenda sur la gestion environnementale, le développement durable et les changements climatiques. (FIN)

Tomaz Salomão, the executive secretary for the Southern African Development Community. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

Isaiah Esipisu interviews DR. TOMAZ SALOMÃO, the executive secretary for the Southern African Development Community (SADC)

DURBAN, South Africa, Nov 28 (IPS) – African leaders have urged the international community to move the United Nations climate change negotiations, which started in Durban, South Africa on Monday, to a different level, and to prioritise adaptation for the continent.

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma noted that Africa has come a long way since similar negotiations took place in Copenhagen and Cancun, over the past two years. He said that Durban must take the world forward towards a “solution that saves tomorrow today.”

Many environmental experts have gathered in Durban hoping the conference decides the Kyoto Protocol’s fate. The protocol, which expires in 2012, sets binding targets for 37 industrialised countries and the European community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Tomaz Salomão, the executive secretary for the Southern African Development Community (SADC), was at the 17th Conference of Parties (COP 17).

He told IPS why it was important for COP 17 to be held in Africa, and what the region expects from the negotiation platform.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

Q: What is the significance of holding the 17th Conference of Parties in the Southern Africa region?

A: The continent, and in particular the Southern African region, is threatened with the effects of the changing climatic conditions. Experts have said it all. They have predicted an increase in extreme weather conditions, and droughts have evidently become more frequent than what was experienced in the recent past. Everybody is aware of the changes in rainfall patterns, which have (had a) devastating effect on millions of people who depend on rain-fed agriculture, especially in Africa.

It is therefore a commendable achievement for Africa, for the SADC region, and also for South Africa to have COP 17 held in this region. It is a clear indication that we Africans know where we stand, what challenges we are facing, and how to go about them. What is required is to build our capacity so that we are in a better position to face the challenges on our own.

Q: What is the regional expectation of this conference?

A: The expectation is that recommendations will be made to provide the financial support that is required so that Africa is in a better position to face the challenges that are currently devastating the continent. That is my hope, and it is our hope.

Q: Is there any new approach in terms of the regional position to COP 17?

A: I think that we cannot change position from time to time. We need to focus on positions we developed at the Copenhagen conference, also known as COP 15. For the first time, African countries came together to have a common voice and that formed the African position. I hope that the same spirit will prevail in Durban.

Q: What does Africa need at the moment, in order to tackle climate change?

A: We need development. And we cannot be penalised further as a result of climate change, which comes about as a result of problems that were caused by others. That is our starting point. And that is why we are saying that we need support to address those challenges. With this, we are not asking for too much.

Q: Why is it taking so long for negotiators to strike a deal that will last?

A: It is not an easy thing to do because the subject is quite complicated. It touches on other very important aspects that are fundamental to life. They include agriculture and food security, health issues, employment among others. At the same time, asking countries to cut on their greenhouse gas emissions touches directly on their development paths. There is currently an argument that the developing countries should not have their development paths halted because of emissions created by other countries several years ago, while they were on their development path.

Q: What will happen if the Kyoto Protocol fails to survive post COP 17?

A: No I do not think the Kyoto agreement is in a position to die at the moment. What we need to realise is that people have to come together to save humanity, the earth and to ensure that the generations to come have a better tomorrow.

(END/2011)

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 25, 2011 (IPS) – Involving women in decision-making and resource management is a basic necessity for any effective plan to address the multi- layered and life-threatening consequences of climate change, says the head of UN Women.

Looking to Durban, South Africa, where world leaders will discuss future climate change policies Nov. 28 to Dec. 9, Michelle Bachelet is calling on leaders to ensure “that words become reality”, for full participation of women at all levels of the negotiations, and an “outcome that responds to women’s needs and advances women’s empowerment”.

Women and girls – who make up the majority of the world’s poor – have much more limited access to information and financial resources than men, a fact which exposes them to a higher risk of severe climate change impacts, underscored Bachelet.

In devising and implementing financial instruments like the Green Climate Fund, she urges government delegates, international experts and civil society actors gathering in Durban to retain a gender- sensitive approach to improve accountability.

“Climate financing should be equitable and respond to the urgent needs of all members of society, and gender issues must be taken into account at all stages of the financing process,” she told IPS.

The risk of injury and death from natural disasters – such as floods, droughts and landslides – is systematically higher among women and children, she explained. “In inequitable societies, more women than men die from disasters.”

Especially rural women and girls in developing countries are “carrying a particularly heavy burden of climate change” due to environmental stress and their responsibility to secure water, food and energy for cooking and heating.

They spend many hours a day collecting and transporting water, for example, and this is becoming much more difficult in areas impacted by drought, Bachelet pointed out. “For many girls, this means missing out on school and losing an education.”

Between 1980 and 2010, the average number of extreme weather events more than doubled, underscoring the “urgent need to invest in women and girls and advance gender equality”.

Bachelet talked with IPS U.N. Correspondent Rousbeh Legatis about women’s needs in the context of climate change and how to reshape global climate policy-making.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What are women’s needs and do they have a particular role when it comes to climate change and adaptation strategies?

A: Women need equal opportunities and equal rights. This includes the right to participate in decisions related to climate change. Women need to be actively engaged in the processes that affect their lives – from urban planning that aims to build resilience of communities to climate shocks, to the delivery of services such as clean water and irrigation plans in a rural community, to the development of clean- energy technology that aims to reduce green-house gas (GHG) emissions.

Far too often, women are left out of consultations. They are not at the decision making table and their absence makes programmes and strategies less responsive and effective. There is empirical evidence to show that women’s involvement in decision making and the management of resources can have positive environmental outcomes.

Evidence from India and Nepal suggests that women’s involvement in decision-making is associated with better management of community resources such as forests. A study of 130 countries found that countries with higher female parliamentary representation were more prone to ratify international environmental treaties.

In addition to engaging women in decision-making, climate strategies need to integrate gender considerations that are specific to each situation. In rural Africa, for instance, consideration must be given to the needs of women farmers, who are responsible for 60-80 percent of food production as well as the nutrition of their families. Too often, women farmers lack access and rights to property, land and credit and this reduces crop yields and threatens food security.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation points out that eliminating the gap between men and women in access to agricultural resources and inputs would raise yields on women’s farms by 20-30 percent and increase agricultural production in developing countries by 2.5-4.0 percent, which could in turn reduce the number of undernourished people in the world by 12-17 percent or 100-150 million people.

Q: Do you see enough awareness of the specific situation of women, and the involvement of women’s perspectives and experiences when policy-makers enter into discussions about how to confront climate change and how to adapt to changed environmental circumstances?

