As negotiations at the COP 20 in Lima, Peru came to a conclusion on Friday, December 12, 2014, members of civil society performed a die-in with over 150 participants to reclaim the space and highlight the voices they say are being ignored by the U.N. process.
In unison, demonstrators fell to the ground outside of the plenary hall where a text to set a framework for a global climate “deal” next year in Paris was being negotiated. Speakers from the Philippines, Tanzania, the Dominican Republic and Peru addressed the crowd of bodies.
“This is hypocrisy and duplicity on the part of developed country governments,” Said Fazal Issa of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) from Tanzania.
“Governments of developed countries are pressuring developing countries when they do not even own up to the inadequacy of their targets and constantly refuse to include climate finance as part of binding agreements. Climate finance for mitigation actions in the South is part of the obligations and fair share of the efforts of developed countries,” Issa told the crowd.
During the action, Gerry Arances of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice told those gathered: “We are already suffering massive devastation, loss of lives, and displacement of communities, with just 0.8°C of warming. Even that will mean far worse consequences for our people than what they are already experiencing.” Arances added that neither sympathy, or solidarity, were adequate, because: “This outcome in Lima is unacceptable to the people of Asia.”
The impacts in the Philippines highlight that some losses and damages from a warmer world are already and will continue to be unavoidable. Last year in Warsaw, a process was established so that countries most responsible for climate change could compensate those that suffer these losses. But this year, some developed countries, like the United States and Japan, have tried to oust such a mechanism from being included in a global agreement.
Peruvian Lorena Del Carpio of Movimiento Ciudadano Frente al Cambio Climatico (Citizens Movement on Climate Change) was the last to speak. She did so as those on the ground and the crowd gathered began to beat their hands against their chests in a powerful unified heartbeat. She called citizens from across the world to continue to rise into action and not be struck down.
The bodies served as a stark visual reminder that the words negotiated in these halls have real consequences in human lives saved or lost. The action concluded with a song titled: “Hombre de Papel.”
Nigeria’s Minister of Environment, Mrs. Laurentia Laraba Mallam, who addressed the High Level Panel of the 20th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Lima, Peru on Thursday December 11, 2014 insists that the Lima forum must craft a decision leading towards a universal agreement next year December. According to her, Nigeria will not be part of any agreement that would strangulate her economy
Mrs. Laurentia Laraba Mallam, Nigera’s Minister of Environment
Nigeria is witnessing the adverse effects of climate change in all its ramifications. Presently, Nigerians are reeling under the impacts of climate change as the frequency and intensity of extreme events like floods, rainfall and drought have increased. The challenges of climate change in Nigeria have brought about the destruction of many economic and non-economic institutions; and more aggressively threatening the country’s food security.
The magnitude of insurgency currently being expressed in the country cannot be completely explained away without taking cognisance of climate change. Climate change is therefore threatening not only the sustainable development of our socio-economic activities but also to the totality of human existence in our country and also in other parts of the world.
We recognise that the last three COPs (from Durban to Warsaw) have witnessed discussions towards evolving a new climate regime. In particular, in Warsaw, the COP adopted ADP decision on domestic preparations of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), and resolves to accelerate the full implementation of the Doha Amendment. My delegation is very worried at the pace of our work up to and currently in Lima and we have also expressed our worries anytime the opportunity abounds in the climate change process.
The issue of INDC was a decision adopted by the COP 19 in place of emission reduction commitments to be undertaken by the developed country Parties. Because of its newness and apparent complexity, our technical experts are still grappling with the concept, despite the necessity to submit INDCs by March 2015. Nigeria urges that the process should be fully elaborated and financial support provided to developing countries to prepare their INDCs. This will help their pursuit of climate compatible sustainable development given their national circumstances and priorities.
Without clear understanding of the INDC concept, and without evidence of submission by the developed country Parties of ambitious scale of emission reduction targets in their INDCs, my country will not be part of any agreement that would strangulate its economy, limits our development efforts and renders our lives worse off in whatever form.
Concerning the Doha Amendment, evidence at hand also indicates limited progress. As at 24 November 2014, only 18 Countries have ratified the Doha Amendment. It may also interest Your Excellences that, out of this 18, only two are from the developed country Parties. This raises a serious concern about the commitment of our developed country partners to achieving a global climate regime that will ensure global stability and sustainable development.
