- Climate change negotiations: Time for a change

By the time the international negotiations on climate change in Buenos Aires ended on Saturday 18 December 2004, workers had already started dismantling the conference facilities. Yet after two weeks of negotiations, the best that the more than 6,000 participants could achieve was an agreement to hold another meeting.

The Buenos Aires meeting was supposed to discuss what the world should do about climate change after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol runs out. "Quite frankly, we don't believe it's time to address the post-2012 time frame", said Harlan L. Watson, the USA's lead climate negotiator, on the second day of the meeting. 2012 would be plenty soon enough, according to Watson.

The USA has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, and has no intention of doing so. But as Michael Zammit Cutajar, the ex-Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Secretariat, explained recently: "The Kyoto Protocol['s] . . . market orientation was largely inspired by the USA [and] largely instigated by the negotiating positions of the USA."

This "market orientation" creates a new commodity - carbon cycling capacity. Carbon trading "turns the earth's carbon-cycling capacity into property to be bought or sold in a global market," states the Durban Declaration on Carbon Trading, which has been signed by more than 100 organisations.

On the afternoon of 14 December 2004 I sat at the back of the meeting room in Buenos Aires and listened to some of the issues being debated. Sure enough, the USA negotiators were rarely silent.

When I arrived, the item under discussion was L.21, which concerned the level of emissions for the base year of Croatia. The item read as follows: "The Subsidiary Body for Implementation did not complete its consideration of this agenda item. It agreed to continue its consideration of this item at a future session." Not much controversy there, I thought.

But the USA team felt they could not consider this item without seeing it in black and white. Negotiations stopped while hundreds of photocopies were run off, one for everyone in the room. The USA suggested that the Subsidiary Body for Implementation should consider Croatia's emissions for the base year at "its next session, on the grounds that a future session may be SBI 63".

Saudi Arabia promptly opposed the USA's amendment, without giving any reason. The Netherlands supported the amendment and asked why Saudi Arabia opposed it. The USA suggested that because the USA did not agree with the text of the informal consultations which had taken place about Croatia's base year emissions and because Saudi Arabia disagreed with the USA's proposed amendment that "we should set up a contact group" to discuss the matter further.

After a pause Saudi Arabia decided that it did, after all, agree with the USA's proposed amendment.

Next up was item L.21. This looked much more complicated: The report of the Global Environment Facility to the Conference of Parties. Agreeing a two sentence statement about Croatia had taken 10 minutes. I imagined it could take several days to agree a 12 paragraph global statement. Surprisingly however, the statement was accepted, apart from paragraph 11, which mentioned "methodologies, indicators and data". Argentina and China suggested amending the text. The USA and Japan disagreed with the suggested amendments. The discussion ran aground.

Daniela Stoycheva of Bulgaria had the unenviable job of chairing the meeting. She asked representatives from several countries, including the USA, the Netherlands, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Argentina and Brazil to join her on the podium. They huddled together at the front of the meeting room. After around 15 minutes of private discussion, Stoycheca announced that "the parties were able to agree". The words "methodologies, indicators and data" were removed from the report. Presumably the Global Environment Facility is to continue its operations without the drawback of having to consider anything as awkward as methodologies, indicators or data.

When the meeting closed I headed out of the conference centre, past the little Ark that Greenpeace had built under a giant billboard advertising Coca Cola. Looking back at the entrance to the conference area I read the sign announcing the Climate Change Convention meeting: "To prevent the climate change, we have to change". From the discussions that I'd listened to, I could only agree. A good start might be to change the way governments negotiate what they plan to do (or not to do) about climate change.

The participants at the next international climate change meeting, which is to be held in Germany in May, will not be allowed to discuss anything which might lead to new commitments. The US had refused to agree to a meeting focussing on compulsory reduction of emissions. Harlan Watson, the USA's lead climate negotiator, told the BBC, "It is a give-and-take exercise and I think on balance we are very pleased with the outcome."

By: Chris Lang, e-mail: chrislang@t-online.de
************************************************************

- Large dams, climate change and forced eviction

The hydropower industry has long relied on subsidies to build large dams. Hydropower proponents are now promoting dams as "climate friendly" in a desperate attempt to gain carbon financing for dams.

The International Hydropower Association (IHA), together with the World Wind Energy Association and the International Solar Energy Society, has formed the International Renewable Energy Alliance (IREA). IREA held a side event during the international climate change meeting in Buenos Aires in December 2004.

