Saleemul Huq, Achala Chandani and Simon Anderson, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

Transcription

1 Outreach Special Post COP15 Issue A daily publication expressing the views of Civil Society Groups at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit Inside this issue: After COP15, which way now for the most vulnerable countries? 1 Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? 3 Human Rights and Climate Change after Copenhagen 6 After COP15, which way now for the most vulnerable countries? REDD Community Protocols: A 7 Community Approach to Ensuring the Local Integrity of REDD The Copenhagen Accord An Ugly Duckling 8 It has to be Climate Sustainability 10 Towards Mexico New Year Same Fight! 11 Focus on Climate: Between Trust and A Well-Prepared Society 12 Indigenous Peoples Demanded Action, Not False Hopes and Empty Promises 13 Failure Should Not Have Been An Option 14 Women Disappointed by COP 15 Outcome-But Committed to Hope and Action for 2010 Sidelined Issues: The gaps in the Copenhagen Accord 16 Youth Delegates Will Continue Campaigning 17 Food for Thought 18 Outreach is a multi-stakeholder newsletter which is published daily at the COP15. The articles written are intended to reflect those of the authors alone or where indicated a coalition s opinion. An individual s article is the opinion of that author alone, and does not reflect the opinions of all stakeholders. Outreach is made possible through the generous support of: Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, UN Water, Global Water Partnership, International Water Association, Sustainlabour, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Denmark, and UNIFEM Saleemul Huq, Achala Chandani and Simon Anderson, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Before COP15 there was widespread optimism that even if the outcome was not legally-binding, it would include strong positives for the 100 or so developing nations that have done least to cause climate change and are most at risk the Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States and most of Africa. They sent larger, more experienced delegations than to any previous session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Civil society groups in these countries and around the world joined together in a global chorus that demanded a fair and equitable response from the rest of the world s leaders. Image by cnphch under Creative Commons Licence The most vulnerable countries hoped for a binding agreement that would limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees rather than the 2 degrees favoured by the G20. They wanted an agreement on how to support adaptation to climate change in their countries, with significant funding pledges and technology transfer from industrialised countries, and a REDD deal that would pay forest nations to reduce emissions from deforestation. However, they had little to bring to the table no cash to offer and minimal emissions to reduce. Instead they appealed to morality by insisting that parties take seriously the task ahead of them because it was the right, if Continued on page 2 1

2 inconvenient, thing to do. At some points the vulnerable countries urged a halt in the negotiations until developed countries announced their full pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for funding action in developing nations. These requests were seen as tactics for holding up the negotiations but they were the only ways for the vulnerable nations to get their voices heard. In the weeks and months before the conference, many heads of state claimed in speeches that they knew how urgent their task was and that they were committed to acting. But time proved them to be weak in their will. They were not prepared to look beyond their narrow national interests and accept the burden of responsibility that true leadership brings. Instead they focused on saving face and scrambled to come up with something they could present as a deal. Towards the end of the COP15 negotiations, the talks were going on in two completely separate processes. First, negotiations among all 192 parties to the UNFCCC continued. Second, and behind closed doors, a select group of about 25 world leaders came up with the Copenhagen Accord, into which most of the vulnerable countries had very little input. As 25 Parties agreed to the Accord, President Obama told the US media that a deal had been struck. The only trouble was that it had yet to be presented to and adopted by all 192 countries there, so his announcement was premature to say the least! The Accord is weak. It is not binding and has no targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (countries that signed it have until 31 January to list their voluntary actions in its appendix). The low level of ambition will make preventing dangerous climate change increasingly difficult. What countries have so far proposed will commit us to a 3 to 3.5-degree temperature increase, and that is just the global average. The Accord does propose short-term funding for adaptation in vulnerable countries but lacks essential details such as where this money will come from, if it will be new and additional to existing aid, or its form loans or grants. Regardless, the target figure of US$30 billion over three years from 2010 to 2013 is not adequate for 100 vulnerable countries with about one billion citizens. This threeyear sum is about the same amount that JP Morgan Chase bank is expected to announce this week it will spend on salaries and bonuses in just the current year. As to the long-term finance, developed countries pledged to commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly US$100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. However, the Accord does not say how much of this money would be allocated for adaptation in vulnerable countries (as opposed to mitigation actions in less vulnerable countries such as India and China). Nor were there any no assurances that the proposed US$100 billion would not come from existing aid commitments. Moreover, this amount is just half of what vulnerable countries require to adapt in the long term. This is also a promise that could easily be broken promise unless it comes from public sources that could guarantee the funding is delivered to developing countries. This would not be the case with money from private sources. On top of this, the Accord makes no special provisions regarding technology transfer for the vulnerable developing countries. The UNFCCC operates by consensus and to adopt any decision, all parties must agree. In the end parties agreed only to note the existence of the accord, rather than adopt it as some vulnerable countries strongly resisted its adoption. In many ways what happened in Copenhagen during two action-packed weeks was a shaking of the traditional pieces of the global geo-political puzzle and their landing in a new and unfamiliar configuration. China, India, Brazil and South Africa formed a new block called BASIC which may be the death knell of the G77/China block of 130 developing nations as we have known it so far. As the BASIC group took on the industrialised nations, the most vulnerable countries were squeezed out of the process. Gradually they began to compromise. Prime Minister Zenawi of Ethiopia, representing Africa, made a deal with President Sarkozy of France where he dropped the 1.5-degree target in exchange for a promise of funding for Africa. This split the Least Developed Countries (most but not all of which are African) and left the small islands as the only nations hanging on to the 1.5-degree target. Cracks may be appearing in the negotiating blocks of the developing world, but earlier in the year President Nasheed of the Maldives initiated a new group of vulnerable countries that transcends the traditional blocks of Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States and Africa. In 2010 President Tong of Kiribati will host the next meeting of that new group which is set to grow in strength and unity. The biggest failure in Copenhagen was one of leadership. It was a failure of powerful leaders to realise that COP15 was not about money or politics but about the future security of their own grandchildren. For true climate leadership we should start looking South. 2

3 Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? Richard Black BBC original article published at hi/sci/tech/ stm About 45,000 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change. So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US. And why did delegates leave the Danish capital without agreement that something significantly stronger should emerge next year? 1. KEY GOVERNMENTS DO NOT WANT A GLOBAL DEAL Until the end of this summit, it appeared that all governments wanted to keep the keys to combating climate change within the UN climate convention. Implicit in the convention, though, is the idea that governments take account of each others' positions and actually negotiate. That happened at the Kyoto summit. Developed nations arrived arguing for a wide range of desired outcomes; during negotiations, positions converged, and a negotiated deal was done. In Copenhagen, everyone talked; but no-one really listened. The end of the meeting saw leaders of the US and the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) hammering out a lastminute deal in a back room as though the nine months of talks leading up to this summit, and the Bali Action Plan to which they had all committed two years previously, did not exist. Over the last few years, statements on climate change have been made in other bodies such as the G8, Major Economies Forum (MEF) and Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (APEC), which do not have formal negotiations, and where outcomes are not legally binding. In Copenhagen, everyone talked; but no-one really listened. It appears now that this is the arrangement preferred by the big countries (meaning the US and the BASIC group). Language in the "Copenhagen Accord" could have been taken from - indeed, some passages were reportedly taken from, via the mechanism of copying and pasting - G8 and MEF declarations. The logical conclusion is that this is the arrangement that the big players now prefer - an informal setting, where each country says what it is prepared to do - where nothing is negotiated and nothing is legally binding. 2. THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government. Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs. Viewed internationally, the US effectively has two governments, each with power of veto over the other. Doubtless the founding fathers had their reasons. But it makes the US a nation apart in these processes, often unable to state what its position is or to move that position - a nightmare for other countries' negotiators. 3. BAD TIMING Although the Bali Action Plan was drawn up two years ago, it is only one year since Barack Obama entered the White House and initiated attempts to curb US carbon emissions. He is also attempting major healthcare reforms; and both measures are proving highly difficult. If the Copenhagen summit had come a year later, perhaps Mr Obama would have been able to speak from firmer ground, and perhaps offer some indication of further action down the line - indications that might have induced other countries to step up their own offers. As it is, he was in a position to offer nothing - and other countries responded in kind. Continued on page 4 13

