Morales: U.S. seeks excuse to meddle in Latin America

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia (Reuters) – Bolivian President Evo Morales on Monday urged Latin America to reject U.S. anti-drug, anti-communist and anti-terror policies, calling them “pretexts for interventionism.”

Morales, one of Latin America’s most strident critics of Washington, told a defense conference attended by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Washington remained a threat to regional peace and stability.

“Democracy, peace and security can only be guaranteed without interventionism, without hegemony,” Morales said, listing a series of charges against Washington ranging from coup-plotting to interference in the country’s traditional coca leaf farming. Coca is the plant used to make cocaine.

Gates listened to Morales’ comments but did not appear to react to the broadside, which underscored the Obama administration’s uphill battle to put relationships with many of its southern neighbors on a better footing.

The U.S. defense secretary, speaking to the conference later in the day, supported efforts to improve disaster relief coordination to help respond to regional events like the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile this year.

“This initiative will go far to help mitigate the human suffering that results from these tragedies,” Gates said.

He also backed a proposal to promote transparency in regional defense spending, saying openness about military intentions and capabilities would help promote mutual trust in a region where many are still wary of U.S. influence.

Gates said his staff was working with the U.S. State Department to re-evaluate the Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons Acquisition with a view to submitting it to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

UPHILL BATTLE

The Obama administration has worked to improve links with Latin America, hoping both to smooth working relationships with emerging powers such as Brazil as well as to counter new players in the region such as China and Iran.

But the way has not always been easy. Relations between Bolivia and the United States have been strained since Morales, a leader of the coca farmers union, was elected in 2005, the country’s first indigenous leader.

The Bolivian government expelled the U.S. ambassador in 2008 along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency, accusing them of supporting the conservative opposition.

Washington responded by expelling the Bolivian ambassador, leaving bilateral relations in their worst state ever. Ties have improved somewhat since then.

Morales, an admirer of longtime U.S. critics such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, nationalized the oil and gas sector in 2006 and speaks out about what he sees as U.S. imperialism.

Morales took particular aim at U.S. military operations in the region, many of which have been aimed both at countering guerrilla operations and at improving cooperation in the fight against powerful drug trafficking networks.

“Countries have a right to decide for themselves about their own democracy, for themselves about their own security,”

Morales said, adding that “while we have interventionist attitudes for whatever pretext surely it is going to slow the liberation of the people.”

“How can there be peace if there are U.S. military bases?” he asked, referring to a U.S. deal with Colombia that would give American forces greater access to Colombian military bases as part of its anti-drug effort. The agreement has been in limbo since a Colombian court suspended it in August.

Morales accused the United States of being behind efforts to undermine the socialist governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Honduras, where a coup unseated the president and democracy was not restored until the end of his term.

“With the United States we are 3-1,” Morales joked.

(Additional reporting by Carlos Quiroga, editing by Cynthia Ostermn)

ALBA nations declare: Nature has no price!

November 15, 2010

Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela declare: “Nature is our home and is the system of which we form a part, and therefore it has infinite value, but it does not have a price and is not for sale.”

[Spanish text below]

Ministers, Authorities of the Ministerial Committee for the Defense of Nature of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Republic of Cuba, Republic of Ecuador, Republic of Nicaragua, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas – Treaty of Commerce of the People (ALBA-TCP), gathered in the city of La Paz in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, from November 3rd to 5th, 2010.

Considering that:

1. There is within the United Nations is a push to promote the concept of a “green economy” or a “Global Green New Deal”[1] in order to extend capitalism in the economic, social and environmental arenas, in which nature is seen as “capital” for producing tradable environmental goods and services that should then be valued in monetary terms and assigned a price so that they can be commercialized with the purpose of obtaining profits.

2. Studies are being carried out and manipulated, such as the Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change and the study on the Economy of Ecosystems and Biodiversity,[2] among others, in order to promote the privatization and the mercantilization of nature through the development of markets for environmental services, among other instruments.

3. Those who promote this new form of privatization and mercantilization of nature wish to develop a new kind of property rights which are not exercised over a natural resource in itself, but rather, over the functions offered by particular ecosystems, thus opening up the possibility of commercializing them in the market through certificates, bonds, credits, etc.

4. Under this capitalist conception that seeks only to guarantee benefit for those few who wield economic power: water should be privatized and distributed only to those that can afford to pay for it, forests are only good for capturing emissions and for selling on the carbon market that allows rich countries to avoid reducing emissions within their own territories, and genetic resources must be appropriated and patented for the enjoyment of those who possess modern technology.

