Christian Aid: Making Bali Count

The final analysis

Andrew Pendleton, senior climate change policy advisor at Christian Aid, compares the politics of climate change to another familiar international deadlock in which rich countries are intent to shirk their responsibilities...

For those who have worked and campaigned for a fairer World Trade Organisation, the parallels between the politics of world trade and the politics of climate change are staggeringly similar. As the drama of Bali's climate conference unfolded, with talks overrunning by 24 hours, those similarities were thrown into stark relief.

The WTO is about making agreements to open up world trade. For a decade, at biennial meetings of trade ministers, rich nations and regions such as the US and the European Union, have attempted to persuade others, especially the larger developing nations such as India and China, to agree tariff cuts and otherwise to open the way for the free flow of goods and services. Developing nations, from the larger ones to the poorest, have argued that they should not have to open up before rich countries cut their subsidies and open their markets. The WTO is currently deadlocked. A ministerial meeting should have taken place this year, but it has been postponed indefinitely. But for poor people, no deal is almost certainly better than a bad deal.

The climate change talks take place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed at Rio in 1992. Annual conferences take place aimed at trying to amend the Convention so that countries take on legally binding targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol, the first of these amendments, was signed. It finally enters into force next year, with rich countries taking on an average of 5 per cent cuts in their emissions by 2012 over 1990 levels.

In Bali, the UN climate talks moved into a new phase. Underscored by considerable new scientific evidence, two years of negotiations were launched, which will be aimed at brokering an agreement on a second phase of Kyoto for post 2012. This is to be welcomed and is necessary; climate change is a great threat to us all and is especially dangerous for poor people whose lives and livelihoods are at the mercy of the weather. No deal in climate talks is not an option.

But that important imperative aside, the way in which countries in Bali lined up was all too familiar and predictable. Rather than wanting them to open up trade, rich countries are after cuts in developing nations' carbon dioxide emissions. The US, EU, Japan and Canada in particular are increasingly concerned about the competitiveness of India and China and they want these countries to be bound into emissions cuts in any new agreement. India and China, along with Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and other developing countries are understandably reluctant to do this at least until the US agrees significant cuts in its emissions.

In Bali, as has happened at recent WTO ministerial meetings, it was left up to developing countries operating as a bloc to stand up to the rich countries and remind them of their responsibilities. Just as countries at lower levels of development, with less wealth should not be forced to participate fully in trade agreements until their economies can withstand liberalisation, so they should be excused any binding reductions commitments until their continued development can be guaranteed. Rich countries must go first and furthest in making greenhouse gas emissions cuts.

Lamentably, the US was the major blocker of agreement in Bali and was only forced to back down when some of the developing nations became feisty in the final plenary session. Rather like at the WTO, the US wanted more than it was prepared to offer (in fact, it was prepared to offer nothing and yet wanted to see China and India making promises to cut their emissions). The EU also wants developing nations to make commitments in a new agreement, but is at least offering something itself (currently 20 per cent cuts by 2020).

There is even a conflation of trade and climate change. In Bali during the middle weekend of the UN talks, trade ministers also met. While poorer nations were keen to see willingness on the part of wealthy nations to transfer clean technology (give them access to it cheaply, especially without having to pay for intellectual property rights) rich countries talked of the need to agree lower tariffs on 'green goods'. The World Bank has even argued that the liberalisation of the global trading system is key to help countries reduce their greenhouse emissions and adapt. A cynic might be forgiven for thinking that rich countries want to force through the climate agenda measures they have manifestly failed to get through the WTO.

Poorer nations also talked, if somewhat vaguely, about bullying tactics by rich countries in Bali, something that has become all too familiar at the WTO. Among the pressures was a threat that if developing countries do not show willingness to take part in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, trade sanctions could be utilised against them. This would probably end up being illegal according to WTO rules, but in the cut and thrust of Bali's fraught talks, could have had purchase on harried developing country negotiators, most of whom are environment and not trade experts.

By Saturday afternoon, the Bali roadmap had been adopted, although much dilution by the US ensured it lacked any specific, numeric cuts for anybody, let alone for rich countries. An earlier meeting in Vienna had specified a range of 25 to 40 per cent cuts for the industrialised world, but these numbers were extracted from the text and the UN's important assessment report of the science was relegated to footnote.

It is anticipated that the Bali roadmap will lead us to a meeting in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, with its final destination being a new and more comprehensive agreement to cut global greenhouse gas emissions. That this is necessary is more or less beyond dispute. But it could be harmful to poor countries' development if the rich world is not prepared to make major concessions. The politics of climate change may be worryingly similar to those of trade, but deadlock is no more an option than denying poor people a right to develop. This means that the industrialised must not repeat the mistakes its made in trade talks and must be prepared to ensure the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made or paid for by the rich and not by the poor.

The long road to Bali and beyond

Sarah Spinney posts her final blog from Bali:

We came here to agree a Bali Roadmap.  And right now it feels like it’s been a very long road.  The conference having exceeded its first deadline of 12 noon on Friday, talks continued all through the night and well into the next day.  The gavel finally fell on a post-2012 climate change agreement at 2.30pm on Saturday.  But only after a direct plea from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and the Indonesian President who made a special appeal to the sleep deprived delegates:

“The world is waiting anxiously. The world is watching.  Do not let them down.” 

The United States delegation that has continuously undermined progress throughout this conference was obviously not listening and attempted to block agreement once again.  But patience was wearing thin. The sound of booing from the plenary floor cannot have done much for the domestic audience to whom they are so desperate to demonstrate meaningful action.

So we have a Roadmap signed up to by all Parties and with an end date of 2009. But the lack of substance is desperately disappointing.  A Roadmap without targets is one with no destination and is woefully short of the scale of ambition needed to meet the climate challenge and keep global temperature rise within 2 ºC. Previously included developed country emission reductions of 25-40% by 2020 were rejected at the last minute and instead relegated to a footnote.  That the best scientific knowledge of our generation which only last week won the Nobel Peace Prize was shoved into the margins is shameful. Worse still, that footnote refers to a range of scenarios from the IPCC.  One of which is global temperature rise of 6 ºC.

Poor people are already suffering the devastating consequences of a problem they have had little part in creating. This should have been a time for justice. Let us not forget that a temperature rise of 2 ºC will commit up to 4 billion people worldwide to water shortages, further increases in drought and disease, and condemn some of the smaller island states to unsustainable sea level rise.

In Bali we needed an agreement with equity at its heart. It needed to demonstrate the true nature of international moral obligation and the principles of the convention. This was a chance for the countries most responsible for the problem and most able to act to show real leadership. Whilst we should acknowledge that important decisions were made here on adaptation, technology transfer and financing mechanisms, the absence of meaningful mitigation targets threatens to condemn many of the most vulnerable to increased poverty.

Developing countries on their part came to Bali signalling that they were prepared to contribute and this should be applauded. The US and others can no longer hide behind the political premise that they will only act when the emerging economies do. 

The behaviour of a few countries here has made our collective work a lot harder over the next two years.  But we should take heart.  An equitable outcome in 2009 is achievable. The world can come together. It is possible.  In the words of Martin Khor:

“The only guarantee that we will succeed is that we have no choice.”

Inadequate Roadmap

Nelson Muffuh analyses whether history has indeed been made in Bali:

After another marathon late night/early morning round of negotiations on the differentiated scale of action from both developed and developing countries, an agreement has finally been adopted by the ministers in Bali.

