* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Paris Agreement wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation wikipedia , lookup
544 IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2012 UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international treaty created at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to tackle the growing problem of global warming and related harmful changes in the climate, such as more frequent droughts, storms and hurricanes, melting of ice, rising sea levels, flooding, forest fires, etc. The UNFCCC entered into force in 1994, and has near universal membership, with 192 countries as ratifying parties. In 1997, the Convention established its Kyoto Protocol, ratified by 184 parties, by which a number of industrialized countries have committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in line with legally binding targets.1 In 2007, the Convention’s governing body, the Conference of the Parties (COP), adopted the Bali Action Plan - a road map for strengthening international action on climate change and enabling full implementation of the Convention through an agreement covering all parties to the Convention. The elements of the Bali Action Plan (a shared vision, mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, provision of financial resources and investments)2 are negotiated in the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA). Apart from the Kyoto Protocol’s working group (AWG-KP) and the AWG-LCA, the convention has two permanent subsidiary bodies, namely the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI).3 Indigenous rights issues cut across almost all areas of negotiation but have been highlighted most significantly within the negotiations on forest conservation, known as REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), one of the mitigation measures negotiated under the AWG-LCA. INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES 545 T he advocacy efforts of indigenous peoples’ organizations continued unabated in 2011 with the ultimate goal of ensuring full consideration of international indigenous peoples’ rights’ obligations and instruments, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), in all climate change policies and programmes, in particular on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). An increasing number of governments have joined their calls, and a meeting in Mexico, with the participation of indigenous peoples and state parties, was organized under the auspices of the government of Mexico in order to consolidate an indigenous peoples’ platform and strategies for the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC (COP 17) in Durban in December 2011, and beyond. This expanding support base of governments, civil society and social movements was, however, confronted with the peculiar dynamics that underpinned the whole negotiation process throughout the year and more clear-cut and stringent commitments on rights were set aside in the last frantic hours of negotiations in Durban in order to clear the way for a last-minute agreement that would save the face of the UNFCCC and allegedly save the future of the Kyoto Protocol. Once again, the significant hiatus between the urgency of reality on the ground, which calls for immediate action to reduce emissions, mitigate and adapt to climate change through a rights-based approach, and the lack of governments’ resolve to commit accordingly, became obvious. It became clear in Durban that governments were entrenched in a “hard power” negotiating battle in which “brinkmanship” was the rule, and strategic positioning the endgame. The whole issue of rights, while acknowledged in form, was considered as a hurdle or irritant in already very tense negotiations, and thus succumbed to “realpolitik”. In the background is a dire economic and financial crisis that is eroding the capacity of governments to commit to a significant change in the development paradigm and to invest in supporting countries on their path towards a low carbon future. Building blocks towards a global climate regime Negotiators in Durban knew that the stakes were high, and opted for a strategy that would deliver at least some institutional outcomes. They decided to start assembling the institutional structure upon which to subsequently build the global climate governance architecture. In this sense, Durban delivered some concrete 546 IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2012 results, such as the launch of the Green Climate Fund, the Transfer of Technology Secretariat, the Adaptation Committee and capacity building bodies. These will create a first pillar upon which the rest of the global climate governance will be developed. In terms of future negotiations, a new negotiating track (the so-called Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) was launched. A global commitment to emissions reductions will be negotiated, and possibly finalized by 2015 in order to enter into force by 2020. Within this broader goal, the EU and its allies, consisting of the groups of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island States (AOSIS), joined by China and a reluctant India managed to keep the second commitment period of Kyoto afloat. As regards the key issue of financing, no clear commitments have yet been undertaken to disburse the USD 100 billion per year contributions that the international community should guarantee to support mitigation and adaptation actions until 2020. Nevertheless, the Green Climate Fund was launched and the Board will hold its first meetings in 2012.4 UNFCCC: a narrowing space for rights