The Emission Gap Report 2014 produced by UNEP is based on contributions from 38 lead scientists from 22 research groups in 14 countries. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in all its Reports, has consistently indicated what we need to do in respect to emission reduction to have a safer future. All these Reports seem to be asking the same and key question – whether the pledges made by countries are on track to meet the so-called two-degree target. My delegation wishes rto eiterate here that mitigation is the bedrock of any agreement being negotiated to mitigate climate change. This is why major economies must scale up, in an ambitious manner, the level of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Series of mechanisms to achieve substantial emission reduction level abound. My delegation noted with concerns that the operationalisation of the New Market Mechanism still remains unclear. Much time has been lost in elaborating Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism. The future of CDM in the Second Commitment still looks bleak going by the fact that big economies are yet to ratify the Doha Amendment. In particular, we are worried that this new market mechanism may be an indirect replacement of the CDM that will put Africa at a disadvantage.
It is imperative for this body to ensure that the interest of African country Parties is not compromised in the new market mechanisms.
Nigeria is firmly committed to seeing that current areas of contentions with respect to the financial mechanism, adaptation framework and institutional arrangements, technology transfer and capacity building are resolved to the benefit of all Parties.
Various institutional arrangements abound in the climate change process. We have the Special Climate Change Fund, Least Developed Country Fund, Adaptation Fund and now the Green Climate Fund. The issue here is how much is available in all these Funds and how accessible they are to the developing country Parties in general and Africa Region in particular.
Nigeria calls for urgent implementation of all the commitments and actions towards reducing the levels of emission both under the Convention and its Protocol through enhanced level of ambition with respect to emission reduction targets. Lima must craft a decision towards a universal agreement in December 2015, which will enter into force in 2020.
Finally, my delegation would like to reiterate that the outcome of Lima in two or three days’ time will make or mar Paris. To make Paris 2015 potentially realistic for the climate change process, significant decisions have to be taken here in Lima.
Lima must have an outcome decisions that will evolve into legally-binding in nature, which reinforces a fair, multilateral and rules-based regime guided by science; that brings into effect the right to equitable access of every country of the world to sustainable development, the sharing of atmospheric space and resources with the principle of equity reflected in all aspects of the elements in its contents. Otherwise, we will all be gathering ceremonially every year in the name of the Conference of Parties, ever rhetoric in discussion, while the timed bomb is ticking away. The world is waiting for our collective action and the time to act is now.
An estimated 15,000 people took to the streets of Lima on Wednesday 10, 2014 December for the People’s Climate March, calling for the ministers to shift to 100 per cent clean energy by 2050.
The march follows the delivery of a 2.2 million person petition by 100 children to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Peruvian President Ollanta Humala and COP President Manuel Pulgar Vidal at the UN climate talks in Lima.
Avaaz Campaign Director, Iain Keith, said: “The public call for 100% clean energy has gone mainstream, and finally leaders are starting to respond with ambitious targets. Now, from Lima to Paris, Ministers must defend and deliver what the world needs: firm commitments to totally end carbon pollution.”
Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General (right) with COP President Manuel Pulgar Vidal
Demostrators during the march
Demonstrators
Demonstrators
Demonstators
Aerial view of the demontrators
Demonstrators at the March
The procession
Young demonstrators
Photo credits: Bert Wander (Senior Media Campaigner, AVAAZ)
The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), a Pan African platform comprising civil society networks and farmer organisations working towards food sovereignty in Africa, has submitted an Open Letter to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Dr. Wendy White from Iowa State University and the Human Institutional Review Board of Iowa State University, expressing fierce opposition to the human feeding trials taking place at Iowa State University involving genetically modified (GM) bananas.
GM banana. Photo credit: radioaustralia.net.au
The Open Letter is said to be supported by more than 120 organisations from around the world. Farmers, advocates, consumers and other communities from the United States are reportedly represented, including the US Food Sovereignty Alliance (USFSA), FoodFirst, AGRA Watch/Community Alliance for Global Justice and La Via Campesina North America, and several others from Africa, Europe, Latin America, the United Kingdom, Asia and Australia. Dr. Vandana Shiva, Dr. Jeanne Koopman, Dr. Eva Navotny and Professor Joseph Cummins are among the prominent scientists and academics also supporting the Open Letter.
The GM banana human trials, it was gathered, are funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and carried out by Iowa State University under the leadership of Dr. Wendy White. The human subjects of these trials are young female students from Iowa State University. Scientists at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia developed the GM banana, also with funds provided by the Gates Foundation.
Touted as a ‘Super Banana,’ the GM banana in question has been genetically modified to contain extra beta-carotene, a nutrient the body uses to produce Vitamin A. The results of the human trials are designed to support the release of the GM bananas into Ugandan farming and food systems.
According to Iowa State University, “Vitamin A deficiency is a major public health problem in Uganda and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa and leads to decreased survival in children, impaired immune function and blindness.”
An outraged Bridget Mugambe, a Ugandan and AFSA Policy Advocate, says, “Just because the GM banana has been developed in Australia and is being tested in the US, does not make it super! Ugandans know what is super because we have been eating homegrown GM-free bananas for centuries. This GM Banana is an insult to our food, to our culture, to us a nation, and we strongly condemn it.”
