Copenhagen – NO Cochabamba – SI .. Strategies discussion emerges.
Discussion via emails on issues for the forthcoming World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights in Cochabamba, Bolivia from 19th to 22nd April 2010 are developing and a log of recent submissions appears below. Please register and contribute at http://cmpcc.org/ or add your comments below. The World needs your help !!
Below are bi-lingual (Spanish followed by English) contributions up to Tuesday 23rd March, preceeded by a summary by the working groups convenor.
Estimados y estimadas participantes del GT estrategias,
Adjunto abajo envío los comentarios y propuestas recibidas el fin de semana, por la extensión de varias de ellas y para facilitar nuestro trabajo he optado por concentrarnos en las propuestas concretas.
De manera general estas contribuciones resaltan los siguientes aspectos, que pongo bajo su consideración:
Saludos cordiales.
Cecilia.
Dear Participants of the W G Strategies,
Attached I send you comments and suggestions received over the weekend, because of the extension of several of them, I decided to to focus on concrete proposals to facilitate our work.
Generally these contributions highlight the following points which I put under your consideration:
• The current environmental crisis is related to a pattern of life: individualism, consumerism, predatory in their environment, which is leading to a global collapse threatening the survival of life on the planet.
• Developed countries devote more resources to their defense budgets, for war and weapons development, or to save banks, while saving the planet “understanding Copenhagen” unacceptable proposes figures, our main battle is for the defense Life
• We need to act immediately, because the planet can not wait. In this regard it is necessary to promote an alternative living model of the capitalist system, based on respect for our planet or Mother Earth, since it is essential to return to live in harmony with it.
• Promote the return to the simple life outside the cities, based on local production and consumption, without relying on supermarkets, and other vehicles.
• Need to allocate adequate financial resources for research, development and technology transfer.
• Need to promote the reconnection of humans with nature.
• It is necessary to have a permanent advisory body or a body or emergency committee to coordinate actions, whose composition should be defined as well as its decision and the scope thereof.
• The reductions in CO2 emissions not enough to halt climate change. The atmosphere is heavily polluted.
• The current model of development is unsustainable and must re-think climate debt in the development of some countries has generated and how to collect it.
• Replace the IMF and financial institutions that promote “economic growth is incompatible with environmental sustainability.
I leave these items for consideration.
Fraternal greetings,
Cecilia.
Propuesta de Ecio Bertelloti:
Visto el estado actual de la marcha del mundo,
En lo propio de su naturaleza: el agotamiento de recursos incluyendo la destrucción de ecosistemas y la extinción de especies, la desorbitada acumulación de residuos así como su propagación contaminante, y la alteración disruptiva de los ciclos naturales incluyendo el cambio climático.
En lo propio del ambiente humano: la extensión del hambre y los padecimientos ambientales, el crecimiento de la anomia social, y la perpetuación de conflictos y violencias, todo ello en medio de la expansión de un individualismo extremado que se generaliza hacia un consumismo predador y carente de sentido,
Y considerando
Que de seguir tal camino el mundo avanzará hacia un abrupto fin de época que puede incluso consistir en el colapso total de lo conocido hasta entonces incluyendo a la vida humana,
Que la consecución de este proceso conllevará asociado inevitablemente una dosis agigantada de sufrimiento a escala planetaria, es que resulta imperioso modificar el rumbo seguido.
Por ello,
Esta asamblea recomienda convocar a un Concejo de Laikas y Guías Espirituales del Mundo para que se constituya en cuerpo consultivo y orientador permanente.
Las resoluciones que tome este cuerpo serán dirigidas a los pueblos, y sus recomendaciones serán políticas y no vinculantes.
Recuperar para el mundo la conexión de los humanos con los aspectos esenciales de la vida de la tierra e integrarse nuevamente al gran ordenamiento cósmico es la tarea que ahora tenemos por delante.
Ecio Bertelloti Proposal:
Having regard to the current state of development of the world,
In his own nature: the depletion of resources including the destruction of ecosystems and species extinction, the exorbitant accumulation of waste and its contaminant spread, disruptive and alteration of natural cycles, including climate change.
In the proper of the human environment: the extent of hunger and environmental conditions, the growth of social anomie, and the perpetuation of conflict and violence, all in the midst of expanding an extreme individualism that is generalized into a predator and consumerism meaningless
And considering
From pursuing such a way that the world will move toward an abrupt end of an era that could even include the total collapse of the known human life including,
That the achievement of this process will lead inevitably associated gigantic dose of suffering on a global scale is that it is imperative to change the course steered.
Therefore
This assembly recommends convening a council of Laikas and Spiritual Guides of the World for which becomes a permanent advisory body and counselor.
The decisions that you take this body will be directed to the people, and its recommendations will be political and not binding.
Lost connection to the world of humans with essential aspects of life on earth and integrate back into the great cosmic order is the task that now lies ahead.
Propuesta de M. Simkin
All your efforts to save our planet from climate catastrophe are obviously vain. It only becomes worth and worth. Everybody appeals to somebody but nobody does something. Thus, the question is:
WHO IS GUILTY AND WHAT COULD BEEN DONE?
It is clear that only climate observations cannot bring much. Only new ideas and FUNDEMENTAL researches can save planet from known and what is more dangerous – unknown, unpredictable consequences of climate changes.
The whole world waits from the leader country USA not money but some concrete scientific solutions. However, the American distributors of public money don not take these circumstances seriously. They use obsolete arrogant bureaucratic rules and famous American bureaucracy with Chernobyl mentality.
It is clear now that American government administration is guilty for present hopeless climate – energy situation on our planet. If you want the terror leader Ben Laden plays the Robin Hood role in this theatre…
What we must do in this situation? The people of good will all over the world and first of all in the world leader country USA must demand from American government the concrete scientific solution to the present dangerous situation. Otherwise, the present president of USA can be the last…
In addition to questionable the “hothouse” (other known as greenhouse) atmosphere effect, there is another important adverse change in the energy processes of the atmosphere to which nobody pays attention, because it owns my know-how in this field. At the same time, these process can be controlled, which would allow the Earth’s atmosphere self clean or in other words to recover, as it has successfully occurred after the ban on the use of gas Freon.
But without me and my know how you never find out it and may to start of building PYRAMIDES because you never find solution for the present climate – energy desperate.
And the last or better speaking it should be the first: What we see now is not warming or freezing but agony of Earth climate!!
However, it is impossible to get financial support for investigations. The West governments spend all theirs money to save theirs banks but not the planet.
What to do? Concrete – organize new Emergency Global Committee for saving planet. I almost agree with you that we don’t have decades of years to save Earth.
Also cutting emission of CO2 cannot stop climate changes. Our atmosphere is enough polluted. But my above mentioned geo-engineering idea could at least break these changes till another my idea for clean source will be fulfilled.
That means that without me (or if you want without new scientists like me) you are perish on the Earth.For my investigations I need good financial supporting. It could be given only from above proposed Emergency Global Committee. It is naive to wait that somebody in his garage laboratory will save the whole planet….
Sincerely
________________M.Simkin (scientist and inventor – Cologne,Germany)
Todos sus esfuerzos para salvar nuestro planeta de una catástrofe climática son obviamente vano. Sólo se convierte en un valor y vale la pena. Todos los recursos a alguien, pero nadie hace algo. Así, la pregunta es:
¿Quién es culpable y lo que podría ha hecho?
Es evidente que las observaciones del clima no sólo puede aportar mucho. Sólo las nuevas ideas y FUNDEMENTAL investigaciones pueden salvar el planeta de lo conocido y lo que es más peligroso – desconocido, impredecibles consecuencias de los cambios climáticos.
El mundo entero espera desde el país líder de dinero de EE.UU. no soluciones concretas, pero algunos científicos. Sin embargo, los distribuidores americanos de dinero público don no tomar estas circunstancias en serio. Usan obsoletas normas burocráticas y la burocracia arrogante americano famoso con la mentalidad de Chernobyl.
Es claro ahora que la administración del gobierno de Estados Unidos es culpable del clima actual sin esperanza – situación de la energía en nuestro planeta. Si desea que el líder terrorista Ben Laden desempeña el papel de Robin Hood en el teatro …
Lo que debemos hacer en esta situación? La gente de buena voluntad de todo el mundo y en primer lugar en el país líder mundial de EE.UU. debe exigir de los gobiernos de América la solución científica concreta a la peligrosa situación actual. De lo contrario, el actual presidente de EE.UU. puede ser el último …
Además de la cuestionable invernadero “(que se conoce como efecto invernadero) el efecto atmósfera, hay otro cambio adverso importante en los procesos de energía de la atmósfera a la que nadie presta atención, ya que posee mis conocimientos en este campo. Al mismo tiempo, estos procesos pueden ser controlados, lo que permitiría la libre atmósfera de la Tierra limpia o en otras palabras, a recuperar, como ha ocurrido con éxito después de la prohibición sobre el uso de gas freón.
Pero sin mí y mi saber no se descubre y puede empezar la construcción de PYRAMIDES porque nunca encontrar una solución para la situación actual – la energía desesperada.
Y la última, o mejor, debería estar el primero: ¿Qué vemos ahora no es el calentamiento o la congelación, pero la agonía de clima de la Tierra!!