I would score it as being slightly above average and lacking in ambition. In as much as progress has been made in launching negotiations which are to end in 2009, the lack of clear targets and timetable for emissions reductions means we have a much watered down Roadmap.

There is absolutely no mention of the emissions reductions range of 25 to 40% by 2020, peak and decline within 10 to 15 years, long-term global emissions reduction target, and the imperative of keeping global temperature increase to as far below 2 degrees as possible.

In as much as we rightly cry foul about the bumpy Bali Roadmap that has just been adopted, we should note two main things that for me means history has indeed been made in Bali. Hitherto unfathomable compromises have been made in the spirit of flexibility and cooperation by both sides:

• The US has agreed to negotiate a new agreement due by the end of 2009 with measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation commitments or actions (with the firm indication that they will be ready to commit to long-term and medium term targets during negotiations)
  
• The major economies in the G77 have also for the first time committed themselves to mitigation actions enabled by technology transfer and finance from industrialized countries.
  

Noteworthy is also the progress, albeit inadequate, achieved on other building blocks of the comprehensive package like technology transfer, adaptation, finance and investment, and avoiding deforestation.

Crunch time in Bali

Today Nelson Muffuh writes:

It is now time for the ministers and negotiators here in Bali to move from rhetoric to action. As the day advances what I would very much like to see is for progressive countries step up the pressure and effectively push the US into an untenable isolationist corner.

As the bleary eyed delegates count down the hours leading up to the end of this epic conference, it is only natural that I also start firming up the process of evaluating whether the Bali Climate Change Conference was indeed a worthwhile moment in history or a dud. While I consider if devoting two intense weeks to influencing and monitoring the negotiations, I am also looking at whether the emerging deal will meaningfully contribute to the objective of tackling climate change while eradicating poverty.

For me there are two elements to be considered in measuring the significance of the Bali Roadmap being finalised today. The first being that it is important for the outcome here in Bali to indicate whether the negotiations for a Post 2012 framework will simultaneously safeguard the right to sustainable development for the poor while securing the climate. The second equally important element is for the Bali Road Map not to include any components that either directly or indirectly undermine the core principle of ‘securing the right to development in a climate constrained world’. The Bali Roadmap has to not only deliver for the poor but also for the climate.

Courting controversy

Andrew Hogg, Christian Aid campaigns editor, scrutinizes the opposition:

It is not often you see a former political advisor to Margaret Thatcher hustled away by police, but Christopher Monckton is a man who courts controversy.

The 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, to give him his full name (the line stretches all the way back to 1957 - grandpa was a lawyer who advised King Edward VIII during the abdication crisis and went on to
become Solicitor General) has become a familiar presence at the UN climate change conference in Bali.

His stance is that greenhouse gas emissions are not responsible for global warming. Instead, rising temperatures are the result of the sun going through a level of activity known as a solar grand maximum, unprecedented in the last 11,500 years, with the world adjusting at the same time from unusually low temperatures at the turn of the last century.

He and his supporters, who include some eminent sounding scientists, have chosen unusual ways to get their message across. At the start of the week they offered free beer and spa tickets to anyone prepared to sit through their film "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Today, they went one step further, donning white coats and unfurling a large banner outside the convention centre where delegates are gathering to try to agree a global strategy for fighting climate change.

"Kyoto 2 Not Needed", it read. "New Science Drives out Old Fears"

"Everyone should go home," onlookers were told. "There's nothing to
worry about."

Which was not quite how flustered UN officials, who had failed to read properly  the email the group had sent asking for permission to stage the event, saw matters.

Police were called to usher the group away from the entrance to a place where their presence was less visible.

"Keep filming, keep filming," pleaded the honourable lord, a UN police officer's hand on his shoulder. "This is how the UN treats dissenters. The Greens were allowed to stand there
for an hour."

Monckton has advocated unusual views in the past - including a demand that the entire population of the UK submit to monthly blood tests to identify Aids sufferers, who would then be quarantined for life - an argument, to be fair, he now repudiates.

Things might have got a little trickier for him if  any delegates had been around from small island states, who face the disappearance of their countries if action isn't taken to halt global warming, , although he says the only hostility he has encountered at the conference is from the UN - they have threatened thrice to eject him.

Inside the conference centre, negotiators who do accept that the effects of greenhouse gases are blighting lives and will do so further unless action is taken continued make or break talks all day. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, was the weatherman by which reporters could tell which way the wind was blowing.

By early afternoon he was in sombre mood, announcing that three working parties had been set  up to try and solve the sticking points that had emerged: whether the "level of ambition" incorporated into a Bali agreement should be set at cuts in carbon emissions of between 25-40 percent by 2020;  how technology transfers from rich countries to poor should be handled; the manner in which industrialised countries would pay for climate adaptation programmes in the developing world, and the nature of the body that would negotiate an extension to the Kyoto Protocol over the next two years - an ad hoc working group or negotiating committee.

By noon Friday, he said, time would be up. After that time, it would not be possible to translate agreements into six official languages and photocopy them in time for the end of the conference.

"I am very concerned about the progress of things, " he said. "We can't afford a COP13B. "The message from the IPCC is fresh in everyone's minds. The outcome of the G8 is fresh in everyone's minds. The UN Secretary General's call for a breakthrough in Bali is fresh in everyone's mind. You can't carry that scientific sense of urgency and growing political momentum, and put it in the fridge for six months."

By early evening, however, he was more optimistic. The issue of technology transfer had been settled. Agreement had been reached that the Global Environment Facility which disburses money to fund projects in developing countries would set up a "strategic programme" that would look at the needs of  developing countries and turn them into project proposals.

The villains of the piece throughout the day were the USA, widely suspected of wanting to derail the conference by the constant raising of objections. As night fell, Portugal's secretary of state for the
environment Humberto Rosa, speaking on behalf of the EU,  said:

"We are disappointed that having reached this stage of negotiation we still haven't heard from the Americans what is their level of engagement or ambition in the Bali Road Map. There is a sense of disappointment that there is not more clarity coming from them."

Without a US agreement to the 25-40% cuts by 2020, he said, the EU would not be going to the next major emitters conference in the US. It was not a boycott, he insisted.

"We are not blackmailing nobody. It's logic."

If there was no Bali deal there would be nothing to discuss in the US .

One word the US delegation appears incapable of uttering at Bali is "equity" - the notion that industrialised countries have a moral obligation to help developing countries. There appears to be something about the word that they find troubling.

The UN secretary general said "equity" was crucial in fighting climate change when opening the high-level segment of the conference, but when asked whether she endorsed the concept today, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Dr Paula Dobriansky clearly could not bring herself to reiterate the word.

"You have major emerging economies that should have a responsibility. I think their contribution just as our contribution is important, " she said. " For less developed countries, we are looking at holistic approaches, not just the creating of a fund but building growth and capacity on the ground."

Asked about technology transfer, on which the US at the time appeared to be blocking agreement, James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, retorted:

"We are massively transferring technologies and skills around the world. Let there be no doubt that the US is engaged in the transfer and receipt of technologies on a massive scale."

How much was to the benefit of poorer countries was not explained.

France calls for a commitment to numbers

From Nelson Muffuh:

Statement made by the French Environment Minister from last night's plenary, which has a dig at the U.S. for its reluctance to agree to a global reduction target range, and insists that "quantified commitments from developed countries" is a requirement for MEM to go forward:

"Now, allow me to say things in a clear simple solemn way to those among the industrialized countries, those among us who are still hesitating, who are hesitating to commit themselves, as if this might lead to an economic and social reduction and problematic situation in their countries."