A: Awareness has definitely increased on this issue, especially among leaders and policy-makers. We are seeing changes in attitudes and policies. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged women’s equal participation in addressing the challenges of climate change in 2009, some governments are talking about the gender dimensions of climate change and gender is included in the 2010 Cancun Agreement.

The next step is ensuring that words become reality on the ground and women participate in decision-making processes. If we consider climate financing, for example, gender considerations have a history of not being systematically integrated in their design.

In response, UN Women is working with partners to ensure that the new Green Climate Fund does not repeat this mistake and integrates gender from the start by including the principle of gender equality in its operations and monitoring of impacts and results.

In addition to the international policy level, women must be fully engaged at the national level, on the ‘home-front’, where national strategies are designed and implemented, budgets are formed, and services delivered to mitigate or adapt to climate change.

Unfortunately, women remain underrepresented in national parliaments and especially in Ministries that are central to decision-making on climate change and sustainability. Globally women occupy only 16 percent of ministerial posts and of these only 19 percent are in finance and trade; seven percent in the environment, natural resources and energy; and a mere three percent in science and technology.

The lack of women’s presence in national decision-making hinders women’s ability to influence policies and budgets. This limits the inclusion of gender considerations in environmental management, sustainable development and the climate change agenda.

Q: What is needed to enhance women’s participation in climate policy- making and protection from adverse climate change impacts?

A: It is important to support women’s organisations to participate in consultative processes for the development of climate change strategies, especially at the local and national levels. This requires outreach to affected groups and targeted efforts to ensure inclusivity. Within formal processes, special measures such as quotas, even if temporary, can provide the impetus needed to increase women’s participation and leadership.

We also need better sex-disaggregated data to inform gender responsive climate policies. All too often that information and data cannot be found and this is blocking progress in disaster risk management, urban planning and agricultural reform.

(END)

NEW YORK, Nov 17, 2011 (IPS) – Long before the Pacific will rise to a level that will leave its estimated 30,000 islands submerged, most of them might be severely affected by frequent flooding and storms.

Thousands of people living on islands scattered across the world’s largest ocean are already fleeing their homes and lands because of altered climate conditions.

Still, “an extraordinarily cold or warm winter in a region or even globally is not proof of climate change,” said Mary-Elena Carr, biological oceanographer at the Earth Institute in New York. Real climate change can only be concluded from shifting weather conditions observed over 20 to 30 years.

Carr¸ associate director of the Columbia Climate Centre, spoke with IPS U.N. correspondent Rousbeh Legatis about the human impact on rising sea levels, how islanders will be affected and what can be done to mitigate adverse consequences for people in the Pacific.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Is it still arguable that the increased natural disasters we are seeing are due to climate change?

A: At this point, we cannot attribute any weather event to climate change, anthropogenic or natural. The climate system is extremely complex and there are many factors that determine what we experience from day to day.

While we can assert that climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions will lead to changes in the patterns of rainfall or temperature, we cannot assign a single cause to any specific event like a flood or a hurricane.

Q: From a scientific perspective, who or what is responsible for the rising sea levels and how do human actions contribute to them?

A: Globally rising sea level is a consequence of a warmer planet, which is due to increased amounts of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). Historically, developed nations are responsible for the current levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. However, rapidly developing nations are increasingly contributing to GHG emissions.

At a local level, land use choices can directly impact the relative height of ocean and land: groundwater extraction, destruction of coral reefs, construction choices, can all lead to local sea level rise.

Q: How do sea levels change and why does this harm human life?

A: Sea level changes when there is a change in either the mass or the volume of water in the ocean. If we imagine the ocean basin like a very large bathtub, you can change the total mass by adding or removing water; in the ocean, that would be through evaporation or precipitation, or when water flows from land to sea, either as rivers or ice.

The mass of seawater in the bathtub can change its location due to currents or winds. The same mass of seawater changes in volume, expanding when it warms or freshens.

Sea level also changes with vertical land motion (if the sides or bottom of the bathtub were to sink or rise). Such motion can occur over very long time scales. Land also undergoes vertical motion over short time scales, due to groundwater extraction or tectonic activity.

While all of these processes have occurred throughout the history of the earth, humans impact sea level rise directly, by manipulating the flow of ground and surface water, and indirectly, through GHG emissions which raise the average global temperature.

This warming affects both the mass and volume of seawater primarily due to increased melting of land ice and higher ocean temperatures, both of which translate into a global rise in sea level.

Global average sea level measured by tide gauges and altimeters was relatively constant between 1900 and 1930. Since that time, sea level has not only risen, but the rate of sea level rise has also increased: tide gauges estimate sea level rising about 1.8 millimetres per year between 1930 and 2000, while the altimeters measured approximately 3.1 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2009.

Q: Do you see a certain time when islands could be below the sea level?

A: The answer to that depends on the elevation of the island and on the tidal range in addition to storm activity and sea level rise. Both storm activity and sea level rise are affected by climate change. Even the orientation of the island relative to prevailing winds affects the likelihood of flooding.

While it may be more than 150 years before sea level is three or four metres higher than in the late 20th century, islands with average elevations of four metres will undergo flooding because tides and storms raise sea level on top of the global average rise.

Predictions vary depending on both the island characteristics and projections for sea level rise, but it is likely that in the early 21st century there will be frequent flooding in most small island states.

Q: What must be done to mitigate the impact of climate change for island inhabitants around the world?

A: To mitigate climate change we should reduce emissions. To adapt to the impacts of sea level rise, we need careful land use choices and adaptable infrastructure. Coastal vegetation such as mangroves can help reduce the impacts of flooding. Conservation of coral reefs also plays a huge role in protecting atolls.

Q: Is climate change an unstoppable phenomenon of contemporary times?

A: We are committed to warming, and sea level rise, even if all emissions stop today, because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. If we continue emitting GHGs without any reduction, the climate change impacts will be greater and last much longer.

*This is the third in a three-part series on the impacts of climate change in the Pacific region. (END)

UNCCD’s Dennis Garrity Credit:Manipadma Jena/IPS

A systems agronomist, Garrity has focused on the development of small-scale farming in the tropics.

Speaking with IPS correspondent Manipadma Jena over telephone from Melbourne, Australia, Garrity outlined steps the UNCCD and governments need to take on issues such as land-grabbing, climate change vulnerability, and loss of biodiversity through genetically modified (GM) seeds.

Q: What policies should predominantly agricultural economies, such as those in India and Africa, adopt to give drylands due importance?

A: Scientific evidence is proving that governments are able to recover higher returns from investments in drylands than investments in rain-fed areas. Now we have technologies like ‘evergreen agriculture’ or ‘double-storey’ agricultural where much of the annual crop production occurs under a full canopy of specific trees species – many of these are ‘fertilizer trees’ that capture atmospheric nitrogen thus dispensing with the use of chemical fertilisers. This benefits food production and the environment.