4 4. THE HOST GOVERNMENT In many ways, Denmark was an excellent summit host. Copenhagen was a friendly and capable city, transport links worked, Bella Center food outlets remained open through the long negotiating nights. But the government of Lars Lokke Rasmussen got things badly, badly wrong. Even before the summit began, his office put forward a draft political declaration to a select group of "important countries" - thereby annoying every country not on the list, including most of the ones that feel seriously threatened by climate impacts. The chief Danish negotiator Thomas Becker was sacked just weeks before the summit amid tales of a huge rift between Mr Rasmussen's office and the climate department of minister Connie Hedegaard. This destroyed the atmosphere of trust that developing country negotiators had established with Mr Becker. Procedurally, the summit was a farce, with the Danes trying to hurry things along so that a conclusion could be reached, bringing protest after protest from some of the developing countries that had presumed everything on the table would be properly negotiated. Suspensions of sessions became routine. Despite the roasting they had received over the first "Danish text", repeatedly the hosts said they were preparing new documents - which should have been the job of the independent chairs of the various negotiating strands. China's chief negotiator was barred by security for the first three days of the meeting - a serious issue that should have been sorted out after day one. This was said to have left the Chinese delegation in high dudgeon. When Mr Rasmussen took over for the high-level talks, it became quickly evident that he understood neither the climate convention itself nor the politics of the issue. Experienced observers said they had rarely seen a UN summit more ineptly chaired. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the prime minister's office envisaged the summit as an opportunity to cover Denmark and Mr Rasmussen in glory - a "made in Denmark" pact that would solve climate change. Most of us, I suspect, will remember the city and people of Copenhagen with some affection. But it is likely that history will judge that the government's political handling of the summit covered the prime minister in something markedly less fragrant than glory. 5. THE WEATHER Although "climate sceptical" issues made hardly a stir in the plenary sessions, any delegate wavering as to the scientific credibility of the "climate threat" would hardly have been Image by Dr Hanz, under Creative Commons Licence convinced by the freezing weather and - on the last few days - the snow that blanketed routes from city centre to Bella Center. Reporting that the "noughties" had been the warmest decade since instrumental records began, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) noted "except in parts of North America". If the US public had experienced the searing heat and prolonged droughts and seriously perturbed rainfall patterns seen in other corners of the globe, would they have pressed their senators harder on climate action over the past few years? Continued on page 5 4

5 6. 24-HOUR NEWS CULTURE The way this deal was concocted and announced was perhaps the logical conclusion of a news culture wherein it is more important to beam a speaking president live into peoples' homes from the other side of the world than it is to evaluate what has happened and give a balanced account. The Obama White House mounted a surgical strike of astounding effectiveness (and astounding cynicism) that saw the president announcing a deal live on TV before anyone - even most of the governments involved in the talks - knew a deal had been done. The news went first to the White House lobby journalists travelling with the president. With due respect, they are not as well equipped to ask critical questions as the environment specialists who had spent the previous two weeks at the Bella Center. After the event, of course, journalists pored over the details. But the agenda had already been set; by the time those articles emerged, anyone who was not particularly interested in the issue would have come to believe that a deal on climate change had been done, with the US providing leadership to the global community. The 24-hour live news culture did not make the Copenhagen Accord. But its existence offered the White House a way to keep the accord's chief architect away from all meaningful scrutiny while telling the world of his triumph. 7. EU POLITICS For about two hours on Friday night, the EU held the fate of the Obama-BASIC "accord" in its hands, as leaders who had been sideswiped by the afternoon's diplomatic coup d'etat struggled to make sense of what had happened and decide the appropriate response. If the EU had declined to endorse the deal at that point, a substantial number of developing countries would have followed suit, and the accord would now be simply an informal agreement between a handful of countries - The Obama White House mounted a surgical strike of astounding effectiveness (and astounding cynicism) that saw the president announcing a deal live on TV before anyone - even most of the governments involved in the talks - knew a deal had been done. symbolising the failure of the summit to agree anything close to the EU's minimum requirements, and putting some beef behind Europe's insistence that something significant must be achieved next time around. So why did the EU endorse such an emasculated document, given that several leaders beforehand had declared that no deal would be better than a weak deal? The answer probably lies in a mixture - in proportions that can only be guessed at - of three factors: Politics as usual - ie never go against the US, particularly the Obama US, and always emerge with something to claim as a success EU expansion, which has increased the proportion of governments in the bloc that are unconvinced of the arguments for constraining emissions The fact that important EU nations, in particular France and the UK, had invested significant political capital in preparing the ground for a deal - tying up a pact on finance with Ethiopia's President Meles Zenawi, and mounting a major diplomatic push on Thursday when it appeared things might unravel. Having prepared the bed for US and Chinese leaders and having hoped to share it with them as equal partners, acquiescing to an outcome that it did not want announced in a manner that gave it no respect arguably leaves the EU cast in a role rather less dignified that it might have imagined. 8. CAMPAIGNERS GOT THEIR STRATEGIES WRONG An incredible amount of messaging and consultation went on behind the scenes in the run-up to this meeting, as vast numbers of campaign groups from all over the planet strived to co-ordinate their "messaging" in order to maximise the chances of achieving their desired outcome. The messaging had been - in its broadest terms - to praise China, India, Brazil and the other major developing countries that pledged to constrain the growth in their emissions; to go easy on Barack Obama; and to lambast the countries (Canada, Russia, the EU) that campaigners felt could and should do more. Now, post-mortems are being held, and all those positions are up for review. US groups are still giving Mr Obama more brickbats than bouquets, for fear of wrecking Congressional legislation - but a change of stance is possible. Having seen the deal emerge that the real leaders of China, India and the other large developing countries evidently wanted, how will those countries now be treated? How do you campaign in China - or in Saudi Arabia, another influential country that emerged with a favourable outcome? The situation is especially demanding for those organisations that have traditionally supported the developing world on a range of issues against what they see as the west's damaging dominance. After Copenhagen, there is no "developing world" - there are several. Responding to this new world order is a challenge for campaign groups, as it will be for politicians in the old centres of world power. 5