Iowa farmer George Naylor noted, “We’re told that GMOs are safe but we don’t even know if these genetically modified bananas should be tested on humans. People who are malnourished need good food, not another public relations stint that clears the way for more corporate, patented, high-profit technologies.”
“As AFSA, we are vehemently opposed to GM crops. Africa and Africans should not be used as justification for promoting the interest of companies and their cohorts. We do not need GM crops in this changing climate. What we need is the diversity in our crops and the knowledge associated with them,” commented Dr. Million Belay, AFSA Coordinator.
The trials are to take place in the US over a six-week period, and researchers aim to start growing the fruit in Uganda by 2020.
Vitamin A deficiency can be fatal: hundreds of thousands die annually worldwide, while many others go blind.
Professor James Dale, the project’s leader, stated: “The consequences of vitamin A deficiency are dire with 650,000-700,000 children worldwide dying…each year and at least another 300,000 going blind.
“Good science can make a massive difference here by enriching staple crops such as Ugandan bananas with pro-vitamin A and providing poor and subsistence-farming populations with nutritionally rewarding food. We know our science will work. We made all the constructs, the genes that went into bananas, and put them into bananas here at QUT.”
Dale added that the genetically modified banana flesh is more orange than a usual banana, but otherwise looks the same.
The highland or East African cooking banana is a dietary staple in East Africa, according to the researchers. However, it has low levels of micronutrients, particularly vitamin A and iron.
If the project is given the go-ahead for Uganda after the US trials, micronutrient enriched/modified crops could also be given the green light for Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania.
“In West Africa farmers grow plantain bananas and the same technology could easily be transferred to that variety as well,” Dale stated.
The claim that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) pose no risk to human and environmental health is farfromsettled, despite industry assertions.
In October, 93 international scientists said there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims made by the biotech industry about a so-called “consensus” on GMO safety. They said more independent research is needed, as existing studies which say that GMOs are safe are overwhelmingly funded and supported by biotech companies.
The Gates Foundation has a history of supporting GMO research and technology – at least since 2010, when the non-profit invested in a low amount of shares in biotechnology giant Monsanto. Gates has amped up support for GMOs so that “poor countries that have the toughest time feeding their people have a process,” adding that “there should be an open-mindedness, and if they can specifically prove (GMO) safety and benefits, foods should be approved, just like they are in middle-income countries.”
Such support has resulted in criticism and suspicion of the foundation’s agenda.
As for the worry that GMO seeds are increasingly consolidated in the hands of major agribusiness powers, Gates said in February 2013 – after his foundation reportedly sold the approximately $23 million in Monsanto shares it owned – that there are “legitimate issues, but solvable issues” with GMO technology and wider use. He added that one solution may be offering crops already patented but requiring no royalty dues.
Gates has supported the use of GMO crops in the developing world, as well as “large-scale farm land investments by foreign states in the developing world,” AFP wrote in 2012. Afterwards ago, Gates stressed his support for GMO farming in Africa.
“Middle-income countries are the biggest users of GMOs…Small farmers have gotten soy beans and cotton and things like that. But we’re trying to get African agriculture up to high productivity – it’s about a third of rich-world productivity right now – and we need the full range of scientific innovation, with really good safety checking, to work on behalf of the poor,” Gates told Quartz in January.
GMO crops are now grown in 28 countries, or on 12 percent of the world’s arable land, with the acreage doubling every five years. However, in the European Union, only two GMO varieties have so far been licensed for commercial harvesting (compared to 96 in the US).
In the US, an overwhelming majority of Americans say they support the labelling of GMO products – an effort that has gained traction in some states and interest in nearly all others.
Opponents of labelling – including powerful food industry and biotechnology players – are currently mobilising their resources on the national level to stem the tide of sentiment against GMO proliferation. These groups have worked with supportive members of Congress to introduce federal legislation that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labelling measures like Vermont’s, despite the “right to know” movement’s rising popularity.
GMOs have been in the food supply since the 1990s, and are included in roughly 70 to 80 percent of products available to American consumers, according to food manufacturers. The most widely used GMO crops in the US are corn, soybeans, and canola.
Provision of adaptation support and resilient building for the most vulnerable and developing countries must be prioritised at the ongoing climate change talks in Lima, Peru, says UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon.
Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General
He therefore wants tangible progress made by the 20th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP20) to the UNFCCC in solidifying the climate finance regime.
The Secretary-General describes the initial capitalisation of nearly $10 billion to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as a positive step but he is concerned that “our collective action does not match our common responsibilities”.
