The Conference of the Parties (COP4) of the Climate Change Convention will be meeting during the first two weeks of November in Buenos Aires. Much of the discussion will concentrate on the role of forests as carbon sinks and many negotiations will include deals between Northern and Southern countries on how to trade emissions and sinks: we emit, you sink.

While the whole world expects that COP4 will bring about solutions to global warming, the fact is that many Northern governments --and particularly the major emitters-- will try to trade much of their emissions instead of limiting them at source. On the other side, many Southern governments will be eager to sell their sinks at the best price possible. If it weren't tragic it would be funny: humanity is facing a major threat and governments are tinkering with figures and money instead of implementing real solutions.

Apart from the above, there are a number of further problems which confuse the whole issue, namely the definition of forests, the confusion between carbon reservoirs and sinks, the reductionist view of forests, and the question of whether tree plantations can be carbon sinks.

The climate change negotiations are based on the FAO's definition of forests. According to this organization, a forest is "an ecosystem with a minimum of 10 per cent crown cover of trees and/or bamboos, generally associated with wild flora, fauna and natural soil conditions, and not subject to agricultural practices." The term 'forest' is further subdivided, according to its origin, into two categories: natural forests and plantation forests. Natural forests are "a subset of forests composed of tree species known to be indigenous to the area", while plantation forests are subdivided into: a) "established artificially by afforestation on lands which previously did not carry forest within living memory" and b) "established artificially by reforestation of land which carried forest before, and involving the replacement of the indigenous species by a new and essentially different species or genetic variety."

Amazingly enough, such definition has gone basically unchallenged until now. Any lay person can see that a plantation is not a forest, but the "experts" confuse the issue and define any area covered with trees as being a "forest".The only case in which a plantation could be termed a forest is that in which an area originally covered by forests is replanted with trees and shrubs original to the area. However, this category is explicitly not included in the definition of plantation forests!

From our perspective, tree plantations have only one thing in common with forests: they are full of trees. But the two are essentially different. A forest is a complex, self-regenerating system, encompassing soil, water, microclimate, energy, and a wide variety of plants and animals in mutual relation. A commercial plantation, on the other hand, is a cultivated area whose species and structure have been simplified dramatically to produce only a few goods, whether lumber, fuel, resin, oil, or fruit. A plantation's trees, unlike those of a forest, tend to be of a small range of species and ages, and to require extensive and continuing human intervention. Plantations are much closer to an industrial agricultural crop than to either a forest as usually understood or a traditional agricultural field. Usually consisting of thousands or even millions of trees of the same species, bred for rapid growth, uniformity and high yield of raw material and planted in even- aged stands, they require intensive preparation of the soil, fertilisation, planting with regular spacing, selection of seedlings, weeding using machines or herbicides, use of pesticides, thinning, mechanised harvesting, and in some cases pruning.

The above is not an idle or academic discussion. Accepting the FAO's definition implies accepting plantations as a substitute for forests and therefore accepting that, being "forests", they have a positive social and environmental role to play. This is totally false. It is well documented that large-scale industrial tree plantations have already proven to be detrimental to people and the environment in a large number of countries and in many cases they have been a major cause of deforestation. We therefore demand of the FAO --and those who accept its definitions-- that "natural forests" be called simply forests (primary and secondary) and "forest plantations" be called tree plantations.

A second important confusion is that between carbon reservoirs and carbon sinks. A full-grown forest is a carbon reservoir. Its carbon intake through photosynthesis is balanced with its carbon emissions. The amount of carbon contained in a forest is basically the same all the time. If the forest is destroyed, the stored carbon will be released --sooner or later-- to the atmosphere, thus contributing to the greenhouse effect.

Forests that have been cut and are regrowing can be very efficient in capturing carbon (both in trees and undergrowth) and therefore, as part of many other equally important functions they perform, they can be considered as carbon sinks. As trees grow, their intake of carbon is higher than their emissions, thus having a net positive balance regarding the amount of carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, tree plantations --which are being publicised as the main carbon sinks-- have yet to prove this role. In general terms, any area converted to tree plantations should until proven otherwise be regarded as a net carbon source and not as a carbon sink. In numerous cases, plantations have replaced either primary or secondary forests and this has meant the release of more carbon than that which the growing plantation can capture, even in the long run. There is a second crucial issue: will these plantations be harvested or not? If harvested, then they would at best be no more than temporary sinks, capturing carbon until harvest and then releasing most of the captured carbon in a few years (in some cases even in months) as the paper or other products of the plantation are destroyed. If not harvested, then tree plantations would be occupying millions of hectares of land which could be dedicated to much more useful purposes, such as providing people with food. There is yet another issue concerning the changes that a plantation introduces to the local environment. Converting wetland to plantation can, for instance, result in the release of important amounts of carbon dioxide from the soil.