Sin embargo, es imposible de conseguir apoyo financiero para las investigaciones. Los gobiernos de Occidente gastar todo el dinero de ellos para salvar a los bancos de ellos, pero no el planeta.
¿Qué hacer? Hormigón – organizar nuevos Emergencia Comité Mundial para salvar el planeta. Casi de acuerdo con usted en que no tenemos décadas de años para salvar la Tierra.
Además de reducir las emisiones de CO2 no pueden detener los cambios climáticos. Nuestra atmósfera es lo suficientemente contaminadas. Pero mi geo mencionada idea de ingeniería podría, al menos, romper estos cambios hasta que otra idea para mi fuente limpia se cumplirán.
Eso significa que sin mí (o si usted desea sin nuevos científicos como yo) que se pierda en el Earth.For mis investigaciones me hacen falta buenas financieros de apoyo. Podría darse sólo desde arriba propuesto Comité de Emergencia Global. Es ingenuo esperar que alguien en su laboratorio de garaje salvará al planeta entero ….
Atentamente
________________M.Simkin (scientist and inventor – Cologne,Germany)
War as the Major Destroyer of Mother Earth
Guerra es el destructor major de la Madre Tierra
By Ron Ridenour
Member Casa Latino Americana, Denmark
Proposal for workshops No.1, causes of climate change and 16, strategies:
End War and militarization!
Propósito a los grupos de trabajo N. 1, sobre Causas Estructurales y N. 16, Estrategias:
Acaba con Guerras y Militarización
Rik propone:
I find part of what Bonnie writes difficult to understand. However I think we can all agree on two points:
1. Where she says “The World Summits that are called/ could be called, should refer in a different tone, to that which we humans should do, so that our relation with the planet goes better, so that us and the life here we can save, can have better responses when emergency strikes in front of catastrophe, and to how do we make our life easier without nuclear weapons and others, without wars, without so many cities, without having to depend on a supermarket to eat and get drinking water!” ( … )
and
2. That building nuclear power plants and continuing to keep nuclear weapons should be strongly opposed.
Nuclear power, considering the amount of Uranium the World has, cannot be universally used, not can it be used for long, while the intractable problems of managing nuclear waste will remain for millions of years. The keeping of nuclear weapons represents a risk to humanity which no person should accept and all should actively work to eliminate them.
The Paris meeting Bonnie criticizes results from the profit motive of the French nuclear power industry, the biggest in Europe. Once again we see the need to eliminate the profit motive and the economic system of capitalism where it is the central feature.
On nuclear weapons, it is a disgrace that the Presidents of the USA and Russia do not agree to eliminate all their nuclear weapons now ( as did Ronald Reagan & Michail Gorbachef – only to be over-ruled by the military). Should they do so there is little doubt the could impose the same on all other nuclear states.
These sentiments I believe should be included in our conference submission.
Encuentro la parte de lo que escribe Bonnie a difícil entender. Sin embargo pienso que podemos todos estar de acuerdo con dos puntos:
1. Donde ella dice el ” Las cumbres de mundo se llaman que se podrían llamar, deben referirse en un diverso tono, a el que los seres humanos debamos hacer, de modo que vaya nuestra relación con el planeta mejor, de modo que nosotros y la vida aquí que podemos ahorrar, puedan tener mejores respuestas cuando la emergencia pega delante de catástrofe, y a cómo hacemos nuestra vida más fácil sin las armas nucleares y otros, sin guerras, sin tan muchas ciudades, sin tener que depender de un supermercado para comer y para conseguir el agua potable!” (…)
y
2. Que las centrales nuclear constructivas y la continuación guardar las armas nucleares deben ser opuestas fuertemente.
La energía atómica, en vista de la cantidad de uranio el mundo tiene, no se puede utilizar universal, no se puede él utilizar para de largo, mientras que seguirá habiendo los problemas insuperables de manejar la basura nuclear para millones de años.
La custodia de armas nucleares representa un riesgo a la humanidad que ninguna persona debe aceptar y toda debe trabajar activamente para eliminarla.
La reunión Bonnie de París critica resultados del motivo de beneficio de la industria de energía atómica francesa, el más grande de Europa. Vemos de nuevo la necesidad de eliminar el motivo de beneficio y el sistema económico de capitalismo donde está la característica central. En las armas nucleares, es una deshonra que los presidentes de los E.E.U.U. y de la Rusia no acuerdan eliminar todas sus armas nucleares ahora (al igual que el & de Ronald Reagan; Michail Gorbachef – ser invalidado solamente por los militares). Si hicieron tan es que poco la duda podría imponer iguales ante el resto de los estados nucleares.
Estos sentimientos que creo se deben incluir en nuestra sumisión de la conferencia.
(n.b. Translated by http://babelfish.yahoo.com )
Comentarios adicionales de Ricky a un comentario de la pagina web cmpcc.
Respuestas: Los comentarios de Francisco C. Verhagen, M.Div., M.I.A. Ph.D. Encuentro el más interesante e importante debido a qué aparece a mí ser una crisis en el sistema de moneda del mundo. La gran confianza en la deuda para financiar el ” insostenible; development” (e.g en los estados del golfo) o ” Normal” la actividad del gobierno e.g. los militares de los E.E.U.U., parecería condenada para una cierta clase de derrumbamiento. Es también hora de repensar la campaña de la deuda del clima y la idea entera de transferencias monetarias del norte al sur. Las cantidades ofrecidas, en primer lugar por Gordon Brown de $10 mil millones per annum que crecen durante una década a $100 mil millones son irrisorias cuando están comparadas al gasto militar y también en el contexto de una baja continua prevista en el valor del $US. Por una parte la preocupación del norte que la ayuda o la condonación de la deuda se debe entregar al necesitado y no del codicioso debe ser tratada. La respuesta generalmente de abordar la corrupción no puede tener éxito en una economía de mercado donde las grandes diferencias en abundancia personal se permiten. Una buena proporción de los problemas de la corrupción se puede atribuir seguramente al & del banco mundial; Imposiciones del FMI de medidas anti-socialistas en el Tercer mundo y los segundos países (ex-socialistas) del mundo. Iría en cuanto para decir elimine toda la deuda, de modo que ” del adagio; Ni un prestamista ni un be” del deudor; (William Shakespeare) sígase. El oeste ha invertido tan en China – el malo la amortiza también; americanos parados en casas de gran tamaño; China en enlaces de Hacienda de los E.E.U.U.; Canadá en la extracción de aceite de las arenas de alquitrán; Japón en una flota de la pesca de ballenas – escriba de la porción. ¿PERO por supuesto qué sobre equidad? La respuesta aquí es socializar los activos y las responsabilidades. Un millonario tiene casas grandes múltiples (activos) – las comparte entre el necesitado pero déjelo tienen algunos cuartos de vivir adentro. Tolouse ha construido una fábrica enorme de los aviones (una responsabilidad) – tiene el convertido de los trabajadores él a hacer las bicicletas, las estufas sin humos eficientes para el etc. del sur. Los E.E.U.U. tienen portaaviones nucleares con 30 años de vida en ellos y sitio para 5000 personas – utilizarlas como barcos de cruceros libres fósiles. Esto puede ser que llamemos una situación del Ganar-Ganar-Perder-Perder donde todos reconocemos las muchas equivocaciones tontas incurridas en por la civilización y las dejamos soltar, desecharlas y liberarse de los látigos gemelos de la pobreza y del consumerismo desenfrenado. ¿Qué Francisco piensa en ése? Picosegundo I también como el poste de David Whitfield sobre la reducción del humo. El valle Wen en un papel para el foco en el sur global también hizo el punto que la inversión en las estufas eficientes para la gente de país en China sería mejor que las presas hidroeléctricas del edificio (si recuerdo correctamente). PPS que también hemos tenido circulado un gravamen reciente del acuerdo supuesto de Copenhague. Esto y el acuerdo que he fijado para la referencia fácil en http://www.ourchiangmai.com
| Our strategy will need to include abolishing the IMF I suggest and below you can see why:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/breakingnews/imf-warns-wealthiest-nations-about-.htm So the IMF says: “Countries should aggressively pursue reforms that will boost growth, such as the liberalization of goods and labor markets and the elimination of tax distortions, he said, though such moves on their own will be insufficient without direct measures to reduce spending.” In contrast last December we had a distinguished and rather conservative US academic Dr Paul Tiffany address Payap University in Chiang Mai Thailand and to quote him: This was said in the context of the climate challenge. Sadly it appears the IMF is happy to see the extinction of civilization which will lead also to its own demise. Yet how many World leaders will beg to differ? |
Copenhagen – NO Cochabamba – SI Climate Debt discussion emerges.
Discussion via emails on issues for the forthcoming World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights in Cochabamba, Bolivia from 19th to 22nd April 2010 are developing and a log of recent submissions appears below. Please register and contribute at http://cmpcc.org/ or add your comments below. The World needs your help !!
A point of agreement among submissions appears to be that technology for reducing emissions should be provided free of any proprietary restrictions to third World countries by countries possessing or having developed the technology.