“I call on countries that have not yet pledged to the Green Climate Fund to consider making an ambitious financial commitment in Lima,” he said. “We must also clearly define a pathway for achieving the goal of $100 billion by 2020 in support of developing countries.”
Ban Ki-moon also urged the private sector to leverage on the $200 billion commitment at the Climate Summit in New York last September.
According to him, issues of climate finance should not be treated separately from development finance since “combating climate change is an essential part of the foundation of sustainable development; we cannot treat it as a separate issue or we risk losing all hard won development gains of the past decade”.
The Union of Concerned Scientists wants Ministers of States arriving for the talks to exert their influence and provide much-needed political guidance to negotiators over the coming days.
“These include the need to make sure that national emissions reduction pledges are put forward every five years, starting for 2025, so that climate action is scaled up frequently, as well as setting clear expectations for countries putting forward fair but differentiated climate action contributions that reflect their varying capacities and responsibility for causing climate change,” said Director of Strategy and Policy, Alden Meyer.
Ban Ki-moon wants Lima to deliver a balanced, well-structured and coherent drafted text that provides a solid foundation for the 2015 negotiations on agreements to be reached in Paris. A common understanding must also be reached on the scope and status of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).
He says by acting now, “We can build more resilience, prosperous and healthy societies” and urged all societies to be part of the solution to lower global warning below 2oC.
Chipinge, a district in Zimbabwe, is known for its magnificent scenery. It is believed to be part of the country with the highest rainfalls. That is where Joy Mlambo, a young professional working with a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in Zimbabwe, The Development Reality Institute, was born. She recollects how the hot climate and high rainfall used to be well suited to agriculture. But, like in most parts of Africa, things are no longer the same. These are perilous times for her people.
Joy Mlambo attending COP 20 in Lima, Peru
“The rains are now erratic. My family members depend entirely on farming but they do not know when to plant anymore. We are starving. Rivers are drying up and when the rains come they are so intense that the village is flooded. The climate is turning against us,” says Mlambo, who is now 24. She fears for the future of young people like her who will live long enough to experience the disastrous consequences of the changing climate.
“As youths, we are the future of tomorrow. It is up to us to secure that future for ourselves as well as for our children. If we let the current trends go on, we will be left to deal with the consequences which in the long term may be irreversible if nothing is done now,” she says.
Mlambo has taken the message to Peru, in South America, where she is attending the climate change talks dubbed COP 20. She joins other youths from around the world at the conference. They are worried that the negotiations at the climate change conference are relegating the aspirations of the youths.
“The lives of youths are not really valued. The talks are currently not representing the interest of the youths,” says Daniele Savietto of the Youth Press Agency.
The young people are demanding for what they call intergenerational equity.
“Climate change is at heart an intergenerational issue. The reason for finding solutions to climate change is to avoid the negative impacts on future generations,” says 24-year-old Risalat Khan.
“The concept on intergenerational equity is that whenever calculations are made in the UN conference, future gets discounted. This means that future impacts are not really considered in the same way as present impacts. So any impact that happens in like 50 years’ time or 100 years, even if that is really huge, it`s only considered as a small portion because this can’t play a big role,” he adds.
This principle has rarely been a talking point within the international negotiations on climate change.
Young people have been demonstrating at the Lima COP
“Our lives are not for sale,” youths told a panel on Intergenerational Inquiry -Youths as Agents of Change on Thursday, which was set aside as the Young and Future Generations Day.
“The interaction between young people, decision-makers and indigenous youth – which rarely occurs and was one of the main purposes of this panel – was constrained by the fact that the speakers didn’t really manage to keep track of their time as it was scheduled. Being perhaps one of the few opportunities of intergenerational interaction, it was a shame that this event was not as successful as expected. Youth participation was minimal compared to youth needs, due to the fact that UNFCCC accreditation for young people is a rare exception,” say Sara Cattani and Daniel Savietto of the Youth Press Agency.
For Mlambo, the Lima conference represents more than just a conference – it is a battle for the survival of her people back home. A battle she desperately wants to win.
“We need to do less of talking and more of acting. As a young lady being affected by the effects of climate change, I need my voice to be heard, stand up for what is right and fight for our tomorrow.” she says.
Concretely, the youths are demanding zero discount rate at Lima Climate change talks. It is very unlikely that the Paris climate change conference next year where major decisions on the fight against the climate scourge would be reached will take into consideration their demands.
Already, as COP 20 enters the last and decisive week, there are sharp contrast and disagreements among negotiators narrowing the chances of having a universally accepted and legally-binding agreement by 2015.
