A Death Sentence for Africa The Durban Climate Deal and Eight Corporate Media Unmentionables

The UN climate summit in Durban, South Africa, ended with one of those marathon all-night cliffhanger negotiations that the media love so much. The outcome was a commitment to talk about a legally-binding deal to cut carbon emissions – by both developed and developing countries – that would be agreed by 2015 and come into effect by 2020. It was about as tortuous and vague as that sounds.


Indigenous Peoples Condemn Climate Talks Fiasco and Demand Moratoria on REDD+

December 13, 2011 – Indigenous leaders returning from Durban, South Africa condemn the fiasco of the United Nations climate change talks and demand a moratorium on a forest carbon offset scheme called REDD+ which they say threatens the future of humanity and Indigenous Peoples’ very survival. During the UN climate negotiations, a Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD+ and for Life was formed to bring attention to the lack of full recognition of Indigenous rights being problematic in the texts of the UN climate negotiations.

“It was very disappointing that our efforts to strengthen the vague Indigenous rights REDD safeguards from the Cancun Agreements evaporated as the Durban UN negotiations went on. It is clear that the focus was not on strong, binding commitments on Indigenous rights and safeguards, nor limiting emissions, but on creating a framework for financing and carbon markets, which they did. Now Indigenous Peoples’ forests may really be up for grabs,” says Alberto Saldamando, legal counsel participating in the Indigenous Environmental Network delegation.

Berenice Sanchez of the Mesoamerica Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network says, “Instead of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80% like we need, the UN is promoting false solutions to climate change like carbon trading and offsets, through the Clean Development Mechanism and the proposed REDD+ which provide polluters with permits to pollute. The UN climate negotiation is not about saving the climate, it is about privatization of forests, agriculture and the air.”

Tom Goldtooth, Director of Indigenous Environmental Network based in Minnesota, USA does not mince words. “By refusing to take immediate binding action to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions, industrialized countries like the United States and Canada are essentially incinerating Africa and drowning the small island states of the Pacific. The sea ice of the Inupiat, Yupik and Inuit of the Arctic is melting right before their eyes, creating a forced choice to adapt or perish. This constitutes climate racism, ecocide and genocide of an unprecedented scale.”

Of particular concern for indigenous peoples is a forest offset scheme known as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). Hyped as a way of saving the climate and paying communities to take care of forests as sponges for Northern pollution, REDD+ is rife with fundamental flaws that make it little more than a green mask for more pollution and the expansion of monoculture tree plantations. The Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD+ and for Life, formed at the Durban UN climate negotiations, call for an immediate moratorium on REDD+-type projects because they fear that REDD+ could result in “the biggest land grab of all time,” thus threatening the very survival of indigenous peoples and local communities.

“At Durban, CDM and REDD carbon and emission offset regimes were prioritized, not emission reductions. All I saw was the UN, World Bank, industrialized countries and private investors marketing solutions to market pollution. This is unacceptable. The solutions for climate change must not be placed in the hands of financiers and corporate polluters. I fear that local communities could increasingly become the victims of carbon cowboys, without adequate and binding mechanisms to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples and local forested and agricultural communities are respected,” Goldtooth added.

“We call for an immediate moratorium on REDD+-type policies and projects because REDD is a monster that is already violating our rights and destroying our forests,” Monica González of the Kukapa People and Head of Indigenous Issues of the Mexican human rights organization Comision Ciudadana de Derechos Humanos del Noreste.

The President of the Ogiek Council of Elders of the Mau Forest of Kenya, Joseph K. Towett, said “We support the moratorium because anything that hurts our cousins, hurts us all.”

“We will not allow our sacred Amazon rainforest to be turned into a carbon dump. REDD is a hypocrisy that does not stop global warming,” said Marlon Santi, leader of the Kichwa community of Sarayaku, Ecuador and long time participant of UN and climate change meetings.


Health leaders call for urgent action on climate

Durban — International health leaders in Durban for the global climate talks have called on negotiators to push for the most ambitious commitments possible, warning that the direction of current negotiations risks the lives of billions of people around the globe.

Over 200 leaders from more than 30 countries have issued a Declaration and Call to Action following a Global Climate and Health Summit.

“No-one is immune from the health impacts of climate change; people in developed and developing nations are all at risk,” said Dr Hugh Montgomery from Climate and Health Council, UK.

“Without bold action by governments, climate change will magnify existing health crises,” said Dr Rajendra Niadoo, from Nelson R. Mandela Medical School in Durban.