Recognizing that:

The right to safe drinking water and sanitation is a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life, which has been endorsed by the United Nations and can only be guaranteed through the recognition and defense of the rights of Mother Earth.

Convinced that:

States are responsible for guaranteeing the sovereignty of the peoples over their natural patrimony and natural resources.

We declare:

1. That nature is our home and is the system of which we form a part, and that therefore it has infinite value, but does not have a price and is not for sale.

2. Our commitment to preventing capitalism from continuing to expand in the spheres that are essential to life and nature, being that this is one of the greatest challenges confronting humanity.

3. Our absolute rejection of the privatization, monetization and mercantilization of nature, for it leads to a greater imbalance in the environment and goes against our ethical principles.

4. Our condemnation of unsustainable models of economic growth that are created at the expense of our resources and the sovereignty of our peoples.

5. Only a humanity that is conscious of its present and future responsibilities, and states with the political will to carry out their role, can change the course of history and restore equilibrium in nature and life as a whole.

6. That instead of promoting the privatization of goods and services that come from nature, it is essential to recognize that these have a collective character, and, as such, should be conserved as public goods, respecting the sovereignty of states.

7. It is not the invisible hand of the market that will allow for the recuperation of equilibrium on Mother Earth. Only with the conscious intervention of state and society through policies, public regulations, and the strengthening of public services can the equilibrium of nature be restored.

8. Cancun cannot be another Copenhagen; we hope that accords will be reached in which developed countries truly act according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and effectively assume their obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, without making climate change into a business through the promotion and creation of carbon market mechanisms.

9. That, committed to life, the countries present at this meeting agree to include in our permanent agenda, among other actions, the realization of a referendum on climate change and the promotion of the participation of the peoples of the world.

10. That it is urgent to adopt at the United Nations a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.

———

[1] Global Green New Deal, 2009

[2] The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

———

La Naturaleza No Tiene Precio

Las Ministras y Ministros, y Autoridades del Comité Ministerial de Defensa de la Naturaleza del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, República de Cuba, República del Ecuador, República de Nicaragua, y la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, miembros de la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América – Tratado de Comercio de los Pueblos” (ALBA – TCP), reunidos en la ciudad de La Paz, Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, del 3 al 5 de noviembre de 2010.

Considerando que:

1. Dentro de las Naciones Unidas se viene impulsando el concepto de “economía verde” o “Nuevo Acuerdo Verde Global”[1], para extender el capitalismo en lo económico, social y lo ambiental, que asume a la naturaleza como un “capital” productor de bienes y servicios ambientales transables, que deben ser valorados en términos monetarios, asignándoles un precio para luego comercializarlos con el fin de obtener ganancia.

2. Se realizan y manipulan estudios como el Informe Stern sobre la Economía del Cambio Climático y el estudio sobre la Economía de Ecosistemas y Biodiversidad[2] entre otros, para promover la privatización y mercantilización de la Naturaleza mediante el desarrollo de mercados de pago por servicios ambientales, entre otros instrumentos.

3. Bajo esta concepción capitalista que busca garantizar solamente el beneficio de unos pocos provistos de poder económico: el agua debe ser privatizada y suministrada solo a quien pueda pagarla, los bosques sólo sirven para capturar emisiones y venderlas en mercados de carbono para permitir que los países ricos no reduzcan sus emisiones dentro de sus territorios, y los recursos genéticos tienen que ser apropiados y patentados por quienes detentan la tecnología moderna para poder ser disfrutados.

4. Los promotores de esta nueva forma de privatización y mercantilización de la naturaleza quieren desarrollar un nuevo tipo de derecho de propiedad, que no se ejerce sobre un recurso natural en sí, sino sobre las funciones que prestan los ecosistemas, y que otorgaría la potestad de comercializarlas en el mercado, a través de certificados, bonos, créditos, entre otros.

Reconociendo que:

El derecho al agua potable segura y al saneamiento es un derecho humano esencial para el goce pleno de la vida, que ha sido refrendado por la Organización de las Naciones Unidas y que sólo puede ser garantizado a través del reconocimiento y defensa de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra

Convencidos que:

Los Estados son los responsables de garantizar la soberanía de los pueblos sobre su patrimonio natural y sus recursos naturales.