6 Human Rights and Climate Change after Copenhagen Alyssa Johl, Climate Law & Policy Project and Martin Wagner, Earthjustice As discussed in a previous edition ( climate change is not only an environmental but also a human rights issue for the millions of people and communities around the world experiencing rising sea levels, increasingly severe floods and storms, melting glaciers, groundwater contamination and other adverse impacts. Prior to and during the Copenhagen negotiations, the Parties to the UNFCCC began to include in the draft negotiating texts language acknowledging the human rights implications of climate change and the need to protect vulnerable peoples, indigenous peoples and climate-displaced peoples in the draft negotiating texts. Acknowledging human rights implications in the final agreement would emphasize obligations to the most vulnerable, help ensure that mitigation and adaptation measures do not cause further suffering, and support the participation of affected communities and people in decision-making processes. In particular, the draft text coming out of Copenhagen which will be the basis for continued negotiations in 2010 contains two preambular paragraphs recognizing the connection between human rights and climate change. The first begins by noting U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 10/4 on human rights and climate; the next acknowledges that climate change has a wide range of effects on human rights. Although it is essential that the final agreement ensure the protection of human rights threatened by climate change or climate solutions, the specific language of these paragraphs is inadequate for several reasons. As we ve seen over the past few weeks with respect to the Copenhagen Accord, noting does not imply adoption or even endorsement of a document but merely recognizes its existence. The Parties should adopt or reaffirm HRC Resolution 10/4 to provide meaningful support for its findings on the human rights implications of climate change. In the second paragraph, the Parties recognize one of the core findings of HRC Resolution 10/4 specifically that the adverse effects of climate change have a range of direct and indirect implications for the full enjoyment of human rights but do so in a somewhat convoluted way. Instead of using the exact language from HRC Resolution 10/4, the Parties developed their own interpretation, which does not accurately reflect the Human Rights Council s findings or existing human rights obligations. For the reasons described above, we propose the following revisions to the preambular paragraphs on human rights and the rights of Mother Earth (emphasis indicates proposed additions to existing negotiating text): Reaffirming resolution 10/4 of the United Nations Human Rights Council on human rights and climate change, which notes that climate change-related impacts have a range of implications, both direct and indirect, for the effective enjoyment of human rights including, inter alia, the right to life, the right to adequate food, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to adequate housing, the right to self-determination and human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and recalls that in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence, and which recognizes that human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development, Noting the importance of respecting Mother Earth, its ecosystems and all its natural beings, Other sections of the draft text also include human rights-related language. In the shared vision text, language defining vulnerable peoples and communities has been proposed but must be expanded to include all vulnerable sectors and regions. Further, the shared vision contains language describing the participatory rights of stakeholders but does not explicitly guarantee access to information, full and effective participation, and access to justice, all of which are essential to protecting human rights. Similarly, the adaptation text merely states that adaptation actions should follow a participatory approach and therefore does not ensure full and effective participation. Also, the language describing activities related to climate change-induced displacement, migration and planned relocation does not recognize the fundamental human rights of internally or internationally displaced peoples this is a serious concern that will need to be addressed during this year s negotiations. With respect to REDD, the Parties made significant progress on the recognition and protection of human rights and indigenous rights. The language identifies specific safeguards that must be promoted and/or supported including: respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities; recognition of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and full and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders. The REDD text must be strengthened by including access to information and access to justice in the subparagraph on participatory rights. In the UNFCCC agreement to be negotiated in 2010, the Parties will need to maintain and strengthen the language to ensure that mitigation of and adaptation to climate change is undertaken in a manner that respects, protects and promotes the full and effective enjoyment of human rights. 6

7 REDD Community Protocols: A Community Approach to Ensuring the Local Integrity of REDD Peter Wood and Harry Jonas, Natural Justice There has been much concern that efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) are taking a top-down approach, with national governments and large international organizations holding control over policy, resources and activities. Meanwhile, much of the lobbying being done by NGOs and others at UNFCCC COP15 at Copenhagen (and the many meetings leading up to it) has focused on what type of activities must be excluded from REDD, and what types of safeguards it must contain. The future of REDD under the UNFCCC is somewhat uncertain after the disappointing outcome at COP15, as are the important safeguards to uphold the principle of free, prior and informed consent and ensure that natural forests are not converted to other uses. Regardless, REDD projects outside of UNFCCC continue to spring up all over the world (CIFOR estimates over 200 thus far), highlighting the need to empower communities and enable them to deal with this emerging issue. As a way forward, Natural Justice is proposing a community-based approach to REDD that builds on a concept developed for application in the context of the CBD. Through a participatory process of developing a protocol and advocating for their rights, indigenous and local communities will be better able to understand REDD, communicate their concerns, and make informed decisions regarding how to engage with REDD proponents. WHAT IS A COMMUNITY PROTOCOL? Community protocols are being developed within the context of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Indigenous and local communities have certain rights under the CBD but are often denied due process at the local level because they are unable to effectively assert these rights. They have begun to develop A village in Madhya Pradesh, India, gathers to discuss community forest management community protocols that illustrate the following information for other stakeholders: who the community is; the extent of their territories and details of their resources; details of their traditional leadership and structures; how their knowledge, innovations and practices have conserved the biodiversity in their territories; the inter-linkages between their culture, spirituality, customary laws, traditional knowledge, and biodiversity; the factors upon which their ways of life depend; their challenges; and their plans for culturally-sensitive endogenous development. From the above information outlined in their protocols, communities then draw on the law to assert the following: their rights under international and national law; and specific rights that other stakeholders are required to respect, including their customary use of biodiversity and the application of the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) to any intended use of their natural resources or traditional knowledge. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF COMMUNITY PROTOCOLS TO REDD? Community protocols can be used in the context of REDD to affirm the rights of communities to: continue their customary use of their resources; require FPIC before any proposed uses of forest resources, including REDD projects; be involved in the design of REDD projects and policies; and monitor and evaluate REDD projects and policies. A unique feature of these protocols is that they are meant to be established proactively and independently of any one particular REDD project: the community is prepared to engage and make informed decisions before a project or policy affects them. Community protocols can serve as the impetus for effective REDD projects based on the very livelihood strategies and bio-cultural ways of life that contribute to forest conservation in the first place. Community protocols can therefore help ensure the local integrity of REDD and other international efforts to prevent forest degradation. Continued on page 8 7

8 DEVELOPING AND USING A COMMUNITY PROTOCOL The process of developing a community protocol is empowering. International environmental laws and frameworks are inaccessible to many forest-dependent communities. Indigenous and local communities require time and information to consider their context-specific options before they can be expected to make informed decisions within novel legal and policy frameworks. REDD must support a process that enables communities to reflect upon the inter-linkages and mutually reinforcing relationships between forests, culture and customary laws and to clearly illustrate the bio-cultural foundations of their ways of life in a format accessible to other REDD stakeholders. Their rights to FPIC regarding any forest-related activities and to participate in defining the terms of any REDD agreements are also paramount. Community protocols are developed using participatory tools such as social mapping to illustrate communities bio-cultural resources and customary norms of resource use and to detail the terms and conditions upon which FPIC must be acquired. Finally, asserting their rights to engage with other REDD stakeholders on the basis of equality enables communities to achieve social and environmental justice. Over the next year, Natural Justice will be conducting REDD community protocol pilot projects, with the overall objective of establishing what is possible - what do best practices under REDD look like from the perspective of indigenous and forest-dependent peoples? This could serve as a benchmark to which other efforts, such as those of larger inter-governmental institutions, could be compared to, and inform subsequent discussions of the rules that should guide the UNFCCC REDD mechanism, which will be discussed further at the SBSTA meeting in Bonn in June. It may reveal that there is a significant gap between what these communities are expecting and what is being delivered, but at least it will provide a starting point for informed discussion between the international and local level. NATURAL JUSTICE is a not-for-profit organization working with communities to develop their legal capacity to demand social and environmental justice. If you want to discuss this approach further, please contact peter@naturaljustice.org.za or visit The Copenhagen Accord An Ugly Duckling Nick Robins, Head, HSBC Climate Change Centre of Excellence Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, the run-up to of the world s largest ever climate meeting had mobilised unprecedented commitments action, notably from key emerging markets such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. But at the meeting itself the 119 heads of state and government could only agree in extra time the face saving and largely empty Copenhagen Accord. Like the Hans Christian Andersen s tale of the Ugly Duckling, this is an outcome unloved by everyone. The Accord did consolidate progress on public finance, but lacked either the quantitative signals on emission targets or the institutional architecture needed to deliver the low carbon transition. Importantly, however, US President Obama s deal with the BASIC group of emerging markets Brazil, China, India and South Africa marginally improves the chances of achieving domestic climate legislation in the USA in 2010, which in turn would open the way for restarting the international process, turning an Ugly Duckling into a Swan. So what did happen? The purpose of these international negotiations is to deliver more than countries would achieve individually. Here, the run-up to Copenhagen was remarkably successful. A year ago, it was unimaginable that key The Accord did consolidate progress on public finance, but lacked either the quantitative signals on emission targets or the institutional architecture needed to deliver the low carbon transition emerging markets would make voluntary commitments to curb their emissions, but this has now occurred, notably in Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. In addition, legislation is before the US Congress with the best prospect of passage for more than a decade. But the meeting itself dramatically failed to live up to expectations of consolidating and taking forward this momentum. The twin negotiating tracks for updating the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and building Longterm Cooperative Action (LCA) proved an insuperable obstacle to an overall agreement. The logistical chaos at the conference centre added to the negative mood. Trust ebbed away as developing countries feared that the industrialised world was intent on dumping the KP ahead of agreeing a legally binding successor. Continued on page 9 8