Q: How farmer-friendly and cost-effective is this technology?

A: In Africa, millions of hectares have been reclaimed by farmer communities through evergreen agriculture. There is great enthusiasm because it not only builds on traditional practices but also gives high yields. We have proof that this can be done on a huge scale. With investment it can be extended to tens of millions of farmers in Africa and India.

Q: There is growing loss of arable land to slow desertification and land degradation. Why is it that UNCCD is focusing more on drylands?

A: Indeed the focus of the Convention should be desertification and land degradation across all agricultural land. The problem is that some countries that are party to the Convention are not comfortable with too much scrutiny in terms of their other areas of deforestation; for e.g. the management of forest lands that have been cleared for agriculture. These countries have argued for a narrow interpretation of the Convention and hindered its ability to deal with issues in a comprehensive way.

Q: Which are these countries?

A: Mainly Brazil. Other countries also feel that all aspects of land degradation should be covered as they are important for global agriculture and food security. The debate carries on from one COP to the next. We are trying to make widely available evidence of problems arising from unsustainable land management.

Q: What would be the most productive way to deal with the stewards of drylands who are the communities themselves?

A: Investments should be skewed towards developing the capacity of the tiller of the land, of communities to enable them to manage their own land. Local grassroots participation has proven to be an absolute, fundamental condition in areas where land regeneration has been successful. Investments need to focus on capacity building and knowledge sharing. Building social capital is the key to future land regeneration, really.

Q: Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can play a major role?

A: Absolutely fundamental role. Often NGOs can be the networking connections between communities. They can bring in the kind of services and support that communities need.I believe the UNCCD secretariat is recognising this fact and seeking to bring in the NGO community to a greater degree.

The original concept of land regeneration in the UNCCD was top-down, and for many years that concept dominated discussion and government interactions. However, in recent years the real focus has been on grassroots participation.

Q: Land grabbing of traditional drylands, in Africa particularly, is emerging as a major growing concern.

A: The concerns around land grabbing, in Africa particularly, are valid and very serious. Large areas are being set aside or sold to outsiders – many of these areas are populated by communities that live off the land and have no alternative livelihood.

Most of these land investors have absolutely no idea what they are getting into. They often take the simplistic approach of using big technology to make large-scale plantations and traditional communities are simply discarded. This is totally unacceptable.

Q: One opinion at the COP 10 was that these investors would squeeze dry the land and just leave.

A: This certainly is a possibility, because outside investors have no stake in the land. The possibility of degrading the land through unsustainable practices is very high. It is also quite likely that they use the land investment for speculative purposes.

Governments should be protecting local communities. All too often these land deals with governments are non-transparent – which is why land grabbing has become such a big deal.

Q: At COP 10, the business sector was encouraged in a big way as investment partners in desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD) projects.

A: The private sector was invited to build their conscientiousness and their responsibility. Companies are involved in a gamut of agricultural activities – processing, marketing, distribution; they all need to be thinking of how their activities may be degrading or improving the land. With the private sector we are now searching for a certification process that in future can evaluate and monitor business-chains on their land regeneration impact.

This was the first attempt of the Convention to start a dialogue with the Business Forum ( COP 10 had 90 participating companies); it will take some time to level off in terms of benefits for both sides.

Q: Genetically modified (GM) seed companies’ entry into some drylands and the subsequent loss of traditional seed varieties, which are in fact best adapted to the local soil and climate conditions, is yet another escalating concern.

A: The GM seed question is a very big concern. While GM seeds may improve the quality and yield of crops, the real concern is the concentration of the seed industry into just a few firms who hold the patents which allow them to control the future of seeds. We need figure out how we can protect the small farmer and seed diversity.

Q: Do you think the role of women and their contribution is being recognised by governments, policy makers and by their own communities?

A: In many dryland areas males do off-farm work, leaving the farming to women. So, we need to restructure our whole thinking and reach women farmers in terms of extension services, participation in community groups and so on.

Q: In the context of climate change how do you see the future of natural drylands (increasing out-migration being one of the fallouts) and what should governments do about this?

A: It is certainly a critical issue. Our drylands are set to become drier with climate change. We have to look at agricultural systems that are more resilient. Since many of these areas have gone through some of the worst cycles of drought from climate change, we can actually learn from these systems.

Q: How do you see governments adopting DLDD programmes in terms of a time frame?

A: Governments are beginning to respond. In India, the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and I are going to launch an evergreen agriculture programme soon under which a billion fertilizer and fodder trees will be planted in drylands of small farmers. India’s 12th Five-Year Plan (2012-2017) has accorded high priority to agroforestry. In Africa, 20 countries are developing evergreen agriculture programmes and more are slated to join.

I believe we have a possibility now of having a huge new area of action, dealing with hunger in drylands – through ways that are low cost, no cost and no regrets!

(END)

Luc Gnacadja, executive secretary of the UNCCD, at Changwon. Credit:Manipadma Jena/IPS

At the UNCCD’s Oct. 10 – 21, 10th conference of the parties (COP-10), he has made substantial progress in bringing this ‘poor sister’ of the three Rio Conventions (Climate Change, Biodiversity and Desertification) closer to its rightful place.

Passionate about his mission, this Benin-born architect was minister of environment, housing and urban development in his country from 1999 to 2005 and received the World Bank’s ‘2002 Green Award’.

In this interview with IPS correspondent Manipadma Jena, Gnacadja argues in favour of private investment in land management.

Q: Drylands are overwhelmingly regarded as marginal lands, whereas they are precious gene pools for desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD). What is UNCCD’s strategy to change this thinking into a positive one?

A: I think we have to get better at using the wisdom, knowledge and the successes of people living in drylands.

For climate change to pick up that overarching momentum in the late 90s, scientists did good work in communicating related facts and figures. Some outstanding people, some policy makers understood the serious implications and presented the information in a way that challenged the world.

COP 10 is an opportunity to pick up information about food security and act on it before it gets too late to remedy the situation. The economic crises of 2007-08 and again in 2010-11 have shown that if we go on doing business as usual, degrading land at 25 times the historical pace, losing 12 million hectares – areas larger than my country Benin – to drought and desertification, it is ‘mission impossible’ to feed nine billion people by 2050.

Q: You just mentioned that scientists are getting better at communicating the science of climate change. How people-friendly are they getting at communicating the science of desertification and land degradation?

A: Till as late as 2009, a commonly agreed platform to measure desertification was not available to us. Countries had not agreed on any impact indicators that could measure and monitor stress. At COP 9 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, we got the required input from scientists and the decision to make two (percentage of green cover and percentage above the poverty line) of the 11 DLDD indicators were made mandatory for reporting. These scientific indicators will be made further people-friendly; but you are right, we need to do more because soil is much more complex, diverse and site-specific.

