Klimakonferenz in Durban

Die 17. Gipfel der Vereinten Nationen über die Klimaänderung wurde gestern Dienstag, 06.12.2011  in Durban, in Sudafrika eröffnet. Der malische Umweltminister, Tiemoko Sangaré, nimmt daran teil. Dort wurde die im September 2011 in Bamako adoptierte gemeinsame Sellung der afrikanischen Länder gegenüber der Klimaändereung vorgestellt. Die dort anwesenden afrikanischen Länder haben beschlossen, eine selbe Stellungsnahme zu treffen, um sich vor den Industieländern wirksam zu erscheinen. Dadurch reklamieren die afrikanischen Länder eine neue Periode der Kyoto-Protokole, deren aktuelle Periode Ende Dezember 2011 abläuft. Die Experten haben die Notwendigkeit gezeigt, den verwundbaren Ländern zu helfen und es erscheint deutlich, dass

die afrikanischen Länder am meisten die verwundbarsten sind. Sie brauchen also Unterstützungen, um die Einflüsse der Klimaänderung zu vermindern. In diesem Sinne haben die Umwelminister von Deutschland, Herr Norbert Rottgen und von Mali Prof. Tiemiko Sangare Finanzierungsabkommen unterschrieben. Diese Finanzierung von Deutschland für Mali beträgt auf 10 Millionen € (6,5 Milliarden Fcfa). Der malischen Umweltminister hat Deutschland sehr durch den Bundesumweltminister Norbert Rottgen im Namen  des malischen Volks und der malischen Regierung sehr gedankt und hat versprochen, dass dieses Geld wird zweckmässig verwendet.

Even as the high level segment started on the 6th December at International Convention Centre in Durban where the COP 17 is being held, there are very few signs that Durban will rescue the world from the climate crisis, which is being billed as the greatest crisis that the humanity faces in this century. Durban is supposed to deliver a just, fair and legally binding climate deal which will be effective in keeping the rise in temperature below 2DC. Though many climate activists and experts challenge that even a two degree rise will by no means helpful to save many small island nations and also many countries in the host continent losing their food, fodder and forests.
There is a despondency in people who have gathered here in great numbers about the outcome of the Conference, as they believe that developed countries are blocking every possible option to ratify a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol due to expire in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol directs 37 developed countries to reduce their emissions by 40% by 2012 on 1990 standards. Rather than complying with the Protocol, developed countries since 2005 when the Protocol came into enforcement have tried every bit to fudge the process and look for more market based mechanisms which shifts the burden of mitigation on the poor people in the developing countries, least developed countries and small island nations. The developing countries have tried to fight hard to have equitable atmospheric space and retain their right to development. However, the developed countries hold the strings of the purse and also technology that smaller countries need in order to have green development pathways, and they have not been able to make indentations in the forte of developed countries.
Many developed countries especially Russia, Canada, and Japan have unabashedly reneged on their commitment to go into the second commitment period and provide financial contribution to the Green Climate Fund aiming to collect USD 30 billion till 2012 and USD 100 billion by 2020 to help smaller countries gain capacity and technology to lower emissions and maintain growth. US never signed the Kyoto Protocol.
The most important issue at the Durban Conference is the fate of the Kyoto Protocol. While the developing countries want to implement the Bali Roadmap, focussing on legally binding emissions for developed countries, comparable reduction commitments for non KP signatory the US, finance and technology for the smaller affected countries, and have second commitment period to be operational from beginning of the next year, developed countries are committed to dismantle the Kyoto Protocol. Supported by the US, their option is to have a “pledge and review system” which has no legal force and depends on the sweet will of those countries alone. It is unconceivable that the countries who have crowded 80% of the atmospheric space by spewing carbon to suit their consumptive lifestyle, will do anything without legal obligations. Led by the US, their common refrain is that the major economies, including India, China, Brazil and South Africa also must undertake binding commitments.  India’s per capita GDP in 2010 was USD 1370 as compared to the US per capita GDP of USD 46, 860 in 2010. India’s per capita emission is 1.5 tonnes compared to more than 17 tonnes in the US. It would be grave injustice if India were also to take binding legal commitments like US having a more than 30 times per capita GDP and 18 times more per capita emissions.  Hiding behind the few developed countries EU also wants to repudiate its responsibility. It has argued that, with major developed countries and developing countries like India and China not taking binding commitments, it would not go into the second commitment period. This is highly disappointing when global community is looking towards the EU to provide leadership in the climate change stabilization. The BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) have reiterated and rightly so, that putting binding commitments on developing countries is equal to renegotiating the treaty, which is unacceptable to them. On 5th December, the Indian Minister Jayanti Natarrajan stated that “equity in the atmospheric space is a core issue for India” implying that India would not take anything g less than legally binding commitments and second commitment without any gap.
The most popular proposal doing the rounds has come from the EU who wants “another legal framework build on the Kyoto Protocol, which brings all the Annex 1 countries and major developing countries on board and to be finalized by 2015.” If the second commitment period is based on this understanding only then EU is agreeable to extend its commitment. The proposal has found support in all the renegade countries.
The role of the host South African government too, allege climate activists, has been very dubious. Rather than supporting African Union, it is seen on the side of bigger countries. The biggest disappointment comes from the Jacob Zuma, the President who has publicly supported and recommended World Bank’s agenda of “climate smart agriculture”. Activists and farmers organizations allege that it will open the floodgates of bringing soil carbon sequestration in carbon market and wreak havoc on already worsening situation of farmers and food security. A press conference organized by IATP, Gaia foundation and many others also alleged that it would only benefit big agri business companies and farmers will lose land and sovereignty to produce crop of their choice. It also promotes agrofuel, GMOs, Bio-char, no till agriculture, all of them being pushed aggressively by big companies said Ajay Jha of Pairvi, an advocacy support organization working on climate justice and agriculture issues in climate change negotiations.
The most expected and desired deliverables in the conference the green climate finance has also run into rough weathers. The approval of the report of the Transitional Committee (TC) appointed to devise the architecture and mandate of the Fund (compiled after the four meetings since Cancun), which recommended among others creation of a Board comprising of forty representatives from developed (15) and developing countries (25) was blocked by Saudi Arabia and the US. It seems highly unlikely that developed countries are willing to commit the numbers they had promised. With more and more countries in Europe including Greece, Italy, Turkey, Ireland, France and even Germany in the throes of economic crisis, and US with very little to offer and much less to commit, it would be difficult to garner the desired fund.
It is very interesting to see that while developed countries are not willing to commit reduction obligations demanded by science and going into second commitment period, they are clamouring for another legal framework “built on the Kyoto Protocol.” This is a clever design to repudiate the obligations under Kyoto protocol but to have the advantage of its “market based mechanism”, which has allowed dirtiest of the companies in the world to continue polluting.
Into the second week, this has become clear big countries in the world are hardly concerned about the huge sea of humanity in the least developed, developing and small island nations, which live day in and out in the uncertainty posed by the climate crisis. It is estimated that deaths in Africa alone are in excess of 150 million. The Durban must not be a burial for all of them and other climate victims. Former Bolivian Ambassador to the UN Pablo Solon said last week “Durban will be remembered as a premeditated genocide and ecocide.” Certainly more than the climate, the lives are on the cusp in this Conference.
(The writer is associated with PAIRVI and Beyond Copenhagen Coalition, working on climate justice issues and agriculture in climate negotiations. He can be contacted at k.ajay.j@gmail.com)