9 No clear climate leadership coalition emerged to drive through a deal. The EU could not agree to raise its emission target from 20 to 30%. The US moved on finance, but did not strengthen its low target of 17% emission reductions from 2005 levels by 2020, or just 4% from 1990 levels, less than it agreed at Kyoto 12 years ago. Without this signal from the industrialised world, key emerging countries such as China and India stuck to their guns, insisting on maintaining the existing framework which differentiates between industrialised and developing countries. Instead of a package of decisions under the KP and LCA tracks with an overarching Copenhagen Agreement, all that the meeting could deliver was a broad Accord with ambiguous legal status, simply noted by the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15). Driven by the USA in consultation with the BASIC group, the Accord went through many versions, generally becoming weaker at each stage. Early drafts of the Accord contained much stronger language on emission reductions from the industrialised and developing world, as well as explicit commitments to finalise a legally binding instrument for adoption at COP16 in Mexico. These were deleted as the conference entered crisis point. The Accord does, however, crystallise the modest progress on public finance for climate action in developing countries, which had been kicked off by the EU. It also launches a new High- Level Panel on Finance to examine new ways of raising long-term funds. This could build on the innovative proposals put forward by Mexico and Norway, as well as Ethiopia and France, drawing funds from the sale of emission credits, introducing levies on aviation and shipping, as well as exploring the potential for a financial transaction tax to yield revenues. But beyond a loose commitment to hold emissions below 2 degrees centigrade, the Accord lacked either the medium- or long-term emission reduction commitments that would mobilise additional private investment for low carbon technologies. Industrialised and emerging countries are called upon to submit their commitments by the end of January What was lost in the process was the substantive progress on adaptation, clean technology and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), as well as practical reforms of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Indeed, the carbon markets were perhaps the biggest casualty of Copenhagen with no tightening of the EU cap, and no real reform of the CDM. A critical lesson from Copenhagen is that successful climate policy not only requires political ambition, agreement on the substance, an effective process that builds trust, as well as credible resourcing, but also the right sequencing of events. Looking back, it was clear that until the USA agrees domestic climate legislation it is difficult to conceive of a new treaty at the global level. If Copenhagen had been recast as a stock-taking exercise, consolidating national level commitments and winning practical deals on adaptation, REDD and clean technology, passing the baton on to the USA with a view to a new treaty at COP16 then it could have been hailed as a success. As it was, a lack of ambition, along with disagreement on the substance, along with a broken process and poor sequencing led to a sub-optimal outcome. Looking ahead to 2010, we believe that momentum at the national level for climate action remains strong and, indeed, stronger than a year ago. The bulk of the USD513bn in green stimulus funds are poised for delivery this year. But the wounds of Copenhagen need to be healed if additional investment is to be mobilised. The top priority for 2010 therefore is to agree domestic legislation in the USA and here the Copenhagen Accord has marginally improved the prospects for a US cap-and-trade system. By winning agreement on transparent action from key major economies, President Obama has helped his case with a sceptical Congress concerned about competitiveness. The Administration remains committed to a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill, as signalled by the Environmental Protection Agency s recent endangerment findings. Alongside domestic action in the USA, we believe a second imperative for 2010 is to reform climate policy-making at the international level. More effort is likely to be placed on pluri-lateral arena such as the G20 and the US-led Major Economies Forum whose newly released Technology Action Plan sets out pragmatic steps for boosting clean energy which could go ahead in the absence of a global treaty. If the bad blood of Copenhagen can be put to one side, confidence is regained by a focus on practical gains and the USA makes an irreversible step to a low carbon economy, then a new global treaty one year late could potentially be agreed at COP16. 19

10 Outreach It Has to Be Climate Sustainability Uchita de Zoysa (Convener Climate Sustainability PLATFORM) With the world's people and civil society being shut out of the climate negotiation process in Copenhagen, we have only one way ahead; that is to take our own destiny into our hands. Time is right to tell the worlds leaders what we want in the future and how we want it. That is why a group of seasoned sustainability activists, scientists and social entrepreneurs from around the world, gathered under the banner of the Climate Sustainability PLATFORM, called for a binding agreement on Climate Sustainability. Climate and sustainability need to be addressed together, not decoupled. An agreement on 'Climate Sustainability' will be decisive in coming together as one world to reverse decades of irresponsible consumption, production, and trade patterns and to build an equitable, fair, and just world. Climate sustainability must be the shared vision of the UNFCCC because it is the aspiration of the people. Climate Sustainability addresses pressing issues of poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation through relevant strategies for mitigation, adaptation, finance, and technology sharing. Governments must demonstrate political will and vision by signing a binding 'Climate Sustainability Agreement' enforced through strong compliance mechanisms. Only this will empower people to live in harmony with all species in a healthy planet that ensures wellbeing and happiness to all. International climate change negotiations are failing because they are not based on such foundations that offer equity, wellbeing and happiness of all. These negotiations at the United Nations are designed as a process of bargaining led by short sighted political leadership and their representatives. It is a bargaining place for the managers of the prevailing erroneous global governance and economic system. UN negotiations are not places where the countries congregate with mutual trust or confidence. Each of them tries to bargain for their own best share rather 10 than for the betterment of the planet. Therefore, these negotiations can hardly provide hope of a radical change in the approach or attitude towards creating a different system for a better world. If the international climate negotiations continue to fail in reaching an implementable agreement very soon, we would be allowing our global leadership to design for us an ultimate destiny to perish. rise would be dangerous for human habitation and that we my finally perish on earth as a species. According to WWF s estimates, the contents of the Copenhagen Accord translates into 3 C Celsius of warming or more and millions of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and a wealth of lost opportunities lie in the difference between rhetoric and reality on climate change action. We are utterly lost in destiny and continue to allow the same people, processes, institutions and systems who guided us to this destitution to redesign our futures. If we allow this to happen, then we would be responsible for the sufferings of our children as well. Climate change has also provided the humans a historical opportunity to act as one species, and the act needs to be mindful this time. We are warned by the scientists and the bureaucrats that our destiny is merely within the limits of a liveable world and below 2 C temperature rise. The Failure of Copenhagen Climate Summit places humanity back at crossroads wandering if we still can manage to live in a world climate of 2 C plus temperature? Or does this now mean that we have lost our chance of reducing the damage and climate change may result in higher temperature rises. The IPCC's Nobel Prize winning 4th Assessment Report clearly tells us that anything over a 2 C Discovering a way to survive in a liveable world cannot and should not be the aspiration and determination of humankind. That is a compromise that we, as a generation, are trying to make on the lives of all future generations. While enjoying the offerings on earth today, we are planning a world of lesser enjoyment for the future humans. If we are only negotiating for a liveable world for our children and their children, then we are demonstrating intrinsically our selfish nature as a generation and it is simply fighting to get the best share for ourselves. If we are not planning a better world for our children, then we are planning their unhappiness. Therefore, our responsibility should not be to compromise the lives of our children by consenting to a liveable world, but we should be demanding a better world for them. That is why it has to be climate sustainability! (Uchita de Zoysa is the author of the hard hitting book It has to be Climate Sustainability. Please send your comments to uchita@sltnet.lk)