Chairing the meeting was Peter Rae, "convenor" of IREA and a board member of the IHA. For 90 minutes the audience listened politely while representatives from the wind, solar and hydropower industries did their best to persuade us that profits were of marginal interest and their companies really just wanted to save the planet. Robert Dixon, of the US Department of Energy said nothing that might have challenged this view. Henk Sa from EcoSecurities gave a presentation on the intricacies of carbon finance using the flexible mechanisms. The less profitable a project is the better in terms of financing through the clean development mechanism, according to Sa. "For hydro the clean development mechanism is a factor in making the project profitable," he said.

IHA claims that hydropower produces very few greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuel generating options. However, IHA's claims ignore a growing body of evidence which shows that dams and reservoirs in the lowland tropics are significant sources of methane. Patrick McCully of International Rivers Network has analysed IHA's claims and concludes that they are "variously irrelevant, incomplete or simply wrong." More than 260 organisations have signed on to IRN's declaration to exclude large hydro from renewable energy initiatives.

After IREA's presentations came a chance to ask questions. Patrick McCully started an eloquent description of the problems caused by large hydropower dams. IREA's convenor, Peter Rae, interrupted him. "Will there be a question or are you just making a statement?" he asked.

Among the questions that McCully asked the panel was whether the hydropower companies who are members of IREA would agree in future not to take part in building dams which involve forced evictions. No one on the panel answered the question.

I thought I'd ask the question again. Peter Rae interrupted me and told me that I should not bother asking any questions that have already been asked. I ignored Rae and asked, "Will the hydropower companies in IREA agree not to take part in building dams which involve forced evictions?"

Rae replied, making no attempt to answer the question. I pointed out that all I wanted was a simple yes or no answer to the question. "I refuse to be dictated to by you", Rae snapped. Behind me, a member of the audience said, "That sounds like a no to me."

Instead of answering McCully's question about forced evictions, Rae talked about IHA's sustainability guidelines, which the association formally adopted in November 2003. "The World Commission on Dams was a good start, and IHA has gone beyond the WCD recommendations," Rae explained.

When the World Commission on Dams process was completed in November 2000, the resulting document was more than 400 pages long. The report was backed up by two years of case studies, discussions and meetings. The report concludes with seven strategic priorities and a set of guidelines for good practice.

Not surprisingly, some people in the dam building industry did not like the results. "We don't like the World Commission guidelines at all," Konrad Attengruber of VA TECH HYDRO, an Austrian electomechanical equipment company and a member of IHA, told me in June 2002.

The World Commission on Dams recommendations include the principle of free, prior and informed consent for Indigenous Peoples. This gives Indigenous Peoples the right to refuse to allow proposed dams which might affect their land. It also gives them the power to negotiate the conditions under which a project can go ahead. The word "indigenous" appears only once in IHA's sustainability guidelines in a section discussing the management of existing dams. Free, prior and informed consent is not mentioned at all.

IHA's sustainable guidelines do mention forced eviction, although not in so many words: "Where population displacement is necessary, comprehensive resettlement and rehabilitation plans need to be developed and implemented in consultation with the affected population."

The construction of large dams has led to the eviction of tens of millions of people worldwide. No one knows the exact figure. The hydropower industry gives every indication that it intends to carry on evicting people from their homes. The reason that Peter Rae and the other IREA members on the panel in Buenos Aires were reluctant to discuss forced eviction is simple. IHA's sustainability guidelines do not exclude forced eviction.

By: Chris Lang, e-mail: chrislang@t-online.de
************************************************************

- Presenting GMO Trees to the United Nations COP 10

Organizations and representatives from social movements from Eastern and Western Europe, as well as North and South America came together in Buenos Aires, Argentina over the first half of December, 2004 to tell the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s tenth Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to ban GE trees from the Kyoto Protocol —the international global warming treaty.

It was at last year’s UN COP 9 where a committee of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) declared that GE trees could be used in plantations created to supposedly offset the carbon emissions from factories in the Industrialized North as a part of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.

This decision galvanized an international network of groups who came together to demand the UN get GE trees out of Kyoto and further, to ban them outright. In May of last year, World Rainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth International, Global Justice Ecology Project and the Peoples Forest Forum went to the United Nations Forum on Forests to present to UN delegates and other non-governmental organizations from 22 countries the dangers of GE trees and how they would likely worsen global warming rather than help mitigate it.