"I'd like to tell them very clearly that they must commit themselves to 25-40% reduction by 2020, that we have to commit ourselves to, in terms of greenhouse gases."

"And all those who hesitate while counting on the market mechanisms, and counting on technology, for example, to those people, I tell them your markets, the markets, your researchers, consumers, itizens, people need clean signs, clear signals. They need standards. They need encouragement, visibility. And understandably, they need to have standards on renewable energy, on the energy efficiency of buildings, for example, and also standards in terms of vehicle emissions."

"I tell them, and I tell us, a low carbon development is a lever for growth, in fact it¹s the main lever. Because growth always means one is responding to a requirement."

"And, saving the planet is one of these requirements."

"Trust your economy. Trust the women and men of your countries, their wisdom."

"Because when the target for reduction has been defined, when it is public, when it is known, all of the economy will start working in a very efficient way."

"In much the same way, reasonable assistance and support for transfer of technology, absolutely must be found in Bali. This will encourage to new innovation and efficiency."

"To refuse to commit on numbers and dates, would mean that we don¹t trust our own model, our own technology to come up a low carbon progress."

"Yes, the time has come for international commitments, and if the principle of the meeting of these great economies is possible, it has go hand in hand with quantified commitments from developed countries."

"Otherwise, a discussion of means without targets runs the risk of making things even more incomprehensible."

The good, the bad and the downright difficult

The red carpet and the sea of TV cameras greeting us yesterday at the entrance to the conference centre had gone this morning.  As the opening ministerial statements continued, other high level officials were locked into meetings to determine the outcome of the Bali Roadmap.  And from what we heard yesterday in the plenary hall, they’ll have plenty to discuss over the next 48 hours. 

The pressure is most definitely on. Will they rise to the challenge? Or will they let global temperatures rise instead and in doing so abandon the poorest people on this planet to the consequences of their inaction?

Top of their agenda will undoubtedly be the continued blocking and undermining of the process by the United States.  In yesterday’s opening address, the President of Indonesia called for urgent action by the world’s single biggest polluter:

“We must ensure that the US is part of 2012 arrangements to effectively address the climate change issue,” he said before his speech was interrupted by rapturous applause from the floor. 

Rather depressingly, that the US will be part of anything meaningful is looking unlikely.  Yesterday they even had the nerve to ask for changes to the text that would give them fewer commitments to the process than developing countries.  Someone should ask them if they recall the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities which is so integral to the UN convention and which they signed up to in 1992.

In contrast, Germany has been one of the star players here in Bali and have recently announced one of the most ambitious domestic climate change packages – something the UK might look to emulate in their own Climate Change Bill – with a commitment to reduce emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2020.  In his speech, the German Environment Minister also called for the entire industrialised world, including the United States to take on binding emission cuts based on the clear guidelines of the IPCC. It earned him a standing ovation.

The strength of the EU’s joint negotiating position was highlighted as one after another, ministers took the floor and called for 25-40% cuts in emissions by 2020 and an international goal to keep global warming within 2 degrees.  And after our meeting with Hilary Benn when we called for real leadership, his speech underlined the need for ambitious targets, an inclusive and comprehensive agreement that covered all countries and a deal that was fair to the world’s poor. Benn said that political leadership can change things.  We expect him to live up to his word, exert pressure on the US and take up the olive branch offered by the G77 in exchange for real commitment. When we meet him again tomorrow we shall expect progress. 

But the United States is not the only one blocking agreement here. When the President of the COP finally recovered the mic after Germany’s speech, the difference in rhetoric couldn’t have been more stark as he introduced Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s continue to insist that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not the way to tackle global warming. They object to policy makers reducing their reliance on imported oil, and they attack the increased taxation of petroleum products.  All of their eggs are firmly placed in the supposed miracle of carbon capture technology. 

And then there is Japan. You see, personally, having spent time living and working in Japan, I have a real fondness for the country and for the people. And as I sat in the plenary session I was silently willing Kamoshita, the Environment minister to put the last 10 days behind him and seize the opportunity for Japan to become a real leader in the Asia region on this vital issue.  His speech started badly by saying that achievement of their Kyoto protocol target- a paltry 6% by 2012 - was going to be “challenging”. But my heart sank further and further as he went on to talk not of binding emission reductions, of the urgent action needed by rich countries, of the need for leadership, but instead of sectoral targets, of intensity indicators, of the need to level the playing field in terms of international competitiveness. 

Competitiveness from emerging economies like India and China is a hot topic of debate here in Bali. And yet India is a country where 300 million people live on less than a dollar a day. 600 million people do not even have access to electricity, let alone should take responsibility for a problem largely caused by the rich.  This is why any solution to tackle climate change must address poverty and must have equity at its heart.  And it is why the failure of the Parties to agree on technology transfer and capacity building for developing countries - mostly blocked ironically by countries like Japan and the United States is shameful.

The G77 and China have showed a high degree of willingness to contribute to a solution here.  But in order to do this they need to be confident that the rich countries most responsible and with the greatest capacity to act will not fall short on their commitments.  And they must be guaranteed of access to carbon cutting technology and financial assistance that is so desperately needed. Technology transfer is a dealbreaker for the G77.  If it is not resolved, there is a real danger that the Bali Roadmap could be thrown wildly off course.

The black hole in paradise

A recent headline in the New York Post read: “Save the Planet (while you tan)”. The journalist that came up with that none too subtle dig at those who have traveled to Bali for the latest UN climate change conference has obviously never covered such an event.

“The Island of the Gods” as it known, might be one of the most exotic holiday destinations in the world, for those of course who can afford the concept of holidays in the first place.

The beaches are golden, the lush vegetation a riot of colour and it has the infrastructure to sustain the needs of those who want a touch of the tropics without too much pain, good hotels, communications that work - more or less, and relatively docile mosquitoes.

(The most disquieting thing about the place is in fact, the roar of the gecko. These are not the fragile anemic creatures to be found clinging to ceiling from Cape to Cairo and beyond. Rather larger, they are the basso profundo of the lizard world.) 

It’s a fair bet, however, that  few of the thousands of government delegates, climate change campaigners and journalists who have flocked to the seaside resort of Nusa Dua have experienced much at all of what Bali has to offer.

For there is now a black hole at the heart of paradise. It’s called the international convention centre and those that come within its orbit are pulled in for what at times seems like eternity.

Watching history in the making is always electrifying, but on occasion here it feels like the power lines are down and that what we are in fact witnessing is a failure to make history.

Two developments augur badly for the accomplishment of anything epoch making as the international community struggles to produce a blue print for a second commitment period to the Kyoto protocol (the first ends in 2012).

The first was the failure of two subsidiary bodies of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to agree a way forward for funding the transfer of technologies from rich countries to poorer ones to help them fight the impact of climate change.

The second was the US breaking cover and revealing publicly the depth of its opposition to the inclusion of any target for carbon emission cuts in whatever agreement emerges from Bali.

It has been common knowledge since the start of the week that a draft agreement published by the UN which included a statement saying scientific evidence was unequivocal that industralised countries had to make 25%-40% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 was under fire.

Today Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Dr Paula Dobriansky explained why.