11 Towards Mexico New Year, Same Fight! Laura Martín Murillo, SustainLabour Foundation The Copenhagen summit has left the fight against climate change in a difficult situation. The wounds are deep and have left us with little time to think of strategies and regain strength after the defeat. Although these wounds are deep they are not irreversible wounds, the Trade Union movement demands are clear and will continue to guide our actions toward Mexico is hence a New Year marked by the Same Fight! The outcome of Copenhagen was worse than expected because on each and every front we appear to have lost ground. Copenhagen distanced us from the overall objectives. In the struggle to keep climate change within manageable magnitudes, we lost ground, ridiculous figures on emissions reduction were shamelessly negotiated. Figures that would lead us to a temperature increase of 3 C. While negotiated figures for funding impacts and adaptation were also scandalously insufficient, with no agreement on long-term financing. Copenhagen distanced us from justice and transparency. The United States demonstrated that they are not able or capable to participate at all in the global challenge. The Obama administration s offer on emission reduction is an insult in relation to its responsibility and capability, especially if we consider the impact of the current downturn in CO 2 emissions. The European Union played, and lost, by "conditioning" its responsiblilty to share the emissions reductions to that of the others. Responsibility cannot be conditional, it is ethically impossible. Again a Europe weakened by national governments that do not have strong leadership qualities, but who insist on exercising on their own, once again emerged as the small Europe, one which seems not to be able to find its place in a changing world. China impeded the agreement on global targets, putting us all at risk by not engaging, and coming off as offended and using the populism of national sovereignty with something as serious as emissions verification. In the negotiations there were many silences, and when people spoke out, or even shouted, few truths were told Copenhagen distanced us from democracy and transparency in decision making. In the negotiations there were many silences, and when people spoke out, or even shouted, few truths were told. The same governments that prevented their negotiators making progress, complained of the lack of progress in the proceedings as if they did not have any part in it. In Copenhagen we lost all, and the United Nations lost more. A democratic and multilateral system that had achieved impressive advancements such as the Climate Change Convention or the Kyoto Protocol, was discredited as a madhouse. For all those who may have forgotten it, the climate convention is the barricade from which we fought the most dangerous industrial lobbies against misinformation, fought for the common good and democracy. For all those who may have forgotten, small countries have not blocked the progress of negotiation over the years, it has been the largest and the most polluting countries. Small and numerous countries have not been the problem; relegating them will not lead us to progress or address the fundamental problems. Copenhagen distanced us from civil society participation in decision-making and from the management of the transition. As is the case in many horror movies, in Denmark certain doors were opened that should never have been. The social movements, the same ones who helped build the convention, the same ones who brought out the voices of the most vulnerable, had our rights infringed upon, not just in the street, but in the United Nations buildings and the negotiations. Outreach Organisers attempted to deceive us through confusion and misinformation, the criteria for entering was changed unilaterally, suddenly leaving us with no possibilities or opportunities to react. Yet social movements once again demonstrated what they represent and who they are mandated by, they are a group of people who put the interests of the public good ahead of their own. The movements bear the unbearable in order to help negotiations to move forward as much as possible in a progressive way, although at the end positive expectations were scarce. In the Copenhagen COP, decency was not allowed entry, instead it stood out in the street a spurned observer. Although the outcome of Copenhagen was a great distance away from the ultimate goals, this does not mean that these goals cannot be fulfilled. None of the above issues have been lost, nor can they be accepted as such. The developed and more polluting countries will have to engage, as they should, and although this may be a longer process, it is a process we must win. The transition must be adequately funded, and it is not only about how much is on the table but also about the how. There is not a more important challenge, or a more important struggle. We will never manage the transition if we do not set the required targets, the result will be chaos. The United Nations is not the chaos, a world that does not reduce greenhouse emissions as advised by science is. Our space as social movements, as Trade Unions, is not on the outside excluded, our demands are not unrealistic ideals, our demands are and will be where they have always been, in line with the common good and public interest. because of this, we will not be left out in Mexico, we will not allow this to happen.. Sustainlabour will be in Mexico with the International Trade Union Confederation and numerous Trade Unions fighting for a safe world, a just world, a world that respects those who are most vulnerable and the workers in decisionmaking. 11

12 Focus on Climate: Between Trust and A Well-Prepared Society Pam Putney, CSD Education Caucus The U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen ended with a new political accord that provides for explicit emission pledges by all the major economies but charts no clear path toward a global treaty on climate change with binding agreements. The key elements of the Copenhagen Accord speak in terms of substance to all of the core elements of the Bali Action Plan: a long term goal; adaptation; mitigation; technology; finance; forests; and measurement, reporting and verification. The Fifteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15) and the Fifth Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), drew political, media, and civil society attention beyond any previous climate meeting. The Conference culminated two years of intense negotiations and informal dialogues launched with the 2007 Bali Road Map. Issues of transparency and inclusiveness dominated the two weeks through various dramas, squabbles, and bitter debates as the pressure increased to entrust signing on to legally binding commitments preparing for COP 16 in Mexico. Thus raising the stakes to come to a common agreement regarding trust and working out the details that will create an enabling environment to build long-term cooperative action. What is being overlooked in these negotiations to strengthen the role of multi-stakeholder platforms? Out of this current chaos of sorting out the financial mechanisms and emissions standards yet to be formalized, will emerge our first lessons in how to work together, build consensus on a global, regional, national, sub-regional, and local scale to address a crisis of this magnitude. Our knowledge about climate, adaptation, and mitigating climate impacts is quickly changing leaving us unsettled as to the best way forward and who else to engage in these processes. As we sort out what is working, what is not, where do we go from here with limited information, it will become clearer the usefulness of various types of knowledge and there limitations. The pillars of finance, technology, mechanisms for monitoring, emission cuts, will continue to serve as a platform for dialogue and define a potential course of action. Over the course of these last two years, the informal dialogues are bringing clarity how the most important pillar, the Human Dimensions meaning a well-prepared society fits within the shared vision, as is being spelled out within the Long-term Cooperative Action document. The aim of a technological solution backed by scientific knowledge supported with funds that ignore integrating preparing societies well to address climate impacts, leaves any future agreement vulnerable to built-in failure. The human element shapes the outcomes, the plans of action, the stakeholder dialogues, drawing upon local and traditional knowledge as well as scientific, private sector, and advanced technological knowledge. Why the dangerous gap? How can Parties address this gap in their preparations for COP 16, 2012, and beyond? Over the course of these last two years, the informal dialogues are bringing clarity how the most important pillar, the Human Dimensions meaning a well -prepared society fits within the shared vision, as is being spelled out within the LCA document Acknowledging many government delegates lack formal training and knowledge of environmental issues and the nature of ecosystems but especially in terms of building sustainable societies, a first step is to include training and education in this area. Secondly, adopting Environmental Education as an umbrella evaluation tool with many tools included to assess success, communications, and information exchanges, will become imperative. Finally, engaging people in sustainability, requires a population that is not only aware, but also has the knowledge, skills, and understands the tradeoffs regarding choices, in order to actively participate in finding potential solutions and cooperating based upon an inclusive process leading to learning and action. Supporting sustainable communities and societies that can act on their knowledge to meet the desired emission standards and more. P.J. Puntenney, UN Commission on Sustainable Development Education Caucus Co-Coordinator 12

