Archive for the ‘Cupula dos Povos RIO+20 / Peoples Summit Rio+20’ Category

Panel finds corporations, United Nations and governments guilty of violating nature’s rights

Saturday, December 13th, 2014

By Indigenous Environmental Network.

Lima, Peru (Dec. 7, 2014)– The International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature judged twelve international and domestic cases; examining the violation of the rights of peoples and nature committed by corporations, The United Nations, and governmental entities. The judgments reference the legal framework of the Rights of Nature and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The cases were reviewed on Dec. 5th and 6th in Lima’s Gran Hotel Bolivar.

According to Alberto Acosta, president of the Tribunal and former president of the Constitutional Assembly of Ecuador, the rights of nature must have a universal validity. “This ethical tribunal arises when States fail to fulfill their obligation to preserve the lives of living beings,” said Acosta. “As long as nature is seen as property in law, there can be no justice for communities, the climate or nature.”

Acosta led the 13 judges through 12 cases

The Tribunal was dedicated to Shuar leader, José Tendentza, who was found murdered just days before the Tribunal. Tendentza of Southern Ecuador was scheduled to present the Condor Mine case. Acosta led the 13 judges through 12 cases that were determined by the judges to demonstrate egregious violations to rights of nature and human rights. Cases included:

-False Solutions related to Climate Change and REDD+;
-Peruvian cases: Conga Mine, Bagua Massacre – Defenders of Earth, 4 River Basins of Peru;
-Ecuadorian cases: Condor Mine, Chevron/Texaco, and Yasuni ITT
Brazil: Belo Monte Dam
-USA and Bolivia: Hydraulic fracturing “fracking”
-Oceans: BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, coal mine and other threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Of the cases, the oil exploitation of the Yasuni territory of Ecuador was condemned in addition to the relentless persecution Yasunidos are facing for their dissent. Since 2013, the Ecuadorian government green-lighted oil drilling in Yasuni National Park, one of the most biodiverse areas in the world and home to two indigenous nations in voluntary isolation.

In protest, a group of young Yasunidos joined together to claim the rights of nature, which are guaranteed in the Constitution of Ecuador. They collected more than 800,000 signatures to call for a referendum on the oil exploitation, but their request was rejected by electoral institutions. The Yasunidos are now suing the Ecuadorian government, led by President Rafael Correa, and are waiting for their complaint to be reviewed by the tribunal of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH).

Additionally, the Tribunal for the Rights of Nature found Chevron-Texaco in Ecuador to be guilty of using inappropriate technology and causing irreversible damage to the environment. They determined that the corporation must fully compensate those affected by the environmental impact.

The Peruvian cases of Conga and Bagua were accepted as threats of violation to the rights of nature. An international special commission was appointed to visit the impacted Amazonian basins to collect more information on the contamination.

The case of the mining project in the Cordillera del Condor was found by the Tribunal to be in direct violation of the rights of nature. They determined that mining must be suspended and those affected must be compensated. They urge the state to investigate and punish those responsible for the death of José Tendentza, the prominent social activist that was in opposition to the mining.

A widow of one of the four murdered activists shares her testimony

The Peruvian cases of Conga and Bagua were accepted as threats of violation to the rights of nature. An international special commission was appointed to visit the impacted Amazonian basins to collect more information on the contamination.

Shannon Biggs, director of Movement Rights, shared testimony on the impacts of fracking , a process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth. “You cannot do safe fracking,” said Biggs. “This technique should have never been invented. It is one of the most destructive activities against the environment ever seen.”

According to Biggs, 800,000 active oil and gas wells are being fracked in the United States, producing roughly 300,000 natural gas barrels per day. Severe water pollution and earthquakes have been linked with fracking. “We die from fracking. The population is suffering from cancer; my sister has died,” said Casey Camp-Horinek (Ponca) of Oklahoma in her testimony. “The water is contaminated; we cannot fish. We are in danger of extinction.”

Plans to develop large-scale hydraulic fracking in Bolivia were reported by Martin Vilela of Platform Climate Reaction. In recent years the country has increased the production and export of natural gas. 82.4% of its production is exported, generating more than six billion dollars a year. Bolivia has 8.23 trillion cubic feet of gas, and YPFB plans to invest over 40 million dollars between 2013 and 2015. Vilela explained that in 2013 this corporation signed an agreement for fracking in the Chaco area, a region with water scarcity to extract 48 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Estimates determine that this would consume between 112 and 335 billion liters of water.

Nnimmo Bassey, a Nigerian architect, environmental activist presented on the contamination and temperature rise affecting Nigeria. According to Bassey, oil fields and pipelines have caused deep environmental degradation, deforestation, and countless oil spills. Life expectancy in these impacted areas is 44 years.