holders One element to be taken into account in the overall negotiations was the shrinking space for interaction on the part of civil society and other stakeholders. As a matter of fact, calls for an enhanced role for observers and stakeholders had already been dismissed in an earlier preparatory session that took place in Bonn in June 2011. At that time, governments rejected any possibility of stakeholders providing a more concrete and effective contribution in the negotiations by participating in all negotiating sessions and possibly tabling language, as is the case in the negotiations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Indigenous peoples had called upon Parties to recognize their unique contribution and role in climate change policies and response measures by establishing modalities for their direct engagement in the negotiations, direct access to financing and capacity building to attend the UNFCCC processes, and the setting up of an expert group of indigenous peoples within the UNFCCC. These calls went unheeded in spite of the adoption by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the report of the 10th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (May 2011) which called upon the UNFCCC and its Parties to “develop mechanisms to promote the participation of indigenous peoples in all aspects of the international dialogue on climate change”.5 INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES 547 REDD+ and safeguards, two steps backwards, one step forward REDD+ negotiations in Durban developed along two streams, one at the subsidiary body level (SBSTA) focusing on adopting guidance on a System of Information on how Safeguards (SIS) are implemented and considered in REDD+, and on reference levels and reference emission levels. And the other in the debate on REDD+ financing modalities developed in the Ad Hoc Working Group on LongTerm Cooperative Action (LCA).6 One of the key contentious issues in the SBSTA negotiations was the different interpretation of the safeguard reporting requirements. Most governments were hesitant to adopt guidance that would include performance-related information, and instead limited their discussion to the modalities for reporting. The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus lobbied to have specific reference to indigenous peoples’ rights and to international obligations in the final text, but the only noteworthy outcome was the text on international obligations and a general reference to the package of safeguards adopted in the Cancún Agreement in 2010.7 The COP decision on the SIS does not provide any guidance on the need to ensure reporting on the implementation of safeguards at the international level nor to develop performance indicators, while specifying that respect for safeguards should support national strategies and be ensured in all phases of the REDD+ cycle. This means that REDD+ governments’ would have to ensure that a safeguards compliance and implementation system is in place in the readiness and implementation phases before embarking on results-based payments. As to the latter, Parties acknowledged the fact that the results upon which payments would be made need to encompass non-carbon benefits, such as livelihoods, biodiversity and poverty alleviation. The final agreement on REDD+ finance also acknowledges that, regardless of the sources of financing, any REDD+ action has to be consistent with the established safeguards, and that any action should promote and support safeguards, as requested by REDD+ countries that are seeking financial and technical support on the matter. Indeed, a key challenge deriving from the Durban decision is that of ensuring that agencies and programmes involved in REDD, such as the UNREDD, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and the Forest Investment Programme, commit to supporting and implementing a robust and effective architecture with which to implement safeguards and indigenous peoples’ rights at the 548 IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2012 national level as a necessary pre-condition before projects can possibly start on the ground. Green Climate Fund launched but no money yet As for the Green Climate Fund (GCF), indigenous peoples have - among other things - called for a separate REDD window to be set up, and for the adoption of modalities to ensure direct access to financing in order to support adaptation and mitigation projects developed and implemented by indigenous peoples, and based on their traditional knowledge. The Parties decided to set up two financing windows, one for mitigation and another for adaptation, REDD being part of the former. Ensuring direct access to financing, the adoption of safeguards anchored to international obligations and instruments, such as the UNDRIP, acknowledging indigenous peoples’ right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and their participation in the activities and governance bodies of the Green Climate Fund will be among the outstanding priorities for indigenous peoples’ advocacy in relation to the newly-established GCF Board.8 Indigenous peoples from all over the world gather to adopt common agenda on climate Outside the official process, a remarkable development took place in 2011 as a follow-up to a first gathering of the kind held under the auspices of the Mexican government in Xcaret, before the Cancún COP in 2010 (see The Indigenous World 2011). In October 2011, indigenous peoples’ self-selected representatives of regions from all over the world attended the Second Technical Workshop of Indigenous Peoples and States in the UNFCCC together with a group of Parties’ delegates in Oaxaca, Mexico. The Oaxaca Action Plan Of Indigenous Peoples: From Cancún To Durban And Beyond 9 represents the common platform for advocacy and lobbying of indigenous peoples in the post-Durban processes, spanning the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, the Qatar COP18 of the UNFCCC and the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples scheduled in 2014. Among other things, indigenous peoples identified a series of key challenges for the Durban negotiations, such as the lack of implementation/operation- INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES 549 alisation of the positive elements of the Cancún Agreement, particularly relating to respect for the rights of indigenous peoples, and the establishment of mechanisms for their full and effective participation in climate change processes on all levels. Moreover, the Cancún Agreement carried a very weak reference to “the holistic ecosystems approach and the recognition of the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a human rights framework for all actions and activities relating to climate change”. The lack of any possibility of indigenous peoples directly accessing finance for capacity building and to support mitigation and adaptation actions based on their traditional knowledge and livelihoods was also underlined, together with the lack of commitment by Parties to support the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and to allocate funding for the Green Climate Fund. Indigenous peoples agreed – among other things - to promote a chapter on Indigenous Peoples’ Traditional Knowledge in the Durban Outcome document and to initiate mechanisms to gather indigenous peoples’ proposals and responses on a national/regional level in this regard. The Oaxaca document reiterated indigenous peoples’ position that financing of REDD+ should be based on public funds and not on the carbon market, and should be subject to full respect for indigenous peoples’ rights (in accordance with international obligations and instruments such as the UNDRIP) and relevant safeguards. Furthermore, indigenous peoples should be given options for directly accessing financing in the Green Climate Fund in each of the approved windows. The Oaxaca plan of action will further strengthen indigenous peoples’ capacity to act in a coordinated fashion and exploit the space that still exists at the international level to advocate for more rightsbased approaches and instruments within the climate change negotiations. This will apply in particular to the Green Climate Fund and indigenous peoples’ participation in the various bodies that have been launched in Durban. Such calls will indeed benefit from the critical mass of support from countries and civil society accumulated over the years. In parallel, much of the focus will necessarily have to shift at national level onto the implementing agencies, in particular as regards REDD+. The ultimate goal would be that of capitalizing on gains achieved thus far in the consideration of indigenous peoples’ rights at the UNFCCC, and ensuring that countries act consistently when implementing climate programmes and policies such as those on REDD+. 550 IWGIA – THE INDIGENOUS WORLD – 2012 Notes 1 The Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005 and, during its first commitment period from 20082012, 37 industrialized countries and the European Union committed themselves to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 percent by 2012, in relation to the 1990 level. 2 The Bali Action Plan can be downloaded from the UNFCCC website: http://unfccc.int/resource/ docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3 (accessed on 9 March 2009). 3 Sources: UNFCCC’s website (http://unfccc.int/press/items/2794.php), International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2009: COP15 for journalists: a guide to the UN climate change summit (available at: http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=17074IIED). 4 The full text of the COP decision establishing the Green Climate Fund can be found at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov2011/decisions/application/pdf/cop17_gcf-pdf 5 http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/session_tenth.html 6 The decision on a System of Information on Safeguard can be downloaded at http://unfccc.int/ files/meetings/durban_nov2011/decisions/application/pdf/cop17_safeguards.pdf - The text of the COP decision, including a section on REDD, can be found at the following URL (pages 12-13) http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban/nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/cop17_lcaoutcome. pdf 7 Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations statements at the Durban COP can be found at http://www. forestpeoples.org/topics/climate-forests 8 A report on the Green Climate Fund, prepared for Durban by FPP and JOAS can be found at: http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/un-framework-convention-climate-change-unfccc/publication/2011/green-climate-fund-and-transit 9 http://ccmin.aippnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=734:the-oaxaca-action-plan-of-indigenous-peoples-from-cancun-to-durban-and-beyond&catid=1:news Francesco Martone, is Policy Advisor on Climate, Forests and Indigenous Peoples with Forest Peoples Programme (www.forestpeoples.org), tracking the UNFCCC negotiations and other international initiatives on REDD+ (UNREDD, FCPF, FIP). A political scientist and former member of the Italian Senate, he has been engaged in international development, human rights and environmental issues for more than 20 years.