13 Indigenous Peoples Demanded Action, Not False Hopes and Empty Promises Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Peoples Group The International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change functions as the official indigenous caucus of the UNFCCC. The assembly of 200 indigenous peoples in Copenhagen condemned the last minute decision of the UNFCCC Secretariat to severely restrict the access of indigenous peoples and civil society organizations to the Bella Center, site of the UN climate conference. Of 300 civil society people only 12 indigenous people were allowed in the building the last two days of final negotiations when decisions were made by high-level ministers of government, presidents and prime ministers. The stakes were extremely high. Restricting civil society, including indigenous peoples, was simply unacceptable and resulted in the U.S. negotiating within a secret circle of China, Brazil, India and developed countries at the 11th hour to push a Copenhagen Accord that met protest and resistance from key developing countries. The International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC) felt that it was of extreme importance that any negotiated text at Copenhagen needed to recognize three principles: 1) Recognize and respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, in particular their rights to lands, territories and all resources, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant international human rights instruments and obligations; 2) Ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, in accordance with the right to free prior and informed consent; and 3) Recognize the fundamental role and contribution of indigenous peoples traditional knowledge, innovations and practices. The Copenhagen Accord as a high-stakes dealmaker was really a Copenhagen Steal. Maintaining indigenous peoples participation inside the Bella Center was very important during the waning hours of the conference to ensure the rights of indigenous peoples would be recognized in the Accord. This did not happen. Neither human rights language nor the rights of indigenous peoples were recognized in the Accord. This will lead to further human rights violations, climate destruction, loss of land and disruption of the livelihood and wellbeing of indigenous communities from the Arctic to the global south. The final Copenhagen Accord could enshrine scientifically unsound and dangerously low emission reduction targets that could represent a death sentence for indigenous peoples and small island states. While the Copenhagen Accord is far from perfect, it reflects the challenges that lay ahead. We are highly suspicious of the tactics of the U.S. obstructing a Kyoto Protocol agreement, while at the same time aggressively pushing a forest carbon offset agreement called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. REDD and other carbon market initiatives are the main ingredients of climate mitigation. These forest carbon offset regimes have no safeguards to protect the land and forest rights of Indigenous peoples and forest dependent communities within developing countries. If implemented these initiatives could result in land grabs and exploitation of the forest rights of local communities. The world has called the Accord a failure, saying the deal is too weak and doesn t have any legally binding requirements for emission reductions. Photo Courtesy of Ben Powless, Indigenous Environmental Network President Barack Obama stated, This progress is not enough. We have come a long way, but we have much further to go. While the Copenhagen Accord is far from perfect, it reflects the challenges that lay ahead. Here in the U.S., our Native Nations, as sovereigns, working with their Native grassroots members have work to do. We must look towards the next steps at home, within our Native Nations and within the U.S. Senate. Copenhagen is over, yet we are far from done. We need to get informed on climate policy and its link to energy, green jobs, and water and food policy. We need your support to encourage the U.S. Senate to pass a strong climate bill one with real solutions, not false solutions. Indigenous peoples in Copenhagen were demanding action not false hopes and empty promises and these delays and bullying tactics of the U.S. amounted to continued carbon colonialism. As indigenous peoples, we must raise the bar. We must demand the most stringent emission target reductions. As indigenous peoples, we are the guardians of Mother Earth, and must make principled stands for the global well-being of all people and all life. Visit the Indigenous Portal for more information on Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change - Climate-Change/ 13

14 Failure Should Not Have Been An Option the International Trade Union Confederation Looking back at the outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, one cannot help but feel dismay. Governments failed to reach a binding agreement for decisive action to avoid catastrophic climate change, and Copenhagen will be remembered for walkouts, brinkmanship, and indecisiveness among industrialised and developing countries that resulted in failing to set clear targets on greenhouse gas reductions. The delay in action is endangering the lives and livelihoods of the world s poorest people and will undoubtedly lead to more serious impacts of climate change disasters and growing hardship, with huge additional economic and employment costs for large parts of our planet. The conference in Copenhagen was not helped by the massive exclusion of most of civil society from the UN conference centre for the final four days. The dynamism of the UNFCCC process has always been characterised by flexibility, inclusiveness and a place for civil society, including workers, indigenous people, women, young people or others. It is therefore unacceptable that the majority of civil society representatives were stripped of their participatory rights to take part actively in this process. Since the beginning of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio in 1992, trade unions have played a key role in the discussions and we intend to keep doing so. It is vital that we again be able to play our full part at this year s meetings both in Bonn and Mexico. With the UN s scientific advice clearly showing the consequences of inadequate action, a fair and binding agreement in 2010 needs to set far-reaching targets for emissions reductions by industrialised countries, combined with ambitious and verifiable actions in developing countries. Financial pledges by industrialised countries to provide assistance for adaptation and mitigation measures in developing countries must also meet at least the minimum level estimated by the UN. All of which could not be agreed upon in Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Accord, which could not even muster a full consensus among the parties during the last hours on Saturday 19 December 2009, satisfies no one and falls short of addressing the scale of the crisis, by leaving reductions in carbon emissions purely voluntary. The Accord acknowledges that we should limit global warming to two degrees Celsius, but the actual commitments, if honoured, would put our planet well above a 3 degree rise by The only tangible progress during negotiations was the establishment of a new UN Climate Fund to support projects related to mitigation, adaptation and capacity building but the allocation and spending of money is still too unclear. A positive feature of the Copenhagen negotiations concerns the support from many governments for including references to decent work and just transition for workers within the framework of the UN s efforts on climate change. The large trade union delegation at the UNFCCC negotiations felt that understanding of the importance of Just Transition as a driver for decent work and good quality job creation was growing among countries. If that momentum is kept up, it can help build broad support for climate action in However, it seems that the only agreement that could be reached by consensus in Copenhagen was that climate change is a collective problem. Despite the lack of results in key areas, Copenhagen has at least helped set the stage for progress. Or so we hope. We have begun not only a New Year but also a new decade. Let s make this decade a decade of change. A decade where workers and trade unions will continue working on how to tackle climate change - we can t afford not to do so! We will fight for: A binding agreement that drastically reduces greenhouse gas emissions; An agreement that will keep us from harm and that will provide adequate financing for the most vulnerable; An agreement that is fair, within and between countries and that also adequately finances the transition; An agreement arrived at democratically and transparently as provided for in the processes of the UNFCCC; An agreement that recognises the demand for a just transition for workers all over the world. 14

