Norwegian Minister of Environment and International Development Erik Solheim. Credit: Rajiv Fernando/IPS

COPENHAGEN (IPS/TerraViva) Norway is the world’s third largest donor in terms of development aid as a percentage of GDP. Norwegian Minister of Environment and International Development Erik Solheim spoke to IPS about the initiatives promoted by his country on environmental protection and its role during the Copenhagen negotiations.

Like most participants in the CoP15, Solheim declared himself not very optimistic about the fate of the talks, speaking to TerraViva on Thursday night, with just one day of negotiations remaining.

While there is still hope that the heads of state arriving in Copenhagen on Thursday might give a final positive impetus towards an agreement, the experience of the Norway delegation in the talks is a good illustration of why CoP15 is facing a stalemate at the moment.

Solheim was asked by the Danish government to head, together with the Singapore minister of environment, a meeting of all parties on international shipping and aviation, which are responsible for 20 percent of CO2 emissions from transport, that in turn produces 23 percent of all CO2 emissions.

But an agreement on reducing emissions from international shipping and aviation proved impossible to reach in Copenhagen.

“We think that a strong signal for emissions cuts should be included in the final Copenhagen agreements, but unfortunately no agreement was reached on this since our position was not shared by most nations there,” said Solheim.

“So it will have to happen in a more vague form. I don’t think we can include numbers but of course we can find a different way of formulating this, that emissions have to be in accordance with the 2 degree Celsius temperature increase target,” the minister added.

This means that much more discussion will have to follow after the CoP15 ends, in the framework of the International Maritime Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The same deadlock occurred in the talks on applying a levy on international aviation and shipping, which could be used for a fund for adaptation for developing countries.

In this case, “the main problem was to coordinate the fact that over 70 percent of the international shipping fleet is registered in developing countries and the general principle of common but differentiated responsibility,” Solheim said.

The failure of the talks on international transport illustrates how difficult it is to coordinate the positions of countries on climate change issues.

Yet Norway is a country which has been pushing ahead with its own initiatives, not constrained by international fora.

During CoP15, Norway and Mexico have launched the “Green Fund”, meant to provide predictable funding for climate adaptation and mitigation in developing countries.

Contributions to the fund should come from both public budgets and the auctioning of emissions allowances (a percentage of U.N. allowances would be internationally auctioned). Ten billion dollars per year are expected to be available through this fund starting from 2013.

“We think developing countries should have the option of choosing between the UN and the World Bank as administrators of this money, given that some of them want to work with the World Bank and others are reluctant to do so given their histories,” said Solheim.

Asked about the adequacy of the amount committed by the European Union for adaptation aid to developing countries (the EU said it would give 2.4 billion euros annually starting from 2010), Solheim avoided comment.

But he did specify that Norway has opted to make the adaptation aid entirely separate from humanitarian aid already pledged. The European Commission has left it up to the member states to decide whether the aid for adaptation will be made additionally from humanitarian aid or will be subtracted from it.

Norway is also committed to investing in avoiding deforestation worldwide. The country has pledged one billion dollars through 2015 to Brazil through the Amazon Fund.

And it has also committed 30 million euros to preventing deforestation in Guyana, in the framework of a bilateral agreement.

“This money is aid. We are for a strong REDD (United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) to emerge from CoP15, but these commitments are aid,” Solheim stressed.

Asked whether the cap and trade system currently promoted worldwide serves the interests of corporations more than an environmental goal, the minister rejected the idea.

He explained that a cap and trade system established through the Clean Air Act in the United States had been instrumental in controlling acid rain through significantly reducing SO2 (sulphur dioxide) emissions. Between 1990 and 2007, SO2 emissions were reduced by 50 percent in the US.

“Of course a global carbon tax would be the best option,” said Solheim, “but this is politically difficult.”

He concluded that cap and trade must be mixed with numerous other instruments in order to reduce emissions up to the levels called for by scientists and to provide support for the most vulnerable.

* Rajiv Fernando contributed to this story.
(END/2009)

Kumi Naidoo. Credit: Claudia Ciobanu/IPS

Claudia Ciobanu interviews Kumi Naidoo, head of Greenpeace International

COPENHAGEN (IPS/TerraViva) “Climate change is an opportunity to deal with all the issues of equity and justice that we have been struggling for all along,” said Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International in an interview with IPS on Thursday in Copenhagen.

“And perhaps this is why there is such resistance from rich countries: they know that if they do the right thing in Copenhagen, they have to begin to share economic power and to have a more equitable trading system because all of those things have to follow, otherwise you cannot deal with climate change.”

IPS: With less than two days before the end of negotiations in Copenhagen, world leaders seem reluctant to commit to a fair, ambitious and legally binding deal. Why?

KUMI NAIDOO: I think that developed countries are still in denial about their responsibility, even if they formally acknowledge it. The bottom line is we have global economic apartheid and essentially what we are seeing here is a sort of climate apartheid.

I want to stress that it is the developed countries’ governments that do not care. The publics in the developed countries see the injustice of it and I think that not only do rich country governments betray the people of poor countries but they are also betraying the citizens of their own countries and they are betraying democracy.

Q: They are also using their publics as an excuse not to act?