"We don’t want to be prejudging outcomes here. We don’t want to predetermine the outcome of this process. Right now the very positive aspect of this is that we are in discussion with other countries and hearing their views. Many countries have registered their view that they don’t want an early agreement made here. We are looking for a long term global goal, not to have targets to meet.”

Her colleague James Connaughton, Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality was more direct:

“This would serve to divide.”

Well, yes, but dropping the target is going to be pretty divisive too.

Germany’s environment minister Sigmar Gabriel was scathing:

"I do not need a paper from Bali which simply says we will meet again next year.

“It’s difficult for me to see how you can have negotiation without a goal. Without knowing the place you want to get to, it’s very difficult to decide which way to go. We need clear decisions from Bali. It’s not possible for us to ignore what the scientists have told us over the past 12 months."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon tried hard to be diplomatic, saying:

“It may be too ambitious for delegates.”

The one bright spot of a day overshadowed in part by the atrocity at the UN offices in Algiers was the emphasis placed by the Secretary General on the plight of the poor already feeling the impact of climate change. In his address opening the high-level part of the proceedings he said:

“The issue of equity is crucial. Climate change affects us all, but does not effect us all equally.

“Those that have done the least to cause the problem bear the greatest consequences. We have an ethical obligation for justice and a duty to protect the most vulnerable.”

Visit the Christian Aid website for more commentary, updates and information.

Plenty of leaders, no leadership

Yesterday ended in gloom for  poor nations after the Parties failed to agree on technology transfer which is a priority for developing countries since it’s critical to their development. The negotiations were impaired by the Umbrella group who frustrated discussions on the form of support that should be given for the transfer of technology.

The G77 delegates were unsurprisingly disappointed and are now wondering aloud what to expect from this process. This could compromise any decent package that might be borne from this conference in the next 2 days unless this issue is re-introduced and re-addressed.

Technology transfer is vital to  developing countries as they struggle to go about development on a lower emissions pathway - necessary in order to keep global warming to as far below 2 degrees Celcius as possible. 

Africa has started counting its losses. We are now in a worse position than  we started from at the Bali Conference, said the Nigerian Environment Minister.

Fortunately, today things looked a little more promising with the high level section of the talks opening with high note speeches from leaders attempting to speak ‘truth’ into the Bali negotiations and reiterating their countries' determination and commitment to confront climate change head on.

Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, underlined the sincerity of purpose needed by reminding the Parties,

‘The eyes of the world are on us..­. We must address the defining challenge of our age.’

The Chair of the IPCC heightened the stakes with extracts from the IPCC synthesis report highlighting the wisdom and prudence that's needed to stabilize the climate, based on science that is clear, in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

In his short video presentation, he assured the world that the Scientists are:

‘convinced of the risks associated with climate change if it’s not mitigated and the climate stabilized as early as possible.’

The Secretary of the UNFCCC on his part wondered how Defence Ministries are planning for climate change while no preventive action is being put up. He reminded the Parties of what Lincoln said.

‘You cannot avoid responsibility for tomorrow by avoiding it today.’

The need to grasp the opportunity available today to bring about a historic change to secure the planet cannot be overemphasized. Rich countries need to act now to save humankind. Frankly, political leadership from the industrialised is needed to broker a new deal that will steer us to a post-2012 agreement.

For poor communities and countries, adaptation to the inevitable impact of climate change and technology transfer to spur clean development remains critical to right climate injustice and poverty. It's at the heart of their negotiations based on the agreed principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,’ but it’s becoming certain now that it's one thing to know one’s responsibilities and another thing to deploy one’s capability.

It's now 15 years since the Rio summit and 10 years since Kyoto. We still remain far from tackling climate change and  the question, as asked today by the President of Papua New Guinea, is whether we have the will. We will wait to hear whether the answer is a resounding yes in both word and action!! The world cannot afford to procrastinate any longer. We need to save the planet now!!    

Visit the Christian Aid website  where you can take action and find out more about the link between climate change and poverty.

Roadmap to nowhere?

Exhausted after attending fruitless and depressing late night negotiation sessions, Nelson Muffuh reports that political leadership is desperately needed as he asks if the Bali Roadmap will go anywhere at all...

Today I left a meeting between UK NGOs and Hilary Benn (Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) with the distinct impression that, in as much as the UK team of negotiators are actively engaging in the detailed negotiating process geared at salvaging the Bali Roadmap, Hilary Benn needs to significantly and demonstrably up the UK’s role, ambition, and game.

In doing this he will be seizing the opportunity being presented by the constructive negotiating attitude of developing countries to demonstrate effective political leadership in building trust and a bridge between the EU and the bigger G77 economies.

Amongst other things Hilary Benn and other EU leaders should be engaging in is mounting pressure on the US and other Umbrella Group Countries against seeking to undermine and block the process. They also need to strongly come out in support for enhanced implementation of unfulfilled commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for industrialized countries.

After witnessing last night's fruitless marathon negotiating sessions than ran into the early hours of the morning, I feel not only exhausted but also somewhat dejected about the fate of the Bali Roadmap. It seems to me as if what is needed is for progressive countries to demonstrate why the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” is important to a successful outcome in Bali and to an equitable post-2012 deal. They need to fully endorse strong concessionary action on technology cooperation and financing for adaptation and clean development which are deal breakers for developing countries.

Climate crisis or compact?

Sarah Spinney writes:

Last night I went to a UNDP event where Ban Ki-Moon, Nick Stern and Martin Khor (Third World Network) were speaking - although Martin has seriously lost his voice from all his engagements!

Stern described 'Contraction & Convergence' (one of several emissions reductions proposals on the table) as a very weak view of equity using the analogy of a well from which the rich countries have been drinking to their hearts content for the last 200 years and then when they realise the water's about to run out give everyone a glass the same size.  He also talked about the strong flow of private finance which will be needed to help developing countries address the problem.

Ban Ki-Moon said:

"We have gathered in Bali to negotiate the defining issue of our time."

"Today we are at a crossroads.  One path leads to a new international agreement to address climate change and one to oblivion.  The choice is clear"

"If we care about peace and security, if we care about human development, if we care about human rights then we must make climate change our highest international priority and we must demand that our leaders take action here in Bali."

The Secretary General also opened the high level segment of the negotiations in which he talked about equity :

"The issue of equity is crucial.  Climate change affects us all but it does not affect us all equally. We have an ethical obligation for justice and a duty to protect the most vulnerable."

"There is no trade off between fighting climate change and pursuing development. We need to do both."

(Compare this to what the US said yesterday. Hmm.)

He concluded by saying:

"If we leave Bali without a breakthrough we will have failed our leaders and the peoples of our world. Let us turn the climate crisis into a climate compact"

Kevin Rudd received a spontaneous and sustained round of applause for Australia's ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

There was also a speech by the President of Indonesia who said:

"Let Bali be the moment we turned the corner of history.  It is time for leadership and decision.  It is time to say what we mean and mean what we say"

Yvo de Boer (Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC) added:

"We cannot leave this island without a convergence of the science of politics."

We also heard more on the science from the Head of the IPCC on a video from Oslo where he is collecting the Nobel peace prize. So now we just have to hope that the next 3 days bring results.

One voice, many faiths

Christian Aid's Paula Clifford, currently advisor on climate change to the Archbishop of Canterbury, reports from an ecumenical celebration in Bali:

Traditional Bali bands are colourful affairs in more ways than one. Squatting on the floor with an impressive collection of percussion instruments, these all-male groups have bright orange shirts and decorated black trousers. The scarves they wear wound round their heads make them look like fugitives from a pirate ship.