Declaramos:

1. Que la naturaleza es nuestro hogar y es el sistema del cual somos parte, por tanto tiene un infinito valor, pero no tiene un precio y no está en venta.
2. Nuestro compromiso de evitar que el capitalismo se continúe expandiendo en las esferas esenciales de la vida y la naturaleza, siendo éste uno de los más grandes desafíos que enfrenta la humanidad.
3. Nuestro contundente rechazo a la privatización, monetarización y mercantilización de la naturaleza, por impulsar un mayor desequilibrio del medioambiente e ir en contra de nuestros principios éticos.
4. Nuestra condena a los modelos de crecimiento económico no sustentables que se construyen a costa de nuestros recursos y de la soberanía de nuestros pueblos.
5. Que sólo una humanidad consciente de su responsabilidad presente y futura y Estados con voluntad política para desempeñar su papel, pueden cambiar el curso de la historia y rescatar el equilibrio de la naturaleza y la vida en su conjunto.
6. Que lejos de promover la privatización de los bienes y servicios provenientes de la naturaleza, es esencial reconocer que estos son de carácter colectivo, y que como tales deben ser conservados como un bien público, respetando la soberanía de los Estados sobre los mismos.
7. No es la mano invisible del mercado la que permitirá recuperar el equilibrio de la Madre Tierra. Sólo con la intervención consciente del Estado y la sociedad a través de políticas, regulaciones públicas y el fortalecimiento de los servicios públicos se podrá restaurar el equilibrio de la naturaleza.
8. Cancún no debe ser otro Copenhague; esperamos que se alcancen acuerdos en los que los países desarrollados verdaderamente actúen de acuerdo al principio de responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas, y asuman efectivamente su obligación de reducción de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, sin hacer del cambio climático un negocio a través de la promoción y creación de mecanismos dentro del mercado de carbono.
9. Que comprometidos con la vida, los países presentes en esta reunión acordamos incluir en nuestra agenda permanente, entre otras acciones, la realización de un Referéndum sobre cambio climático y la promoción de la participación de todos los pueblos del mundo.
10. Que es urgente la adopción en las Naciones Unidas de una Declaración Universal de los Derechos de la Madre Tierra.

________________________________________

[1] Nuevo Acuerdo Verde Global, 2009

[2] La Economía de Ecosistemas y la Biodiversidad (TEBB)

Republished from Climate and Capitalism

Bolivia’s Army Declares Itself Socialist

LA PAZ – Bolivia’s army, which celebrated its bicentennial over the weekend, declared itself “socialist, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist,” as President Evo Morales had asked it to do several times.

The constitution adopted in 2009 “clears the way for the army to develop as a socialist, communal institution,” army chief Gen. Antonio Cueto said.

“We declare ourselves to be anti-imperialist, because in Bolivia no external power should ever impose its will on us...we must act with sovereignty and live in dignity. We also declare ourselves anti-capitalist because that system is destroying mother earth,” Cueto said in a ceremony on Sunday.

The army observes 1810 as the year of its founding, the year when the wars of independence against the Spanish crown began on what is now Bolivian territory.

Cueto criticized Bolivia’s “neoliberal governments” that “made pacts with the capitalist system, seeking the destruction of the nation’s armed forces with plans that progressively diminished its operational capability.”

The Bolivian state “is pacifist,” but it also reserves “the legitimate right to defend” its territory, Cueto said, adding that the military “will not allow under any circumstances the installation of foreign bases” on its territory.

Morales asked the army to be “prepared” to defend Bolivia’s sovereignty in the event that “some empire” attempt a military intervention in the country, as it did 200 years ago to “combat Spanish domination.”

“History shows that the army was born as an anti-imperialist force because it fought the European empire from the year 1810,” Morales said, adding that the “military nationalism” of the armed forces was neither “imported nor imposed,” but was born of the 1932-1935 Chaco War against Paraguay.

Morales reappeared in public Sunday using crutches after a week recovering in a private clinic in the central city of Cochabamba, where he had his left knee operated.

Sunday’s ceremony was attended by the commanders of the armies de Chile, Juan Miguel Fuente-Alba, and of Ecuador, Patricio Caceres, as well as military delegations from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru. EFE

Bolivia Bets on State-Run Lithium Industry

Emily Achtenberg

The Bolivian government will commit $900 million to develop a state-run lithium industry, according to the Strategic Plan for Lithium Industrialization unveiled by President Evo Morales on October 21. Bolivia will extract and process lithium for commercial use on its own and is prepared to finance the entire chain of production, including a battery plant on Bolivian soil by 2014.