This can be argued in terms of analogy of WTO provisions for compulsory licensing of patent drug for infectious diseases, thereby allowing cheap public health measures. Measures which reduce carbon emissions are likewise in the interest of public health. Please read on – Ricky Ward, Chiang Mai
12 POST COP15 | TIME TO BE BOLD – TIEMPO DE SER AUDACES Friday, 26 March, 2010 1:43 PM
http://timetobebold.wordpress.com/ extract from this VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT appears below
The historically large emission state parties must acknowledge their emissions debt to developing countries. To address the emission debt developed states must; (i) cancel the existing debt owed by developing countries, (ii) implement the long-standing commitment of .7% of GDP for overseas development aid in public funding (ODA), and (iii) ensure new funding for climate change compensation, and for socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound development and transfer of technology through public funding not through public private partnerships (iv) above all, specifically compensate Indigenous peoples.
A funding institution must be established that ensures funding flows down directly to regional levels and local communities. Such a fund could be named the Fund for the Implementation of the UNFCCC, and it would fund the development, promotion and transfer of socially equitable and environmentally safe and sound renewable energy, transportation, agriculture and forestry. This technology must be in the public domain unencumbered by private patents.
Technology transfer to developing countries
The administration of the fund must be with the full participation of all member states of the United Nations. This fund would replace the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the main source of funding for the UNFCCC. Funds must no longer be distributed by the Bretton Woods Institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The time has passed for bailing out banks and unsustainable corporations and for imposing IMF Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPS).
11 Deuda moral, resarcimiento y tribunal de justicia climática – Moral debt, compensation and the Climate Justice Tribunal Friday, 26 March, 2010 8:13 AM
(UNOFICIAL TRANSLATION)
I think that speaking on ”climate debt”, one should also talk about “moral debt” and “compensation”.
Moral debt .- Because the actions of a few generate reactions that affect us all, and it is the moral duty of those few to create situations that enable the coordination of actions to conform an international mechanism, independent of any already established global organization, and recognized by all countries. This in order to echo all existing claims in favor of preventing irreparable harm because of global warming (generated together with other phenomena, because of the imbalance between humanity and nature).
Compensation: because the excessive contamination of some, is in detrimental to all. And, parallel to the recognized as claims for damages in other cases, the same must be the case for issues of contamination, which brings us back to the need to create an “entity” to take care of it.
From this perspective, the creation of a “Climate Court” is indispensable to carry out any action relevant to the topic, such as those taken into account in the “background for the working group” which are among others: the compensation and / or indemnification, the transfer of experience (knowledge) and technology that enable countries to develop more appropriate to the care of the planet (taking into account the conclusions obtained in the 2nd working group) the administration and distribution of these and other resources, etc..
Therefor, it is extremely important that the formation of this “Climate Court” gives its first step in this “Ist World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of the Mother Earth.”
Victor Alejandro Toro Bloch
Experimental Center Bolivia
10: responsabilidad por la deuda climática – responsability for climate debt
Thursday, 25 March, 2010 8:58 PM
Dear participants of the WG on Climate Debt
I send you hereby the reflections of Erica Moncada, from Colombia, who refers to the reference questions,
Kind greetings,Nele Marien
Facilitator WG 8
(ENGLISH UNOFICIAL TRANSLATION)
Good day, compared to the first article on climate debt consider it important to provide the following:
The responsibility for proper use of natural resources should not only be acquired by countries in one sector or another, it is important to note that the economic model implemented in Northern countries as mentioned in this first article, is the same which is evident in countries affected by natural resource extraction. It is highly desirable that the economic model inextricably integrated prevention and cyclical strategic ecosystems for all mankind.
The responsibility for the issue of greenhouse gas producers should be proportional, but should not lose sight of the commitment generated for a common benefit, which is to protect the natural resources. The more developed countries must not only pay for what they were allowed to pollute but must demonstrate and show their interest in improving their industrial activities with progressive changes beneficial to the environment. As well as developed countries, we (developing countries) generate environmental impacts from implementation of core activities; it is true that we do it in smaller numbers, but from my point of view it is important to address the problem of climate change among all, providing appropriate clean technologies and concepts implemented in the normal working routine in developed countries and in the process of development.
The climate debt should be seen as the responsibility and commitment that economicaly more developed peoples/countries should take to protect natural resources and to protect spaces that ensure the emergence of life. This responsibility should be taken with the strategic alliance of the less developed peoples by promoting the protection of natural resources, providing the necessary tools to achieve a common goal, such as transfer of clean technologies, efficiency of industrial processes for reduction of pollution with liquid waste, atmospheric contamination, etc.., without the use of the territory or its inhabitants.
The main causes of climate debt are:
The invasion of atmospheric space with Greenhouse Gases from all countries
The evasion of responsibility for emissions made in excess by developed countries, related to the economic model and technological advancements available to mitigate the impact caused.
Developed countries should support developing countries to change its economic model based on the use of clean energy; this support should be made transferring clean technologies, free of patents, and providing the necessary resources for the implementation of this technologies.
The countries suffering from underdevelopment should encourage agricultural activities, take care for natural resources, and implement an economic transformation towards a green economy.
The political and economic interests of each country must be linked to a protection and a fair interaction on natural resources; it is of vital importance to include human activity in the natural system by imposing limits to act in natural spaces, and, in case of being surpasses, verify a corrective action for the impact. Eg countries with higher purchasing power not only have to pay for pollution; they furthermore have to prove to the world that they are also committed to their natural environment and involve the affected population to be observators of the changes.
Sincerely, Erika Moncada P.
Student Environmental Sanitation Technology
Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas.
Bogota Colombia.
8: How to attend climate Climate Crime/ Como atender los delitos climáticos
Wednesday, 24 March, 2010 8:55 AM
Dear Participants of the WG on Climate Debt,
I hereby forward you the ideas of Dragutin Lauric, from Bolivia, on some strategic actions to be taken in order to attend environmental crime.
With kind Greetings,
Nele Marien
Facilitator WG Deuda Climática
I cordially greet all participants of this group,
I send my views concerning the interpretation and promulgation of laws on climate crimes and consolidation of an International Court for the Environment.
Within the context of the discussions that this group has, I refer these suggestions with respect and consideration, for anything I am at your orders.
The following actions would have to be consolidated in order to conform and consolidate:
1.-An International Tribunal for the environment.
2.-Legislation proposals on climate crimes against humanity.
3.-Bills on parameters for reduction or elimination of activities that have negative environmental impact, eg the emission of gases.
4.-Agree on the establishment of an international mechanism to legally enforceable commitments by the countries, but not in the framework of the UN, but an independent worldwide organization, with a greater participation of affected countries that claim a subsidy or compensation of damage caused by countries that are most responsible for pollution and negative environmental impacts.
5.This court should be an independent organ of the UN, moreover, the court’s jurisdiction should also have the authority to enforce other multilateral environmental agreements, in addition to fulfilling commitments under the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change).
6.-States should establish an independent commission or a public prosecutor, related to a United Nations organization such as UNEP (United Nations Environment) to continue proceedings against a country or a number of countries particular.
7 .-This should be composed and funded by the forthcoming World Conference of Peoples on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth.
8 .Its decisions should be reinforced by internal policies of governments that are part of the World’s People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth.
Sincerely
Dragutin Lauric
7. ECONOMICAL, POLITICAL OR MORAL DEBT? — ¿DEUDA ECONOMICA, POLITICA O MORAL? Monday, 22 March, 2010 2:22 PM
Dear Participants of WG 8,
I hereby send you the reflections of Edgar Centeno, Global Alliance for Efficient Development EDWA, from Bolivia. These reflections wEre posted as a comment on the webside, but in order to have them present in the debate, I also send them to the working group.
Kind Greetings
Nele Marien
Facilitadora GT 8
ECONOMICAL, POLITICAL OR MORAL DEBT?
Many calculations are made, in economic terms, on the debt of industrialized countries for the environmental damage caused to the world, and these figures are multimillionaires. Beyond financial rewards, the other debt of these states is the generation and implementation of laws, forcing companies to make major changes in their ways of production to avoid an increasing environmental pollution. It is political irresponsibility that is leading the world to the edge of an environmental disaster. These bills need to be rapidly and urgently passed in their respective houses. Several of these proposals have been discussed for many years, and economic interests are above political interests. This conflict of interests must be ended and the evidences of the gradual decay of nature are obvious. These laws should not be dilated and specific deadlines should be given in order to be issued by these nations.
The World Conference must create entities officially recognized by all the states of the world, having control over the compensations’ payment and over the emerging and rapidly implemented political debts. It is not only about calculating debts; it is also about the ways in which these debts are paid.
The current procedures are very complicated and only entities or companies that have great support to achieve compensations, can have access.
We have to break down all those barriers and get in action through these funds, in order to immediately contribute in climate change’s reduction or adaptation. All that money will not generate water in the dry bed of thousands of rivers, but it will remedy in some extent the effects of climate change. All that money will not solve the increasing pollution; rather, it is the implementation of severe and urgent policies that would slow down in some extent the hunger for economic gain of multinational companies regardless of our mother earth.
I look forward to your reactions, so we can assemble a proactive and purposeful group. This will enable us to generate proposals in order to ensure life for future generations and those now living.
Edgar Centeno, Global Alliance for Efficient Development EDWA, Bolivia.