A: Absolutely. And that was indicated on Saturday, 12 December, with all the mobilizations around the world.

The level of mobilization on Saturday shows there is momentum building up now and what was most important for me is that it was not only the usual suspects (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and other environmental organizations), but also churches, trade unions, and development organizations that traditionally did not focus on the environment.

Q: So the environment works as a catalyst for a global movement?

A: Yes. Because people can see the interconnections. How can we have human rights if the planet is uninhabitable, how do we make progress with development if people end up in a situation where every progress they make gets lost. Look at Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world – it had huge innovations on the part of the NGO community, many of those progresses have been reversed already by the effects of rising sea levels that are contaminating the water supply and creating water scarcity.

Take gender equality for example. If we look at Africa, where climate change is already having a devastating impact on agriculture, and then we ask who are the most vulnerable, it is small farmers and many of them are women.

One of the things that rich countries don’t pay attention to is that climate change has already lead to conflicts, and it will continue to increase conflicts because, sadly, the new wars won’t be about oil but about water.

If you take the genocide in Darfur, people always see it as an ethnic conflict, but they forget that Lake Chad which neighbours Darfur was one of the largest inland seas in the world and now it is virtually dry. Water scarcity, along with land scarcity, is one of the biggest drivers of the tragic conflict in Darfur.

The US is spending 30 billion dollars annually now just on the war in Afghanistan. If they are worried about the kinds of money we are asking for, then what is the point of spending money on war, military conflict and conflict resolution when in fact they could actually create real life opportunities for people who have been desperately poor and socially excluded. If we address that, it is a way to prevent conflict and war.

Q: Climate change is a major security issue…

A: It is a fundamental security issue and, even if everyone knows it, the summit has sadly not given enough attention to that.

At the end of the day it is a matter of political will. If months ago they could mobilize trillions of euros to bail out the banks, why can’t they mobilize in the same way to save lives and turn this crisis into an opportunity.

Because there is a real opportunity here. In Africa, we have not even begun to scratch the surface with solar energy. If we make serious investments in solar, it is very likely that within the next 20 years Africa, particularly North Africa, could be net exporters of energy into Europe.

And I think all developed countries here, particularly the EU as a collective and within it Germany, and mainly the US have behaved pathetically, especially when we put it in a framework of justice. Developing countries have been least responsible for the situation we find ourselves in and they are the ones who are paying the first and the most brutal price.

They were told that they needed to put targets on the table and they have done so in the run up to Copenhagen. India and China for example passed or are in the process of passing domestic legislation, and they are moving in the right direction, but the rich countries have not reciprocated.

If you want to put it bluntly, if we don’t deliver a fair, ambitious and binding treaty here, we are issuing a death warrant for small island states and the least developed countries.

Q: The way things look today, global leaders are just about to sign such a death warrant this week.

A: We should remember that two years ago in Bali, at a similar time in the conference, people were even more pessimistic. It was on the last day that the moral pressure coming from the intervention of Papua New Guinea forced the US to compromise in the early hours of the morning.

In some cultures they say ‘it ain’t over until the fat lady sings’ and so I say ‘it ain’t over until the thin man from Washington DC sings.’ So let’s see when he (US President Barack Obama) comes.

Q: What do you think of the exclusion of NGOs from the negotiation center in the last three days of the conference?

A: I think the actions against the NGOs represent a betrayal of democracy, a betrayal of the informal compact that civil society has with the United Nations. It is desperately unjust and cruel, especially for small NGOs.

For them – who have spent this year saving money and preparing to come here – to be so brutally, unceremoniously and without any sense of dignity tossed out is a really big betrayal. When you look at some of the smallest grassroots groups present here, people who actually have the most authentic voices, being treated as they have been is very painful.

It’s been very painful for me to be here inside and I have actually thought about walking out myself. But if you are going to get any movement in the negotiations we have to use any limited capacity we have (Naidoo, who explains that he comes from a background of small NGOs, has moist eyes as he speaks about this topic).

We cannot blame the exclusion of NGOs on the Danish government. We are here in a UN space and the UN should know very well that this conference would not take place without the activities of civil society over decades, the heads of states would not be here if it wasn’t for us putting pressure on them in virtually every country around the world over the last year to come here because this issue is too important to be left to junior delegates.

Also, the legitimacy of any outcome here is undermined if it’s being done behind close doors, behind people and civil society.

The UN needs to realize that even if by some last minute trick a fair, ambitious and binding treaty is agreed on – and we can live without the legal exact wording right now, we need a clear set of ambitious targets, with the right kind of money, with the right kind of specific actions agreed and drafting the deal language in the next couple of months – the real work starts the day after to actually implement the deal.

And who is going to hold governments accountable and complement government capacity if not the NGOs?

Even if CoP15 will be a failure, what I would say to all NGOs, community groups, social movements, big NGOs, trade unions and everyone who came here is that they must take heart. It is not their failing. It is a failing of political leadership and what we have done has created a global momentum. We need to consolidate that, unite more, work more aggressively and continue the struggle.
(END/2009)

Ambassador Yu Qingtai. Credit: Embassy of China in the United States

By Rajiv Fernando*

COPENHAGEN (IPS/TerraViva) – China appears to have gained instant celebrity status since the opening days of the United Nations Climate Change Conference here.