Bassey warned that climate change will have catastrophic consequences. “For every degree the temperature rises globally, in Africa it will rise an additional 50%.” In 2012 floods in Nigeria led to the relocation of 6 million inhabitants. Bassey speculates that in 2030 Africa violent conflicts will increase by 54% due to the lack of access to natural resources.

At the hearing on “false climate solutions,” geoengineering techniques that seek to manipulate climate without changing the conditions that cause climate change were reviewed.

REDD+ was also put on trial. President of the Huni Kui people of Acre, Brazil, Ninawa Kaxinawá (Hunikui) testified that “REDD is a lie. We do not accept putting nature on market because it is our soul and spirit; it is priceless, it is our voice.”

According to Ruth Nyambura, of the Biodiversity Network Africa, says that in Kenya, evictions are occurring as a result of REDD. “Four indigenous people were arrested,” said Nyambura. “A woman was hit by the forest service because she was outside of her land.”

The Tribunal is calling for a special hearing in Paris in 2015 to coincide with the upcoming UN COP 21 summit.

Final Declaration International Indigenous Peoples Conference on Sustainable Development and Self Determination (English)

Sunday, June 24th, 2012

To download the Declaration click HERE

VIDEO: RIO+20: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTEST MARCH – 20 june 2012

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

RIO+20: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTEST MARCH – 20 June 2012

Indigenous Peoples Protest March in front of UN premises RIO+20 (Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

Indigenous Peoples Protest March in front of UN premises RIO+20 (Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

TO WATCH VIDEO CLICK HERE

Hundreds of indigenous peoples from Brazil nearly stormed the entrance of the official UN RIO+20 conference yesterday, June 20 2012,  that was heavily guarded by armed forces.

RIO+20: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTEST MARCH - 20 june 2012(Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

RIO+20: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTEST MARCH - 20 june 2012(Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

Secretary General of the Presidency of Brazil, Gilberto de Cavalho, pressured by the resistance of the indigenous protesters to leave,  came finally outside.

Police at RIO+20: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTEST MARCH - 20 june 2012(Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

Police at RIO+20: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTEST MARCH - 20 june 2012(Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

Cavalho promised upon repeated demand of the  outraged protesters that 12 indigenous leaders will be allowed to enter the UN premises to deliver their final outcome document to the world at the official UN conference.

RIO+20: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTEST MARCH Chief Raoni and Secretary General of the Presidency of Brazil, Gilberto de Cavalho

RIO+20: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PROTEST MARCH Chief Raoni and Secretary General of the Presidency of Brazil, Gilberto de Cavalho

After the protesters returned to the Indigenous “Free Land Camp”,  located 2 hours away from the official UN meeting at the Peoples Summit space at the Flamengo Park,

Final Text discussed and agreed upon at Indigenous "Free Land Camp" (Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

Final Text discussed and agreed upon at Indigenous

the indigenous  technical team  – that had merged over the past days text from regional indigenous prep-meetings documents – presented their final proposal, which was agreed upon at around 8pm by the indigenous representatives present.

Final Text discussed at Indigenous "Free Land Camp" (Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

Final Text discussed at Indigenous

Today,  12 indigenous representatives from Brazil will therefore deliver the final document “CARTA DO RIO DE JANEIRO”.

Final Text discussed and agreed upon at Indigenous "Free Land Camp" (Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

Final Text discussed and agreed upon at Indigenous

Despite the hardship of Indigenous peoples to arrive in Rio, despite that the Brazilian Buerau or Indian Affairs (FUNAI) had broken their promise to arrange transport for the indigenous peoples for every region of Brazil at the very day of departure, leaving most of the regions with no way to send their representatives to Rio, despite the attempt of Brazil to weaken the indigenous movement by hindering their participation within the official UN event (no registration- UN passes), despite the attempt of Brazil to create disunity among the indigenous peoples (see Carta do Rio de Janeiro regarding the space inside RioCento=Karioka)

RIO+20: Indigenous Peoples Protest March June 20 2012(Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

RIO+20: Indigenous Peoples Protest March June 20 2012(Photo © Rebecca Sommer)

– the indigenous movement of Brazil showed once again that they are not willing to have their political voice being suffocated.

To download CARTA DO RIO DE JANEIRO in portuguese, click HERE

To download the RIO DE JANEIRO DECLARATION in English, clickHERE

MITS TO POLLUTE: REDD AND THE GREEN ECONOMY

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

by Shalmali Guttal
Focus on the Global South
June 14, 2012

REDD (Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is one of the most deceptive and risky initiatives proposed to mitigate climate change. REDD creates the illusion that by halting forest destruction and degradation, global emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) will be reduced. In actuality, however, the offset mechanism in REDD allows high GHG emitters to purchase forest carbon credits and avoid their own ethical responsibilities to cut emissions. REDD is a mechanism not to cut GHGs, but to deliver new permits to pollute. And by tying financing for forest protection with international carbon markets, REDD exposes precious natural resources to the risks of market volatility and instability.