Soil is the answer to global warming – it is the second largest carbon sink next to the oceans. When carbon is sequestered in the oceans it acidifies the ecosystem, but when sequestered in the soil, carbon benefits food security and the biodiversity. Why are we not able to appreciate this?

Q: What could be the reason for the world not appreciating and acting on this?

A: We only see what our spectacles allow us to see. When one does not see what one needs to see, we need to change our spectacles and it is our responsibility to provide the appropriate one – one for the general public and yet another for policy makers.

Q: The involvement of the private or business sector evolved substantially during COP 10. Incentives for the business community are expected; how will the checks and controls be exercised?

A: We need the private sector in sustainable land management (SLM). Governments world over spend some one percent on this, the rest comes from the private sector that includes small farmers to large corporates. The governments must create a conducive atmosphere to harness private investment in SLM and guide the investment in the correct direction.

At COP 10, for the first time a 90-company strong business forum has taken the initiative to be part of the UNCCD call to create a land degradation neutral world and voluntarily declare their commitment to work to this end. This dialogue between the private sector and the governments will exercise the checks and balances. We need to maintain and sustain this dialogue.

The private sector needs to understand that any investment it makes has to be win-win – beneficial for the local population- even what is being called ‘land-grab’; beneficial to the resource base and ecosystem and of course profitable to themselves as well. And, this is possible.

Q: How and how much do you see the Changwon Initiative helping to combat DLDD?

A: The Changwon Initiative is a political initiative of the Korean government which will be chairing the COP bureau for the next two years till COP 11. It will help the UNCCD mission because it is focused on the three pillars that we need to accelerate the action to combat desertification.

The first pillar that the Changwon Initiative will be helping with would be strengthening the scientific input in policy making and strategy formulation by building up a global knowledge data base on DLDD.

The second pillar is to build a stakeholder inclusive process and define each stakeholder’s scope of action. The missing stakeholder – the private sector – has been brought in by the Changwon Initiative.

Q: Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are an important partner too and the Global Alliance of CSOs here is complaining that the Changwon Initiative does not even mention CSOs?

A: Yes, but proposals for the inclusion of CSOs in the Changwon Initiative have been welcomed by the Korean government. Sometimes the CSOs are so prompt to criticise; they also need to be accountable. They need to be proactive and not just vocal. They realise that they are influential but influence calls for action, not just keeping the mike and being vocal.

I hope the government of Korea will take CSOs on board because they too will be part of the checks and balance on the private sector. Coming back to the third pillar that the Changwon Initiative will reinforce – it is rewarding those who are keeping the drylands productive. To this end they have, at COP 10, given away the first ‘Land for Life Award’. This helps replication of good practices.

I am hopeful that the Parties will take similar initiatives. Turkey and Qatar already have and the latter has formed the Global Dryland Alliance.

Q: What decisions have the Parties taken during COP 10 to more expeditiously mainstream gender into the DLDD programmes?

A: None, yet. But I am hopeful they will before the conference ends Friday. Parties have agreed that women and children through their mothers are the worst affected by DLDD; that they are the invaluable custodians of traditional farming knowledge. Parties must ensure that women have access to land and the support that makes farmland productive and to capacity building. The parties too must ensure women-inclusive policies are in place through parliamentary action.

Q: How can the UNCCD intervene to ensure this?

A: Countries are very zealous about their sovereignty. What UNCCD can do is provide a draft policy framework which, if approved by the country’s parliament, opens the pathway for us to facilitate its implementation. Any government that knows about statistics cannot ignore the capable and resilient half of the population and still hope to develop… it is like cutting off one of the two legs.

Q: It is not as if governments do not know the importance of women to a country’s growth. What seems to be the roadblock for action?

A: There are some beliefs that are deeply ingrained. But we can do it! We must better inform and highlight success stories in lot more contexts, including programmes that have successfully implemented gender inclusion. Sharing widely is the key, so that those who do not know can learn.

Q: How do finances, funding and aid work for Parties under the Desertification Convention?

A: In 1996 when the Convention was formulated, it was agreed that affected countries would design their action programme, mainstream it – in other words put their money where their mouth is. Only after the affected country has established SLM as a national priority through appropriate parliamentary action and budgetary allocation would developed countries commit technical transfer and financial support.

Both ends have failed in their commitments.

Poverty and food security are inextricably linked. If countries prioritise poverty eradication but do not integrate SLM into their programmes they are failing themselves. Countries have trade as their priority; they have 26 percent growth but find that both poverty and food insecurity have increased.

Q: Are you happy with the progress of the COP 10 over the last 11 days? Has it met your personal expectations?

A: COP 10 has set milestones with many ‘firsts’ and a landmark with 6,450 registered participants from over the world. The level of participation in the high-level segment (ministers included here), the substantive quality of interactions, the importance accorded to science, the launch of the ‘Land for Life’ award, and the establishment of the business forum: all give a sense of satisfaction. But, I will wait to see the outcome of the budgets for the convention, to see that Parties honour their commitment in budgetary terms. I also wish to see the streamlining of efficiency and coherence in the set-up of the Convention solved here once and for all.

(END)

PORTO DE GALINHAS, Brazil, Oct 4, 2011 (Tierramérica) – Brazil could play a leading role in a new global agenda for sustainable development and become an “environmental power”, says Carlos Nobre, one of the world’s foremost climate change experts.

In addition to a series of natural conditions that make the country particularly suited for this role, there is also a high level of awareness in Brazilian society that this future is possible, believes Nobre, the secretary of Research and Development Policies and Programs at the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology and a senior scientist at the National Institute for Space Research.

Brazil has the potential to explore a new model of tropical development, based on the full utilisation of renewable energy sources and a “natural knowledge economy”, stated the engineer and meteorologist who has conducted extensive climate research in the Amazon and shared in the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

Nobre granted Tierramérica an exclusive interview during the 14th World Water Congress of the International Water Resources Association (IWRA), held Sep. 25-29 in Porto de Galinhas, in the northeastern Brazilian state of Pernambuco.

Q: What is your assessment of the situation almost 20 years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro?

A: The convention on climate change (adopted in 1992) did not succeed in creating the impetus for a global emissions reduction movement.

The effort should be made, for reasons of equity and justice, first and foremost by the countries that have historically produced the most emissions, and secondly, by the developing countries, who will also have to work towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we truly want to embark on a less dangerous trajectory.

Global temperatures could rise by three to five degrees by the end of this century. That is a lot. They already rose by 0.8 degrees in 200 years. The current trajectory is rather pessimistic.

Q: So no progress has been made in this respect since 1992.

A: In 2010 the largest volume of emissions in the history of human civilisation was recorded: almost 45 percent more emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than in 1990. There is no way you can look at these numbers without feeling worried.