The many meetings and press briefings arranged by Chinese officials have been jampacked by all who are excited to see the emerging economic giant of Asia will lead the rest of the developing world during the climate negotiations in the Danish capital.

In an interview with a small group of journalists that included TerraViva, Ambassador Yu Qingtai, the Special Representative for Climate Change Talks from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, took a cautiously optimistic approach in hopes of an agreement coming out of Copenhagen.

“Given the seriousness of the challenge we face and given the desire, we believe that the Copenhagen conference is extremely important, that we will achieve success,” said Yu. “We’ve come also with a readiness to engage with our partners to find ways to narrow the gap that still exists.”

“By the end of next week, we’ll be able to show the world, despite all the problems we encountered in the past two years after Bali, we have something that we can agree on, something that is meaningful, something that is based firmly on the convention and Bali Action Plan, something that will give us a good foundation for the coming years for enhanced cooperation to fight climate change,” he added.

The Copenhagen climate talks, which began on Dec. 7, are set to culminate tomorrow, Dec. 18.

Yu pointed out out that “political will” was one of the main obstacles to a bilateral agreement. He stated that all the Annex I (or developed) countries have expressed a lot of enthusiasm for making their contributions but have lagged behind in keeping their promises.

“Whether or not the Annex I countries are part of the Kyoto Protocol, they committed themselves to reducing their emissions to the 1990 levels by the year 2000. That is not something we want; that is something each and every country agreed to in the convention. If you look at the year 2000, I doubt that any country can stand before this gathering and say, ‘I met my goals’ and so far I have not heard anybody say ‘I have not failed’ and that is the kind of gap we are looking at,” Yu explained.

In recent days, there has been a lot of strong rhetoric from both China and the United States. Being the two largest producers of greenhouse gases, a significant deal from Copenhagen would not be possible without the two countries reaching a compromise.

Responding to criticism that China would not need any money from the United States, aired by top climate change negotiator Todd Sterns, Yu pointed out that when China takes a strong stand on financing and technology transfer issues, the government is not looking at what the country can get from what may or may not eventually emerge from these talks.

“We have strong positions on financing and technology transfer because these are the obligations the developed countries undertook in the Convention (on Climate Change), but have so far failed to meet them. There’s no way the U.S. will join the Kyoto Protocol, but the U.S. (government) is a contracting party to the convention. If you look at the convention as Annex I countries, as developed countries, there are clear provisions on what they need to implement,” said Yu.

Saying that the larger developing countries are able to help the smaller developing countries, he pointed out continuing South-South cooperation underway and gave the example of China working with African states.

In a ministerial conference carried out weeks before the Copenhagen climate talks, called the Sino-African Forum that took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and other African heads of state agreed on an action plan under which Beijing agreed to enhance the support it gives to Africa and expand the area of climate change in bilateral programmes.

“We are helping Africa fight climate change in terms of adaptation, capacity building, sustainable agriculture, and we have already announced we will increase our resources to help Africa do all this,” said Yu.

Yu does not agree that there are “major” or “minor” players in the ongoing climate change talks. “What we are working for is a close regional cooperation across a huge range of issues from economic development, social development, capacity building, human resource development, all the way to climate change,” he said.

“It’s a common challenge to the world but definitely a common challenge to each and every country in Asia. You have China and India, larger developing countries who are maintaining a good momentum in economic and social development. You have the Small Island Developing States, the Least Developed Countries at different stages of economic development,” Yu explained.

“There is great potential in working together; complementing each other so the end result will be good for each and every country involved in this effort, because what’s good for the region is good for the world.”

Yu concluded: “If the developed countries continue to fail in meeting their commitments in terms of financing and technology transfer, it becomes all more important that the developing countries step up their efforts to help each other.”

Mithika Mwenda. Credit: Nasseem Ackburally/IPS

Nasseem Ackburally

COPENHAGEN (IPS/TerraViva) – Ethiopian president Meles Zenawi was chosen by African leaders to champion a united African position.

But Zenawi has provoked outrage from campaigners by issuing a joint statement with French president Nicholas Sarkozy that falls well short of the Africa Group’s demands for emissions cuts or long-term financial commitments to support mitigation, adaptation and other  measures in the developing world.

Nasseem Ackburally interviewed one of those most disappointed by Zenawi’s action, Mithika Mwenda, from the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance.

Q: What is the position of Pan-African Climate Justice on the statement made by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi?

A: This statement seems to contradict the position of Africa. It reinforces what industrialized countries have been wanting: collapse the Kyoto Protocol – and this is unacceptable.

That shows that the developed countries are not committed to leveraging a fair deal in Copenhagen. They want a politically binding deal, which in our view is very bad.

We are really surprised the person who is supposed to talk of Africa is falling into this trap. We urge our spokesman to consult the other stakeholders before making statements so that he does not contradict what is for Africa.

Q: How do you think his statement affects Africa?

A: There is a lot of outrage amongst the African countries following this statement. This is going to create dissent, meaning division, and then those who are bent on dividing Africa will succeed.