Doctors, nurses, public health experts, health and medical scientists, medical students, and health officials from major international health organizations are meeting in Durban to try and influence negotiations by raising awareness about the health risks of climate change and the health benefits of climate action.

“Strong climate policy is an investment in people’s health,” said Fiona Armstrong of the Climate and Health Alliance, Australia.

The delegates have called for a fair, ambitious and binding global treaty, and urged all countries to commit to immediate strong climate action to protect and promote health.

“If governments agree to delay for another decade, history will judge Durban as a moment of global political malpractice,” said Josh Karliner, Health Care Without Harm.

“I’m a 21 year old medical student, and these negotiations have been carrying on my entire life. If we don’t reach a legally binding agreement on climate change soon, the protection and promotion of public health will be seriously undermined, world-wide.” said Nick Watts of the International Medical Students Association.

Delegates agree the urgent replacement of fossil fuel-based energy with clean renewable energy is vital, saying fossil fuels cause “immense harm” to both climate and health, and urge negotiators to commit to equitable contributions to a green climate fund to assist adaptation and mitigation strategies to support human health.

They have themselves committed to action to cut emissions in the health sector, and have urged health professionals worldwide to engage in advocacy for climate action, to help prevent unprecedented loss of life and human suffering.

Water & Food Security top DURBAN AGENDA

While Africa has successfully avoided conflict over shared water courses, it will need greater diplomacy to keep the peace as new research warns that climate change will have an effect on food productivity.”Climate change introduces a new element of uncertainty precisely when governments and donors are starting to have more open discussions about sharing water resources and to consider long-term investments in boosting food production,” Alain Vidal, director of the CGIAR’s Challenge Programme on Water and Food (CPWF) told more than 300 delegates attending the Third International Forum on Water and Food being held in Pretoria, South Africa from Nov. 11 to 18. GCIAR unites agricultural research organisations with the donors




COP17: To what extent has South Africa complied with the Kyoto Protocol?

THE Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the “Marrakesh Accords.”

The Kyoto mechanisms

Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers (somewhat controversial) additional means of meeting targets by way of three market-based mechanisms:

The Kyoto mechanisms are:

These mechanisms often criticized in leftist circles, were designed to help stimulate green investment and supposedly “help Parties meet their emission targets in a cost-effective way.” Obviously because of various ideological and developmental concerns, the supplementary mechanisms have received extensive criticism. It will be interesting to see to what extent these mechanisms have succeeded and whether alternatives to Cap-and-Trade, have been implemented or put on the table in the run-up to COP17.

Monitoring emission targets

Under the Protocol, countries’ actual emissions have to be monitored and precise records have to be kept of the “trades carried out” i.e carbon offsets. It will be extreme interest to see how our own Health System measures up and whether or not the Labour Movement, Faith-based organisations and other civil society groupings have implemented the accord, if at all.

Despite the language of Kyoto, framed as it is within the nexus of economic concern of the North, South Africa will find itself sorely pressed to answer questions about emissions targets and the implementation of national mechanisms. The launch of IRP2 this year and the commissioning of the Madupi Power Station are just two examples of the intransigence by the current administration shown towards climate change and the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol has a lot going for it, but look at how carbon offsets turn into simple transactions:

Registry systems track and record transactions by all the parties under the mechanisms. The UN Climate Change Secretariat, based in Bonn, Germany, keeps an international “transaction log ” to verify that “transactions are consistent with the rules of the Protocol.”

Reporting is done by Parties by way of submitting annual emission inventories and national reports under the Protocol at regular intervals.

compliance system ensures that Parties are meeting their commitments and helps them to meet their commitments if they have problems doing so.

Unfortunately, Cap-and-Trade i.e –  enterprise driven attempts by the market in the form of large environmental auditing firms catering to big business such as The Carbon Protocol of South Africa — will be first past the post in the discussion at COP17, while government departments, labour movement, faith-based organisations and civil society will be left questioning why we have been left in the starting blocks. Our government has yet to submit a country report in terms of the protocol.

It would appear that “Cap-and-Trade” and the language of business has obscured the framework behind the Kyoto Protocol. There may still be time to develop a national debate around Climate Change and Carbon Auditing, but both government and civil society will be hard pressed to offer solutions that are not market-driven. For example, who gets to do the audits that are needed to determine the cost to the health sector of climate change?

Will the audits be outsourced, or is South African government official “Climate Change Response” enough? How will green auditors themselves be audited and will local government be part of the process that results in a roll-out of climate change technologies ? Questions such as these are going to be asked as South Africa debates Climate Change.