6. Some questions to focus our debate — Algunas preguntas para enfocar el debate Monday, 22 March, 2010 1:29 PM
Dear Participant of the Working Group on Climate Debt,
Thanking you for the different contributions sent up till now, I want to open a few questions so we can focus our debate:
1) How do you see climate debt, which are its causes, and how do these relate to the different sub-components of the climate debt?. The related question is which are the different ways to honor the climate debt, according to each of the different components?
As a reference of this discussion I invite you to read the background paper that was sent in the starting of this electronic discussion, which is also available on the web, under the title of Climate Debt.
As a part of a major understanding of climate debt itself, the text on the appropriation of the atmosphere was very useful, as well as the document of friends of the earth.
2) Several persons have suggested elements that are not properly the climate debt itself, but are aggravating elements. I would consider in this category the ideas on negative policies imposed to developing countries in the name of climate change, and the paragraphs extracted from the FOE study which state that many of the emissions in developing countries are to produce goods that are destined to developed countries.
How do we see those and other aggravating elements, and their relation to the climate debt itself?
3) We welcome any ideas on how to make sure that climate debt can be honored.
I invite you to reflect upon these points, but at the same time all texts and ideas on climate debt are welcome
With kind greetings,Nele Marien
Facilitator WG 8 Climate Debt
5. FOEI climate debt discussion paper 2005 – documento sobre deuda climática de Amigos de la Tierra , 2005 Saturday, 20 March, 2010 12:51 PM
PDF file climatedebt.pdf
Dear participants of the Working Group on Climate Debt,
I hereby forward you a document and a presentation on Climate debt from Friends of the Earth wich was sent to us by Roque Pedace. The document is from 2005, which is a notable early contribution to the concept.
Many of the issues in the document are explained with big clarity, but most of them are present in the documents which have been send up till now. The previous contribution of Roque Padece also gives a good idea of some key elements of this text.
Even though, there were some paragraphs that were in now way present in the discussion up till now, and which I consider particularly interesting. They come from page 6 of the document, and I reproduce them here in English and Spanish. (Unfortunately the document is only available in English, and we don’t have the capacity to translate the whole document)
If anybody finds any other paragraphs or ideas interesting in this document, we are willing to help with the translation of those.
I also invite everybody to send reflections on these ideas or this document, or to send any other contribution.
With kind greetings,
Nele Marien
Facilitator group 8 – Climate Debt
While the contribution of developing countries to overall emissions is undoubtedly on the rise, from the equity point of view it is vital to recognize the fundamental difference between emissions originating from wealthy countries and from developing countries – that is, the actions that cause the emissions. In the North, emissions include “luxury emissions” created by producing consumer goods, running home appliances, heating large homes and fuelling private cars and airplanes. Emissions in the South, on the other hand, are often “subsistence emissions” that are due to actions directly related to basic needs such as growing food, rearing cattle and burning wood for fuel.
Another aspect rarely considered is that a large portion of the emissions originating in the South is directly linked to the consumption of industrialized countries. Greenhouse gas emissions in OPEC countries come mostly from oil production, but nearly two-thirds of the world’s oil is consumed in OECD countries. A similar trend can be observed with natural gas.
A considerable proportion of the energy-intensive mining industry in developing countries caters to the needs of industrialized countries – as more than 80% of all raw materials produced are consumed in the North. In many poorer countries, the single largest source of emissions is deforestation, which is partly caused by the demand for wood in wealthier northern countries. For instance, approximately 70% of African rainforests have been destroyed – much of this for timber exports to industrialized nations. These are all examples of unequal exchange, one of the two components of ecological debt as explained above, since the negative impacts of these actions are absorbed by the exporting countries without repayment by the importer.
These are all relevant cases of northern emissions taking place in southern countries that result in ecological debt, but an even deeper analysis reveals that additional mechanisms are also involved. The North is actively imposing its resource and energy-intensive lifestyle on the South by shaping the world economy to its advantage, maintaining huge debts, and using advertising and media to set an example for consumption levels that only a relatively small part of the world could actually achieve. Additionally, many of the current tools for global governance, such as the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are predominantly controlled by northern countries. For example, when the IMF imposes a Structural Adjustment Programme on a southern nation, this often leads to cuts in government spending and the increased marginalization of certain sections of the population. Poverty, it has been shown, places great strain on natural resources including forests and other biodiversity and can contribute to logging, deforestation and other environmental impacts that produce greenhouse gas emissions.
4. REACTION ON: Contribution from the Third World Network – Contribución desde la Red del Tercer Mundo Thursday, 18 March, 2010 7:39 PM
Dear Participants,
I hereby send you the reflections of Nancy Camacho, from Bolivia.
With kind greetings, Nele Marien, Facilitator Working Group on Climate Debt
Climate change can be understood as the changes in normal temperatures, changes in the frequency, intensity, and season of rain falls and wind, changes in the natural water cycle with short and long term effects. Droughts and floods are foreseen in short term; predictions for the long term are temperature increase, glaciers and eternal snows disappearing (water resources), disappearing and transformation of certain ecosystems with their flora, fauna and socio cultural conditions.
The causes for Climate Change – CC are: development based on non renewable fossil fuel usage (petroleum, carbon), unsustainable domestic consumption levels, deforestation and large scale conventional agriculture (monoculture, desertification of productive land, indiscriminate usage of agrochemicals).
The richest countries are responsible for the three quarters of green house gas emissions; however, the poorest are the ones that suffer the severe effects of climate change in terms of water shortage and limited access to produce and have access to food.
In Africa, for example, the changes in rain falls regime affects food production, and the increase of temperatures is fomenting the spread of sicknesses and plagues.
In Bolivia, according to Oxfam´s report, “Bolivia: cambio climatico, pobreza y adaptación entre el año 1975 y 2006”, the glaciers of the Royal mountain range have lost more than 40 % of their volume. Besides, Bolivia is the tenth most biodiverse country of the world, its territory contains a great variety of ecosystems which causes it to be more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. On the other hand, climate change effects in indigenous communities manifests in the last decades as an increase in temperatures and in rain falls.
Scientists have warned and demonstrated that annual global emissions have to go back or even below 1990 levels by 2020 if we want to recover the balance of our planet.
However, the historical responsibility of developed countries that have grown in the last 20 years emitting green house gases does not take into account yet that a change in our attitude towards climate change mitigation and adaptation measures is the basis to begin with international negotiations.
The biggest meeting called and programmed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), lunched with almost 34 thousand participants. This was supposed to be the scenario to discuss whose responsibility it is and how they should adopt it, mitigate it, and adapt it. So far, the richest countries keep the discourse that they will not risk their economical development to mitigate climate change effects.
As a consequence, and gathering central points of the international debate and alternative proposals, I understand that developed countries have the moral and economical obligation to:
1. Reduce their contaminating emissions, to at least 40 % below 1990 levels by 2020, mainly through domestic measures. However, there is no seriousness or political will to since for example, the US and China do not talk about a treaty but about a date (ignoring when) to discuss this issue, that can probably be Mexico.
2. Promote and guarantee financing for mitigation in poor countries to limit emissions growth (without implying to stop development). Rich countries have the technology and money to do it.
3. Finance technological innovations that contribute to promote processes of adaptation to climate change in developing countries.
4. On our side, we have to work, as we have been working, in the promotion of innovation to adaptation to climate change. However, mostly in the defense and conservation of our natural resources as strategic lines for our sovereignty and development.
We are certain that the biggest responsibility lies upon the richest countries. However, we have to work and deepen international treaties and be co responsible (rich and poor countries) with the planet and overall with future generations.
3. Text on apropiation of atmosphere — texto sobre la apropación de la atmósfera Wednesday, 17 March, 2010 6:49 PM
THE APPROPRIATION OF THE ATMOSPHERE
The climate system is a (global) ’commons’ with different environmental roles. Up to the industrialization era it was considered a public good , since in practice it was infinite (it didn’t wear out with use) and non exclusive (use does not prevent others from using it). As greenhouse gases (GHG) have accumulated, the latter property was lost, since the current and future users no longer enjoy the possibility of emitting these gases without restrictions, since we are running the risk of a climate catastrophe for all. The system can now be compared to a road or a bridge, that wear out insignificantly when used, but which have a limited transportation capacity (in this case, the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb and recycle emissions in a stable way).
Consequently, past and present emitters that exceed their quota (be it States, companies or individuals) have appropriated themselves of the system at the expense of others. In other terms, they occupy the environmental space of others. This happens as a result of obtaining de facto property rights, since the emitters are not the owners of the system in the same way that someone owns water or forests once he or she has obtained that right through the processes of privatization of goods and services. In fact, they do not appropriate themselves of the air as such, but of the right to contaminate it without taking responsibility for their polluting action.
The overall quantity of emissions that should be eliminated to recover the environmental integrity of the climate system is regardless of these considerations. But the future distribution of these reductions (mitigation) is not. The past emissions have an accumulative effect in the atmosphere and make up a climate debt that should be paid to those who were and are being de facto expropriated of their environmental space.