We should not fall into that trap. That’s why we are telling him that this is not good and he should consult others.

We need a strong voice for Africa and that voice can only be achieved if we consult each other.

Q: How united is Africa today?

A: Africa is the most united region now. A lot of consultations are going on with the African ministerial conference on the environment.

In fact, right now [early on Dec. 16, they are discussing the Malawian statement and the African Group is actually setting the pace here. We are seeing actually an incredible group because of their unity. We are really happy.

The good thing is that we at the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance, we are talking with our negotiators, with other stakeholders and we believe that we need to unite and take the work forward through this unity.

Q: What should be the position of Africa?

A: From our point of view, we need to hold the global warming down to 1.5 degrees. The statement is talking about 2 degrees.

It also confirms that the 10 billion dollar offered by industrialised countries to Africa for adaptation and mitigation. We believe this is hardly enough. There should be more financial commitment by industrialized countries.

Q: How much more money do you think Africa needs for adaptation and mitigation to climate change?

A: Africans are talking about 400 billion dollars per year for the next three years.
Just compare that with the 10 billion dollars they are giving. That’s nothing because when you divide this sum among the almost one billion Africans, it comes to 4 dollars per person.

This is actually an insult for Africa which is the most afflicted by climate change.

Q: Is money the only solution to the problem of climate change?

A: Resources can come in many forms but in the form of money as well. The issue here actually is how do we adapt and we need the resources for it. Money is playing an important part because at the end of the day it’ll be required for everything, including technology transfer for adaptation.

Q: For how long does Africa need the money?

A: We are saying that by the year 2020, the industrialised countries should cut their emissions by 45 per cent to the baseline of the year 1990 and then by 2050 by 80 to 90 per cent. We need the money until that time.

Q: Would that be sufficient?

A: Hopefully.

Q: What do expect from this Summit?

A: We expect a legally binding agreement and a two track outcome which will retain and strengthen the Kyoto Protocol.

This is the only agreement right now that binds the industrialised countries to reduce their emissions. If by any chance we lose Kyoto, which we know these countries do not like much, there will be no longer be any commitment.

We know most of them have not even committed to the five percent which they don’t want. So the only way they can escape is to drop the Kyoto Protocol and to negotiate another agreement that can take a long long time – not less than ten years.
(END/2009)

Mithika Mwenda: 'This is going to create dissent, and then those who are bent on dividing Africa will succeed.' Credit: Nasseem Ackburally/IPS

Ethiopian president Meles Zenawi was chosen by African leaders to champion a united African position.
But Zenawi has provoked outrage from campaigners by issuing a joint statement with the French president Nicholas Sarkozy that falls well short of the Africa Group’s demands for emissions cuts or  long-term financial commitments to support mitigation, adaptation and other  measures in the developing world.
Nasseem Ackburally interviewed one of those most disappointed by Zenawi’s action, Mithika Mwenda, from the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance.

Edouard Yao: "Après Copenhague, c’est une bataille qui débutera, un défi qu’il faudra relever." Credit: Fulgence Zamblé/IPS

Fulgence Zamblé s’entretient avec EDOUARD YAO, coordinateur de Côte d’Ivoire

ABIDJAN (IPS/TerraViva) - En dépit d’une marche de mobilisation contre les changements climatiques avortée dans la capitale économique ivoirienne, Abidjan, pour des raisons d’organisation, Edouard Yao, coordinateur Côte d’Ivoire de l’organisation non gouvernementale LEAD Africa, ne démord pas.

Pour lui, les populations africaines ont besoin d’être largement informées sur la question climatique. Ce pourquoi, depuis l’ouverture des négociations de Copenhague, au Danemark, l’organisation dont il est le coordinateur organise dans cinq villes africaines des séances de visualisation en direct de Copenhague, suivies d’exposés et de débats en ligne et hors ligne.

Ainsi des populations suivent en direct les négociations sur les changements climatiques. Cependant, ce qui l’intrigue, c’est le fait que les pays africains n’aient pas suffisamment préparé le rendez-vous du Danemark. Selon Yao, l’Afrique manque d’arguments (aucun chiffre, aucun plan d’action, aucune stratégie d’adaptation) à Copenhague, et elle ne devrait pas récolter grand-chose.

Dans cet entretien accordé à IPS/TerraViva, Edouard Yao explique la politique qui aurait pu sortir le continent africain grandi des discussions du COP 15.

Q: Quel intérêt à proposer les négociations de Copenhague en vision conférence aux populations?

R: Sachez que tout le monde n’est pas informé de ce qui se discute actuellement au Danemark. Même certains intellectuels n’en savent rien. Chez le citoyen lambda, tout ce qui lui arrive avec la forte chaleur, les pluies diluviennes, le cycle cultural bouleversé et autres ont d’autres sens. Mais ils n’ont pas l’information scientifique.

Aujourd’hui que nous avons les discussions de Copenhague en direct, ils sont médusés, hyper satisfaits.

Q: Sentez-vous déjà une prise de conscience de leur part?

R: Bien entendu. Et nous leur faisons comprendre que les autorités ne peuvent pas tout faire pour lutter contre le réchauffement climatique.