Then there are the gorgeous Balinese dancing girls whose fingers seem to curve backwards as easily as they do forwards.

Not a setting you might associate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps. Yet the band and the dancers, along with countless local church dignitaries, were an integral part of Tuesday’s ecumenical celebration at which I was scheduled to show a short film that Dr Williams had specially recorded for the occasion and then chair a debate on justice, theology and climate change.

The large audience – some delegates from the UNFCCC conference but the majority of them local people who otherwise have had virtually no access to conference events – enjoyed the film. But even more they enjoyed having their say about what climate change means to them.

Representatives from the Hindu and Buddhist communities had prepared formal responses which were well received and the overriding view of the participants was that all the faiths should be working together as a matter of urgency. They saw people of faith as having a particular responsibility to address climate change, because of their beliefs in a creator God.

This is something that is probably more easily achieved in a place like Bali where many people have both Hindu and Christian believers in their families. Indeed Bali already has an established interfaith dialogue on climate change, supported by representatives of seven Indonesian religions.

A young woman from Jakarta made an impassioned appeal on behalf of illegal loggers. These are not bad people, she said, just poor people desperate to make a living. She will need much assurance that future adaptation measures will be equitable and accessible to the poorest communities.

All this chimed in very well with the concerns the Archbishop expresses in his film. Speaking about the injustice of climate change he calls for faiths to come together and to make their voices heard on behalf of the most vulnerable people.

The one disappointment about Bali for me, even more than last year in Nairobi, is that faith groups, while welcome, are not well represented at the conference and do very little to make their voices heard. It was great that the Archbishop yesterday was an honourable exception. But that apart, NGOs are discussing the ethical issues around climate change pretty effectively without the help of the Christian churches.

A cloudy start might be followed by a few brighter spells later in the week

Although the outlook isn't great...as Andrew Hogg, Christian Aid's journalist in Bali reports:

The United States, Canada, Japan and Australia were roundly accused in Bali today of trying to turn the 10th birthday of the Kyoto Protocol into a funeral. The comment was made at the daily press conference held by the Climate Action Network, an umbrella group of climate change campaigners that includes Christian Aid.

Each morning at the Bali conference the network fields a panel of experts to highlight to the press issues of concern arising out of the talks, or lack of talks, taking place. This morning’s event was a notably downbeat affair.

American intransigence over emission cuts, leaked negotiating documents that reveal the Canadian delegation has been instructed to take a hard line stance that developing countries will certainly reject, Japan’s apparent desire to wriggle out of the demands of the Protocol, and apparent backtracking by Australian negotiators after the applause that greeted their country's signing of the Protocol last week all cast a pall over the proceedings.

The day started promisingly enough, with a troupe of rather beautiful Indonesian women campaigners outside the convention centre dancing and singing eco friendly songs to a surprising medley of tunes, including If You’re Happy and You Know It Clap Your Hands, and When the Saints Come Marching (in Indonesian).

Inside, when CAN’s experts took the stage, there was little to sing about. We learned how the Japanese government, rather than regarding Kyoto as a matter of national pride, was now bowing to the wishes of big business.

We heard from Stephen Campbell from Greenpeace, Australia, of the “disconnect” between sentiments about climate change expressed by the Labor party on the hustings during the recent election, which they won, and the behaviour of negotiators on the ground at Bali.

“The negotiating team is stalling and blocking. Their words are the words of the former government,” said Stephen.

And an activist from Brazil spoke passionately about the injustice of expecting developing nations to make emission cuts when the world’s polluters either equivocated, or simply dug their heels in altogether.

It was left to Alden Meyer, director of strategy and planning for the Union of Concerned Scientists, to offer the only gleam of hope. A conference veteran, he reminded his colleagues: “We have all been here before. We know that the darkest hour is just before the ministers arrive.”

That happens tomorrow. In the days that follow, egos may be soothed, compromises reached and the gloom may dissipate a little. But no one at this juncture expects the clouds to roll away completely.   

Marking 10 years of Kyoto

Today's update from Sarah:

Tonight in Bali there are celebrations planned to mark the 10th anniversary of the Kyoto protocol. And with Australia securing a late invite to the party that leaves the USA as the only major developed country that won't get any birthday cake.

There have been many problems with Kyoto since it was signed with such ceremony in 1997, not least its inadequacy and the failure of signatories to meet its commitments. But what better way to mark its birthday this week than an agreement on how to take climate negotiations forward over the next two years; a Bali roadmap with both climate protection and poverty eradication at its core.

The draft paper by the co-chairs is a good start.  The challenge over the next few days will be to ensure that all the vital pieces of the jigsaw make it into the final package.  There must also be real recognition of the scale of ambition required to stay within 2 degrees of global warming.  We all know the consequences of failure.  Some, already struggling from the impacts of climate change and poverty know it more than others. 

And that is why the side event organised yesterday by Christian Aid, the Heinrich Boell Foundation and Ecoequity on a possible way to share the global burden of climate change was strictly standing room only. The panel for the event included Ecoequity, Martin Khor from Third World Network and Chris Dodwell, who until Hilary Benn arrived last night, was the UK head of delegation. Mohamed Adow from Kenyan partner Northern Aid spoke passionately about climate equity and the greenhouse development rights framework was being discussed a long time after the sun had set on the day’s talks.  Any possible solution to the deadlock that has plagued negotiations in the past is not something to miss.

Last night Greenpeace invited Nelson and me to an event on board the Rainbow Warrior.  It was an amazing experience and a privilege to stand on the bridge of an iconic campaigning vessel such as this and discuss with our NGO colleagues how we could work and campaign together in order to influence these vital talks. The importance and challenge of what we are doing here is always present in our minds.

The small Christian Aid team has often felt stretched over the last 10 days and enviously looked at the large international NGO teams from other agencies.  It often feels like you’re trying to be in about four different places at the same time. So imagine what it must be like, for example, to be one of the two official delegates from Ethiopia! 

Negotiating states from the rich world have a large delegation of people who work full time on international climate change negotiations and know the processes and procedures inside out.  They have come prepared and ready to engage fully in the discussions and if necessary to fight their corner. 

Poorer countries, the ones whose futures hang so precariously in the balance, lack the capacity and the resources to do this.  Some delegates have another job that they must juggle alongside preparing for events such as this conference.  For many it is their first experience of negotiations. There is no wonder that things can seem so one sided.  In the face of this, the positive engagement of southern delegations and the G77 in the negotiations so far is something to be applauded.

Time to pay the carbon debt

Mohamed Adow highlights the high price of inaction:

I was extremely pleased to be a panelist in yesterday's side event on ‘The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World’ co-hosted by Christian Aid and Heinrich-Boell Foundation, and in particular to speak about the impacts of climate change in poor countries and the need to shield the victims of climate change as they strive for development and dignity in a climate constrained environment.

The Greenhouse Development Rights framework presented by its authors Paul Baer and Sivan Kartha discussed a climate stabilization emergency regime within a framework that preserves the rights of the poor to develop. GDRs quantifies each country’s obligations for mitigation and adaptation based on their historical responsibility and economic capability. This was well received as a reference for negotiations and I hope it opens up a new window in the negotiations demonstrating the burdens to share in a more coherent, quantified and just way. 