There are therefore many uncertainties about the assumption that plantations anywhere can be carbon sinks for any length of time longer than the early period of fast growth --and perhaps not always even then. This "common sense" assumption needs to be supported by research before plantations are accepted as carbon sinks.

The distinction between carbon reservoirs and sinks is not a theoretical discussion either. The conservation of a forest cannot be seen as a measure to mitigate global warming, but as a measure to avoid increasing the problem. A forest can be compared with an oil deposit underground. If the oil is kept there, the current situation will not improve, but it will not be aggravated. Therefore, forest conservation should be seen as a necessity to avoid further problems.

On the other hand, it is true that secondary forest regrowth can have a beneficial effect. However, until now, governments and "experts" have emphasized plantations (and not secondary forests) as one of the main solutions to global warming. This is linked to the above discussion on the definition of forests as well as to the discussion that questions the reductionist approach to forests.

At the climate change level, forests are being seen strictly as carbon stores; at the forestry level, forests are seen as wood for industry; at the agricultural level as obstacles to crops; at the pharmaceutical level as potential medicinal plants. Such approaches are all wrong if each is considered in isolation, because forests contain all those potential functions, but only as long as they are viewed as a whole and not as divisible parts. When they are seen and treated as having just one function, then the consequences are negative impacts to local societies and to local environments.

Such an approach is obviously present in the following argument, already being promoted by some "experts": given that primary forests are only carbon reservoirs --and not sinks-- then it makes sense to cut them, to convert them into durable goods (whereby the carbon within will remain locked in the wood until the "durable goods" are destroyed) and to plant a fast growing tree monoculture instead (which will supposedly retrieve extra carbon from the atmosphere). As economists would say: a win-win solution. But forests are not only carbon reservoirs. They perform a number of environmental and social functions which cannot be replaced by those of any plantation. The win-win situation becomes a lose-lose one for local peoples, water catchments, local flora and fauna, agricultural production, etc.

The reductionist approach of seeing forests and trees as carbon reservoirs and sinks is also antagonistic to the policy of biodiversity conservation to which the world's governments have committed themselves, particularly when large-scale plantations are promoted as a major solution to the problem. This contradiction was noted by the Conference of the Parties of the Biodiversity Convention (Bratislava, 1998) which "notes the potential impact of afforestation, reforestation, forest degradation and deforestation on forest biological diversity and on other ecosystems, and, accordingly, requests the Executive Secretary to liaise and cooperate with the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to achieve the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity." Translated, the message is: you are looking at forests and plantations only from your own narrow viewpoint and forgetting that forests (and not plantations) are essential for biodiversity conservation.

Both from a social and environmental perspective (including but not limiting the issue to climate change), we strongly support forest conservation, including primary and secondary forests. But we equally strongly oppose the conversion of forests, forest lands and grasslands to supposed "carbon sink" monoculture plantations, which entail only one (dubious and unproven) positive impact (the capture of carbon dioxide) and a much larger number of negative impacts on peoples' livelihoods and on their environment.

COP4 should thus focus on the emissions side of the equation (limiting the use of fossil fuels, including the much-promoted natural gas). This would involve real commitments to reductions from Northern countries. On the reservoir side of the equation, it should support other ongoing international processes aimed at forest conservation. Regarding sinks, it should only provide incentives for secondary forest regrowth in all countries of the world --and not just in Southern countries-- with the involvement of local communities willing to have an opportunity to bring their forests back. And put the crazy idea of covering millions of hectares of fertile lands to "carbon sink" tree plantations where it belongs: in the dustbin. (Bulletin October, 1998)

The Climate Change Convention meeting held in Argentina is a good opportunity to highlight the issue of forests and tree plantations in Latin America. We have therefore focused this issue of the Bulletin on a number of representative examples of the problems and struggles which are currently occuring in the region.