Nous devons responsabiliser la société civile. Après Copenhague, c’est une bataille qui débutera, un défi qu’il faudra relever. Car, en fonction des résultats des négociations, il faudra sensibiliser tout le monde. Nous devons le faire ensemble.

Q: Approuvez-vous les principales requêtes du continent africain et des autres pays émergents aux négociations?

R: Notre souhait et qui est celui des populations, est que les négociations aboutissent à la réduction des gaz à effet de serre à un taux ambitieux et raisonnable. Ce sera l’apport important des pays développés.

Pour ce qui de l’Afrique, elle a déjà manqué le départ des négociations. Aujourd’hui, nous avons besoin d’un plan d’adaptation en bonne forme et non pas d’argent. Dans les pays africains, il n’existe pas de statistiques fiables pour chaque Etat. Tout est global. Il aurait fallu effectuer une recherche sur des données avant de se présenter au Danemark.

Car, même si  l’enveloppe de 200 milliards de dollars était accordée, sur quel base cela serait reparti et quel serait le mécanisme de gestion quand on sait qu’il existe des problèmes de gouvernance dans certains pays. Encore qu’il n’est pas certain que cette somme résolve définitivement le mal qui menace le continent. Alors cet argent ne servira à rien.

Q: Pour vous, qu’est-ce qui devait être proposé par le G77?

R: En prenant singulièrement l’Afrique, nous aurions pu mettre en avant l’énergie verte dont nous disposons avec le soleil et l’énergie éolienne que nous pouvons développer sur le continent, concevoir des plans dans ce sens.

Il y a ce potentiel qui existe sur le continent et que nous pouvons exploiter pour le revendre aux pays développés. Il faut des mesures pour contrôler les feux de brousses, les importations de véhicules d’occasion…

La politique de la main tendue n’est pas celle-là qui va nous tirer d’affaire. Car en même temps que le continent exige la réduction des gaz à effet de serre, il demande des moyens financiers. C’est paradoxal en ce sens que les moyens qui seront dégagés par les pays développés proviennent en grande partie de l’usage des gaz à effets de serre. A eux seuls, ils ne peuvent pas consentir un double sacrifice.

Q: A vous entendre, l’Afrique n’était pas prête pour ce rendez-vous?

R: Elle n’a pas cherché à être prête. Avant le sommet de Copenhague, l’Europe était à Barcelone pour trouver des solutions. Pendant ce temps, l’Afrique ne songeait qu’à une position commune sur la réduction du gaz à effet de serre et le montant qui doit lui être alloué.

Sortir des négociations comme nos représentants l’ont fait lundi dernier n’était que du bluff. Ils voulaient juste fixer la barre un peu haute et indiquer qu’ils étaient sur le qui-vive. Sinon, le continent africain n’a véritablement pas anticipé sur la question des changements climatiques au point où l’Europe va créer son énergie verte pour s’en sortir et nous convoyer ces véhicules à carburant qui vont encore polluer l’air.

(FIN/2009)

Legislador venezolano Ricardo Capella. Crédito: Raúl Pierri/IPS

Por Raúl Pierri

COPENHAGUE (IPS/TerraViva) Venezuela, pese a su condición de potencia petrolera, es una de las voces de América Latina que con más fuerza exigen un ambicioso acuerdo en la 15 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP15), que concluirá este viernes en la capital danesa.

Los países de la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA), que celebraron el lunes su cumbre en La Habana, denunciaron intentos del Norte industrializado de obstaculizar un acuerdo justo en la conferencia internacional sobre cambio climático.

Además, denunciaron esfuerzos de esas naciones para matar al Protocolo de Kyoto, que constituye “el régimen jurídico vinculante vigente que norma la respuesta y la cooperación internacional para el enfrentamiento del calentamiento global”, sostuvieron.

El ALBA está conformado por Antigua y Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, San Vicente y Granadinas y Venezuela.

TerraViva dialogó con el diputado venezolano oficialista Ricardo Capella, también miembro del Parlamento Amazónico, que participa de las actividades del Klimaforum, la reunión de la sociedad civil que se realiza en Copenhague de forma paralela a la COP15.

El Parlamento Amazónico es un organismo de carácter permanente creado en 1989 por iniciativa del Congreso de Perú, e integrado por legisladores de los países de la cuenca (Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Perú, Suriname y Venezuela).

TERRAVIVA: ¿Cómo compagina Venezuela su postura contra el recalentamiento planetario con su condición de país petrolero?

RICARDO CAPELLA: Nosotros somos leales al Protocolo de Kyoto y somos fuertes protectores de la Amazonia. Sobre el consumo de combustibles fósiles, por supuesto somos productores, pero tenemos programas de investigación de otro tipo de alternativas energéticas. Incluso dentro de nuestra empresa (Petróleos de Venezuela) contamos con departamentos especiales que investigan las energías alternativas.

Pero, especialmente, no evaluamos la reducción de emisiones de acuerdo con políticas económicas, sino con políticas humanas. Son dos actitudes diferentes. La política económica dice así: “Tenemos que reducir las emisiones y eso nos va a dañar la economía”. Pero a nosotros no nos importa, lo importante es que no dañe a los seres humanos.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Qué esfuerzos llevan a cabo en cuanto a la matriz energética?