With unexploited lithium reserves estimated by the government at 100,000 million metric tons (70% of the world’s total), Bolivia can supply the world’s lithium needs for the next 5,000 years, Morales told the press. “With these reserves Bolivia can guarantee a worldwide shift towards cleaner, more ecological, and non-contaminating forms of energy, at a fair, non-speculative non-monopoly price.”

These promises have raised great expectations, along with many questions about Bolivia’s lithium strategy—including the role and choice of foreign partners, the market for Bolivia’s lithium products, and the potential environmental and political impacts of lithium development.

Lithium, the world’s lightest metal, is widely used in ceramics, glass, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, and batteries for portable electronic devices. Some analysts believe that worldwide demand could triple by 2020, fueled by the emerging market for battery-powered cars.

According to government estimates, the current value of lithium carbonate and potassium chloride (the basic compounds required for commercialization) that can be extracted from Bolivia’s salt flats exceeds $1.8 trillion. The Strategic Plan calls for workers at the government’s pilot plant—located at the Uyuni salt flats in Southwest Potosí—to begin to realize this value starting in 2011, by processing lithium carbonate and potassium chloride for export in limited quantities. This requires a complex technology, which Bolivian scientists have reportedly developed, and the Bolivian Mining Corporation (COMIBOL, the state mining company) has recently patented. The government investment required for this phase is $17 million.

Production capacity is scheduled to ramp up starting in 2013 with the proposed development of larger industrial and chemical plants at a cost of $485 million. Full scale battery production is set to begin in 2014, with an additional government investment of $400 million.

The government has rejected proposals to exploit Bolivia’s lithium reserves from at least six state and private companies, including firms from Japan, South Korea, and France—countries with substantial expertise in lithium battery and electric car technology. “All the companies, until now, just want to buy our lithium carbonate, but we need investment for industrialization of batteries,” Morales said. As later explained by Luis Echazú, COMIBOL’s director of lithium resources, the companies expected to be involved in all stages of lithium production, but did not guarantee the necessary financing.

What Bolivia wants, according to Morales, is a “strategic partner,” to contribute technology, expertise, and potentially some capital for the battery production phase. In exchange for providing the processed materials and most or all of the financing, Bolivia will insist on majority ownership and control of any joint venture. The government may also consider an alternative “turnkey” approach, in which Bolivia would purchase a fully operational plant from a foreign company.

Are investors willing to partner with Bolivia on these terms? French companies have already turned to alternative opportunities in Argentina (which, along with Chile, is currently the world’s major lithium supplier). They might still consider a joint venture for battery production, according to the French ambassador to Bolivia, provided that the lithium carbonate Bolivia produces on its own is of good enough quality. Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera retorts that “some foreigners” have underestimated Bolivia’s capacity. “What the foreign companies didn’t want to give us, and wanted to control for themselves, our own engineers have discovered,” he says.

One still-interested potential investor is the government of Iran. Less than a week after announcing the Strategic Plan, during an official state visit to Teheran, Morales was widely quoted by Bolivian and foreign press agencies as stating that Iran would partner with Bolivia in the industrialization of lithium as part of a far-reaching agreement for support and technology transfer to Bolivia’s agricultural, mining, and industrial sectors. Later, Morales clarified that while Iran has expressed interest in a partnership, no formal commitment had yet been made.

In any case, he stated, any future role for Iran would be limited to the provision of technology for battery production and would not preclude parallel agreements between Bolivia and other countries or private partners. For the present, Iran will provide free scientific and technical research through COMIBOL’s Scientific Advisory Committee, similar to past contributions made by Brazil and South Korea tailored to their future investment or market interests. On November 9, Morales announced a new research and technical-assistance agreement with Japan, suggesting that Iran may not be the only potential “strategic partner” on the horizon.

As to the market for Bolivia’s lithium and related products, the short-term prospects for the sale of processed primary materials are now better defined. Both Brazil and Venezuela want Bolivia’s potassium chloride for fertilizer. A Paraguayan company that makes batteries for electric buses is interested in Bolivia’s lithium carbonate. The prospects for marketing lithium carbonate to Japan, South Korea, and China have improved with Bolivia’s recent gaining of access to the Peruvian port of Ilo, which cuts the distance to Asian export markets by some 40%.