Meanwhile, to estimate the amount of that debt, the environmental space should be accurately defined, so many proposals have considered that we are all equal in the eyes of the atmosphere and therefore everyone has the same right of use (per capita equality principle). The Kyoto Protocol has not adopted this principle, but the one of ‘grandfathering’ (or acquired rights), by which those who polluted the most, could continue doing so as long as they accepted progressive reductions, whilst those who polluted the least, did not have reduction obligations. Currently, despite the mandatory reductions assigned to them by the Protocol, the former (be it States, companies or individuals) continue obtaining most of the benefits from the exploitation of fossil fuels and continue transferring proportionally their environmental impacts caused by climate change to the entire human kind, at negligible costs .
This unlawful appropriation of the atmosphere is at the root of the conflict, regardless in which way the reductions that were agreed under the Protocol are implemented. In fact, it would still be an unfair distribution, even if there were no market mechanisms involved and if the reductions were only applied at source,ie where the emissions originated. Thus, there is no cause-effect relation between both. Nonetheless, it can be rightfully argued that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), one of the Kyoto Protocol’s market mechanisms, is unfair from the outset, since the largest polluters are trading emission rights to which they are not legitimately entitled (regardless of other CDM injustices, such as the commodification of forests, the increase in the climate debt,[1] etc.).
The solution agreed in the Protocol was actually the acceptance of a de facto situation, that is, that those that are historically responsible (for climate change) were not willing to apply justice criteria to burden sharing. Besides rejecting the assignment of per capita rights –which result from considering the atmosphere as a (global) commons—other criteria, such as the differentiated ability of the parties to act, were not duly taken into account, for instance, owing to the unequal wealth of the nations (also to some extent linked with the unequal current and past usage of the climate system).
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in contrast, includes principles such as the differentiated historical responsibility, which can be advocated as the basis for a solution based on justice. Also, the shared management approach (ideally exercising solidarity) of (global) commons such as the atmosphere is accepted in the UN ,as opposed to grandfathering the access to the resources in it .
Demand for climate justice has been targeted primarily against this appropriation of the quota of space in the climate system, which the governments who bear the greatest share of responsibility have attributed to themselves based on (ad hoc) power relations, instead of on explicit criteria of equity. It has also focused on urging them to take responsibility for the damages caused by their impacts, i.e. the reparation and compensation costs, besides the costs of the urgently needed energy transition (ie adaptation and mitigation costs).
It should also be taken into account that if the historical responsibility promoted by the Convention is taken seriously (see various documents on climate debt,eg Bolivian submission) , some countries should have inmissions, that is, negative emissions. One way to accomplish this is through domestic biological carbon sinks , but these are plagued with a variety of problems, both political and practical.,eg the commodification of nature through plantations projects as proposed in the CDM or now in REDD. A better approach entails emissions reductions abroad which they should somehow pay for. This means an obligation to pay for sustainable activities without fossil fuels in the countries with the least share of responsibility.This is a big challenge for developing countries since they must adopt a zero emission target and at the same time fight for the recognition of this debt.
[1] The countries where the CDM projects are implemented get very little income out of that, and they sell their cheapest reduction options, which have little effect for a long term clean development and a more doubtful contribution to sustainability.
2. Contribution from the Third World Network – Contribución desde la Red del Tercer Mundo Monday, 15 March, 2010 5:39 PM
“the world’s poor – who need access to energy and
resources to build the schools, houses and infrastructure that the rich world already has and continues to benefit from”
rich countries “Repay their emissions debt to developing countries through the deepest possible domestic reductions”
Repay the climate debt
A just and effective outcome for Copenhagen
We the undersigned groups, including development, environment, gender and youth
organisations, faith-based communities, indigenous peoples, and social and economic justice movements in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and North America call on the rich industrialized world to acknowledge its historic and current responsibility for the causes and adverse effects of climate change, and to fully, effectively and immediately repay its climate debt to poor countries, communities and people.
Climate change threatens the balance of life on Earth. Oceans are rising and acidifying; ice caps and glaciers are melting; forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems are changing or collapsing. The existence of some communities is imperilled, while others face growing barriers to their development. Unless curbed, an impending climate catastrophe risks increasingly violent weather, collapsing food systems, mass migration and unprecedented human conflict.
Poor countries, communities and people have contributed least to the causes of climate
change, yet are its first and worst victims. At greatest risk are women, indigenous peoples, poor people, small farmers, fisher-folk and forest communities, people relying on scarce water resources, youth and other groups susceptible to harm and health impacts.
A wealthy minority of the world’s countries, corporations and people, by contrast, are the principal cause of climate change. The developed countries representing less than one fifth of the world’s population have emitted almost three quarters of all historical emissions.
Their excessive historical and current emissions occupy the atmosphere and are the main
cause of current and committed future warming.
Developed countries have consumed more than their fair share of the Earth’s atmospheric space. On a per person basis, they are responsible for more than ten times the historical
emissions of developing countries. Their per person emissions today are more than four
times those of developing countries.
For their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, developed countries owe a two-fold climate debt to the poor majority:
countries their fair share of atmospheric space – they have run up an “emissions debt”
to developing countries; and
developing countries to adapt to rising climate impacts and damage – they have run up
an “adaptation debt” to developing countries.
Together the sum of these debts – emissions debt and adaptation debt – constitutes their
climate debt, which is part of a larger ecological, social and economic debt owed by the rich industrialized world to the poor majority.
Honouring these obligations is not only right; it is the basis of a fair and effective solution to climate change. Those who benefited most in the course of causing climate change must compensate those who contributed least but bear its adverse effects. They must compensate developing countries for the two-fold barrier to their development – mitigating and adapting to climate change – which were not present for developed countries during the course of their development but which they have caused.
Developed countries, however, intend to write-off rather than honour their debt. In their
submissions to the climate negotiations they seek to pass on substantial adaptation costs to developing countries; evading rather than honouring their adaptation debt. And they seek to continue their high per person emissions; deepening rather than repaying their emissions debt, consuming additional atmospheric space, and crowding the world’s poor majority into a small and shrinking remainder.
We are concerned that continued excessive consumption of atmospheric space by the
world’s wealthy at the expense of the world’s poor – who need access to energy and
resources to build the schools, houses and infrastructure that the rich world already has and continues to benefit from – puts at risk the prospects of any viable solution to climate change and, with it, the safety of all nations and peoples, and the Earth.
As the basis of a fair and effective climate outcome we therefore call on developed countries to acknowledge and repay the full measure of their climate debt to developing countries commencing in Copenhagen. We demand that they :
domestic reductions, and by committing to assigned amounts of emissions that reflect
the full measure of their historical and continued excessive contributions to climate
change; and
the additional costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change, in accordance with the
Climate Convention.
Meeting these demands is a basic prerequisite for success in December 2009. Copenhagen must be a key turning point for climate justice – a major milestone on the journey towards safeguarding the Earth’s climate system and ensuring a future in which the rights and aspirations of all people can be realized.
Read More
WHAT HAPPENED IN COPENHAGEN AND THE WAY FORWARD
(by Bernarditas Muller, Group of 77 and China Lead Coordinator for the ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, AWG-LCA, 2008-2009)
12 March 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The failure of Copenhagen was not a failure of the multilateral process. On the contrary, Copenhagen failed because the open, transparent and intergovernmental process of negotiations under the United Nations system was discarded and set aside deliberately by the developed countries which worked to undermine this process all throughout the two years before Copenhagen.
This paper provides an analysis of the process that led to the final chaotic plenary which marked the dramatic failure of Copenhagen. It also puts forward an analysis of the Copenhagen Accord, the “deal” that came out of Copenhagen, in terms of its consistency, or inconsistency, with the actual negotiating texts under the current intergovernmental process of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, referred to as the Convention in this text).
The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention decided to “take note of” the Copenhagen Accord, http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1220-copenhagen_accord.html as a compromise between those who supported the Accord and those who opposed it, and the process which brought it about. In UN terms, it means that the COP remains neutral on this text, neither endorsing nor rejecting it.[1] At the same time, the COP adopted decisions to continue the negotiations under the Convention on the ongoing processes.
Negotiations under the Convention must continue, even for those countries that associate themselves with the Copenhagen Accord, in order to render operational mechanisms that have been mentioned in the Accord, in particular for adaptation, mitigation, financing and technology transfer.
The paper also looks at the current attempts by developed countries to continue to undermine the intergovernmental process and work out agreements at bilateral, regional, or issue-focused meetings, for these to be rubber-stamped by the COP at its next session in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010. Once again, the failure of the multilateral process is being used as a distorted excuse to undermine that very process and continue to have a few countries decide for the rest of the world.
Climate change affects all countries of the world. The solutions must be global, and in accordance with internationally-agreed principles and obligations in the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, the only legal instruments governing climate change, science-based and universally-agreed. The fate of present and future generations cannot be decided by a handful of countries, no matter how powerful and influential they might deem themselves to be.
BACKGROUND
In 2007, in Bali, Indonesia, Parties to the Convention agreed on a Bali Action Plan aimed at the full and effective implementation of the Convention, in accordance with its principles and obligations. An ad hoc Working Group on long-term cooperative action, the AWG-LCA, was established for this purpose. The work was to have been completed in 2009, in Copenhagen.