Government double-speak is exemplified -though by no means monopolized- by Brazil. While championing forest protection in global fora, its policies and actions continue resulting in further forest loss. Government-sponsored migration to the forest, conversion of forest lands to agriculture and cattle raising, forest fires, dam building and illegal logging continue unabated, while its global international discourse clearly pertains to the area of virtual reality, with little in common with what is actually happening at the ground level.

Large-scale tree plantations -one of the cherished solution of global technocrats to climate change- are increasingly being opposed by local people affected by their social and environmental impacts, as well as by most environmental NGOs. Struggles against them are mushrooming from Mexico to Argentina, but governments seem to be deaf and blind to peoples' opposition to such forestry model. We are improving the environment! they say. We are planting forests and countering the greenhouse effect! they add. Impacts on people, on water, on soils, on biodiversity are quickly dismissed as scientifically unproven facts. Supported by multilateral development institutions, bilateral aid agencies, northern consultancies and machinery providers, Latin American governments increasingly subsidize transnational wood-based companies with both Northern and Southern taxpayer money to increase the area of fast-growing tree monocultures. In most cases, such policy results in the substitution of forest ecosystems by plantations (therefore becoming a direct cause of deforestation), while in some few countries (particularly those located in temperate areas such as Uruguay and certain regions of Argentina), plantations substitute grassland, thereby implying the total destruction of the native prairie ecosystem.

Government-sponsored "development" projects continue resulting in further deforestation and forest degradation and in most cases the only visible change has been the inclusion of the word "sustainable" to the same type of projects which have proven to be detrimental to forests in the past..

Guyana's and Suriname's forests, for instance -some of the more well preserved forests in the region- are being destroyed by foreign mining and logging companies through concessions awarded by government, without the approval and with the opposition of indigenous peoples and other local communities who struggle to preserve the forest.

Mangroves throughout the region continue to be destroyed -with government support- by shrimp farming, with the aim of increasing exports to obtain foreign currency to pay back loans from international credit institutions. Local peoples, whose livelihoods depend to a large extent on products obtained from the mangroves, are deprived access to them and only receive back a completely degraded ecosystem once the shrimp farms are abandoned.

Oil and and increasingly gas exploitation are being promoted throughout the region, both by governments and multilateral institutions, with the resulting destruction of forests, (including water and air pollution and biodiversity loss) and peoples' livelihoods. Local communities are opposing such activity and a number of struggles are under way to halt it. Among them, we wish to highlight the successful struggle of the Cofan indigenous peoples in Ecuador, who have recently closed down an oil well in their territory.

Deforestation is further increasing the consequences of natural disasters. The tragedy which recently happened in Honduras and Nicaragua during the occurrence of hurricane Mitch could have been much lesser if forests areas had not been cleared. Mudslides and deadly floods were the result of years of deforestation. Clearance of forest land in the region is always a direct or indirect result of government policies and not -as they try to portray- the result of ignorance and poverty. Unfair land-tenure policies, the promotion of logging and of the substitution of forests by other "more productive", export-oriented activities, as well as many other policies leading to deforestation, are all the result of government-led "development".

Road-building, now acklowledged as one of the major underlying causes of deforestation, continues being promoted both by governments and multilateral agencies. In Ecuador, a large tract of primary forest belonging to the Chachi indigenous peoples will be soon affected by a new road linking the area to southern Colombia and to other Ecuadorian provinces.

Even in cases where governments seem to have finally decided to protect the forest by creating reserves, they break their own rules whenever their economic policy decides that the economy comes before conservation. Such a case is highlighted by the struggle of local communities in Venezuela, fighting to protect the Imataca forest reserve, which the government is destroying to export electricity to Brazil and to produce cheap energy for mining companies which will further destroy the forest.

Indigenous peoples are struggling throughout the region to achieve the official recognition of their territories, which constitutes a basic step to ensure forest conservation. Such struggle has achieved some important successes in specific cases, but almost always against a background of lack of political will from the government and the frequently violent opposition of local or transnational economic interests.

In general terms, the protection of local communities' human rights and the conservation of forests and other ecosystems are dangerous activities in the region. The long list of people murdered increases every year and we sadly inform in this bulletin about the most recent deaths in Colombia.