In relation to the longer-term market, the government appears to have settled on batteries as the goal but has not defined the type of batteries Bolivia will produce. While Morales is aiming for car batteries—the most profitable market—this is much more risky than the more established, less profitable markets for watches, cell phones, and other consumer electronics. Most analysts see little hope of selling high volumes of electric cars in Bolivia or Latin America, whereas the electronics market has considerable growth potential. What’s best for global climate justice, in this case, may not be the best economic strategy for Bolivia.

In this regard, concerns continue to be raised about the potential environmental and social impacts of lithium development on the Uyuni region. The region’s farming economy and sensitive desert ecosystem are highly dependent on water resources, which could be severely affected by a large-scale industrial mining project. More than 90 active mining concessions currently compete with farmers (and a growing tourist industry) for water resources already strained by a three-year drought. Transnational companies like Sumitomo, owner of the notorious San Cristóbal mine (and part of Japan’s new lithium research consortium), exacerbate the situation by not paying for their water, a problem that the government has failed to remedy.

Additionally, the large quantities of toxic chemicals used to process lithium could contaminate the air, water, and soil—as has apparently occurred in Chile’s Atacama salt flats. As the Democracy Center notes in its recent report on Bolivia’s lithium, “In the name of providing cleaner cars to the wealthy countries of the north, Bolivia’s beautiful and rare Salar could end up an environmental wasteland.” The government has begun to acknowledge the problem by earmarking $30 million of its total lithium investment for the development of industrial waste-management systems and other measures to reduce environmental impacts.

The contentious issue of how competing national, departmental, and regional interests should be balanced in allocating the potential benefits of lithium development is not addressed by the Strategic Plan. Uyuni’s regional peasant federation, which originally proposed the lithium project to Morales, wants to consolidate a majority of the benefits for Southwest Potosí by becoming an autonomous “strategic macroregion,” as permitted by the recently adopted autonomies law. Potosí civic and union leaders, who spearheaded a 19-day mobilization last summer around a regional economic-development agenda, believe that the department as a whole is entitled to a majority of the benefits.

The government’s recent proposal to allocate just 5% of next year’s lithium royalties to the department, and the lack of transparency evidenced in its “double discourse” regarding Iran, have not been well received in Potosí. “We won’t permit these talks to continue behind our backs, with agreements that aren’t clear,” says Celestino Condori, leader of Potosí’s civic committee.

The civic committee is now calling for a new Potosí-based entity, which would be more accountable, to take over and expedite the lithium industrialization project. The words of another civic leader last August are beginning to gain new resonance: “The next Potosí mobilization will be in defense of lithium.”

Emily Achtenberg is an urban planner and a NACLA Research Associate.

Republished from NACLA

Video: On Bolivia with Dr. Hugo Salvatierra

Toronto, November 8, 2010.

Moderated by Judy Rebick.

Dr. Hugo Salvatierra is one of Evo Morales's top advisors and a founder of the MAS in Bolivia. Salvatierra is a founder of the MAS and the Minister of Rural Development, Agriculture and the Environment in the first MAS Cabinet.

With the agreement of the MAS government, Hugo resigned from the Cabinet in order to return to Santa Cruz, the heart of the right wing opposition, and organize the social movement of indigenous people, peasants, workers and neighbourhoods in Santa Cruz against the opposition. This campaign has been successful in significantly weakening the opposition forces in Santa Cruz and, as a result, in the country as a whole.

Sponsors: Centre for Social Justice, Toronto Bolivia Solidarity, Socialist Project.

View video here

Bolivia and the United Nations Climate Change Negotiations

BIF Special Briefing, November 2010

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations

The UNFCCC negotiations started in 1992 to find ways to deal with global warming. Since then there has been progress with the creation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which is the only legally binding agreement that commits the majority of richer nations to reduce their emissions. The Protocol stipulates a reduction by 5% of emissions compared to 1990 levels by the year 2012. Crucially, the USA did not sign. In recent years the pressure has been increasing on the UNFCCC negotiations to reach a new legally binding global agreement to be in place from 2012. This was most visible at the notorious Copenhagen meeting in December 2009.