As you might be aware for  poor communities in developing countries, the situation is now very critical. Climate change is today’s reality for them and not a future problem as some skeptics perceive. It is indeed the biggest development challenge facing the poor but the cruel irony about it is that climate change has been caused by the greedy activities of wealthy developed countries, who generated their wealth in part from access to cheap polluting energy right from early industrial times.

Remember friends:

‘Earth has enough to satisfy every man’s needs and not enough to satisfy every man's greed'

Mahatma Gandhi

It must also be acknowledged that climate change threatens and undermines the efforts of the poor to overcome poverty as the alternative models to development are expensive and a recipe to increased poverty. Further action on climate change must be informed by the energy options available which are affordable to the  poor to promote their development hopes.

Unfortunately, currently the poor face a conundrum – they are being affected by the increasing impact of climate change and they are likely to be affected more as the climate continues to change but they are less capable to prevent it while concurrently tackling poverty and going about development. It's this triple challenge that might in the long run render poverty permanent thereby undermining all the past gains made in making poverty history.

As the Kyoto protocol turns ten today we should strive to secure the planet and allow the poor to focus their meager resources on sustainable development by instituting legally binding commitments on rich countries that reflect their historical responsibility and their existing capability.

The question on the lips of the poor is if a society continues to gain from a past injustice doesn’t it have a duty to the victims??? The time has come for the rich north to pay their carbon debt to the poor south!!

Clearly, the rich must now bear the burden of climate change and act first to save the planet.

The small Christian Aid team in Bali is doing its bit in informing the process as we move into the prime time for negotiations for a post 2012 framework and I hope you will join us in our demand for climate justice and development equity.

 

Striking the balance

Jessica Bercilla asks: why do we take the road to Bali?

Climate change is not in the future --- it is here and now, and its impacts are already being felt in many vulnerable communities in the least developed and developing countries.

It is evident that climate-related hazards such as more powerful tropical cyclones, frequent tropical cyclones, extreme heavy rainfall, rising sea levels and storm surges are increasing the vulnerability of communities to disaster risks. Responses that we seek should address immediate as well as long-term adaptation and mitigation.

In my observation, there are two advocacy paths here in Bali ----- one that works to ensure that commitments made under the Kyoto protocol can be implemented within 2008-2012 and the other that works towards a better post-2012 framework.   For countries already experiencing the destructive impacts of increasing climate variability, both advocacy paths are significant with the first taking priority. 

Commitments made under the Kyoto protocol have to be delivered and guaranteed ---- giving due attention to the most affected countries.  However, the challenge this week is to strike a balance between the two advocacy paths --- not to mention the task of ensuring that the community of nations will give attention to equity in burden and benefit sharing in the reforms and enhancements made in the Kyoto Protocol and in any proposed post-2012 framework.

In the current protocol, the mechanisms for clean development call on states who can host clean development projects that will help in the reduction of carbon emissions.   The projects are often financed by well-resourced businesses from other countries with the host states coming from developing countries like mine which do not emit as much carbon in comparison to more powerful developed countries.   The sadder part is that carbon emission reduction credits go to the financing business (and their respective states) rather than the host country.  And to further complicate matters, these carbon credits are now being traded.

The scheme that provides for clean development projects have been identified as a financial resource for adaptation.   Two percent (2%) will be levied from each project -- herein, lies the link between mitigation and adaptation being negotiated under the Kyoto Protocol.  Under this scheme, financing the adaptation needs of countries most affected by climate change is left to market forces -- an arrangement which may not be acceptable but is the option that many states are entering into agreement at this point.

After our discussions with the delegation from my own country and a Filipino negotiator for G77, it became clearer that this will be an uphill battle with some countries looking out only for their interests.   For us, there will be gains in terms of bringing attention to the challenges of climate change--- but our country's and people's interests and survival will be continually challenged.   

Even as we call for the community of nations to address adaptation needs, under the current terms of the Kyoto protocol being discussed, the Philippines will not be a priority.   Despite this, our negotiator for financing mechanisms reminded us that we have a responsibility as part of the community of nations not only to seek out our own interests but to make things right and ensure that the adaptation needs and the right to survival of the more vulnerable, least developed countries and the small island developing states are recognized and addressed.

I am now going back to my country thinking about the series of typhoons, extreme heavy rainfall, and storm surges that have destroyed and are destroying lives and properties of many poor Filipino households and communities we work with. Along with this thought, we are facing the dilemma of how are we to address the multiple climate and disaster risks we face. Yet, amid all this, in this Bali process we are reminded that we can stand in solidarity with the poorest countries -- reminding us of a long-held value that even as we have less in life, we can still give.

It is my hope that little though our contribution may be, it will find its way into the hearts of many and inspire them to go beyond their own interests and, once again, start to care for others.   Only then will equity and justice in this climate-challenged world find reality -- just as a drop of water can send ripples across the sea.

Find out how Christian Aid and EcoEquity's proposal for sharing out the global burden of dealing with climate change was received at this weekend side event here. For the full  Greenhouse Development Rights' (GDRs) proposal visit EcoEquity's website. You can also listen here to a UNFCCC webcast of the GDR side event.

Injustices and Ironies

Mohamed Adow calls for action:

Although this is my first COP, I am making the best of the opportunity by deeply engaging in countless meetings to highlight the impact of chaotic climatic change and demonstrating the fact that climate change is a development, economic and human rights challenge and not just an environmental issue considering its implications on the poor in the south.

Development equity is at the heart of my participation so that I can bring to light the cruel irony behind climate change, which has the poor people who have imprinted the lightest carbon footprint on the earth suffering the adverse effects of the emissions of developed countries. In Northern Kenya where I come from, pastoralism as a way of life is being threatened by climate change, with droughts and floods ravaging the area, devastating people's lives and livelihoods with lots of people forced to abandon their traditional lifestyle due to adverse climatic conditions. It’s this injustice that I have been bringing to the attention of the delegates and representatives of NGOs to help us together combat global warming based on each nations’ historical responsibility and capacity to deal with climate change.

It's truly unjust when developed countries - with only about 15% of the global population and close to 60% of the global income - emit the bulk of global emissions (57%) without shouldering the burden of climate change.

We cannot watch and allow the rich to destroy the planet; the time has come for the world’s citizens to rise up and free the atmosphere of the greed of a few. We need to support the affected communities as they strive to secure their threatened livelihoods.

The developed countries have to pay the ecological debt owed the South within a just framework to help the South develop in a dignified manner - but this must not be considered as aid or charity!!

Bali is the perfect opportunity for the world to work together more than ever before to confront climate change remembering that the climate knows no borders and therefore in line with the principle of polluter pays the rich countries must take the lead in combating climate change.

Tomorrow is the global day of action on climate change. Please join us wherever you are and let's secure our planet and be better stewards of God’s given gift.

On a lighter note, today I co-chaired CAN meeting and this makes me a little bit proud to be part of this important partnership!!!

Time for some fresh air?

Sarah Spinney spells out a sombre message from Bali at the end of the first week of the international climate change negotiations.

Mohamed and I attended a Jubilee South conference this morning on global finance and climate change.  We heard from Juana Camalo from Colombia who talked about ecological debt.  It is apparent that poor people are getting increasingly angry about the impact climate change is having on their lives and the fact that they have done almost nothing to cause it. Juana said:

"Ecological debt is a crime. It is destroying our environment and our ability to live."

From delegates I've spoken to here in Bali though, this is no longer just an argument directed towards rich countries but also at rich elites within countries who control the majority of the wealth and consume the majority of the energy.