Countries vulnerable to climate change already know what they must do while those countries creating the problem drag their feet on how to fund the adaptation.
One of the smaller delegations to the 17th Session of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is Sierra Leone with seven men (no women this time).
Apparently, funding for Sierra Leone was short as was planning for the COP. But according to Peter Turay who is the delegations leader on REDD issues, there is “no cause for concern yet”
Mr. Turay says the Japanese/Canadian/American predetermination not to enter the Kyoto Protocol’s extension had been evident for a long time but was not an indication of the COP17’s impending failure.
However, he says the implications of the big countries not signing will be serious for the Least Developed Countries bid to get adaptation funding. Although there needs to be a legally binding, mandatory agreement, he says perhaps there can be a “midway approach”.
China Turay says, wants to stand with the G77 to enable them with leverage against America but the level of china’s commitment to emissions targets are not low enough. As for adaptation funds, Turay says China wants to benefit without putting money in.
His prediction on the Kyoto Protocol is that there could be an extension of the treaty in its existing state, but some say until 2020 and some say until 2017.
What needs to be done in the melee of haggling back and forth, while coastlines continue to erode and weather events become more precarious was laid out years ago says Turay’s co-delegate, Dr. Kolleh Bangura of the Sierra Leone Environment Protection Agency.
Years ago, National Adaptation Plans of Action were formulated with UNFCCC support, yet remain unfunded. “Stick to the NAPA”, says Dr. Bangura.

COP17
In the opening plenary of the 17th Session of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the out-going president, Ms. Patricia Espinosa of Mexico where the 16th Conference was held last year, welcomed President Jacob Zuma and several other heads of state from Africa and endorsed the election of the president for this year’s conference, Ms. Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of the Republic of South Africa.
Madam Espinosa commented on the achievements of Cancun-Mexico which included a comprehensive adaptation framework, commitment to limiting climate change within 2 degrees of increase, the approval of a Green Climate Fund to 100 billion annually by 2020, more recognition of forest conservation and fast tracking of Kyoto Protocol commitments by the heavily polluting countries.
Madam Espinosa said each country must do its own part to achieve these goals and not to betray the trust of billions of people who are vulnerable to climate change.
She said awareness and political will signified by the 20,000 participants of this years’ conference is a signal of the possibilities of achievement.
COP 17 president-elect Madam Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, said the consecutive election of women as presidents for the past two Conferences and the appointment of a female Executive Secretary for the UNFCCC are coincidences that must be utilized in the name of womens’ empowerment and on behalf of the millions calling for climate justice. She promised to facilitate consensus given the limited time available and ensure transparency and inclusiveness.
As the first binding Kyoto protocol commitment period is about to end and this conference, she said, must be made binding as a catalyst actualize the Green Climate Fund, which will help poor people and their governments to adapt to climate change and equalize the effects of pollution by harmonized conservation of the environment.
Madam Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, said the conference was in debt to the late Climate Change Campaigner Waangari Mathai who died fighting this cause.
Ms. Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, quoted Nelson Mandela who said “It always seems impossible until it is done” and made South Africa an inspiration to the world as a model for harmony and democratic inclusion which can be emulated by the present negotiations.
The UNFCCC executive secretary said as pollution rates are now the highest in history, livelihoods are more at threat and need for corrective measures are challenging but achievable.
She said the world must seek constructive ways forward to fast-track the financing of the 194 Adaptation Plans of the world’s nations and clarify, innovative ways for the sustainability of climate action.