Changing the climate in the space of 200 years to an extent that would normally take 20,000 to 30,000 years in accordance with the earth’s natural cycles is much too abrupt of a change for nature to adjust.

And the first direct victim is biodiversity, which is highly variable. The natural rhythm of emergency response of a given species is measured in hundreds of thousands of years, but extinction happens very quickly, a serious disturbance is all it takes.

Biologists estimate that if this pessimistic scenario persists uncontrolled until the end of the century, the very existence of 40 percent of the world’s species will be endangered. This would be a major cataclysm for life on planet earth.

Q: How can climate change affect water resources?

A: The climate is more variable, which causes disturbances to the production systems that we depend on for survival. For example, today there are a large number of natural disasters and the capacity for resilience is decreasing.

This is the aspect that is most important when we talk about the shortage of water: the climate change projections for this century affect the semiarid regions, where the world’s poverty is concentrated.

In 100 years, the sea level could rise by between 50 centimeters and 1.4 meters. This would lead to the flooding of many low-lying coastal areas where hundreds of thousands of people live, which means they will have to be relocated.

In general terms, large increases in temperature and extreme weather events have a serious impact on global agriculture because of the increase in heat waves and droughts, which become unpredictable. The problem is that agriculture already uses three quarters of the available water resources, it is already at its limit.

Q: Where does Brazil stand in this context of climate crisis?

A: There is undoubtedly a crisis and for Brazil it is no different. Not only is Brazil a mix of cultures in ethnic terms, it is also a mix of climatic and ecological conditions, and it suffers all of the problems that are suffered worldwide. The outlook for semiarid regions is critical in northeastern Brazil, which is the most highly populated semiarid region in the world, with 20 million people.

There has been a significant increase in natural disasters in Brazil, with floods, landslides, heat waves, contamination and an environment that is ever more inhospitable for quality of life.

The greatest ecological vulnerability is in the Amazon and Cerrado (tropical savanna) regions, where there is an enormous risk of the extinction of species on a massive scale, never before seen in human history.

We are talking about the possibility of changes in the Amazon that have not been seen in tens of millions of years, the possibility of rainforest being converted into impoverished savanna. If the climate changes a great deal in 200 years, we will lose a large part of the Amazon rainforest.

Q: These are catastrophic forecasts. What can Brazil do to spearhead a movement of more sustainable development?

A: Brazil is a country that is extremely rich in natural resources, more so than India and China. Brazil’s demographics are highly favorable, and there is a certain aspiration towards sustainable development. The population (currently 192 million) should be stabilised in the next 15 years and not surpass 215 million.

Unlike China and India, Brazil could plan for much more balanced development and a sustainable future, because it has an amount of natural resources that is perhaps greater than any other country in the world.

Today it uses renewable sources for 46 percent of its energy and that could rise to close to 80 percent by 2050. All of this makes it possible to envision a future for Brazil as one of the world’s cleanest countries.

Q: Do you really believe that Brazil, one of the emerging economies, wants to become an environmental power?

A: There is an awareness in Brazilian society today that this future is possible. Brazil does not want to be a hegemonic military power, but it has the potential to explore a new model of tropical development and to be an environmental power by fully utilising renewable energy within the next 20 to 30 years.

The Brazilian economy cannot be separated from the natural knowledge economy. A natural knowledge economy could set it apart from the rest. Brazil could be a world leader of this new vision with the application of knowledge, and that is the image it should present at Rio+20 (the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development).

We want to be the cleanest country in the world in the energy sector, in production, and in sustainable agriculture.

* Fabiola Ortiz is an IPS contributor. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank. (END)

BUENOS AIRES, Sep 28, 2011 (Tierramérica) – To save the planet from climate change and the loss of biodiversity, we must leave capitalism behind and seek out a less consumerist, more socially just system, insists French environmental journalist Hervé Kempf.

This message underlies all of Kempf’s work, which includes a column in the French daily Le Monde and a number of books, including “How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth”. His latest book, “L’oligarchie ça suffit, vive la démocratie” (Enough With Oligarchy, Long Live Democracy), has just been published in France.

An active participant in the debate on “degrowth”, which challenges the use of GDP growth as the primary indicator of the success of a country or society, Kempf questions the viability of societies guided by consumerism and the search for profit.

The world’s political leaders “continue defending the capitalist system, which I call the oligarchic system,” but they “have to change, and so does the system,” said Kempf in an interview with Tierramérica during a recent visit to Argentina.

Q: Is it possible to reverse the increase in emissions of greenhouse gases that are responsible for climate change?

A: Yes. But at the moment we don’t seem to be headed in that direction. Europe has changed its trajectory and managed to reduce them slightly, and the United States has set a ceiling, but globally, emissions are increasing in the countries of the South.

We must continue pressuring the North, but the big countries of the South, particularly China, which plays a leadership role, should modify their conduct. They want to achieve maximum growth but they are aware of the ecological crisis and that awareness will penetrate increasingly deeper in the countries of the South.

Q: Are you optimistic about the climate change conference beginning at the end of November in South Africa?

A: No, unfortunately. The preparations demonstrate that the situation is rather full of obstacles.

Q: Is the political leadership up to the task?

A: No. Many leaders continue defending the capitalist system, which I call the oligarchic system, and defending interests that run counter to the demands imposed by the ecological crisis. The political leaders have to change, and so does the system.

Q: But there are countries, like Venezuela, that speak out against capitalism, but don’t demonstrate a great deal of environmental awareness.

A: My work is geared more to the countries of the North, which have the responsibility to change the economic model. For the last 15 to 20 years, Latin America has had to become independent from the United States, and adopt more democratic ways and social policies that benefit the poor. Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina are part of this trend. But it is true: they also need to acknowledge the environmental crisis.

Q: Do you think that Rio+20, the United Nations conference to be held in June 2012, will be able to revive the spirit of hope of the 1992 Earth Summit?

A: For the moment it doesn’t look very promising. The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has just issued a communiqué on Rio+20 that appears very much aimed at saying, “Development, development, and then we’ll deal with the environment.” It seems like a bad sign to me.

Q: But that’s a statement for the region.

A: Yes, but what I see in Europe and the United States is even worse. There is a total lack of political and media interest in Rio+20. Everyone’s attention is focused on the financial crisis.

Q: What do you think about the concept of the “green economy”?

A: It’s very vague. It appears to be the continuation of capitalism geared more to the environment. But without changing the power of corporations, without reducing energy consumption or confronting social inequality. It’s a new form of capitalism. Moreover, why this new concept, instead of continuing to work on sustainable development, which has the advantage of emphasising social concerns?

Q: Do you think it is a step back?