The conference also went on to discuss the whole way we view development. Current models based on economic growth are repeatedly causing economic and ecological disasters, and doing very little to alleviate poverty for the most vulnerable.  Yet they are the models that continue to be promoted by international institutions and governments.  It's time for some fresh air.

Speaking of fresh air you're unlikely to find much of that here in the Indonesian humidity or for that matter in the negotiating hall.  Despite the clear injustice of the global warming debate, today Canada came out with an outrageous position saying (and I quote):

"Canada will commit to nothing less than binding targets for developing countries."

And for their part the US seems determined to distract attention away from these vital talks and the official UN process and onto its own major economies initiative.  So all a bit depressing as the first week draws to a close. Let's hope as discussions continue over the weekend that the positive signals from the G77 and China can be capitalised on and that we can make genuine progress towards not only a Bali Roadmap, but a Bali Roadmap with substance.  It's not just important.  For some people here it's a matter of life and death.

Find out more about how climate change threatens poverty reduction and read Christain Aid's analysis from the first week of the Bali talks, all on Christian Aid's website.

Unheard voices are loud and clear on climate change

Jessica Bercilla reports on the options currently available for  poor and vulnerable communities who are already feeling the impact of climate change:

The Up In Smoke meeting today provided a space for unheard voices and stories of those that are experiencing the impacts of climate change.

As the stories unfold, it became more evident that climate change is not of the future but is a present and urgent reality that needs to be addressed.  Islands are sinking because of rising sea levels; coastal communities are being displaced because of storm surges; flooding affects more communities while typhoons and tropical cyclones increase in frequency and fury.  Landslides bury communities because of extreme heavy rainfall while in other parts of the world prolonged dry seasons threaten agriculture production and food security.

In many of these affected communities, migration to safer places seems to be the most likely option -- if they have a place to move to and if the spiritual and cultural ties to their land and resources can cross geographical boundaries as well.

Those who suffer the most from climate change have attempted to cope -- and adapt in many innovative ways:  reclaiming indigenous knowledge for survival, food security, sustained livelihoods, and stewardship for the land; putting climate and disaster science at the service of communities; calling for proactive policies to address climate change concerns; and bringing forward a stronger voice for the right to survival of communities that are greatly affected by climate risks and the hazards that accompany climate change.  And as these concerns are being given voice and rights being claimed, there is a call for the community of nations to take responsibility and share in the burden of climate change impacts.  To this extent, mitigation, particularly the reduction of carbon emissions, is a must that should accompany adaptation. 

The increasing strength and frequency of climate risks that have come sooner than expected may not give many of the most vulnerable communities enough time to innovate and adapt despite their best efforts -- take the case of the impacts of tropical cyclones, storm surges and extreme heavy rainfall that affected Bangladesh and the Philippines over the past few weeks despite the best efforts of communities and local governments to evacuate communities in harm's way.  The frequency of such events have strained efforts at alternative livelihoods that left others with lesser alternatives other than migration.

The current discussions in the Bali meetings focus on clean development mechanisms and adaptation financing.  However, it has been observed that this sterile approach to issues arising from climate variability is devoid of sensitivity to the pulse of the human spirit, the soul of communities, the nurturing wisdom of femininity that call on the recognition of every human being's right to survive and be secure in the land of their birth ---- and not be threatened by the impacts on climate change.  The same wisdom calls on those responsible for these climate threats to face up to their responsibilities and secure the rights and bring justice to those who have and who are suffering the most.

Even as I joined those that have been tasked to speak in the Up in Smoke activity, I cannot help but be affected by the various stories that have unfolded.  The stories have been told by those international and local organizations who were called to action by women, men, children whose lives have been changed by climate change..how do we and our governments respond to them?

Check out Christian Aid's daily coverage and analysis of the UNFCCC Bali conference on the Christian Aid website Bali Diary.

The islands are sinking

Sarah Spinney writes:

Today was the Up In Smoke Asia launch side event where Jessica spoke passionately about the work which our Philippines partners are undertaking on DDR and adaptation.

Also speaking was Ursula from the Carterets islands in the Pacific - one of the small island states that is making a case for immediate action on climate change with such renewed vigour here in Bali. And there's no wonder.  These are people living in harmony with their environment and making almost no impact on the world. And yet the world is having a devastating impact on them.

"We see with our own eyes that the islands are sinking"

Ursual explained how rising sea levels are threatening people's homes and livelihoods and forcing them to become climate refugees. 

And this is about more than the impact of climate change or the need to adapt.  It is about a horrendous injustice.  She concluded by saying:

"Climate change is eating away at the heart of the most vulnerable communities and yet shouldn't we be entitled to the same human rights as everyone else?"

It beggars belief that anyone can sit and listen to such a powerful and emotive testimony about the impact of our behaviour on fellow human beings and then, across the road in the negotiations, ignore the need for urgent and immediate action. 

And yet signs today were that some of the countries most responsible for the problem are continuing to do just that.  Fossil of the day went to Australia for going back on its word to commit to the 25-40% by 2020 emission targets  - which is the very least of what we need to do if we have any chance of staying below a catastrophic two degree rise in global temperatures.  And you can only imagine what such a scenario might have for Ursula and the residents of the Carterets islands.

Translating the global to the local... and vice versa

Fresh off the plane from the Philippines, Jessica Bercilla, Christian Aid Disaster Risk Reduction Officer writes:

The trip to Bali was a bumpy ride, both figuratively and literally. After running into problems with travel documents, I found myself on a plane flying through air pockets, from the Philippines to Bali, because of unfavourable weather conditions due to the recent flux of tropical typhoons which have been affecting the region. But the trip made me reflect on why I was to go through all these risks to attend the Bali UN Conference on Climate Change.

This morning the plenary sessions on clean development mechanisms yielded suggestions of more equitable and geographical distribution of projects on clean development projects, capacity building for developing countries, and less tedious and more transparent processes for registration of clean development projects.

The suggestions made me wonder about the level of significance of such high-level discussions on local communities facing climate risks. Apparently, I was not alone in this thought as some official representatives from the G77 called for the need for micro-financing and financing small-scale clean development projects for rural communities and the need to put the issue of clean development mechanisms into the political, social and economic realities of small-island states and countries affected by war.

As the various frameworks for clean development are being pushed, I cannot help but ask how these will be translated into very concrete mechanisms that will provide accessibility and will truly benefit the most vulnerable to climate-risks?

This afternoon, we attended a side event on climate change and poverty alleviation. Some of the discussions addressed my prior question. Suggestions that surfaced included funding for clean development mechanisms, adaptation, and responses to deforestation that were forwarded by Jeffery Sachs, as well as the need to bring climate science to poor communities, which was suggested by the IRI of Columbia University.

As these general statements on climate change adaptation and clean development mechanisms were being discussed and debated , I had the impression that poor, local and rural communities were seen as recipients of international and non-governmental action on climate change. There seems to be a need to recognize that these very communities are and can be powerful, resilient actors and innovators that may very well house the wisdom and social resources that the international community seeks to address climate change themselves. So much of the work and innovations of local communities that have survived climate risks have not yet been documented and shared. Theirs is a path of living with and making peace with nature.

And as we engage in these high-level discussions on climate variability, it becomes more apparent to me that our mission here lies not only in pushing for more effective, equitable, just and efficient mitigation and responsive adaptation measures towards more sustainable development for vulnerable communities. Perhaps, it may also be about helping find a space for the inspiring stories of women, men, children and households who face the daily challenges of climate change so we may learn their wisdom and stories as well and learn to find peace with nature as they have.