World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth

Following the failure of the negotiations in Copenhagen the Bolivian government held the April 2010 conference in Cochabamba to give governments and civil society the opportunity to find solutions to deal with climate change together. Over 35,000 people from 147 countries attended including 47 government delegations. The key elements of the “People’s Agreement” resulting from the conference are:

• Climate justice: the rich nations in Europe and North America are historically responsible for causing climate change and so must reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. They have the moral obligation, due to the ‘climate debt’ they have accumulated, to assist poorer nations in adapting to the impacts of climate change and helping them to develop low carbon economies based on renewable energy. To do this they should use 6% of their GDP to provide funding without conditionality. Intellectual property rights should be bypassed to enable the free exchange of green technology.
• Free market capitalism is the root cause of climate change because its focus on limitless growth has failed to take account of the impact this has on the environment. A new model is needed whereby humans live in harmony with the natural world – the concept of living well rather than living better at the expense of others and the environment.
• Rejection of the Copenhagen Accord. An agreement that was not ambitious, fair or legally binding which was imposed by a select 26 countries at the end of the Copenhagen conference outside of the UN process.
• Carbon markets and carbon offsetting are rejected because they are a means for rich nations to pay poorer nations to, for example, protect forests while they do not reduce their overall carbon emissions.
• Rejection of agro-fuels and the privatisation of water.
• Increase in global temperature not to exceed 1° C above pre-industrial levels.
• 50% reduction in emissions by rich countries, compared to 1990 levels, by 2017.
• Nature should be protected through a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth including its right to regenerate itself and not be polluted.
• Support for an International Climate Justice Tribunal. The court would judge cases of damage to the environment committed by multi-national companies, governments or other individuals.
• Defend human rights including those of indigenous peoples and climate migrants.
• Global referendum in 2011 on action to be taken by companies and rich countries.
• Creation of the World People’s Movement to defend the Rights of Mother Earth to take forward the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba and to hold a second World People’s Conference in April 2011.
• 
  

Further information is on the conference website.

Taking the People’s Agreement to the United Nations

Although the conference was held outside of the official UNFCCC process its final People’s Agreement was presented by Bolivia as an official submission to the negotiations in August. The Bolivian delegation has successfully ensured some of the proposals have been included in the official negotiating texts for the next annual meeting in Mexico at the end of 2010. However, this does not mean they will necessarily become part of the final global agreement. The People’s Agreement calls for rich nations to reduce their emissions by 50% by 2017 compared to 1990 levels while rich nations have put forward a target of 40% by 2020. The People’s Agreement states that temperatures should not be allowed to increase above 1° C whilst developed countries are pushing for limits of 1.5° C and 2° C.

Bolivia’s role in the negotiations

The UNFCCC negotiations are dominated by geo-political relations. The United States and China, at loggerheads, together are in fact responsible for 40% of global carbon emissions. Rich countries in North America and Europe, whose industrial development led to the high carbon emissions causing climate change, refuse to commit to reducing their emissions, unless fast developing countries such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa agree to reduce theirs. The poorer nations urgently demand immediate action as they are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In this context Bolivia is trying to push the boundaries of negotiations in an attempt to make the final agreement more ambitious and consistent with the principles of climate justice.

The People’s Agreement provides a landmark in the process of climate change negotiations. Bolivia has played a key role in promoting the rights of indigenous peoples and along with others has defended the Kyoto Protocol, trying to ensure approval of an agreement which will seriously tackle the question of emissions and take on the costs of adaptation to climate change.

The possibility of Bolivia and other countries influencing the negotiations depends in part on the one country-one vote rule remaining in place. This allowed Bolivia (along with Tuvalu, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, amongst others) to prevent the Copenhagen Accord from being approved as an official UNFCCC agreement. There has been pressure put on some nations who did not sign up to the Copenhagen Accord, and in July 2010 some rich countries were talking of scrapping the one country-one vote system.

Bolivian civil society

Bolivia’s social and indigenous movements are taking an active role in pushing the Bolivian government to defend the environment at home. At the international level they are pushing for climate justice and promoting proposals for recognition of the Rights of Mother Earth and setting up of the Climate Justice Tribunal. Bolivia is already suffering the effects of climate change: rapid melting of glaciers in the Andes threatens water and electricity supplies; changing weather is jeopardising rural livelihoods and extreme conditions such as regional flooding and droughts are on the increase. Representatives of social and indigenous movements are attending the UNFCCC meetings to share their experiences of these impacts, showing the urgent need for us to live in harmony with the environment.

Website: www.cambioclimatico.org.bo

Bolivia Information Forum, Unit F5 89-93 Fonthill Road,

London N4 3JH www.boliviainfoforum.org.uk