In addition, the Peoples Forest Forum of Finland, which includes the Union of Ecoforestry, Peoples Biosafety Organization and Friends of the Earth, started an international petition drive shortly after the UN’s December, 2003 decision. By the May UNFF meeting, they had gathered 1,500 signatures demanding the UN ban GE trees.

At a meeting of anti-GE tree groups at the May UN meeting, it was suggested that another GE trees presentation be made at the UN’s COP 10 in Buenos Aires to apply more pressure to reverse the pro-GE trees decision. WRM and Global Justice Ecology Project discussed these plans further in Durban, South Africa at a meeting on alternatives to carbon trading and other methods being used by governments and corporations to evade their commitments to reduce carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

In December, 2004, FERN, World Rainforest Movement, Global Justice Ecology Project, a Mapuche scientist from Chile, Peoples Forum on Forests, Global Forest Coalition, Friends of the Earth International and others converged on Buenos Aires for the COP 10.

The GE trees issue made its debut at the 2004 COP 10 during a “Climate Justice” press conference organized by the groups at the COP 10 that had met in the previous October in Durban, South Africa at the meeting critiquing carbon trading. Rachel Nuñez of the World Rainforest Movement spoke at the press conference stating, “Monoculture tree plantations are devastating for local communities and the environment. If the Kyoto Protocol allows large plantations of GE trees to count as clean development projects, the results will be catastrophic.”

A few days later, WRM organized a side event on GE trees for the local community at a school in the Botanical Gardens, outside of the COP 10. This event discussed the problems and dangers associated with GE trees to a large and very interested audience.

At another press conference on Thursday, December 16, the group again presented the facts and dangers of genetically engineered trees. The media that attended seemed very interested and asked several follow up questions. In addition, Hannu Hyvonen, of the Peoples Forest Forum presented his group’s petition of 2,000 names opposing the release of GE trees into the environment. Global Justice Ecology Project also showed a promotional clip from their upcoming video documentary, “The Silent Forest: The Growing Threat of Genetically Engineered Trees,” to be released in February of this year.

At the press conference, Lorena Ojeda, a Mapuche scientist explained the impacts being felt by rural and indigenous communities. “Plantations impact southern Chile causing great environmental and social problems. Pollen from these plantations travels in the wind large distances, contaminating water and affecting people with allergies and asthma.”

“If industrial tree plantations already cause so many problems with pollen, what will be the effect of GE tree pollen that contains the pesticide Bt?” she asked. “This engineered pollen could cause increased illness as it contaminates water, ecosystems, flora, fauna and people,” she continued.

The press conference was jointly organized by the World Rainforest Movement, FERN, Friends of the Earth International and Global Justice Ecology Project after their request for an official GE trees side event at the UN convention, where they could address UN delegates directly, was lost.

During the COP 10, the network of groups working on the GE trees issue met to discuss future plans. At this meeting, Ricardo Carrere of WRM explained that the UN delegate from Uruguay had explained to him the origins of the GE trees decision made at last year’s COP 9. He said it had come about because Norway had attempted to have GE trees banned from the Kyoto Protocol. This set off a backlash by other countries such as China (which had already begun growing insect-resistant GE trees in plantations) and Brazil, who felt their state sovereignty would be violated by such a ban. In essence, the pro-GE trees decision was made simply because the group would not agree to a ban.

On the final day of the COP 10 meetings, Buenos Aires and Argentine political groups held a rally outside the conference gates. GJEP’s Orin Langelle spoke to one of the protesters who objected to the public being blocked from participating in decisions about global warming, the effects of which will be felt by everyone. When Orin explained he was with Global Justice Ecology Project, the young woman exclaimed, “Oh, you were part of that GE trees event over at the Botanical Gardens last Monday! That was great! The UN should have had all of its events open to the people like that!”

By: Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project, e-mail: globalecology@gmavt.net
************************************************************

- Climate Change Convention: First time impressions of a suspecting hopeful

“To prevent the climate change, we have to change” [COP 10 motto]

The possibility of observer status to the 10th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change held in Buenos Aires this past December immediately created conflicting expectations in me.