Two years before Bali, at its eleventh session, the Parties adopted a decision to pursue a mandated process under the Kyoto Protocol of the Convention, and set up the ad hoc Working Group on further commitments for Annex I (developed countries) Parties under the Kyoto Protocol, AWG-KP, with no specific deadline for its work, except for the need to ensure that there is no gap between the end of the first commitment period in 2012, and the second commitment period, post-2012.
Together the work of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP made up the Bali Road Map, which would determine stronger global cooperation to address what was known as the “defining challenge of our times”, climate change and its adverse effects.
While the developing countries worked to ensure that the principles and obligations under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol are preserved in any outcome of Copenhagen, most developed countries sought to promote a new legal agreement, “post-2012”, that would reject the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and deny their own responsibilities for historical emissions which caused the problem of climate change.
Denial of this principle would mean denial of their commitments to provide financial resource and technology transfer, in particular for adaptation to developing countries. Proposals put forward by developed countries in the negotiations would lead to shifting the responsibilities for mitigation and adaptation to developing countries themselves, including financing, and commercializing transfer of technology. At the core of these proposals is the promotion of their mainly economic interests.
What is negotiated under these processes is the sharing of the remaining atmospheric space to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change. This involves huge amounts of financial resources and affect economic activities of all countries. What is at stake for the majority of developing countries is their very survival, and if so, in what form. It means space to obtain a decent standard of living to millions of people in the world. For some others, it involves ensuring profit margins, protecting their economic gains and safeguarding their lifestyles.
The Convention and the Kyoto Protocol provide the means for the world to respond in an equitable and comprehensive manner to the challenge of climate change. The work must continue under these two instruments.
WHAT HAPPENED IN COPENHAGEN
On Process
Much has been written about the flawed process under which the Copenhagen Accord was negotiated and then presented to the plenary of COP 15. It remains true that the non-transparent and exclusive process undertaken by the Danish presidency resulted in the strong divergence of positions on the Accord. What is perhaps less apparent is that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead Parties, especially developing country Parties prior to the final days of Copenhagen, on the intention to negotiate a completely new agreement to replace both the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.
All through the negotiations under the ad hoc Working Group on Long-term cooperative action (AWG-LCA), developed countries have made clear, through their submissions and through their statements that they are not working within the mandate of the Bali Action Plan (BAP). The moves to increase the number of meetings, to organize the work of the sessions, to establish negotiating groups and sub-groups, the choice of the themes for the workshops, and finally the negotiating texts which came out, all were hard fought negotiations.
The developing countries held firmly to the BAP mandate, while the developed country Parties took every occasion to extend or interpret the mandate to lead to a new agreement that would imply an alteration of the basic principles and provisions of the Convention. The Copenhagen Accord, despite its lip service to these principles and provisions, contains such alterations that go into the very basis and foundation of the balance of differentiated responsibilities under the Convention.
Attempts of developed countries to divide the developing countries were also actively pursued both inside and outside the process. At the same time, developing countries, many already affected by climate change impacts, increasingly recognized the need to remain firmly committed to the principles and provisions of the Convention, and strengthened their unity as Copenhagen drew nearer.
These positions do not exclude the possibility for developing countries to take more effective actions for mitigation and in particular for adaptation, either nationally, as self-financed activities, or in cooperation with other developing countries.
The Copenhagen failure was interpreted by many observers to have been a rejection of the multilateral process in favor of what is perceived to be a more effective process of a smaller group of influential countries taking decisions for the whole membership. Developed countries are now even claiming that the only effective way to achieve agreement on climate change would be to exclude the majority of the developing world in decision-making.
What is less known is that the multilateral process does allow for small groups to negotiate in the name of the whole. No negotiations of any import whatever, including that of the Kyoto Protocol, were participated in by the entire membership at the very last stages. There have always been a small group of representatives of countries that worked on the final document of any negotiations.
There are procedures by each group of countries on choosing their representatives for small group negotiations that are recognized within the whole UN system, and which may be flexible to fit the needs for discussions. The G77 coordinator system is part of this practice within the Group, in addition to the representatives chosen by the three regional groups within it, those from Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. In climate change negotiations, representatives of specific interest groups are also present.
These representatives are democratically chosen and nominated by groups to represent their interests in small room negotiations. Consultations with the bigger groups are undertaken as may be needed all throughout the negotiations and therefore the main results are known and approved by all before the final plenary is held.
Following this process, the G77 and China met and agreed to have their representatives, at the highest level, in a “Friends of the Chair” setting in the second week in Copenhagen. The position was made known to the Danish Presidency, in the person of the former Chairperson, who agreed to convene a meeting to name the representatives. Delegates waited in vain for this meeting to be convened. By that time, the new President had already begun his closed-door consultations.
It was clear to many developing countries that the negotiations were kept on hold while waiting for chosen Heads of State to meet and decide for the rest of the world. Not all the Heads of State or Ministers present in Copenhagen, in particular from developing countries, were invited to participate in this small group. In the end, when it became evident that no agreement can be reached on the texts presented by the Presidency, the situation became desperate for them. When through intensive negotiations, a text was finally agreed in the small group, the agreement was announced even before the COP had taken a look at it.
For five hours, from late at night to early morning, Ministers and Heads of delegations were kept waiting without the courtesy of any explanation, again contrary to usual practice. When finally the plenary met, it was presented with an agreed text and given one hour to consider it. When flags were raised to intervene, the President chose to ignore them, until some were led to bang their nameplates on the table to be given the floor.
The Copenhagen Accord was therefore “taken note of” as a compromise for the plenary to be able to get on with its work. Decisions were also adopted, not without difficulty, to continue the negotiations under the two processes.
Transparency and an open process are particularly important for climate change as it affects all countries, from the smallest to the biggest among them. For many small developing countries, it is a matter of survival. For developed countries, the negotiations also involved huge economic interests and the protection of these interests remained primordial for them. Moral and ethical considerations and the wellbeing of the majority were therefore put aside in favor of the few, more powerful interests.
This, more than the ineffectiveness of the multilateral process, caused the collapse of Copenhagen.
AN ANALYSIS OF COPENHAGEN ACCORD
Preamble
The moves, therefore, of the Danish presidency, of the UNFCCC Executive Secretary, and of the UN Secretary-General to promote the association with the Accord actively are not agreed to by the COP, not to mention that it is outside their respective mandates.
- Article 2 of the Convention not only covers its ultimate objective. The pursuit of the ultimate objective, under Article 2, must take into account three parameters: the need for adaptation, the need for food security, and the need for sustainable development.
- The Accord merely “takes note” of the results of the work done of the two ad hoc Working Groups, and therefore is neutral on them. This means that it de-links itself from these results.
- The next paragraph then endorses these results, in such a manner that suggests that the work of the LCA is finished, but that the work of the AWG-KP continues. However, COP decisions were adopted in Copenhagen to continue the work in both working groups, and to “take note” of the Accord. The relation between these decisions is therefore clear: that the Accord is an outside process that the COP is neutral on, neither welcoming nor condemning it, but that the work of the multilateral process, through the two working groups, will continue.
- The last preambular paragraph states that the Accord is “operational immediately.” How this is to be done, or the conditions for it, are however not clarified in the body of the Accord.
Operative paragraphs
Paragraph 1
On initial reading, para. 1 would seem to be in accordance with the Convention. Despite the references in this paragraph to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, however, the following paragraphs in fact shift the interpretation of this principle from responsibilities for historical emissions to current emissions, through the addition of the phrase “and respective capabilities” which in the negotiations of the Convention referred to the different levels of capacities of developed countries to meet mitigation commitments.
It is noted that the reference to equity, which in the Convention precedes that of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (Article 3.1) is placed instead in relation to sustainable development, referring to developing countries’ responsibilities, and linked to the proposed long-term goal, which has been the position of developed countries in these negotiations.
Most developing countries, in particular the SIDS and LDCs, call for action that will mean a temperature increase of well below 2°C. It must also be recognized that in the negotiations, this long-term goal is linked to mitigation actions of developing countries, part of which these countries are to finance domestically. Many developing countries also point out the disastrous effects to them of a 2°C limit of temperature increase.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for Africa, as an example, concludes that “the median temperature increase lies between 3°C and 4°C, roughly 1.5 times the global mean response.”[2] For this reason, the African Group, like the small island developing States, call for a long-term goal that is well below 2°C.
The last sentence in this paragraph puts together the adverse impacts of climate change and “potential” impacts of response measures on developing countries, to be addressed through adaptation. This linkage does not differentiate between the need to meet the adverse effects of climate change, and the international cooperation necessary need to address the economic and social consequences of response measures, and which could include, among others, barriers to trade, not necessarily addressed through adaptation alone.
Moreover, the reference to the establishment of a “comprehensive adaptation programme, including international support” is mainly a responsibility made incumbent upon developing countries. It does not take into account that meeting costs of adaptation for particularly vulnerable countries is a commitment of developed countries and is not an adjunct of national adaptation programmes. In addition, the establishment of these adaptation programmes is then turned into a conditionality for the provision of support.
Paragraph 2
Once again, the reference to equity is linked to the achievement of the 2°C limit of temperature increase. The intention is for all countries to commit to this goal, without specifying the burden-sharing involved in adopting this goal. Then follows a reference to “peaking”, particularly dangerous for developing countries, because it essentially means a limit to their economic growth and development, even with the recognition that “peaking” will be “longer” (who will determine this and using what criteria?) in developing countries. Taken together with the long-term goal and the sharing of the emissions reductions necessary to achieve this, peaking will come to many developing countries before they have achieved their priorities of poverty eradication and social and economic development.
