Khadija Sharife and Vadim Nikitin
Pablo Solon, former UNFCCC negotiator and UN ambassador to Bolivia, tells The Africa Report that the biggest mistake with the Kyoto Protocol is to allow multinationals to continue polluting in a technically legal manner. "Should the rich be allowed to keep polluting?" Solon asks.
The Africa Report: What is the issue at stake here?
Solon:Here, we have a negotiation at two levels – one is this negotiation (pointing to the ICC) and the other is between the rich sector and the poor sector. It's a pity that it is not being highlighted here. There is the negotiation between nations too - that the countries responsible for 80 percent of historical emissions, US, Europe, Japan, are going to lose only 13-17 percent of emissions from the year 1990. So that is absolutely unacceptable because if they do that then the temperature will increase by more than 4 degrees Celsius. No matter what you do here ... if big emitters don't do what they must do the results will be bad.
This is the issue here – we think that at the UN level – that is, negotiation between nations, this unfair distribution of atmospheric space should end. At the national level, many countries have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and do it in a way that favours the poorest part of the population. You have countries where people don't have electricity... and areas that consume a lot of energy. So there is a problem between nations and the distribution of resources, in our countries, between our populations. How is development going to take shape and how it will benefit the majority – that is the question.
How should civil society approach COP17? What is the right approach – boycott it? Support it? What should our relationship be?
Well, if there is no pressure from civil society, there won't be the possibility to have any kind of agreement that is in some way possible to make a difference. If you want to change it, there has to be a huge movement developed outside of the main structures... The problem with climate change is that you cannot reach an agreement that stabilises the climate unless states are in agreement, and ratify that agreement.
Should the emissions from multinationals that export pollution to developing countries be included as part of the 'home' countries rather than included as developing country emissions?
Yes, absolutely, because we see that some countries, very rich countries, are saying that yes, we have reduced (our GHG), but what they have done is exported their industries and production to other developing countries, and so, in reality, they are not reducing the production of pollution, but shifting the location of it.
Why did the Kyoto Protocol create flexibility mechanisms that would allow for multinationals to continue emissions in a technically legal manner?
That is the biggest mistake of the Kyoto Protocol – because it allows rich countries that don't reduce their GHG emissions to buy polluting permits from developing countries. Our proposal – as part of the People's Agreement built in Bolivia, all emissions reductions should be accounted nationally, inside your own borders, because it is not correct to say I'm going to reduce 40 percent, but in reality you're going to buy it, but only because you have money. Should the rich be allowed to keep polluting?
But if you outsource production, doesn't that increase their industrial development and lead to an increase in investment in those countries, aren't there any positive outcomes of carbon trading?
In carbon trading? No - not at all.... Do we want to have an outcome of neutralisation in developing countries – is that positive? Yes. But another thing is to say that we are going to support this initiative but in exchange we are going to pollute the world. That is not positive at all. Many of those processes of neutralisation will happen anyway - because cheaper labour and raw material is cheaper anyway. So it is not because they want to help you neutralise. Another thing is we need to create jobs and development in the developing world but there has to be another way. Because otherwise we are going to follow the same model and we know that is unsustainable. The need for neutralisation is real but it doesn't have to follow that pathway.
Is the financialisation of ecosystems and resources potentially beneficial?
We are against financialised instruments like REDD – what it will bring. This is rubbish, a process of commodification, of privatization, ie: I'm not selling you the tree, but (rather the) capacity of that tree to absorb C02. So there will be a corporation in another country who owns the right to the tree, in terms of its capacity to absorb C02. It's a new profit of privatisation. Their argument is that we are in crisis because we have not treated nature as a capital. If we treat nature as a capital, then we can let the forces of the market bring some good distribution of resources. But that is not going to happen. It hasn't happened with the people, it won't happen with the environment.
To what extent is the issue of climate crisis a question of power and politics? Should democracy be participatory rather than representative so climate policies can include systemic change of macroeconomic policies causing the crisis?
Precisely, that is why one of the main questions that came out of the climate change conference at Cochabamba... a referendum that would give people their power back. If we keep waiting for representative democracy, in reality, this represents more the interests of corporations, than people.
Republished from The Africa Report
CELAC is an instrument of liberation, says Evo Morales
Prensa Latina
Bolivian President, Evo Morales, said that the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) will be an instrument that will allow them to be free politically and economically from imperialism.
In an interview with the multinational Telesur, published today by the state-run daily, Cambio, Morales affirmed that he has the hope that the new block of countries will speed the process of decolonization.
"There is one position, as in being free of imperialist domination. This is a profound theme. After 500 years of indigenous resistance, and 200 years of independence, finally we came together to liberate us," he remarked.
Morales assured that in the new regional organization, without the presence of the United States, it will be possible to discuss how to tackle the energy, food and economic crises that devastate the countries of the region.
He also urged the countries that had been annexed to join the decolonization process being undertaken by some nations of the blazing CELAC.
CELAC is made up of 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean without the presence of the United States or Canada.
Morales explained that this alliance will further strengthen the integration process carried out in South America since the creation of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN). The first step that CELAC should take is to conform their General Secretariat, then coordinate the work of the ministries in all member states to discuss issues of common interest.
In this respect, he noted that this work must be undertaken by the chancelleries to touch economic and productive issues, among others.