Within such context, there are however positive signs. Both at country and international level, more and more people are becoming aware about the vital need to protect the forests and are taking action to support the rights of forest peoples and forest-dependent peoples as a means to ensure such aim. At the local level, more communities are standing up to defend their rights and their forests. Even though governments' discourse is clearly divorced from their actions, the adoption of such a discourse is a clear sign that the time is ripe for change. (Bulletin November, 1998)

Almost everyone agrees that humanity is facing many threats, among which the greenhouse effect. There is also general agreement on the main causes of the greenhouse effect: use of fossil fuels and deforestation. International agreements to address those two causes have until now proved -to say the least- inadequate. Fossil fuel consumption is still increasing and deforestation continues unabated. The economic interest of the ever more powerful corporations is still more powerful than the survival instinct of humanity.

Moreover, economic interest continues to actively seek for new niches for money-making and seems to have found a pot of gold in disaster itself, such as exemplified by the "carbon offset market". The idea is simple: you emit CO2, we store it and we charge you for the service. How do we store it? Simple: in planted trees. But here ends the simplicity. If this "carbon market" idea is allowed to flourish, then there will be millions of hectares of land covered by carbon sink plantations all over the world. This entails a large number of implications of which we will highlight but a few. Firstly, that all that land will not be available for food production, in a world were the numbers of people facing hunger is increasing -and are counted by the millions. Secondly, that many local communities will be driven away from their land and their means of subsistence will be substituted by tree plantations that no-one will be even allowed to cut, thus increasing the numbers of the hungry. Thirdly, that many forests will be destroyed to make place to more profitable carbon sink plantations, thereby increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect which plantations are supposed to counter, while at the same time depriving more people of their livelihoods. Fourthly, that forests -which constitute enormous carbon reservoirs- will continue to be increasingly depleted, both by the activities which currently affect them and by the added pressure of communities being displaced by plantations and other "development" activities. And finally, that all this will only serve the purpose of those who benefit from the current fossil fuel-dependent economy.

"Clever" schemes such as the carbon offset market are aimed at avoiding real changes to the current environmentally destructive and socially inequitable model. But the problem remains. Unless deforestation is halted and unless fossil fuels are substituted by other forms of energy, humanity will continue suffering the consequences of climate change.

Instead of promoting such schemes, governments and corporations should support the efforts of local communities currently fighting -against governments and corporations- to defend their forests. They should create the conditions to achieve forest conservation, instead of acting in the opposite direction. The should -at least- begin by complying with the numerous relevant international agreements which they have happily signed but never implemented. In the meantime, the fate of the world's forests lies in the success of the struggles being carried out by countless indigenous, traditional and other local communities. To them, our support. (Bulletin October, 1999)

As nearly everyone knows, the world is heating up, and one of the main causes of climate change is the use of fossil fuels. Under pressure, the industrialized countries most responsible for this state of affairs made some minimal commitments to reduce their fossil fuel emissions in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. However, some of the most polluting countries are trying to find ways out of their commitments, using potential loopholes in the Protocol which may allow them to plant millions of hectares of trees in Southern countries as a substitute for cutting emissions at source.

Partly in order to assess the scientific validity of this approach, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) appointed a panel to put together a Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry. The report, released in May, has disappointed many activists by giving a "scientific" stamp of approval to a carbon market which would generate profits for a small number of mostly Northern companies and consultants, allow industrialized countries to continue emitting carbon to the atmosphere, impact negatively on people and the environment in the South --and fail to slow climate change.

How was it possible for the IPCC to produce such a report? Why didn't the scientists do their job properly? The answer is probably very complex, having to do with peer pressure, political influence from the US, personal ambition, and the fact that out of hundreds of authors and commentators on the report, only a tiny handful were social scientists or experienced in grassroots political realities. But one of the reason's for the report's failure is, sadly, surely quite simple: some of the authors (and the companies they work for) will benefit financially from having drawn the conclusions they drew. The following are only a few examples:

Sandra Brown of the US is a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 5 ("Project-Based Activities") and the Summary for Policymakers of the report. Brown is Senior Program Officer for Winrock International, an Arlington, Virginia-based nonprofit organization which accepts contracts from "public and private" sources. Winrock provides forest carbon monitoring technical services to government agencies such as the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation and a wide range of private sector and non-governmental organizations.

Pedro Moura-Costa, another important author of Chapter 5, is a UK-based executive of Ecosecurities Ltd., a consulting firm with offices in the US, Brazil, Australia and The Netherlands. Ecosecurities "specializes in the generation of Emission Reduction Credits" and stands to make large profits from its involvement in carbon forestry.