A: It is a sign that what is viewed as a priority is the economy, when in fact, the economy is not a priority when it comes to the environment. What is most important is to ensure harmony among people and with the environment. The economy isn’t everything.

Q: You did research on the impact of the nuclear accident in Chernobyl (1986). Do you think that what happened on March 11 at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima could help discourage the use of nuclear energy?

A: Fukushima demonstrated that nuclear energy is extremely dangerous, even in a country that is a technology giant like Japan.

Q: In your book you express skepticism about the contribution of wind power…

A: I did it with the North in mind. It seems they are using wind power as an alibi to avoid conserving energy. In the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan, they should reduce energy consumption first and then deal with how to produce it.

Q: What do you recommend for living on a sustainable planet?

A: Establishing the question of social justice as a priority. In a world that is extraordinarily rich from a material perspective, this is key.

Q: And in terms of consumption?

A: Stop watching television.

Q: Can these ideas be promoted in countries where there is still a part of the population with unmet basic needs?

A: Absolutely. I speak as a European, but I believe that in the countries of the South, the challenge could be to reduce inequality.

Q: What do you say to the skeptics who claim that what you propose means going back to the Stone Age?

A: I say that if we continue with this economy that destroys social ties, justice and the environment, then we really will go back to the Stone Age, because social and environmental destruction will expose us to a great deal of violence.

Q: You say in your book that we don’t need to invent anything new, that alternatives already exist.

A: In all areas, local communities create models that fall outside of capitalism. Farming cooperatives, organic agriculture, alternative currencies, renewable energies. There are thousands of experiences that could be linked together in a network.

Q: So you don’t envision a violent transformation.

A: By definition, political ecology envisions a non-violent world. Environmentalists don’t want violence, they want other playing rules. You cannot use means that are contrary to the goal you are pursuing.

* Marcela Valente is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank. (END)

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 28 (IPS) – In order for global climate change policies and efforts to progress, intense local activism and countries most adversely affected by climate change must play a leading role.

If they don’t, an upcoming meeting of state parties to the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) in South Africa will be a conference of “paralysis” and “profiteers”, says Patrick Bond, climate justice expert and author of the book “Politics of Climate Justice” coming out in November.

“The elites have defaulted on their chance to solve the climate crisis,” Bond believes.

On Dec. 17, during the Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the UNFCCC, 194 countries will assess global progress in dealing with climate change. In particular, they will negotiate and agree upon binding targets for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which will steer international efforts in climate politics for the next four years.

Previous conferences have depicted and conceptualised climate change as a problem that has primarily an economic impact, due to the ideology that “you must always fix a market problem with a market solution”, Bond said.

As a result, discussion about using carbon markets, where emissions are traded back and forth, as the primary tool to manage climate change is dominant.

Bond spoke to U.N. correspondent Rousbeh Legatis about countries of the South – pivotal actors in future climate policies – and their prospects and needs.

Q: When it comes to climate change, you have seen conferences where empty promises are a dime a dozen. What is needed in Durban in December to achieve an outcome that breaks with the business-as- usual approach?

A: What is needed, based on past performance, is for the delegations from Washington, Ottawa, London, Brussels, Tokyo, Moscow, Delhi, Beijing, Brasilia and Pretoria to stay home, and let the main victims of climate change establish the rules by which the big polluters stop what they’re doing and pay reparations to everyone else – and also establish an International Climate Court to impose sanctions and penalties on those who fail to abide by a planet-saving solution.

Although many activists in these cities will appeal to their leaders to stay home in the interests of a breakthrough outcome to COP17, they will be ignored, as usual…

We need activists from Africa and across the world to unite for climate justice solutions, to keep fossil fuels in the soil through direct action such as we saw earlier this month at the White House (1,252 arrested for protesting Obama’s tar sands oil pipeline), and to generate just transition strategies… away from the climate-threatening energy, transport, extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal systems (now in place).

Q: Global elites, as you say in your book, have failed to arrange a “genuine solution to the climate crisis”. How would such a solution look and why they have failed?

A: The most destructive global elites are those in the fossil fuel sector and their allies at the World Bank and in the U.S. White House, State Department and Energy Department, as well as in Canada’s Tory government and tar sands extraction industry. They are intent on expanding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as far as possible.

They have taught this to the governments of middle-income countries, so it seems as if everyone – perhaps except for Bolivia – goes to the COPs with one aim in mind: raise the ceiling on GHG emissions so as to allow each national bloc of state elites backed by their national capitalist classes to pollute as much as possible, no matter the consequences…

The solution should follow the precedent of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 when it came to saving the ozone hole from chlorofluorocarbons: ban CFCs outright after an appropriate phase-out period (in that case, nine years).

But market ideologues and fossil fuel industries won’t allow that, so the delegates are hamstrung and we are fools if we think they have the wherewithal to address climate change through the UNFCCC, given the current adverse balance of forces.

Q: Do you see burdens and responsibilities being properly shared among affected countries, the international community and states mainly responsible for climate change?

A: Climate debt is the concept we need to understand, as a component of ecological debt owed by the North to the South.

What we all know is that the responsibility for climate change lies with the global North, which of course includes companies that operate irresponsibly in the South – such as BHP Billiton and Anglo American here in South Africa, which get the world’s cheapest electricity and then export their profits to Melbourne and London, respectively.

The burden sharing here, climate activists agree, should be a shutdown of the old apartheid-era special pricing agreements that give these companies their climate-destroying hyper-profits, so that instead the vast majority of people can have access to more free basic electricity than the present tokenistic 50 kilowatt-hours per household per month…

This is not just a ‘third world nationalist’ demand. The climate debt – probably upwards of 400 billion dollars per year by most estimates – should not be paid via tyrants, such as Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi or Swaziland’s King Mswati.

Instead, direct payment mechanisms similar to the Namibian-style ‘basic income grant’ should ensure that those who have been harmed by climate change – most of Pakistan last year, for instance – will be reimbursed through local funds transfers directly, bypassing corrupt states and aid industry middlemen.

Q: What about emerging economies and now simultaneously major GHG emitters on the global level? What role do they play?

A: The best thing would be for a government like South Africa’s to let those weak countries who will be most adversely affected – in the Andes and Himalayas when glaciers and snow packs melt, the sinking small islands, much of drought-ravaged landlocked Africa, places suffering terribly from rising sea levels like Bangladesh – lead the process.

The Bolivians have the best track record, and they also developed a Cochabamba people’s agreement in April 2010 that should, in a just world, replace the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the BASIC countries decided to gaze upwards and unite with the U.S. in Copenhagen, for self-interested reasons. This disqualifies them from being part of the solution…

So the appropriate role for negotiators in the emerging economies is to apologise for the Copenhagen Accord and for subsidising multinational corporations with electricity, ultra-cheap labour and externalised pollution – and turn over climate policy to the climate justice movement who have the ideas required to properly address the crisis.