RC: Setenta y tres por ciento de nuestra energía proviene hoy de fuentes que nacen en el Amazonas. Esto es, 73 por ciento es hidroeléctrica, no contamina. Y tenemos planes de desarrollarla aun más, pero los periodos prolongados de sequía disminuyen la capacidad de generación.

En este momento, sobre todo, la sequía, ocasionada no en tiempos normales sino por este cambio climático, nos ha hecho que baje a la mitad el estiaje de las represas, y por eso estamos en una etapa de racionamiento.

TERRAVIVA: En la COP-15 se percibe una actitud más exigente de los países del ALBA con respecto al resto de América Latina. ¿Hay consenso en las posturas entre todos los países de la región?

RC: Nosotros representamos al ALBA. No podemos hablar por el resto. Incluso dentro del ALBA tenemos diferencias. De todas formas, con el resto de los países se está discutiendo una posición común.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Cuál es el sector de población más afectado en su país y qué está haciendo su gobierno para atenderlo?

RC: Es la población indígena, en el Amazonas. Y la mayor parte de nuestras políticas están abocadas a ellos.

En Venezuela existe el Ministerio del Poder Popular para los Pueblos Indígenas, que elabora políticas exclusivas para ese sector. Además de eso, la Constitución tiene un capítulo dedicado especialmente a los pueblos indígenas.

TERRAVIVA: Los gobiernos del ALBA denuncian un intento de los países del Anexo 1 (industriales) del Protocolo de Kyoto de forzar un resultado según su conveniencia, sin una verdadera discusión democrática en la COP-15.

RC: Nosotros vamos a ir con la equidad y con la participación de todos en la conferencia. No vamos a permitir que nos impongan cosas.

Hydrologist Arshad H. Abbasi says Siachen glacier is melting at an unprecedented rate. Credit: Arshad Abbasi

By Zofeen Ebrahim

KARACHI (IPS/TerraViva) – For the past several years, water expert Arshad H. Abbasi has been calling attention to the environmental degradation of the Siachen Glacier, one of the Himalayan glaciers and the largest in the world outside of the polar regions.

Situated on the strategic tri-junction of India, China and Pakistan, the glacier is considered a climate regulator and an “ecological source” for South Asia, says Abbasi.

Dubbed the world’s highest battleground, at 21,000 feet above sea level, the 77-kilometre-long glacier has been melting rapidly due to military presence in the region. Since 1984, India and Pakistan have been laying claim to the ice mass, where fighting between the two states has been going on intermittently since April 1984.

Troops on both sides have played irrevocable havoc with the region’s biodiversity, ecology and hydrology, says Abbasi, former director of the Planning Commission of Pakistan and now advisor to the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, a policy-oriented, research institute based in Islamabad.

Experts say human-induced climate change has contributed significantly to alarming changes in climate patterns that, among others, are affecting the rate at which glaciers melt, triggering a wave of natural disasters such as increased incidence of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis.

According to estimates, about 200 tonnes of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere daily due to burning of fuel for the sustenance of the troops and transportation of war material by land and air. Both India and Pakistan spend a million dollars a day to maintain their troops at Siachen — an enormous amount that, experts say, can go a long way to fight poverty and hunger that beset both countries.

Three percent of the casualties between the two forces fighting over the glacier are due to hostile fighting; the rest are attributed to the altitude, weather and avalanches.

Calling the Siachen conflict a war between the glacier and humans, not one between India and Pakistan, Abbasi says the 97 percent casualties point to that, because a majority of soldiers sustain frostbite and injuries caused by accidents arising from snowstorms and other natural causes, and very rarely from crossfire.

In an interview with IPS, Abbasi explains why the only war worth fighting is protecting the glacier and preserving the fragile ecology of the glacial ice, which may not be there for too long for the two sides to continue fighting over.

Q: How and when did you begin calling for the demilitarisation of the Siachen Glacier?

A: It began when I received the first satellite imagery (of the Himalayan glaciers) and compared it with the status of the glacial mass in 1978. The most significant ice-mass loser was Siachen. I shared the images with the director-general of the Meteorological Department, who told me that the glacier was overburdened by the armies of both countries (India and Pakistan).

Q: Why is the melting of Siachen catastrophic for the South Asian region?

A: In the last 25 years, the glacier has been reduced to 35 percent and is retreating three dimensionally, thinning vertically at an alarming rate, as well as retreating horizontally, at approximately more than 100 metres per year.

The melting of Siachen and other glaciers due to this (India-Pakistan) conflict is already causing variance in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, but its worst impact on global sea level rise remains under-estimated and understudied. Rising sea level is the most serious threat to the populations living on and along the coast.

Q: Is it unprecedented compared to other glaciers in the Himalayas?

A: Yes, the recession is unprecedented when you compare it to other neighbouring Himalayan glaciers like Bara Shigri, Gangotri and Chhota Shigri.

Q: Can you cite the factors that have contributed to the accelerated melting of the Siachen glacier?