The International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature judged 12 international and domestic cases in Lima, Peru on the sidelines of the COP 20 UN Climate Change Conference
Alberto Acosta, president of the Tribunal for the Rights of Nature
Alberto Acosta, president of the Tribunal for the Rights of Nature and former president of the Constitutional Assembly of Ecuador, decided to admit, expand and solve 12 cases. In all of them, the Tribunal identified the violation of the rights of peoples and nature, cases presented on the 5th and 6th of December in the Gran Hotel Bolivar in Lima, and it determined to expand the evidence, and even conform international commissions and special sessions.
The judgments have been rendered having as a legal frame the Rights of Nature and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. “The rights of nature must have a universal validity,” he said.
The Tribunal has condemned Chevron-Texaco in Ecuador for using “inappropriate technology and causing irreversible damage”. It urges the corporation to proceed to a full compensation of the area, and accuses the State for allowing this exploitation. The Peruvian case of Conga was accepted and it was determined to appoint an international special commission to visit the area to collect more information. For the contamination in the four Amazonian basins (block 192), the Tribunal called for the creation of a special session in Peru for the case is to be judged; that same judgment was rendered in the case of Bagua in Peru. After the concurring opinion of the judges, all Peruvian cases were accepted as threats of violation to the rights of nature.
On climate change, the Tribunal decided that more evidence is to be collected at a hearing in Paris in 2015 to coincide with the upcoming summit, COP21. The Tribunal also considers it necessary to express to the UN its concern about a scenario that includes the use of high-risk energy. Also, the government of Queensland, Australia was convicted for violating the rights of the nature of the Great Barrier Reef.
Oil exploitation in the Yasuni was also convicted through the ratification of the two previous judgments, and the popular initiative promoted by the group of Yasunidos was supported. The Tribunal also condemned the constant persecution of this group. Another case that was judged was the mining project in the Cordillera del Condor. The Tribunal determined that it is essential to suspend mining, compensate those affected; and urged the State to investigate and punish those responsible for the death of José Tendentza. In commemoration of this social activist, the Tribunal held in Lima will bear his name.
‘Baguazo’
On Saturday, the Tribunal opened a hearing on the case of Bagua, of which five years after it started, 52 indigenous leaders have cases filed against them. Ismael Vega, anthropologist from the Centro Amazónico de Antropología y Ampliación Práctica (CAAAP) called the ‘Baguazo’ an “emblematic case”, because according to the expert, since this case could happen again if existing policies and conditions are not modified. “Bagua makes visible the mismatch between the indigenous population and the state. This lack of dialogue still exists,” sentenced Vega.
Miguel Jugo, from the National Coordinator of Human Rights, mentioned the context that motivated the protests. The “Law of the Jungle” refers to the application of 10 legislative norms and laws under the context of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Peru and the USA, laws that dealt with the lives of indigenous peoples. As a result, in 2008 began the protests of the Amazonian indigenous peoples, which were confronted by government forces. Jugo alleged irregularities surrounding the trial of the indigenous people, “the judgment is contrary to the Convention 169 of the International Labor Organisation (ILO) and the preliminary investigation was even conducted without translators”. Jugo added, “There is no evidence against the 52 processed people”.
‘Fracking’
“You cannot do safe hydraulic fracking. This technique should have never been invented. It is one of the most destructive activities against the environment ever seen,” said Shannon Biggs blunt, director of Movement Rights. The American specialist says there are 800,000 active oil and gas wells in this country, and about 300,000 natural gas barrels produced per day. Biggs alerted about the water pollution due to chemicals used, as a result of using this technique. It also highlights that fracking causes earthquakes in areas that had never experienced this phenomenon. Camp Casey, American Indian from Oklahoma, laments: “We die for the use of fracking. The population is suffering from cancer; my sister has died. The water is contaminated; we cannot fish. We are in danger of extinction.”
From Bolivia, plans to develop large-scale hydraulic fracking on their soil were also reported. In recent years the country has increased the production and export of natural gas; during the years 2000-2012 it increased by 382.6%. However, it exports 82.4% of its production. Also, the export of this hydrocarbon generates more than six billion dollars a year, as reported by the specialist Martin Vilela, Platform Climate Reaction.
Bolivia has 8.23 trillion cubic feet of gas, and YPFB plans to invest 40,670 million between 2013 and 2015. Vilela explained that in 2013 this corporation signed an agreement for fracking in the Chaco area, a region with water scarcity. If it starts, the extraction of 48 trillion cubic feet of shale gas would consume between 112 and 335 billion liters of water.
False solutions to climate change and REDD
The Tribunal heard two related cases, one on climate change and its false solutions and one on the mechanisms for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). In the case of climate change, the case of contamination and temperature rise affecting Nigeria was exposed. This continent has oil fields and pipelines that have caused a deep environmental degradation, deforestation, and countless oil spills, among others. This deplorable living conditions have caused life expectancy in this area is 44 years.