(END/2011)

BAMAKO, Sep 26 (IPS) – Africa will have to present a strong position at the United Nations climate change conference later this year to ensure the continent will receive the financing to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

 Africa contributes only four percent of global greenhouse gasses but it is the continent most vulnerable to climate change’s adverse effects.

 During the Nov. 28 to Dec. 9 17th U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durban, South Africa, Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu will lead the negotiations on behalf of the African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change (AGN).

 Mpanu-Mpanu is also director of the Clean Development Mechanism Designated National Authority of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

 Q: What demands will Africa make in its Common Position?

 A: Africa wants an outcome based on science that is fair and honours the promises all countries have made in the U.N. Climate Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. We need to agree to global reductions for 2050 that limit warming to well below the predicted 1.5 degrees Celsius in Africa.

 We need to close the ‘mitigation gap’ by ensuring developed countries take on fair and appropriate contributions. Their current weak pledges, along with accounting loopholes, would result in them doing very little or nothing to curb climate change before 2020.

 Q: With 54 countries, the AGN is one of the largest negotiating blocs. Is it difficult to agree on a common position?

 A: Obviously. We have 54 different national interests and development levels that make it challenging to come to a common position. But we understand the importance of reaching middle ground. We need critical mass that cannot be ignored. We need to go beyond national interests. Speaking with one voice will give us leverage.

 Q: How do you ensure the COP process does not become “an expensive talkfest”, as some critics believe?

 A: No group has been more critical about the tendency for “talk without action” than the African group. For any process to remain relevant it must produce. The big issue – cutting emissions – remains elusive.

 We have, for instance, been discussing the same greenhouse gas reduction targets since 2005. What we are now looking for is a simple commitment to action by our negotiating partners. It is not a question of horse-trading. There are some things we cannot compromise on if we are to protect our people.

 Q: With COP17, the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period will come to an end. What are the chances of developed nations re-committing?

 A: Some wealthy countries are delaying the Kyoto negotiations. Three countries – Japan, Canada and Russia – have expressed reluctance to honour their promises. The United States repudiated its commitments a number of years ago.

But the world cannot be held hostage by a handful of countries. Africa will not serve as the burial ground of the only legally binding treaty requiring those most responsible for causing climate change to reduce their climate pollution.

Q: How will you manage the potential ‘financing gap’ after 2012?

A: Finance is one of the key issues for Durban. We expect the polluters, and not the poor in Africa, to pay. If Africa is to take on new actions (commitments), we need to ensure we are getting new and additional finance.

There is no commitment for 2013, and the pledge of developing nations to pay 100 billion dollars a year from 2020, while an important start, bears no relation to the level of need as identified by major institutions including the U.N. and World Bank. Durban must deliver an agreement on finance.

Q: Some developed nations demand to include emerging economies like China, India, Brazil and South Africa in legally binding emissions reduction targets. Do you agree?

 A: The U.N. climate convention is very clear about this. Historical responsibility lies with developed nations. The demand by developed countries that all “major economies”, including some developing countries, take on binding commitments departs from the 2007 Bali Roadmap.

If we depart from promises made as recently as 2007, how can we trust what comes next? Africa is more than willing to play ball, but only if the other side does not keep moving the goalposts.

Q: Are the projects planned during last year’s Cancun Agreements on track?

A: The Africa Group has written proposals on the technology mechanism, adaptation framework, standing committee on climate finance, forum on response measures and other institutional arrangements. Egypt, DRC, Burkina Faso, Gabon and Zambia have submitted a proposal for the new Green Climate Fund.

We see these as essential building blocks to strengthen the climate architecture. But they need to be complemented by progress on the key issue for curbing climate change: cutting emissions.

Q: Will carbon markets be the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

A: Right now, the prospect of carbon markets is bleak. The U.N. Environment Programme says we must achieve 12 gigatonnes (Gt) of global reductions by 2020. Developing countries have pledged 5Gt, if supported with finance. This would leave 7Gt for the developed countries.

But they have, unfortunately, pledged less than 4Gt, and have around 4Gt available in so-called “loopholes”. They are offering nothing. If they (do not have to effectively reduce emissions) by 2020, then why would they need to purchase carbon credits from Africa or elsewhere?

(END/2011)

MONTREAL, Canada, Sep 12 (IPS) – Durban should not be the burial ground for the Kyoto Protocol, says Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, about his expectations from the 17th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change happening in his hometown in South Africa later this year. ”The stars are not aligned to get a legally binding treaty. What we need to do then is get as close to the legally binding treaty as we can,” says Naidoo.

 For Naidoo, a former anti-apartheid activist who assumed Greenpeace’s helm in 2009, a legally binding treaty, support for Africa’s women farmers and protection for the continent’s forests are among his wish list for COP 17, which may decide the Kyoto Protocol’s fate. The protocol, which expires in 2012, sets binding targets for 37 industrialised countries and the European community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 Naidoo recently met with South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane. She is also the incoming COP 17 president.

 South Africa has been holding talks with African ministers in order to present a united front at the international meeting in late November.

 Speaking to IPS at the 2011 CIVICUS World Assembly, Naidoo said that while Africa will also be looking to a binding treaty, it will also be keen on clarifying how issues on climate change adaptation and mitigation will be dealt with.

 Q: What are the chances that we will see a legally binding treaty come out of COP 17?

 A: The track record on compliance in regard to U.N. summits is so paltry it’s pathetic. We need to have a fair, ambitions and binding treaty. By fair, we mean that it should give expression to a common and differentiated responsibility, which takes into account that developed nations bear the culpability in terms of the crises we find ourselves in. That should reflect itself with rich nations being willing to pay their climate debt to support poor countries to be able to adapt and mitigate the impacts of catastrophic climate change.

 We need the level of ambition that is equal to what the science says we need. The science tells us that developed nations need to be looking at between 25 and 40 percent in terms of emission targets and very few countries are close to that.

 Given the position of the United States, and the fact that countries like Russia, Canada and Japan are trying to kill the Kyoto Treaty – I think the stars are not aligned to get a legally binding treaty. What we need to do then is get as close to the legally binding treaty as we can. If the United States is the only blocking nation, we need to find a way in which we can move ahead with pressure being brought on the U.S. to develop national legislation to provide equivalents to the commitments being made by other nations so that we get on with the serious task of acting, not just negotiating.

 Africa is very keen on making sure Kyoto survives; we want the second commitment period agreed to. Durban should not be the burial ground for Kyoto. If it collapses, my sense is that the whole United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will collapse.

 Q: Previous COP meetings have led to the creation of the Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, technology and capacity building in order to respond to climate change. The decision to place the fund within the World Bank has been controversial, what are other ways the fund could be managed?