As to the last phrase, it is the pursuit of sustainable development that will be indispensable for low-emission development, and not the other way around as stated in this paragraph.
Nowhere in this paragraph does it recognize that the essential parameters of the achievement of the ultimate objective of the Convention, translated into the long-term goal, (the need for adaptation, that food production is not threatened, and sustainable development- Article 2) should be ensured.
Paragraph 3
The UNFCCC contains four references to adaptation: one in Article 3.3 (Principles), on the precautionary principle, and three under Article 4 (Commitments), all related to financing and technology transfer commitments of developed countries to developing countries.
This paragraph limits the provision of enabling means to the “implementation of adaptation actions” alone, and not to the preparation of national programmes or national plans for adaptation, as required by the Convention. It also limits the application of financing to specific groups of countries and not to all developing countries as required by the Convention.
Paragraph 4
Nowhere in this paragraph, covering mitigation targets of developed country Parties is “comparability of efforts” addressed. Instead it says that Annex I countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will further strengthen their emissions reductions. The US is not a Party to the KP, and has declared that it will never ratify the KP, although it remains a signatory to it.
The US mainly bases it mitigation targets on nationally-determined reductions for all Parties. The US position conveniently disregards any reference to its obligation, as an Annex I Party to the Convention to undertake reduction commitments under Article 4.2, sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). Moreover, the US joined the COP in adopting the Berlin Mandate which recognized as inadequate the commitments under these Articles, and which laid the bases for the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol. In effect therefore, the US has agreed that their commitments under the Convention are inadequate and must be rendered adequate.
The paragraph also states in its last sentence that both the mitigation targets and provision of financing will be reported, measured and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines of the COP. There have been serious gaps in the implementation of the decisions taken by the COP on the matter of Annex I national communications, which include reporting on their fulfillment of commitments for financing and technology transfer, as shown in the syntheses of Annex I communications.
There is first of all no mention at all of the commitments for transfer of technology in this paragraph. The current mechanism on the review of national communications of Annex I countries, the in-depth review teams, are limited to national GHG inventories. There are in effect no verification guidelines or mechanisms currently established under the Convention. There is no reference at all to the need to establish these measurement and verification mechanisms under the Convention.
It must also be recognized that the balance of common but differentiated responsibilities is clearly reflected in the provisions of the Convention, which determine a different process of reporting for Annex I countries and their consideration which includes review; and for non-Annex I countries for the contents of national communications, and on their consideration, which does NOT include individual reviews of these communications but only an assessment of the overall aggregated effects of the steps taken by these countries.
Paragraph 5
Practically every sentence of this paragraph is inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention, as nationally-appropriate mitigation actions of non-Annex I Parties are not obligations of these Parties under the Convention.[3]
A requirement for non-Annex I Parties to submit national communications every two years is contrary to the provision in Article 12.5, which further provides that the timing of the submission is “subject to the availability of financial resources in accordance with Article 4.3”, that is, provision of financing at agreed full costs basis.
Self-supported mitigation actions are also required to be submitted every two years, and then be subject to “international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected.” The meaning and intent of this sentence are entirely unclear. What is clear is that it is not consistent with Article 10.2 (a) of the Convention on the consideration of information contained in national communications of non-Annex I Parties to the Convention.
The registration of mitigations actions for the purpose of getting financing is entirely the opposite of the provision under Article 4.7. Financing and technology transfer will determine whether actions can be undertaken or not, and not as stated here, where the actions come first and financing and technology enabling means afterwards.
The Convention states that financing and technology transfer as enabling means for undertaking mitigation and adaptation actions are to be provided by developed country Parties to developing country Parties and not to be provided only when actions are to be implemented. This distortion of the Convention provisions punishes those developing countries that are unable even to undertake national planning and programmes to determine their mitigation and adaptation actions, by withholding financing for them until they are able to come up with mitigation actions.
Paragraph 6
This paragraph does not recognize the commitment of developed countries to provide financing at agreed full incremental basis and technology transfer to enable them to undertake and prepare for REDD+ activities, as contained in Articles 4.1 (c) and 4.1 (d) of the Convention. It likewise subjects the provision of this financing to the establishment of a mechanism to “enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.”
Paragraph 7
The use of markets is not envisaged in the Convention, and opens the way through which mitigation actions developing countries will have to be commercialized in order for them to be able to undertake mitigation. The second sentence is completely unclear and only implies that the low-emitting countries would have to be encouraged by “positive incentives” through markets for them to achieve sustainable development.
This paragraph completely throws out of the window the commitment of developed countries for financing and technology under the Convention. This is one of those issues that were taken out of the hands of the negotiators and placed in the hands of the small negotiating group, together with financing and the long-term goal.
Paragraph 8
Despite the first sentence, this paragraph completely takes out of the Convention the determination of how the implementation of commitments for the provision of financial resources by developed country Parties to developing countries will be fulfilled:
The use of “international institutions” mean that financing will be channeled through institutions that have been determined by the COP as being outside of the framework of the financial mechanism of the Convention, through voluntary channels (Article 11.5), and therefore the current situation with the continuation of the problems that are encountered by developing countries in financing.
No indication is given as to how the amounts mentioned in this paragraph were arrived at. The fact remains that these amounts are largely inadequate to meet the needs of developing countries to undertake mitigation and adaptation actions.
The mandate of the COP to provide guidance on policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria for financing (Article 11.1) is taken over by undetermined criteria for disbursement and allocation of funds.
It remains unclear on how these amounts will be generated from a “wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance”, the conditions for the provision of these resources, and under what criteria, as well as to who will determine the “needs of developing countries”.
Much more remain unclear: what is meant, for example by “effective and efficient fund arrangements” for adaptation and who will determine these, and who will determine and under what criteria will there be a “balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation” of the financial resources?
What is meant by “in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency of implementation, “ on which is based the commitment to a goal of mobilizing “jointly” (between which Parties?) US$100 billion a year by 2020? Are these conditionalities for the provision of financing for mitigation?
What is meant by “a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developed countries” in the light of the proposals of developed countries for equal representation of “net donor and net recipient” countries? Nowhere is here a mention of a transparent system of governance for the financial mechanism of the Convention.
Finally, what is the “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” through which a “significant” portion of such funding should flow, when was it established and agreed upon, under what terms of reference and where will it be based, inside or outside the Convention.
This paragraph contains financing provisions that are the proposals of the developed countries under the current negotiating process, and does not in any way reflect the position of developing countries, in particular the proposal made by the Group of 77 and China for the operationalization of the financial mechanism under the Convention.
It completely negates the commitments of developed country Parties to provide financial resources, transfer of technology and meeting costs of adaptation under the Convention which does not recognize the donor/recipient relationship which is the core of development assistance.
Paragraph 9
The establishment of a High-Level Panel, a proposal of developed countries, is unnecessary and undermines the mandate given to the COP under Article 7.2 (h) of the Convention. It also undermines a function of the financial mechanism and merely adds a layer of bureaucracy to it.
Paragraph 10
It is inconsistent with the provisions of the Convention as it envisions the participation of developing countries to the Fund. While this possibility is not entirely excluded from the proposal of the Group of 77 and China , it undermines the implementation of commitments under Article 4.3.
It is further unclear as to where this Fund will be based. If it is outside of the Convention, then it does not need to be established by the COP nor in fact be recognized by it. The problems of governance and accountability, among others, will merely be perpetuated as with the current system of financing.
This paragraph, as well as the preceding paragraphs, prejudges the current negotiations under the AWG-LCA in favor of developed country Parties’ proposals.
Paragraph 11
It is significant to note that, compared to the four paragraphs related to financing, and the mention of financing in almost every other paragraph of the Accord, this is the only one dealing with the development and transfer of technology. It likewise only limits technology development and transfer to “support of action on adaptation and mitigation”, and the establishment of a mechanism. It does not in any way conform nor relate to the implementation of developed country Parties’ commitments under Article 4.5 of the Convention.
This is also an issue being discussed under the current AWG-LCA process, but the wording in this paragraph undermines these negotiations in favor of developed country Parties’ proposals.
Paragraph 12
Given the contents of the Accord, the assessment will mainly consist of what developing countries have accomplished in terms of mitigation actions. The Accord denies the scientific assessment of historical responsibilities for climate change, and therefore also denies the obligations of developed countries to provide financial resources, transfer of technology and meeting costs of adaptation to developing countries. The assessment will only focus on the long-term goal for emission reductions.
One would hope that by 2015, given the recent scientific assessments of climate change, it would not be too late to reassess this long-term goal.
CONCLUSIONS
THE WAY FORWARD
The majority of developing countries, even those that have associated with the Accord, support the continuation of the two-track parallel processes. At their insistence, representatives of developing countries in the Bureau of the COP worked for more meetings of the formal processes in 2010, leading to Mexico.
It is worth noting that in 2009, when the developed countries, in particular the European Union, were interested in “sealing a deal” in Copenhagen, financing for additional meetings were readily made available. The Group of 77 was even able to demand that two representatives from developing country Parties each would be funded for participation in the meetings. The AWG-LCA held numerous meetings in informal consultations in order to decide to hold more meetings during the year.