A: Permanent base camps on the glacier, cantonments in its vicinity, hourly helicopter flights to retrieve wounded or sick soldiers and dropping off supplies, dumping military garbage and human waste, laying of 120-km-long oil pipeline for heating igloos, keeping rifles warm over kerosene stoves, melting the snow for machine guns by keeping them in boiling water, construction of bunkers by cutting and melting glacial ice millions of years old by sprinkling chemicals and (using) mechanical methods; and using glaciers as roads to reach the last base camps – Kamar and Indra – (these are) causing severe environmental degradation to the glacier.

Q: What to your mind is the solution to the pillaging of the Siachen Glacier?

A: Urgent demilitarisation by negotiating an honourable withdrawal and ban on mountaineering and other development activities near glacier regions.

This would be the greatest relief for the Siachen and other Himalayan glaciers as direct human interference will come to a halt. The daily, rather hourly, aviation activities will be over. The glaciers would again grow or at least remain stable.

Q: The idea of a Siachen science park and a peace zone has been floated for years. What is your take on it?

A: I only support the idea of preservation of glaciers but not that of a science park. In Antarctica, since the last many decades, scientists conducting research from different nations have so far failed to develop any technique to preserve glaciers. On the other hand, their presence has made the continent vulnerable and (the glacier) is melting at an accelerated rate.

Q: You were present at the three-day Track-II Dialogue on Conflict Resolution and Peace Building (held in Bangkok on Oct. 7 to 9) between the two adversaries in Bangkok. Was there anything significant discussed there that gave you hope?

A: In the Pak-India track II dialogue, demilitarisation of the Siachen glacier was discussed. Major Gen Dipankar Banerjee, who served in Siachen, is taking a keen interest to convince Indian policymakers to save this glacier from melting. Other experts on both sides also held similar views. Preserving the Siachen and other Himalayan glaciers, they said, was in the best interest of both countries and the world at large.

It is time civil society, independent researchers and media, from both sides began pressing their respective governments to save and preserve the glaciers, especially the Siachen. I would also urge both sides to get an independent audit of the glacial ice-balance to compare what it was back, say, in 1984, with (what it is) now to get an idea of the damage caused (by military presence at Siachen).

Manuel Rodríguez Becerra, ex ministro de Medio Ambiente de Colombia. Crédito: Confecoop

Por Daniela Estrada

COPENHAGUE (IPS/TerraViva)  “Nos preocupa que la voz de América Latina se hace sentir a través de las ONG multinacionales, que pueden ser muy respetables, como la WWF, Conservación Internacional, Amigos de la Tierra, pero pensamos que debe haber una voz de América Latina que no esté permeada por los intereses del Norte”, dijo a TerraViva el ex ministro de Medio Ambiente de Colombia, Manuel Rodríguez.

“Aunque las ONG (organizaciones no gubernamentales) multinacionales actúan de buena fe es innegable que son dominadas por intereses del Norte, de países industrializados que no necesariamente tienen que coincidir con los intereses de los países como nosotros”, dijo Rodríguez Becerra, tras una sesión en el Klimaforum de Copenhague.

A mediados de este año organizaciones no gubernamentales y privadas de América Latina crearon una plataforma sobre cambio climático para abrir un espacio de pensamiento propiamente regional, relató.

La Plataforma Climática Latinoamericana está conformada por cerca de 20 organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) y entidades estatales y empresariales de la región. Entre ellas figuran el estatal Fondo Nacional Ambiental de Colombia, el Centro Uruguayo de Tecnologías Apropiadas, la Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento de Argentina, la Fundación Moisés Bertoni de Paraguay y la Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental.

En octubre y noviembre, la Plataforma organizó foros nacionales en cinco países de la región, donde participaron ONG, movimientos sociales, comunidades campesinas, académicos, gobiernos locales y nacionales y medios de comunicación.

Algunos de sus representantes, como Rodríguez, están participando en la 15 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP-15) y el Klimaforum, la cumbre paralela de la sociedad civil, ambas inauguradas el lunes 7 en la capital danesa.

“El objetivo es establecer un espacio para el intercambio, para el diálogo en Latinoamérica sobre el cambio climático, que debe conducir en algunos casos a tener posiciones conjuntas frente al problema a nivel global y a mejorar las políticas internas de cada país para combatirlo y adaptarnos”, dijo Rodríguez, primer ministro de Medio Ambiente de Colombia, profesor de la Universidad de los Andes de Colombia y consultor internacional sobre política ambiental.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Qué aporte distinto pueden hacer las ONGs latinoamericanas en esta materia?

MR: Ayudar a construir una voluntad política en relación al cambio climático, en relación a las cosas que hay que hacer dentro de cada país. Y también que sirva la acción de la Plataforma para generar pensamiento latinoamericano sobre el problema del cambio climático.

América Latina está en capacidad de hacer sus propias conclusiones intelectuales de diferente índole para resolver el problema del cambio climático y para adaptarnos a sus efectos.

TERRAVIVA: ¿En qué podría contribuir América Latina a la lucha contra el cambio climático en el mundo?

MR: Latinoamérica tiene una característica muy especial: de las regiones en desarrollo, es una de las que tiene mayor grado de urbanización. Y buena parte de los problemas de adaptación en el futuro se van a relacionar con esto. Las poblaciones más vulnerables del mundo están en las ciudades, no en el campo.