 A: There is a tension from (last year’s COP 16) in Cancun about the role the World Bank will play in the fund. The compromise is that the World Bank (WB) will start the fund and eventually it will evolve outside of the bank. I think many African countries, based on their experience with WB funding mechanisms, have a lot of reservations about that and that’s totally understandable and it’s shared by civil society largely.

 It makes sense for the fund to be governed in a way that it is not seen to be disproportionally dominated by the World Bank, because saying it’s dominated by the World Bank is another way of saying it’s disproportionally influenced by rich countries that dominate its institutional governance.

 There is a range of other possible mechanisms…and a body of experience now with HIV funding, like the Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria and other vertical funds. It’s not rocket science.

 Q: Where would you like to see money from the fund go?

 A: We know that African women farmers are in the overwhelming majority among farmers on the continent and that they have not been supported with seeds, fertiliser or technology…that’s where I’d like to see some of the Green Climate Fund resources being used. We also need to think about investing in things like water harvesting… supporting access to water for women. Those that have been vulnerable and marginalised must be the beneficiaries of climate negotiation and they must not be thrown crumbs – they need substantive policy support, structural support and technical support.

 Q: Anything else on your COP 17 wish list?

 A: We need movement on forest protection, this affects the Congo basin countries, particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Congo basin forests is one of the most important forests in the world….some might argue as equally important as the Amazon rain forest. We have to do everything in our power to prevent further destruction of that forest and have a sustainable forestry approach to del with he needs of the millions of people that live in the forest. It’s a key part of the lungs of the planet.

 (END/2011)

Life forms react in surprising ways to pressures of all kinds, says transgender biologist Brigitte Baptiste. Credit:Juan José Carrillo/IPS

This observation is based on personal contacts with indigenous elders, since the government has no policies that recognise or support traditional knowledge, said Baptiste, 47, a respected academic with a PhD in environmental sciences and an environmental activist with close ties to peasant and indigenous communities.

Fortunately, however, these problems are being discussed by the country’s sabedores (literally, “those who know”, the keepers of this knowledge), she added.

Since January, Baptiste has been the director of Colombia’s Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute. She is the author of dozens of articles and book chapters on a wide range of subjects including bioethics and gender diversity. Tierramérica talked with her about some of the points she raised during her presentation at the Second National Climate Congress held in Bogota on Aug. 3-5.

Q: At the Congress you stated that traditional knowledge is losing validity as a result of climate change. Have concrete effects been detected, for example, in the traditional observation systems of indigenous communities?

A: No, because we have not investigated this in depth. The government has no concrete policy to promote traditional knowledge or to recognise its importance. We know because of personal contacts with taitas (wise elders) in the Putumayo, with the curacas of the Mirití River, and the mamos of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, who have begun to say that there are signs that are varying from the usual patterns which have traditionally been used for making decisions.

When certain plants stop flowering for three or four years, they say, we have no memory of this ever happening before. The indigenous system of monitoring is based on people’s memory, fed by all of their ancestral knowledge, but it is very local.

When this happens, they say, they need to “converse” to see if anyone remembers this ever happening anywhere else, and what happened later: if it was the announcement of a major drought, or the deterioration of the soil, or that there was going to be 10 or 15 years of malaria. The good thing is that they are doing it. There is active discussion among indigenous sabedores. But we actually hear very little about it.

Q: You also said that it isn’t known what effect climate change will have on biodiversity in Colombia. Why is that?

A: Life forms react in surprising ways to pressures of any kind. Species don’t adapt one by one. One might think that if it heats up, the species that are susceptible to high temperatures will disappear. But no. Every organism in a species has differentiated genetic information. So part of the population of a given species may react in a different way from another.

And species are linked to one another. Consider the figures in Colombia: 784 species of amphibians, 1,714 species of birds, 35,000 species of plants, and they will not react one by one. They will react as ecological groups, full of trophic interactions – who eats whom – predatory interactions.

We need figures and data from 10, 20, 30 years ago, and that is something we don’t have. Colombia has no system for monitoring biodiversity that could indicate what might be happening.

It is only now that we have some high-quality satellite images, from about 20 years back. And certain very precise records from 20th-century researchers, from 50, 60 years ago. This is reliable information that we can use to begin to speculate and construct models as to how biodiversity is going to respond, if it gets warmer, rains more, or becomes much drier.

Q: You mentioned that there are species of birds that are changing thermal layers, altitude ranges.

A: Some preliminary studies have identified some species that might suffer from this problem. Birds are associated with a certain type of forest – for example, forests that are found at an altitude of 1,000 meters above sea level. Eventually this forest may move upward, and the birds will move up as well.

But what happens if, farther up, the soil isn’t appropriate for the survival of this forest? Then the forest will no longer be able to continue moving up, and as a result, the birds will not have a habitat.

Q: What are the international “rankings” of Colombian biodiversity?

A: Colombia is the country with the greatest wealth of birds. More than 15 percent of the world’s birds live in Colombia. It is probably first or second in terms of amphibians, frogs. We compete with Indonesia above all with regard to endemic species: what determines if a country has a greater or lesser wealth of biodiversity tends to be the species that have developed exclusively in that country’s environments.

In terms of plants we are also in first or second place worldwide, comparable only to Brazil. And we are in third or fourth place in terms of mammals. And also freshwater and marine fish species, although the latter tend to be shared more with other countries.

The Magdalena River is unique in the world. It runs from south to north, crossing almost all of the equatorial territory. It is tremendously fertile, receiving all of the nutritional contributions of the forests of the entire Andean sub-region. Almost all of its fauna is endemic. Close to 40 percent of the organisms that live in the Magdalena are only found in the Magdalena, which makes this river basin, in general, a world treasure of biodiversity.

Q: Even though the riverbanks are so destroyed?

A: Data on total extinction still do not indicate the collapse of biodiversity. Despite the mercury and the excessive sedimentation, the Magdalena River continues to have an extremely important level of biodiversity.

Q: Can biodiversity also help us adapt to climate change?

A: Yes, and this is very important. We try to raise awareness among the productive sectors that the best insurance for production lies in biodiversity. Because the biological controls of the future will be found in biodiversity, the ecosystem services that can mitigate the effects of drought or some nutritional dysfunction.

The productive sectors need to better understand the system of ecological functions in which they are immersed and recognise that, if these ecological functions are lost, they will have to reach into their own pockets to replace them. Abundant and healthy biodiversity is a clear determinant of lower expenditure on controlling productive processes.

And that is because biodiversity mitigates the effects of climate change, although we don’t know how exactly. There are practical reasons for maintaining biodiversity and investing resources in its management, because when biodiversity is lost, it never comes back.

* Constanza Vieira is an IPS correspondent. This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank. (END)