Gareth Philips of the UK, another Lead Author of Chapter 5, works for Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) Forestry of Geneva, which earns money from designing, monitoring and certifying carbon forestry projects, including quantifying carbon impacts. SGS certifies the Certified Tradeable Offsets offered by Costa Rica and hopes to expand its work elsewhere in the carbon forestry field. Philips and SGS thus have a vested interest in arguing that quantification of the climate effects of carbon forestry makes sense.

Richard Tipper of the UK, also an author of Chapter 5, is on the staff of the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management, a consulting company which earns money from designing, assessing and monitoring carbon forestry projects. ECCM works closely with Future Forests, which has carbon forestry contracts with Mazda, Avis, BT and other companies. ECCM staff have also been involved in a forestry project financed in part by the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile in Mexico. Using lands inhabited by highland Mayan Tojolobal and lowland Mayan Tzeltal communities, the project is designed to "offset" the 5,500 tonnes of carbon emitted annually by Formula One car racing at a price of 38,000 UK pounds a year.

Mark Trexler of the US, a Review Editor of the same chapter, runs Trexler & Associates, a firm which has made money -and is likely to make millions of dollars more- by promoting and monitoring carbon sequestration and other "climate mitigation" projects.

Peter Hill of the US, a Lead Author of Chapter 4 ("Additional Human-Induced Activities -- Article 3.4"), is with Monsanto Corporation. Monsanto has a large stake in genetically modified organisms, including, potentially, organisms modified to take up or store carbon more efficiently. Hill's corporation too thus stands to make increased profits as a result of the IPCC report's optimistic findings about the possibility of using land and forest projects to mitigate climate change.

These and many other authors and editors of the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry had vested interests in reaching unrealistically and unjustifiably optimistic conclusions about the possibility of compensating for emissions with trees. They should therefore have been automatically disqualified from serving on an intergovernmental panel charged with investigating impartially the feasibility and benefits of such "offset" projects. As things stand, the report must now be shelved due to their clear conflict of interest and a new report instigated which will be free of the taint of intellectual corruption.

It's official: the carbon sink approach now definitely stinks. (Bulletin June, 2000)

The Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change -preceeded by a meeting of its Subsidiary Bodies in September in Lyon- will take place in The Hague in November. The obscure language used in the climate talks -and the even more obscure objectives of many governments and businesses- make it necessary to translate what's being negotiated into understandable concepts in order to facilitate very much needed public participation in the debate. As a contribution to that end, we have focused this issue of the WRM Bulletin entirely on this matter, of vital importance for the future of humanity as a whole.

The solution to climate change -which is already happening and being suffered by millions of people around the world- is in theory quite simple: to substantially reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide. Where do carbon dioxide emissions come from? The majority result from the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), whose carbon was safely stored under the earth's surface. The extraction of vast and increasing volumes of fossil fuels are at the core of the current climatic crisis. There are other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, among which deforestation -which releases the carbon dioxide held in the woody biomass of the forest- which also need to be addressed, but by far the major cause is fossil fuel use.

The way to reduce the use of fossil fuels is to replace them as quickly as possible with environmentally-friendly sources of energy. Such a solution is technically feasible, but very powerful forces -such as the oil industry- and a number of industrialized-country governments are opposing this approach, claiming it to be too expensive.

However, given that the public is increasingly concerned over climate change, those same forces and governments need to give the world a positive message to the effect that they are dealing with the problem. In 1997, industrialized-country governments finally committed themselves to reduce emissions in the Kyoto Protocol of the Climate Change Convention. Although those commitments were far from the emission cuts needed to adequately address the problem, they were at least something. But they simultaneously invented the so-called "Clean Development Mechanism" (CDM) in order to avoid compliance with even those insufficient commitments.

While the experts meet and talk about mechanisms basically aimed at avoiding compliance with emission reduction commitments, there are organizations and communities implementing real mechanisms to address the excessive use of fossil fuels. Among these, we wish to highlight the struggle of indigenous peoples opposing oil exploration and extraction in their territories. Within the context of climate change, this is the perfect example of a truly Clean Development Mechanism: the no oil option.