Sarah Spinney reports:

It has been a very busy day here with vital discussions continuing on the future of the adaptation fund and on the actions needed for a successful mandate in Bali. Nelson and I had a good meeting with the UK head of delegation, Jessica has been thrown into the deep end on her first day and Mohamed is locked into a CAN South strategy meeting as we speak... Earlier we attended a side event organised by the South Centre with Sivan Kartha (co-author of Christian Aid/EcoEquity's Greenhouse Development Rights Report) highlighting just how integral the issue of poverty and development is to the climate change debate saying:

'the welfare of the rich now depends on the wellbeing of the poor'

Last night, Mohamed and I had dinner with Dwijen and Shishir from CA partner the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies. (Dwijen was a Cut the Carbon marcher this summer). Both of them spoke about the devastating impact of the recent cyclone on their country and the need for action on climate change which really addresses the issues of poverty and clean development. We talked equity and GDRs until late into the night. Yes - not much time off here you know!

Check out the latest conference progress and CAN's Fossil of the Day on Christian Aid's Bali web pages.

Winds of hope?

Mohamed Adow of Christian Aid partner Northern Aid in Kenya reports today:

Since my arrival on this beautiful island to participate in the UN climate change conference, I have attended several meetings with optimism. I'm hoping that the conference will meet its huge responsibility to deliver a roadmap for an ambitious and detailed agreement that will secure the wellbeing of the vulnerable poor in the South. Massive and radical commitment will be needed to reduce global emissions of GHGs and support adaptation activities in the face of the inevitable impact of climate change in developing countries.

The conference atmosphere is good although the schedule is tedious with several meetings going on simultaneously until late into the night. We're all exhausted already and it's only day 2!

So far, things are encouraging with a new wind of hope blowing from Australia, which has announced her ratification of the Kyoto protocol. This declaration will hopefully add to the momentum during the negotiation process.

For the southern delegations with whom I have interacted and lobbied, their negotiation standpoint is premised on industrialized countries assuming their historical responsibility for the problem and righting the past wrongs for the sake of the future through a tangible agreement.

In our quest for justice, we are asking the industrialized countries to meet their moral duties by alleviating the problems ravaging the poor in developing countries - problems that have been caused by the activities of industrialized countries that pollute the atmosphere, activities which have also laid the foundation for today’s wellbeing in those countries.

We will wait to see whether the developed world will make this injustice a thing of the past by showing tangible gestures towards the Bali mandate.

Check out Fossil of the Day, the Climate Action Network's daily award for the most obstructive nation in each day's round of talks.

Sarah Spinney, Christian Aid Campaigns Manager, reports from Bali

A few bewildered tourists have the beaches of this small Indonesian island to themselves this week as 10,000 delegates representing 189 countries gather in Bali's International Convention Centre. Although away from the sun shades and loungers, they are addressing the increasing heat all the same. Today (Mon 3 Dec) they start discussions that are critical to protecting the very poorest people on this planet from the dual edged sword that is climate change and poverty.

On my way here I visited the Philippines where in the space of less than 10 days I experienced 3 tropical typhoons. Over 300,000 people had to be evacuated while storm surges pummelled many of the coastlines across the country. There, I also visited partners who spoke of rising sea levels and increasingly erratic weather conditions. Climate change is in evidence and it is already hurting the poor. Christian Aid’s message for these talks will be that any agreement on climate change must also safeguard the poor’s right to development.

This conference is the culmination of an important year for the climate change issue, and expectations are running high. The two naval ships anchored off the shore in view of our hotel are evidence of the extremely high security presence but inside the atmosphere is relaxed and from tomorrow the jackets and ties will be abandoned for the most dressed down UN conference ever.

Today, Nelson and Mohamed have sweated and suffered in the high humidity through the formal opening ceremonies. The Chairman of the UNFCCC, Hans Jurgen Stehr, highlighted how crucial the negotiations for a post 2012 agreement will be. "Delegates of Bali - the eyes of the world are upon you," he announced before then conveying a message of hope that a global solution led by industrialised countries was possible:

"Building action in the North can fuel clean development in the South."

Nelson is still jet lagged but leading the team through the complicated maze of UNFCCC processes and procedures. With the help of the rest of the team he is ready and willing to lobby hard for the changes we want to see on behalf of the poor.

Mohamed, too, having traveling 20 odd hours by air, is excited about contributing to the negotiation process. He believes it is vital to tackle both the scandal of poverty and climate change together, and to lobby for development equity that will assure a dignified life for the poor. During the coming two weeks in Bali, he'll be sharing the experiences of poor farmers in Africa who have been devastated by the impact of extreme climate events and changes.

Mohamed was one of Christian Aid's intrepid Cut The Carbon marchers who walked 1000 km earlier this year as part of Christian Aid's climate change campaign in the UK.

"We shall never give up the fight that we started during our historic 1000 mile march in UK."

Fossil of the Day

Check out Fossil of the Day, the Climate Action Network's daily award for the most obstructive nation in each day's round of talks.

Dressed down but geared up

Sarah Spinney, Christian Aid Campaigns Manager, reports from Bali

A few bewildered tourists have the beaches of this small Indonesian island to themselves this week as 10,000 delegates representing 189 countries gather in Bali's International Convention Centre. Although away from the sun shades and loungers, they are addressing the increasing heat all the same. Today (Mon 3 Dec) they start discussions that are critical to protecting the very poorest people on this planet from the dual edged sword that is climate change and poverty.

On my way here I visited the Philippines where in the space of less than 10 days I experienced 3 tropical typhoons. Over 300,000 people had to be evacuated while storm surges pummelled many of the coastlines across the country. There, I also visited partners who spoke of rising sea levels and increasingly erratic weather conditions. Climate change is in evidence and it is already hurting the poor. Christian Aid’s message for these talks will be that any agreement on climate change must also safeguard the poor’s right to development.

This conference is the culmination of an important year for the climate change issue, and expectations are running high. The two naval ships anchored off the shore in view of our hotel are evidence of the extremely high security presence but inside the atmosphere is relaxed and from tomorrow the jackets and ties will be abandoned for the most dressed down UN conference ever.

Today, Nelson and Mohamed have sweated and suffered in the high humidity through the formal opening ceremonies. The Chairman of the UNFCCC, Hans Jurgen Stehr, highlighted how crucial the negotiations for a post 2012 agreement will be. "Delegates of Bali - the eyes of the world are upon you," he announced before then conveying a message of hope that a global solution led by industrialised countries was possible:

"Building action in the North can fuel clean development in the South."

Nelson is still jet lagged but leading the team through the complicated maze of UNFCCC processes and procedures. With the help of the rest of the team he is ready and willing to lobby hard for the changes we want to see on behalf of the poor.

Mohamed, too, having traveling 20 odd hours by air, is excited about contributing to the negotiation process. He believes it is vital to tackle both the scandal of poverty and climate change together, and to lobby for development equity that will assure a dignified life for the poor. During the coming two weeks in Bali, he'll be sharing the experiences of poor farmers in Africa who have been devastated by the impact of extreme climate events and changes.

Mohamed was one of Christian Aid's intrepid Cut The Carbon marchers who walked 1000 km earlier this year as part of Christian Aid's climate change campaign in the UK.

"We shall never give up the fight that we started during our historic 1000 mile march in UK."