Knowledge of the disappointing record of the past nine such conferences to address the gravity of change in global climate due to the actions of industrial civilisation, anticipated the ‘business [sic] as usual’ outcome of the international process –admirable in its inventiveness in propagating inaction. On the contrary, the glimmer of hope in the possibility for change stubbornly refused to comply with reason.

It would not have been realistic to expect a re-evaluation of the conviction to rely on market forces to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Nevertheless, I did expect the controversial last minute inclusion in COP 9 of genetically modified tree plantations in the Clean Development Mechanism, considering their potentially devastating effects on biodiversity, to provide an interesting issue of debate.

To the stunned surprise of any ‘observer’, inside the Conference, this very important issue (see http://www.wrm.org.uy/subjects/GMTrees/text.html) was silenced in the most audacious manner. The NGO FERN which had made an application for an official in-conference side event on GM trees had its application lost by the organisers and was not allowed to reapply.

How was it possible that all intra-state negotiations, reinforced by the input of many ‘experts’, would not even touch on an issue that could allow scientists to insert fish genes into eucalyptus trees to be planted over millions of hectares? This absurdity does not even implicate the ample evidence of human rights violations against local communities because of large scale tree plantations, nor their ensuing environmental consequences. (http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantations/carbon.html)

The answer seems simple to the casual in-conference outsider. Firstly, contrary to intuition there was not much open discussion between country delegates to be heard. Most of the crucial talks happened in small working groups which were not obliged to allow the attendance of non-participants. When all these working groups joined to ‘vote’ on their decisions the picture that one encountered was a half-full room and summary voting procedures whereby ‘voting’ was understood as the absence of objections from any of the (absent) delegates. The USA (though its intentions for not joining the Kyoto Protocol are clear) was allowed to interrupt and demand changes in wording that they felt uncomfortable with. Why was it possible for non-participants to the protocol to influence negotiations and not for civil society and indigenous people’s organisations that are in every aspect participants of its consequences?

Secondly, it was painfully apparent that for the majority of the participants climate change was synonymous -if not tautologous- with buying and selling ‘commodities’. The stall area was lined up with consultancy firms, environmental businesses, “business for sustainable development” groups flashing the newest laptop and G5 mobile telephony technologies.

Private companies that see the profit potential in the new born multi-billion dollar carbon market at least did not proclaim to be representing anything but personal ambitions. However, country delegations to the COP represent and are financed by the peoples of their countries. On a personal note when I attempted to make contact with the Greek delegation to find out about “our” Greek position in this forum, I was surprised to hear to they did not have any knowledge on GM trees. The same issue that one year before the same delegation had not voted against in the same forum. Surely not all delegations are equally unknowledgeable, but how many of the delegations of the 134 signatories have no idea of the issues they passively vote in favour?

From a more social perspective but connected to the political economy of the COP 10, the first impression when arriving in the conference complex is an involuntary induced feeling of secret pride. The exclusivity of participants to this global international meeting and the facade ambient in which it takes place, play on deeply imbedded human feelings of self worth in a way as to take attention off the unjust structures that form its base. It is noticeable that the overwhelming number of people employed to attend the participants (security guards, restaurant attendants, information staff, etc.) were young women in a forum where power is almost exclusively concentrated in male hands. Was this a purposeful strategy to make the conference environment more ‘friendly’ towards the latter?

The tax money spent by the Argentinean people’s government for the two week conference was assumingly large though suspiciously obscure. Contacting every imaginable person from the External Relations Officer for Intergovernmental and Conference Affairs of the Climate Change Secretariat to the Argentinean government’s in-conference offices, the same expressions of bewilderment and ignorance towards the logistic costs of the conference were encountered. Finally, I was unable to discover how much money had been spent on this international meeting, a meeting that moreover ignored the social and environmental implications of decisions there adopted.

Before participating in the conference, knowledge of the disappointing record of previous COP’s played against my hopeful expectation that change is always possible. On departing it was apparent that these are not conflicting expectations. Global processes such as this one are not meant to undo the social, political and economic injustices that have brought them to being; they are meant to maintain them.

Hope for change lies in the alternatives that people and communities are practicing and inventing, by changing themselves, their ways of life and the relations within their communities and between them and their environment, alternatives that can readily be found outside the conference walls. It would be good that government officials learned from people the true meaning of the COP’s official motto: “To prevent the climate change, we have to change”.

By: Antonis Diamantidis, e-mail: antonis@wrm.org.uy