Download UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

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.