He stressed that the region has all the necessary wealth to consolidate itself as a power.
Morales also opined that the policy of CELAC is universal health and education, since it is a human right, not a private business.
Former chief negotiator for climate change and UN Ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia Pablo Solon on COP17: The Great Escape III
Pablo Solon (*)
After 9 days of negotiations there is no doubt that we saw this movie before. It is the third remake of Copenhagen and Cancun. Same actors. Same script. The documents are produced outside the formal negotiating scenario . In private meetings, dinners which the 193 member states do not attend. The result of these meetings is known only on the last day. In the case of Copenhagen it was at two in the morning after the event should have already ended. In Cancun, the draft decision just appeared at 5 p.m. on the last day and was not opened for negotiation, not even to correct a comma. Bolivia stood firm on both occasions. The reason: the very low emission reduction commitments of industrialized countries that would lead to an increase in average global temperatures of more than 4° Celsius. In Cancun, Bolivia stood alone. I could not do otherwise. How could we accept the same document that was rejected in Copenhagen, knowing that 350,000 people die each year due to natural disasters caused by climate change? To remain silent is to be complicit in genocide and ecocide. To accept a disastrous document in order not to be left alone is cowardly diplomacy. Even more so when one trumpets the “people’s diplomacy” and has pledged to defend the “People’s Agreement” of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth held in Bolivia last year.
Durban will be worse than Copenhagen and Cancun. Two days before the close of the meetings, the true text that is being negotiated is not yet known. Everyone knows that the actual 131-page document is just a compilation of proposals that were already on the table in Panama two months ago. The formal negotiations have barely advanced. The real document will appear toward the end of COP17.
But more importantly, the substance of the negotiations remains unchanged from Copenhagen. The emission reduction pledges by developed countries are still 13% to 17% based on 1990 levels. Everyone knows that this is a catastrophe. But instead of becoming outraged, they attempt to sweeten the poison. The wrapper of this package will be the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and a mandate for a new binding agreement. The substance of the package will be the same as in Copenhagen and Cancun: do virtually nothing during this decade in terms of reducing emissions, and get a mandate to negotiate an agreement that will be even weaker than the Kyoto Protocol and that will replace it in 2020. “The Great Escape III” is the name of this movie, and it tells the story of how the governments of rich countries along with transnational corporations are looking to escape their responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Instead of becoming stronger, the fight against climate change is becoming more soft and flexible, with voluntary commitments to reduce emissions. The question is, who will step up this time to denounce the fraud to the end? Or could it be that this time, everyone will accept the remake of Copenhagen and Cancun?
The truth is that beyond the setting and the last scene, the end of this film will be the same as in Copenhagen and Cancun: humanity and mother earth will be the victims of a rise in temperature not seen in 800,000 years.
(*) Pablo Solon is an international analyst and social activist. He was chief negotiator for climate change and United Nations Ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia (2009-June 2011). http://pablosolon.wordpress.com/
Bolivia at Durban COP 17 climate summit: ‘Forests are not for carbon stocks’
Yusuf Omar
Bolivia came out swinging at its first press conference of the climate change conference yesterday, criticising the Green Climate Fund – which is meant to help developing countries adapt to climate change – and opposing the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation scheme (Redd).
“Bolivia is showing strongly against the mechanism of Redd. The role of the forest is not for carbon stocks,” said the head of the Bolivian delegation, Rene Orellana.
Redd is a set of steps designed to use financial incentives to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation. The forest produces carbon credits and therefore becomes an emissions offsetting scheme.
While most countries have been hesitant to overtly state their positions at such an early stage in the negotiations, the Bolivian delegation took a strong stance against the mainstream consensus of the talks thus far.
“As people who live in the forest, we are not carbon stocks. We disagree with Redd because we oppose the commoditisation of the forest,” said Orellana. Fifty percentt of Bolivia is blanketed in forest, 40 percent of which is in lowlands near the Amazon.
“It’s a complex and dangerous situation to see forests as carbon stocks. The forest provides a role as food security, a water source and biodiversity for our indigenous population. Redd reduces the function of the forest to just one, carbon stocks,” he said. “We have an alternative proposal, not based on market solutions.”
The joint mitigation and adaptation plan mechanism proposal, called “sustainable forest life”, outlines three main principles: to find different sources of finance for climate change mitigation and adaptation (other than carbon credits); the recognition of multiple forest functions such as environment, social, economic and cultural functions; and methodologies for integrated forest management.
“We have put the proposal on the table, but no attention is being paid. We are not saying the system should be the same in Bolivia and South Africa, although we share many of the same environmental issues. Most of the countries are supporting Redd,” said Orellana.
He also went on to criticise some of the details of the proposed Green Climate Fund. “We do not agree with having results-based payments,” said Orellana.
Countries agreed to form the Green Climate Fund during climate change talks in Cancun, Mexico, and a transitional committee was formed.
While Bolivia is somewhat politically unstable, with recent student riots in November, its environmental stand is firm.
In Cancun, Bolivia was the irritating thorn in the side of the US and the EU.
This year, the South American country also passed the world’s first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. “We must have respect for the rights of Mother Earth,” said Orellana.
The Law of Mother Earth defines the country’s rich mineral deposits as “blessings”. The 11 rights for nature include the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right not to have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.
Republished from the Mercury
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