This time, the Parties are told that financing is difficult to obtain for meetings, and when finally it was decided to hold a meeting to plan a clear work programme until Mexico, it was decided to hold a three-day meeting over a weekend, something unthinkable for developed countries in 2009! The first meeting of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP for 2010 will therefore be held in Bonn, Germany, the UNFCCC headquarters, from Friday, 9 April to Sunday, 12 April. This session is preceded by one-day regional meetings, including for the plenary of the G77, instead of the two-day G-77 meetings in 2009. The African Group, the Least-developed countries, and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) held separate meetings in the days preceding the sessions in 2009.
Many developing countries are calling for more meetings during the year, while developed countries declared that the process would best be served if taken out of the Convention, and held outside it. There have been numerous bilateral meetings, regional meetings, issue-based meetings, including by the incoming COP President, Mexico, involving selected groups of countries, mainly aimed at reaching agreement on outstanding issues before COP16, all of them outside of the formal negotiating processes, and in favor of the terms of the Copenhagen Accord.
The UN Secretary-General is contributing to these efforts, as he had during 2009, in pushing for agreement outside of the intergovernmental process of which he himself is supposed to be the main guardian.
There can be no universal agreement without the participation of all countries. As previously shown, this does not necessarily mean that all countries have to be around one huge table to negotiate. Normal negotiating processes are conducted in small groups, but with democratically-chosen representatives. These representatives then regularly consult with the bigger groups so that when agreement is reached, then all are aware and have participated in it. Consensus is not a problem; consensus is the only way. Avoiding consensus is the problem.
It is not the intergovernmental, multilateral process that failed in Copenhagen. Rather, Copenhagen failed because the intergovernmental process was not followed. For a successful, equitable outcome that would truly engage global cooperation in Mexico, the open and transparent multilateral process under the two legal instruments, the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, must continue and reach a binding outcome, for the benefit of all. Our common future depends on it.
Geneva, 12 March 2010
[2] Contribution of Working Group I, IPCC 4th Assessment Report, Chapter 11, Regional Climate Projections, pp. 866-867
[3] Undertaking national programmes is contingent upon the provision of financial resources, at agreed full costs and agreed full incremental costs, depending on the activity (Article 4.3) by developed countries to developing countries.
Read MoreCITATION:
mongabay.com (December 20, 2009). Full Text of the Copenhagen Accord. http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1220-copenhagen_accord.html
Recently I was surprised to learn that the COP15 Conference last December 2009, which seemed such a complete failure for the World & its peoples, agreed on anything. Well the back room deals produced the following text which they refer to as the Copenhagen Accord. For an analysis see the accompanying posting. You may care to open these in two windows to compare.
Heads of State etc…. Noting …..
“Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.
1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. To achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change. We recognize the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation programme including international support.
2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development.
3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to ensure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.
4. Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy wide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document. Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and any further guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will ensure that accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.
5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Least developed countries and small island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications consistent with Article 12.1(b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support will be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in appendix II. These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.
6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.
7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions. Developing countries, especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.
8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention. The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 . 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.
9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.
10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacitybuilding, technology development and transfer.
11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.
12. We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Convention.s ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius. “
Read More
Mae Khanin valley rice fields & forest
Mae Khanin in memoriam?
National parks are important to any gardener as a source of inspiration. Therefore I was sad to learn that a most adorable valley in the Opkhan National Park is (again) promoted as a site for a dam. Mae Khanin tai is situated some 25 km SW of the Chiang Mai Airport Plaza, and is one of these pristine mountain villages which the guide books claim does not exist anymore. I trust it is absolutely essential to quickly promote the valley for ecotourism, as otherwise many people, including villagers, would love to sell it to the concrete lobby. The valley is home to civets, barking dear, jungle fowl, makak monkeys and leopard cats. When I searched for orchids in the Mae Sa valley I was surprised to find hardly none, as they have been exterminated by forestry and illegal collectors. I was surprised, because I had been spoiled by the scenery in Mae Khanin, where rare native orchids are abundant. However, to see them, you have to climb straight up the hillsides, which is very tough. The silence, the adorable Lanna style temple and the steep mountainsides covered with indigenous trees should not be lost. A solution to the water needs would be to buy any other scrubland, dig a deep quarry and then collect more water, although we have many of those already here in Hang Dong. To get there, take the canal road past the Night Safari and past the Samoeng intersection. Keep driving along the canal another ca 5 km until you see a road sign saying “Opkhan National Park” to your right (west). Drive on that road about 12 km. Do not turn left where it says “Opkhan”, but keep driving on the brand new asphalt road straight west. At a fork, keep left. Drive until you see the cute little forest temple. If you speak Thai, ask for Duang Ta, who is married to the village head, and who is a proud defender of Thai nature. She might suggest what you can do to save the valley, or at least you can show her your sympathy, to boost her spirits to fight the giants.
Eric Danell, Dokmai Garden
Read Moreประเทศโบลิเวียประกาศเป็นเจ้าภาพการประชุม World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and Mother Earth Rights ในเดือน เมษายน ได้รับการตอบรับที่จะสนับสนุนในนานาประเทศ จะ มีรัฐบาล 192 ประเทศมาประชุม ร่วมแสดงความคิดเห็น และถกเถียงกันร่วมกับประชาสังคม ร่วมกับสำนักงานเกี่ยวกับภาวะโลกร้อน ขณะเดียวกัน ก็เปิดโอกาสให้ประชาคมได้มีส่วนร่วมแสดงความคิดเห็น และนำเสนอข้อเสนอแนะ เกี่ยวกับเรื่องนี้ โดย
ขั้นที่1 ท่านต้องลงทะเบียนเข้าร่วมการประชุม ที่ http://pwccc.wordpress.com/
ขั้นที่ 2 ด้วยเลฃที่ลงทะเบียน ท่านจะได้รับทางอีเมลล์ ท่านสามารถสมัครเป็นสมาชิกของ 16 คณะทำงานได้
ขั้นที่ 3 ท่านจะได้รับ
ความเห็นและข้อเสนอแนะ ทาง อีเมลล์ จากคนที่สมัครเป็นสมาชิกของกลุ่มคณะทำงาน ขณะเดียวกัน ท่านสามารถ เสนอข้อเสนอแนะ และแสดงความคิดเห็น ของท่านต่อกลุ่ม
ซึ่งจะมี คณะทำงาน 16 ชุดด้วยกัน เพื่อทำงานใน16 หัวข้อ ตาม รายการข้างล่างนี้
งานหลักของการประชุม จะได้จัดทำชึ้นใน 16 กลุ่มหลัก แต่ละกลุ่มจะเริ่มทำงาน ทาง อิเลคโทรนิคเมล์ม และเสาะหา ความเห็นชอบเป็นเอกฉันท์ และจัดทำข้อเสนอแนะ ที่จะถูกนำไปพิจารณา และขยายการถกเถียงในที่ประชุม ที่จะเกิดชึ้นในการประชุมที่จะเกิดขึ้น ที่โคชาแบมบา แนวความคิด ที่จะให้ โคชาแบมบา เป็นที่รวม และมีส่วนร่วมของคนส่วนใหญ่ ในการที่จะรักษาสิทธิของสิ่งมีชีวิต และอนุรักษ์แผ่นดินแม่
ท่านสามารถเข้าร่วม ได้ถึง 5 กลุ่ม โดยไม่ต้องไปแสดงตนในที่ประชุมที่ประเทศโบลิเวีย
01GTcausas@cmpcc.org
02GTarmonia@cmpcc.org
03GTderechosMT@cmpcc.org
04GTreferendum@cmpcc.org
05GTtribunal@cmpcc.org
06GTmigrantes@cmpcc.org
07GTindigenas@cmpcc.org
08GTdeuda@cmpcc.org
09GTvision@cmpcc.org
10GTprotocoloK@cmpcc.org
11GTadaptacion@cmpcc.org
12GTfinanciamiento@cmpcc.org
13GTtecnologia@cmpcc.org
14GTbosques@cmpcc.org
15GTmercados@cmpcc.org
16GTestrategias@cmpcc.org
กลุ่มคณะทำงานท่ามกลาง การทำงานก่อนการประชุม ต้องเริ่มสร้าง เอกสารที่ต้องการนำเสนอภายในเดือน เมษายน มีขนาด 2-3 หน้า เพื่อใช้เป็นเอกสารที่จะนำมาเสวนากันในการประชุม
หากท่านที่สนใจ อยากใคร่นำเสนอความคิดเห็นของท่าน ท่านสามารถแสดงความคิดเห็น ได้ ที่ www.ourchiangmai.com ในหัวข้อ CONFERENCE GATHERS MOMENTUM AND SUPPORT
หรือ punika@apwld.org เราจะมีคณะทำงาน ช่วยนำเสนอความคิดเห็นของท่านส่งต่อไปยังที่ประชุม ที่ประเทศโบลิเวีย
และกรุณาส่งต่อ ไปถึงคนที่ต้องการมีส่วนร่วมในการครั้งนี้ด้วย
Punika Shinawatra
Read More
Recent Comments