However, corporate interests involved in the climate negotiations and their experts are blind to realities such as these and are instead inventing clever schemes which avoid the real issues. Among the cleverest is the creation of a global "carbon market" involving the use of forests and tree plantations as carbon sinks.

Regardless of how absurd those clever schemes may be, they seem to be receiving increased support from a number of actors that have much to gain if they are approved by the upcoming Conference of the Parties.

Many governments are also supporting the carbon sink-trading initiative. For some Northern governments, it is an easy and cheap way to avoid compliance with emission cuts. For some Southern governments, it is seen as a means to earn some cash through the sale of carbon garbage dump services. However, Southern governments would have much more to win if they were to hold the North accountable to its accumulated "carbon debt", which by far exceeds the conventional debt of the South.

In sum, civil society has a crucial role to play in putting pressure on governments to induce them to change course. People need to bring some reason to a Convention on Climate Change which seems to have forgotten that its role is to ensure that future generations will inherit a livable planet. That true solutions need to be agreed upon and implemented now. That the Convention is not a market to trade carbon credits but a forum to address a very real problem. That the future of humanity is not tradable. (Bulletin August, 2000)

Government delegates from all over the world met this month in Lyon, France, in a Preparatory Conference prior to the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change which will be held next November in the Hague, Netherlands.

The only positive thing that can be said about the Lyon meeting is that delegates worked very hard, late into the evenings, and that some delegates -- unfortunately too few -- actually tried to do something about climate change. But the general character of the meeting was one of blackmailing, arm-twisting, marketing, bribing and trading among the various elites present. Most of the time was spent discussing money for programmes which actually have little or no relevance to climate.

One of the topics talked about was something called the "Clean Development Mechanism." This is a scheme which could (among other things) allow industrialized countries to "compensate for" their emissions through the use of biospheric "carbon sinks" in the South -- such as tree plantations, forests and changes in land use -- thus enabling them to maintain and even increase the fossil fuel emissions that are at the root of climate change. Little attention was paid by most of the diplomats and technocrats present to the proven negative impacts that forestry projects similar to those contemplated have already had on people and the environment.

Fortunately, this false climate "solution" has not yet been approved by the Conference of the Parties. But the preliminary negotiations at Lyon gave little reason for optimism. Some of the delegations present focused on blackmailing ("We won't sign the Kyoto Protocol unless lots of carbon sinks are included"), accompanied by arm-twisting ("You are free not to agree, but . . ."). The US and Japan scored very high here. Others tried to trade their countries' "carbon sink" capacity for money. Some Latin American delegates had a very high profile in this respect. A third group --including many European delegates -- tried to show commitment to Kyoto-agreed emission cuts, but left the door open for forestry projects in the Hague agreement. The small group of countries who strongly oppose the inclusion of carbon sinks in the Kyoto Protocol seemingly could do little more than try to find ways of avoiding the very worst of the possible deals on offer.

Sadly enough, those were the meeting's highlights. There was almost no discussion of the real issues: equal rights to the atmosphere, fossil fuel use reductions, especially in the North, alternative energy sources, and energy efficiency and conservation. If governments had been truly willing to address climate change, they would have focused on how to achieve drastic cuts in fossil fuel emissions through the active promotion of clean, renewable and low impact sources of energy. North and South would have begun to share the research and experience that both have regarding low-impact energy use and would have considered mechanisms to ensure the effective exchange of the relevant knowledge, technology, and political experience both from South to North and from North to South. Those should have been the core issues in discussions regarding any "Clean Development Mechanism." But the governments present chose otherwise.

One lesson can be drawn from the Lyon meeting: unless people put pressure on their governments, climate negotiators will do nothing to head off the world's looming climate disaster. Peoples' movements must have the courage to disbelieve what most technocrats in governments, research institutions and even NGOs are telling them -- namely, that climate change is an issue for "experts" only. They must understand that this is not a technical but a power issue and that the arena is political, where everyone is entitled to participate. They must keep firmly in mind that the issue is essentially very simple with an equally simple solution that anyone can understand: replace fossil fuels by alternative and environmentally-friendly energy sources. Climate change will not be solved by planting millions of hectares of pines and eucalyptus, which will only add to existing problems.

If left alone, official delegates will lead us all to disaster. They must be pushed, both from outside and from inside their grand meeting halls, toward more sober and responsible action. That is the lesson from Lyon. (Bulletin September, 2000)