15 Women Discouraged By COP Outcome But Committed To Hope and Action For 2010 GenderCC LIFE WECF WEDO: Press Release Dec, 22nd 2009 The lives of millions of people are at stake, entire nations are expected to disappear under the ocean, and yet world leaders in Copenhagen failed to commit to necessary measures for an equitable, just and legally binding post-kyoto agreement to tackle climate change. The women s organizations comprising the Women and Gender Constituency under the UNFCCC including WECF, GenderCC, WEDO, LIFE and others are dismayed by the lack of progress. Women are among the most urgently affected by climate change and, at the same time, key agents of change - and we see that there is no time to lose. As UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer puts it, the Copenhagen summit was a rollercoaster ride. Far from a comprehensive agreement to tackle the world s most comprehensive problem, the outcome of the Copenhagen Conference of Parties was a mere Copenhagen Accord, negotiated by a small group of the key countries, and noting the necessity to contain global warming to the 2 degree C limit. The Accord calls for commitments by industrialized countries and engagement of developing countries, but does little to specify how this will occur. Even more concerning, not all countries even agreed to acknowledge this step due to the dominance of world superpowers in drafting the Accord. With current promises on the table, global warming will reach well beyond the 2 degree limit; scientists on site urged that this type of inaction will actually result in a 3.5 degree increase this century. With even the most optimistic outlook, the outcome of Copenhagen suggests the inevitable: small islands will disappear, global economies and states security will be in jeopardy, and those populations in already fragile positions will be further entrenched in poverty, the world over. While gender-sensitive text remained in the negotiating documents until the end, these texts mean nothing without an overall outcome which will protect the lives and livelihoods of everyone on Earth. As the AWG-LCA process is now mandated to continue until COP-16 in Mexico, the strategies for ensuring gender responsive texts be maintained and strengthened must go hand-in-hand with the message that every country must step up and commit to action. The Women and Gender Constituency further expresses grave concern over the issue of transparency and access at the Copenhagen COP. The failure to ensure conference accessibility to the thousands of accredited civil society representatives was a dire indication of the inability to tackle climate change in a comprehensive, equitable, transparent and just way. Many partners came well prepared with presentations, research materials, documentation and personal testimony all ready to contribute to a real outcome of the COP. Many of these partners were never granted access to the Bella Center, limiting the options for finding a solution to climate change, silencing their voices, tossing millions of dollars into a place ill-equipped to receive its visitors. An evaluation of this process must be conducted immediately in order to ensure that these mistakes will not be repeated in the future. Is there still hope? There must be. To give up on the process would be to give up on millions of people whose lives depend on a strong, legally binding agreement. There must be individual action, committing to change and making a difference at the household, community, regional and national levels; there must be renewed commitment by our world leaders to look beyond mitigation as a burden on GDP. Women are ready; we are committed to this process and remain optimistic that tackling climate change offers an unprecedented opportunity to transform towards sustainable, low-carbon, transparent, equitable and just economies. At the global and national levels, we therefore call for increasing the number of women chairs in the UNFCCC meaningful participation of women and men from all sectors in national and global climate policies strengthening a commitment to prioritize the most vulnerable, and strengthening gender-sensitive approaches in the draft Mexico agreement increasing access for women to existing mitigation and adaptation funds At the individual level - in every aspect of our daily lives we call upon women and men to secure the future of our children and our grandchildren as consumers, educators, advocates and leaders to make use of our power as consumers, and to support services and products which are healthy for the climate and the planet Without a binding agreement, the only real success of Copenhagen can become a broader movement of citizens and consumers, fueled by the behavior of each to switch to a sustainable way of life, and can become the base for a global, ambitious, equitable, legally binding agreement for climate protection in Mexico next year. It is not too late yet; we must not lose hope. 15

16 Hannah Stoddart Stakeholder Forum "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win." Mahatma Gandhi Sidelined Issues: The Gaps in the Copenhagen Accord Emerging from the wreckage of COP15, advocates the world over may take some solace in the wise words of Mahatma Gandhi. For decades climate scientists were simply ignored, their findings deemed irrelevant and unworthy of political attention. In the early 90s, a consensus emerged that the global threat of climate change demanded international cooperation, spurred on by the Rio Earth Summit and culminating in the establishment of the UNFCCC. Despite this new-found profile, climate change continued to be subject to attacks by sceptical non-scientists across the globe, ridiculed as scaremongering by politicians who saw it as an opportunity to extract more taxes from and exert more control over their people. Now that climate change deniers have rightly been derided as flat-earthers and command little serious political attention, the challenge lies in overcoming the vested interests of individuals, businesses and nations whose continued prosperity lies in maintaining the status quo. In short, we are now in the fighting phase. This fighting phase is nowhere more obvious than among groups of advocates and communities of interest whose issues and needs have been completely sidelined by the climate change negotiations. That the Copenhagen Accord was a failure in terms of setting out any clear, implementable and legally-binding path towards reducing carbon emissions is clear: however, though this aspect of the COP15 failure is naturally the most disappointing, there are other losses that have escaped the attention of the mainstream media, but that are keenly felt by groups of actors who tirelessly followed the negotiations through to their culmination in Copenhagen in December One of these losses is any ambitious language and commitments on adaptation to climate change, and within that any recognition of the role of national, regional and international cooperation on water resources. The Copenhagen Accord recognises the need to establish an adaptation programme in its first paragraph, and goes on to stress in paragraph 3 that enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required. The Accord also recognises the importance of Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding for adaptation, with a specific reference to the need for balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. This reiteration of the importance of adaptation is welcome, and the call for balance in funding for adaptation and mitigation is a step forward. However, those who followed the progress of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG LCA) - tasked with negotiating an adaptation deal under the Bali Roadmap throughout 2009 will recognise that in general the language on adaptation is not a significant departure from what has gone before. Back in 2007, the Bali Action Plan mandated Parties to begin a process to address Enhanced Action on Adaptation merely repeating this objective in the Copenhagen Accord does not represent progress. The agreement to establish an adaptation programme represents a small step in the right direction, but it should have been the role of the AWG LCA to begin to elaborate what such a programme might look like, and what kinds of activities constitute adaptation action. Recognising the importance for the AWG LCA to agree the finer details on adaptation for COP15, Parties and civil society actors followed the COP15 preparatory process closely and together advanced language on disaster risk reduction, ecosystem-based adaptation, integrated land and water resource management, regional and international/transboundary cooperation, gender-sensitive adaptation and sector-orientated adaptation, to name but a few examples. The Global Public Policy Network on Water Management was one of the many groups of advocates pushing for stronger language on specific adaptation actions including integrated land and water resources management, building ecosystem resilience, and recognising the regional dimensions of adaptation. As a result of a host of helpful proposals that were put forward from groups including the GPPN, the negotiating text on adaptation went through numerous iterations. Though a lot of helpful language was lost in the attempt to shorten the text as COP15 approached, the draft final outcome of the AWG LCA and the draft conclusions proposed by the Chair on 15 th December did represent an effort to capture some of the most critical issues in regard to adaptation. The version that was presented to Heads of State included references to specific actions and programmes including in the area of water resources. It also recognised the need for the integration of adaptation actions into sectoral and national planning. Significantly, it also outlined the need for building resilience of socio-economic and ecological systems, including through economic diversification and sustainable management of natural resources. Though the language of this final text did represent a departure from the more direct commitments in some earlier iterations of the document such as ecosystem-based adaptation and integrated land and water resources management many actors felt confident that their priorities had been reflected in some way. The GPPN was satisfied that the text included both a direct reference to water resources, as well as phrases that indirectly captured the importance of water resource management for climate change adaptation. The Copenhagen Accord unfortunately failed to reflect any of this language, or give significant credit to the thorough work that had been undertaken by the AWG LCA throughout It is true that in the hugely condensed final outcome of the AWG LCA, Parties agreed to extend the mandate of the AWG LCA through to COP16, so we can be hopeful that some of the progress made on adaptation, and specifically on the importance of water resources management for adaptation, will be carried through to next year. It is a shame, however, that the tireless efforts of many actors to achieve greater recognition of their issues were ultimately not recognised in the official outcome of COP15. We should not just lament the lack of robust targets and legal commitment from COP15, but also the lack of a broader action plan to address the challenge of climate change. Many actors, including those in the water community, can feel confident that the groundwork has at least been laid, and that in the end we will win but we should equally recognise that the fighting phase is not over yet. 16