Added to this, the ravages of climate change may have catastrophic consequences. Nigerian activist Nnimmo Bassey says: “For every degree the temperature rises globally, in Africa, it will increase an additional 50%”. In 2012 floods in Nigeria led to the relocation of 6 million inhabitants. The activist says that in 2030 Africa violent conflicts will increase by 54% due to the lack of access to natural resources.
At the hearing against false solutions, geoengineering techniques that seek to manipulate climate without changing the conditions that cause climate change were reported.
REDD+ was also put on trial. In Brazil the existence of this mechanism is very present. The Ninawa Apu complained, saying: “REDD presents a liar proposal. We do not accept to market nature because it is our soul and spirit; it is priceless, it is our voice.” Ruth Nyambura, environmentalist from Biodiversity Network Africa, says that in Kenya, as a result of REDD, evictions occur: “Four indigenous people were arrested and a woman was hit by the forest service because she was outside of her land.”
The Australian Great Barrier Reef
This reef is the world’s largest coral system. It is the largest structure made by living organisms that can be seen from space. It is considered World Heritage by UNESCO, institution that warned the government in 2011 threatening this unique natural system by the expansion of ports, especially for exporting coal, dredging, sediment, and agricultural and industrial developments close to it. Erin Fitz, from the National Alliance, condemned the violation of rights of the coral reef, and stressed the great biodiversity that could be destroyed: “This reef is composed of more than 600 types of coral and over 100 species. The Tribunal issued a final judgment in this case.”
Oil exploitation of Yasuni
Since 2013, the Ecuadorian government allowed oil drilling in Yasuni National Park, one of the most biodiverse areas in the world, home to 2 indigenous nationalities in voluntary isolation.
The fact provoked a group of young (Yasunidos) to join and protest and claim for the rights of nature which are guaranteed in the Constitution of Ecuador. Yasunidos collected more than 800,000 signatures to call for a referendum about oil exploitation in the Yasuni; but the request was rejected because the electoral institutions invalidated fraudulently more than 60% of the signatures.
For all of these events, Yasunidos has sued the Ecuadorian government, led by President Rafael Correa, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH) and are awaiting for their complaint to reach the Tribunal.
Nigeria is among the numerous nations attending the 20th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) holding in Lima, Peru December 1 to 12, 2014.
Courtesy of the Department of Climate Change (DCC) of the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMoE) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), a team of delegates comprising DCC officials, scientists, negotiators and media executives is representing the country, which is alligned and active within the ambit of the African Group of Negotiators.
The delegation is lead by Dr Samuel Adejuwon, Nigeria’s climate chief and Director of the DCC. Environment Minister, Laurentia Mallam, is expected to join the group shortly.
Dr Samuel Adejuwon, Director, Department of Climate Change (DCC), Federal Ministry of Environment (FMoE) (right) with Peter Tarfa, Deputy Director at the DCC
Dr Nasiru Idris (Director, Centre for Environmental Studies, Nasarawa State University, Keffi)
Prof. Daniel Gwary of the University of Maiduguri
Prof Olukayode Oladipo of the University of Lagos
Dr Samuel Adejuwon (left) and Peter Tarfa
Uduak Ekpa (Senior Scientist at the DCC) (right) with Saadatu Gambo (Scientist)
Mrs Abiola Awe (Assistant Director, DCC)
Mrs Abiola Awe (Assistant Director, DCC) (right) with Ann Umar (Senior Planning Officer, DCC)
A group of female delegates at the COP: Left to right: Dr Erimma Gloria Orie (Maritime & Environmental Law Consultant), Uduak Ekpa (Senior Scientist at the DCC), Jennifer Igwe (Nigeria Television Authority), Ann Umar (DCC), Saadatu Gambo (DCC), Mrs Abiola Awe (DCC) and Dr Oma Ofodile (Chief Marine Environment Specialist & Desk Officer, Climate Change at the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency)
Chinedu Uwaegbulam (The Guardian newspaper) (left), Prince Lekan Fadina (CISME) (middle) and Ochuko Odibo (REDD+ specialist)
Dr Olayinka Ohunakin (Covenant University, Ota)
The group in a meeting
Priscillia Achakpa (Women Environmental Programme) (left) with Ada Ihechukwu-Madubuike (Federal Ministry of Finance)
Kayode Fagbemi (Deputy Director, National Emergency Management Agency) (left) with Prof. Adeniyi Osuntogun (former Vice-Chancellor, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife & Founder, Resource Integrated Development Foundation)
Left to right: Dr Erimma Gloria Orie, Kayode Fagbemi, Prof Adeniyi Osuntogun, Dr Nasiru Idris, Prof Ayuba Kuje (Nasarawa State University, Keffi) and Prof Mohammed Balarabe (Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria)
James Chidi Okeuhie (Green Concept Solutions) (left) with Edeh Chioma Felistas (Senior Scientific Officer, DCC)
Yankuzo Bello Sani (Senior Scientific Officer) (left), Umegbo Chukwunonso Douglas (Scientific Officer) (middle) and Ibeneme Sylvester Uchechukwu (Senior Scientific Officer) of the DCC
Prof. Francis Adesina (Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife) (left) with Alhaji Aliyu Musa Yauri (Assistant Director, DCC)
Prof. Olukayode Oladipo (left) stressing a point to (from left) Prof Daniel Gwary, Prof Mohammed Balarabe, Prof Ayuba Kuje, Prof Francis Adesina and Alhaji Aliyu Musa Yauri, during a meeting
Latin American and Caribbean countries and regional programmes, working with regional and global organisations, on Sunday, December 7, 2014 in Lima, Peru launched“Initiative 20×20,” a country-led effort to bring 20 million hectares of degraded land into restoration by 2020. This is an area larger than Uruguay.