Y América Latina tiene una urbanización del 80 por ciento. La región puede tomar un liderazgo muy grande en tratar de pensar qué medidas se pueden tomar en ciudades con poblaciones muy vulnerables.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Qué es lo que se juega América Latina en esta COP-15?

MR: Muchas cosas, como se las juegan en general los países en desarrollo. Por ejemplo, cuál es el papel de los bosques en relación al cambio climático. América Latina, y en particular los países amazónicos, tienen el bosque tropical continuo más grande del mundo. También hay bosques muy importantes en otros lugares. Hay países de América Latina, especialmente los insulares del Caribe, que pueden sufrir mucho.

TERRAVIVA: Usted se declara escéptico de la iniciativa REDD (Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación de Bosques), que parece ser una de las cuestiones más concretas que saldrá de la COP-15.

MR: Se está exagerando cuando se dice que la REDD puede detener la deforestación global. Puede contribuir, pero hay unas causas en la deforestación de América Latina que simplemente no se resuelven con un incentivo económico como REDD.

Está todo el tema de los derechos de propiedad donde están ubicados los bosques. Es una causa principal de deforestación y hay que resolverlo, y es un problema de política doméstica, especialmente. No es un problema que se acuerde en una negociación global.

Muchas de las tierras que tienen bosques en el mundo son del Estado, otras son baldíos y algunas están en posesión de comunidades que no tienen títulos de propiedad. Muchos gobiernos otorgan concesiones forestales o mineras sobre tierras que están ocupadas por poblaciones tradicionales, pero sin títulos sobre ellas.

Hay un mundo muy complejo ahí y, naturalmente, en cierto momento que las comunidades se ven amenazadas en su posesión de las tierras, no necesariamente van a cuidar de la mejor forma el bosque.

José Miguez. Crédito: Cortesía de Itaipú Binacional

Por Mario Osava

RIO DE JANERIO (IPS/TerraViva) Brasil busca mantener en Copenhague el papel de liderazgo que tuvo este país en las negociaciones sobre ambiente desde que acogió la llamada Cumbre de la Tierra en esta ciudad en 1992.

El gobierno de Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva anunció el 13 de noviembre el compromiso voluntario de reducir entre 36 y 39 por ciento los gases de efecto invernadero para 2020. Pero respecto de los volúmenes de 1990, como establece el Protocolo de Kyoto, significará un aumento de casi 21 por ciento.

La población de Brasil es la que en proporción más se ha manifestado preocupada por el calentamiento, según una encuesta del Centro de Investigación Pew: 90 por ciento de los consultados dijeron estar muy preocupados por el aumento de la temperatura y 79 por ciento dijeron estar dispuestos a sacrificar crecimiento económico y empleos a favor del ambiente.

Brasil puede ser considerado una “sociedad con bajo nivel de carbono”, según José Miguez, coordinador de la Comisión Interministerial de Cambio Climático, en entrevista desde Copenhague.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Además de las metas voluntarias, qué otras contribuciones lleva Brasil a Copenhague para justificar su liderazgo?

JOSÉ MIGUEZ: El liderazgo brasileño viene desde la firma de la Convención sobre Cambio Climático en Río de Janeiro en 1992. Son brasileñas la propuesta que se adoptó en 1997 en Kyoto, como el Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio (MDL), la negociación en dos carriles, la Convención y el Protocolo, decidida en 2007 en Bali, y el mecanismo de reducción de emisiones de la Deforestación y Degradación forestal (REDD) de 2006.

También lo es la reciente proposición, en el ámbito de la Convención, de Acciones de Mitigación Adecuadas al Contexto Nacional para países en desarrollo (NAMA, en siglas inglesas), que buscan destrabar las negociaciones.

Además, Brasil tiene una matriz energética limpia, por la sustancial generación de hidroelectricidad, y el uso de biocombustibles en los transportes. Y se hizo un gran esfuerzo para reducir la deforestación. Adicionando los más de 400 proyectos MDL que redujeron en siete por ciento las emisiones brasileñas no forestales, el esfuerzo ya alcanza a 30 por ciento de merma respecto de 1990. Ningún país industrializado hizo un esfuerzo comparable de mitigación.

TERRAVIVA: ¿En que áreas prevé mayores dificultades para cumplir la meta de 2020?

JM: Los compromisos cuantificados de reducción de las emisiones, las llamadas metas, corresponden por el Protocolo de Kyoto a los países industrializados. Las acciones NAMA se insertan en el ámbito de la Convención y en el Plan de Acción de Bali. Y dependerán de lo que se acuerde en Copenhague. Se necesitará un amplio debate con la sociedad brasileña.

TERRAVIVA: ¿Pero la economía de bajo carbono no contradice la política oficial de crecimiento, concebida en términos tradicionales, con ocupación amazónica, expansión de carreteras, industria automovilística y consumo energético?

JM: Lo importante es que el crecimiento se haga con cambios que resulten en una menor intensidad de emisiones por unidad del producto interno bruto (PBI).  Brasil posee una industria de bajas emisiones y condiciones para mantener o incluso ampliar la participación de fuentes renovables en la matriz energética, que en 2008 era de 45,4 por ciento del total.