17 Liz McDowell, a member of the International Youth Climate Movement Outreach Youth Delegates Will Continue Campaigning Over 1,200 young people as part of the youth constituency converged at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen. Representing almost half of the world s population, we are the largest single stakeholder group at these negotiations. During the first week many party members came up to different young people and thanked us for keeping the pressure on. One negotiator explained it like this - when lobby groups were pushing him to lower his country s level of ambition at the talks, he could point to the hundreds of young people in orange shirts stationed inside the Bella Centre and say I can t the youth would raise hell. It was clear to everyone that we were watching closely and that we had a lot at stake. After the numbers of civil society observers were drastically reduced, all this changed. We all struggled to keep up with developments in negotiations. As the days flew by, text messages, online chats and s flew frantically back and forth trying to get to the bottom of a single question what the hell was going on? To tell you the truth, I m still struggling to make sense of what exactly happened, as many of us are. As a result, what follows does not represent the views of the entire youth constituency. It does, however, reflect my best understanding of what was actually going on. In the last few days of the COP, as we hoped for an 11th hour breakthrough, things instead started to break down. The Danish chair was struggling to facilitate the negotiating sessions, which were becoming increasingly tense. Walkouts had been threatened, the draft text was not nearly ready for the high-level ministerial segment, and the secretariat was struggling to keep things moving along. If this wasn t bad enough, a damning leaked report showed that current commitments would lead to at least 3 degrees of warming, putting several countries underwater, decimating the artic and rendering much of Africa non-arable. Back-room dealings proliferated, involving the most powerful countries at the negotiations and generally excluding those most vulnerable to climate impacts. Heads of state flew in, Obama called a press conference and announced the now-infamous Copenhagen Accord, some countries cried foul play, and suddenly COP15 was over. The dust from Air Force One hadn t even settled when the blame game started. Hundreds of young people, myself included, had rushed to the Bella Centre in the very cold, very early hours of the 19th to call shame on Obama and other authors of the Accord for subverting the democratic UN process, essentially trying to kill off the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Roadmap. We were shocked that Obama, who championed in his own words a new politics of hope, had sold us out in such a devastating way. Over the next few days, more information came to light and, along with it, more blaming. Some retaliated at the cries of shame on Obama by pointing the finger squarely over at China instead. The UK came out and labeled a small group of countries Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and the Sudan guilty of stalling progress. Others have focused on the whole G77 block of developing countries becoming fractured as the disparity of wealth within developing world countries becomes more apparent. After reflecting on this all, I m not sure who to blame anymore. I m not sure what happened, who s at fault, and whether the Accord is a promising first step forward or a massive step back. However, there s one thing I m sure of: petty self-serving politics is what got us into this whole climate change mess, and it s not going to get us out of it. It s not enough to push for a politically binding deal that recognises the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but doesn t commit to it (let alone secure the return below 350ppm that we so desperately need). It s not enough for countries to make voluntary commitments with no legal incentive to follow through. And it s certainly not enough for a small group of countries to make decisions that affect the whole world, and then announce them to the press before they ve even been proposed to negotiators in a UNFCCC forum. It s clear that the UN system isn t working. After five years of attending and following negotiations, I m tempted to give up on the whole process and walk away, but one thing stops me the knowledge that this is the only effective international forum we ve got that even attempts to make decisions in an inclusive, transparent manner. So how do we move forward? For starters, let s look at the positive things that came out of Copenhagen: For the first time, rich countries put money on the table. The $100 billion proposed in the Copenhagen Accord is not nearly enough and it s silent on key issues but it s a start. 110 heads of state showed up. Although their presence turned the COP into a summit and the Bella Centre into a circus. It showed that they recognise the importance of climate change. Their presence also galvanised public interest and made COP15 a household word. The climate debate is now being framed in a new way. Instead of focusing on dry language revolving around numbers and targets, negotiators have started calling attention to what these negotiations are really about the survival of their countries and peoples. The social movement building inside and outside the Bella Centre can no longer be ignored. On December 12, 100,00 people gathered together on the streets of Copenhagen. This diverse group joined together to create the single biggest demonstration for climate action in history. It s this last outcome that gives me the most hope. When I look around and see so many people from all around the world working towards the same common vision, I realise that we just might tackle this massive challenge. COP15 was a big milestone, but there will be others. If there s one thing I realised this year, it s that we will be pushing for climate justice for a long time possibly for the rest of my lifetime. Our negotiators need to go back and keep working. They need to fix the UN process so that it s much more inclusive, transparent and effective, and then they need to go to Mexico in 2010 and get the breakthrough that didn t happen in Copenhagen. And alongside their efforts, civil society s movement will keep getting bigger and stronger. We re not done yet and neither are they. 17

18 Food for Thought... Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum A New World As we are still experiencing the aftermath of Copenhagen perhaps all of our comments should have come with a public health warning Please be aware it was very very cold in Copenhagen, we had to wait in long lines for hours, not many of us realised that the US has a different system than the rest of us where their President came to Copenhagen without an ability to set targets (and by the way will probably not be able to do it to enable a deal for Cancun in 2010), it s far too complicated negotiating with so many countries, none of us had a real end game plan and we thought other people were doing that and there were far too many NGOs dressed in polar bear outfits. Some people have questioned if multilateralism has been shown to have failed in Copenhagen. That maybe it is time for the G20 to move us forward? However one could say that the G20 did have the chance to take front stage and move us all in a positive direction and failed in doing this in any meaning full way. Maybe what Copenhagen did show was just how difficult it is really going to be, to move forward in a positive way. If the industrialised countries had done what they should and could have done after Rio in 92 then the world economy would have refocused on a low carbon one before China and India started their huge development advances. Clearly if the world had infinite resources and ability to grow exponentially, then one could extrapolate 30 years from now when China and India would no longer be classed as developing countries, all the EDITORIAL TEAM Executive Editor: Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum Senior Editor: Richard Sherman, Stakeholder Forum Daily Editor: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum Design and Layout: Erol Hofmans, peoples of the world would be removed from poverty and there would be no destruction to the environment. But unfortunately the world is not infinite and we are seeing is that the development model that is active now is unsustainable and unsustainable in a very short time span, perhaps even 10 years. Andrew Higham, Richard Sherman and I edited a book on Climate and Energy Insecurity published just before Copenhagen which identifies the increasing nexus of climate and energy policy and also security. A companion book will be coming out this year looking at Biodiversity and Ecosystem Insecurity which is if anything, even more worrying. The publication Nature last year for instance published a review by a group of scientists who looked at nine areas where they feel we need to recognise limits, all of which are intrinsically interconnected. The nine areas that were studied were: climate change, stratospheric ozone, land use change, freshwater use, biological diversity, ocean acidification, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the biosphere and oceans, aerosol loading, and chemical pollution They say that three have already been exceeded are: Climate change - Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations not to exceed 350 parts per million; the current concentration is 387 ppm; Biodiversity loss - Biodiversity loss should be no more than ten times the background rates of extinction; currently species loss is between 100 Contributing writers:. Saleemul Huq, IIED Achala Chandani, IIED Simon Anderson, IIED Richard Black, BBC Alyssa Johl, Climate Law & Policy Project Martin Wagner, Earthjustice Peter Wood, Natural Justice Harry Jonas, Natural Justice Laura Martin Murillo, SustainLabour and 1,000 times the natural rate; and, Nitrogen concentration Reduce the flow of new reactive nitrogen into watercourses and oceans to 25 percent of its current value, or about 35 million tonnes of nitrogen per year. Looking at this means that in essence we are returning to the framework outlined in the first Earth Summit in 1971 limits to growth. It is perhaps therefore fortunate enough that while things were going the wrong way in Copenhagen the UN General Assembly under the leadership of Brazil agreed to a new Earth Summit in 2012 to address the Green Economy, emerging issues and reform of the institutions of sustainable development. I do love new years because they allow me to put a line under what happened in the previous year and start dreaming and planning for a great new year. So here we are in 2010 a special Issue of Outreach and everything is possible. Rio+20 offers as Maurice Strong says: perhaps the best and the last chance to address how we live together sustainably on this planet. A t last we have the chance to change the economic model that is at the centre of why we are. If we can change it then many of the roadblocks to delivering Stockholm, Rio and Johannesburg will be undone. A good thought for the beginning of Stakeholder Forums 2012 site can be found at: Nick Robins, Head, HSBC Climate Change Centre of Excellence International Trade Union Confederation Uchita de Zoysa, Convener, Climate Sustainability PLATFORM Pam Puntenney, Co-Coordinator CSD Education Caucus Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Peoples Group Hannah Stoddart, Stakeholder Forum Liz McDowell, Otesha UK 18