Minister of Environment Gabriel Vallejo, Colombia. Photo credit: landscape.org
Through Initiative 20×20, countries and programmes in the region will work with leading research organisations and the private sector to restore degraded lands, resulting in carbon storage, reforestation, more productive agriculture, avoided deforestation and improved livelihoods. The 20 million hectares committed through Initiative 20×20 will not be fully restored by 2020 because it takes many years for forests and ecosystems to redevelop, but will start their restoration process by 2020.
Ambitions announced through Initiative 20×20 will also contribute to the Bonn Challenge, a global goal to bring 150 million hectares of land into restoration by 2020.
The Initiative 20×20 partnership announced the following ambitions adding up to just over 20 million hectares:
México: 8.5 million hectares
Perú: 3.2 million hectares
Guatemala: 1.2 million hectares
Colombia: 1 million hectares
Ecuador: 0.5 million hectares
Chile: 0.1 million hectares
Costa Rica: 50,000 hectares
Regional Program of Conservacion Patagonica: 4.1 million hectares
Regional Program Bosques Modelo: 1.6 million hectares
“Land restoration in the region is an essential element to promote equity, poverty reduction, alternatives for development in poor rural areas as well as a mechanism to achieve a low carbon, more resilient future,” said Minister of Environment Gabriel Vallejo, Colombia.
Christian del Valle, CEO, Althelia Climate. Photo credit: coderedd.org
The restoration activities of Initiative 20×20 will be partly supported through $365 million of commitments from impact investors and bilateral and multilateral funders. Other financial instruments, including a partial risk guarantee for restoration, are under design. So far, private sector investors have indicated the intention to invest:
Althelia: $120 million in support of agroforestry and silvopastoral activities.
Moringa: $80 million in support of agroforestry and silvopastoral activities.
Permian Global: $100 million in support of reforestation and avoided deforestation in tropical rainforest biomes.
Terra Bella: up to $60 million in non-timber forest projects and high-value low carbon and climate resilient sustainably produced agricultural projects.
Rare: about $5 million in the protection and recovery of cloud forest and riparian biomes.
“Althelia is deploying capital in support of a portfolio of projects in the region to improve agricultural practices, restore degraded lands, and reduce pressure on natural ecosystems, with concrete results in emissions reductions, zero-net deforestation commodities, biodiversity, and livelihoods,” said Christian del Valle, CEO, Althelia Climate.
Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, WRI. Photo credit: blogs.worldbank.org
About half of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Latin America and the Caribbean are generated from land use, land use change, and forestry. Of the 4.2 gigatons of GHGs emitted by Latin American and Caribbean countries in 2012, 2.0 Gt were from land use and loss of forests. Reducing emissions from land use change is key for the prospects of a low carbon development future.
“As the world prepares to deliver a binding climate agreement in Paris by 2015, restoration will be absolutely essential for countries to hit their emissions targets, while also delivering huge benefits for the rural poor. Through their leadership in Initiative 20×20, these countries will have a tremendous head start,” said Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, WRI.
Analysis by WRI and IUCN has identified over 200 million hectares of restoration opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Further analysis is underway to quantify the economic and climate benefits of reaching the Initiative 20×20 restoration targets.
Ruben Echevarria, Director General, CIAT. Photo credit: global.umn.edu
“CIAT has understood for a long time the pivotal linkage between agriculture and climate change. We are committed to support initiative 20×20 as a cost effective approach to reduce GHG emissions while promoting improved soil quality, nutrient retention and agricultural yields,” indicated Ruben Echevarria, Director General, CIAT.
“Initiative 20×20 can be an important contribution to the global restoration goals outlined under the Bonn Challenge and the New York Declaration on Forests,” added Grethel Aguilar, IUCN coordinator in Central America.
Through Initiative 20×20, countries and investors will work to restore forests, rewild degraded ecosystems, and improve the productivity of “mosaic landscapes” through sustainable agroforestry and silvopasture. This restoration process is expected to provide substantial economic, social, and environmental benefits through improved local livelihoods, ecosystem services such as biodiversity recovery and protection, erosion prevention and water purification, avoided deforestation, as well as carbon storage.
“The mosaic approach in Initiative 20×20 or what we call ‘climate smart territories’ will allow countries to target improvements in rural incomes and food security as well as to protect natural forests and grasslands so critical to our sustainable future,” said Jose Joaquin Campos, Director General, CATIE.
Technical negotiations during the first week of the climate talks in Lima (COP20) have mostly gone smoothly, but important negotiating-team level discussions on a handful of key issues need to conclude this week so that there is wide agreement on the range of options facing the Ministers as they arrive early next week to pick up the high-level negotiations.
Peru’s environment minister and president of COP 20, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Photo credit: COP20 Peru
Negotiations are focussing in on critical elements including the nature of country pledges for the upcoming Paris agreement, pledges known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). Countries will need clarity on the rules and format for these pledges as they are due to be delivered in the next three to six months. One key issue that Ministers must contend is the time period the pledges will cover.
“The timeframe issue is our key worry,” explains Li Shuo from Greenpeace China. “A short commitment period would do a lot of good things but it hasn’t been discussed in an extensive manner. We learnt from the Kyoto Protocol that an 8-year period makes it very difficult to ratchet measures up as changes take place in the real world.
“In China, for example, things are changing fast, coal consumption is down 1-2% this year. The Marshall Islands have sent a very positive signal, arguing for a 5 year commitment period that can capture the most relevant and fresh circumstances in the real world. Countries will submit their INDCs early next year so we need to make progress over a short-term commitment period here in Lima.”
Discussions about what actions need to be taken to tackle climate change before 2020 have been noticeably absent from the negotiations so far. Although the The Paris Agreement is set to be reached in 2015, it won’t kick-in until 2020, leaving unaddressed what action countries should take in the six years before then.
Shuo explained, “We are already approaching the end of the week and we are worried that we won’t have enough time to discuss this vital element of a draft Paris agreement. We need to ensure that countries are sufficiently prepared to capture the low hanging fruit. This is about securing short-term actions that countries can take that will form the basis for ongoing climate action.”
Negotiators also need to focus on how a Paris agreement would help countries affected by climate change adapt to the challenges that they face. A new UNEP report shows reveals that the cost of this adaptation could reach $150 billion by 2030, underlining how vitally important this aspect is.
“We believe there won’t be agreement in Paris if adaptation is not included in the draft of the agreement – most countries asking for it. Fortunately the talks are going smoothly and we are making progress on this issue,” said Tania Guillén from Centro Humboldt Nicaragua/SUSWATCH.
When ministers arrive for the high level negotiations next week will have to decide whether the current structure of the draft Paris agreement provides those suffering from climate impacts that are “locked-in” with enough support or whether a new mechanism needs to be established to compensate for loss and damage.
Many delegations are seeking for a clear pathway to ramp up financial and technological support. “We think that $10 billion already pledged by rich nations is not enough for vulnerable countries to deal with the impacts of climate change,” said Guillén.
Ministers also need to discuss the option of having an adaptation goal, an idea that really needs fleshing out. “They have to decide whether this will be part of the new agreement and whether it will be part of the INDCs. If adaptation is included within national climate action plans it will help to reinforce this vital pillar of the entire convention”.
As negotiations at the COP 20 in Lima, Peru came to a conclusion on Friday, December 12, 2014, members of civil society performed a die-in with over 150 participants to reclaim the space and highlight the voices they say are being ignored by the U.N. process.
“Governments of developed countries are pressuring developing countries when they do not even own up to the inadequacy of their targets and constantly refuse to include climate finance as part of binding agreements. Climate finance for mitigation actions in the South is part of the obligations and fair share of the efforts of developed countries,” Issa told the crowd.
The impacts in the Philippines highlight that some losses and damages from a warmer world are already and will continue to be unavoidable. Last year in Warsaw, a process was established so that countries most responsible for climate change could compensate those that suffer these losses. But this year, some developed countries, like the United States and Japan, have tried to oust such a mechanism from being included in a global agreement.
The bodies served as a stark visual reminder that the words negotiated in these halls have real consequences in human lives saved or lost. The action concluded with a song titled: “Hombre de Papel.”