The guiding logic of REDD is that if governments and forest owners in developing countries are paid enough money, they will be inclined to keep their forests high in carbon and prevent deforestation and forest degradation, which are both important sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, the payments are not for actually protecting natural forests, but for reducing emissions from deforestation/forest degradation. This is an important difference. A government or forest owner must first show that a forest is indeed being destroyed or degraded, and that this can be stopped in exchange for money that compensates for the earnings from clearing or degrading the forest. As long as an acceptable monetary value and viable exchange mechanism can be properly established, the needs of the North can be matched with the needs of the South. In this way, the forest services of carbon sequestration can be secured by high-level emitters who can pay for these services and avoid cutting emissions themselves.

REDD is a central and currently most visible peg in what the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) calls the Green Economy. UNEP’s conceptualisation treats nature and the functions and capacities of nature as “natural capital,” and claims that appropriate economic values can be estimated for the vital eco-system services that forests, trees, lakes, wetlands and river basins provide by capturing and storing carbon, creating water catchments, ensuring the stability of water cycles, soil fertility, local micro-climates for safe habitats, nurturing and regenerating biodiversity (including fisheries), etc. These values are a fundamental part of a country’s “natural capital,” and can be packaged and traded in international markets to attract investment and development finance.

Tried and tested economic mechanisms and markets exist, which can be replicated and scaled up, including from certified timber schemes, certification for rainforest products, payments for ecosystem services, benefit- sharing schemes and community-based partnerships. In particular, international and national negotiations of a REDD+ regime may be the best current opportunity to facilitate the transition to a green economy for forestry. [1]

REDD will develop markets to sell the capacity of forests to store CO2 and other GHGs. This may sound better than selling the timber from forests, but such forest carbon markets will create perverse incentives for both wealthy and developing countries. Governments or forest owners in developing countries will be encouraged to deforest (or to threaten to do so) so that they can receive payments to prevent deforestation. And wealthy countries will be able to continue polluting by purchasing forest carbon credits through REDD.

Dangerous Ambiguities

REDD+ was adopted at the UNFCCC[2] 16th Conference of Parties (COP) in Cancun in December 2010.[3] It encourages developing countries to contribute to mitigation actions in the forest sector through any of the following: a) Reducing emissions from deforestation; 
b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation;
 c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks;
 d) Sustainable management of forests, and;
 e) Enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

In the REDD+ framework, forests are viewed as stores of carbon rather than as complex eco-systems that support wide varieties of life, biological processes and people. Many forest conservation programmes have unfortunate histories of evicting local communities from forest areas once they are zoned as national parks and protected areas. At the same time, logging is permitted in particular forest sections which may be old growth forests, community forests and the ancestral domains of indigenous peoples. The UN definition of forests does not distinguish between natural forests and plantations, leaving the door open for investors and governments to convert natural forests (even if sparse) to tree plantations and still get money under REDD+. But so-called “degraded” forests are often scrublands, woodlots and fallows that are valuable to local communities as sources of food, fibre, fodder, fuel, medicinal plants and non-timber-forest-products important for local diets and incomes.

A particularly contentious issue in REDD is ownership: who owns the forests, and who should be rewarded for protecting and not cutting forests? Governments generally claim ownership and sovereignty over all resources within their territories and strike deals that give them maximum gains, be they through logging, mining, industrial agriculture or REDD agreements. The rights of rural and indigenous peoples communities to make decisions about the management of forests that they have long used and stewarded are rarely recognized by governments or the conservation industry. REDD+ will likely enable new property rights: those who buy REDD credits can own a portion of the capacity of the forest to sequester carbon for a certain period of time. The goal of carbon sequestration is already conflicting with the rights of local people to use forests in Indonesia, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Vietnam and Thailand. Rural and forest based communities are frequently portrayed as the primary threats to forests and rarely awarded fair compensation for lost lands and livelihoods.

Many rural, forest-based and indigenous peoples’ communities fear that REDD will further advance land grabbing and the destruction of native eco-systems by providing incentives to governments and large landholders to apply a “you-pay-or-I-cut” approach to every hectare of forest land that they succeed in wresting from local farmers and communities.

Enabling the Commodification of Nature

“Essentially REDD+, is an investment focusing on retaining or enhancing natural capital, and provides an opportunity to enable countries to move towards realizing green development. Where conditions are favourable, REDD+ potentially represents an important, possibly even the pre-eminent, strand in a natural capital centric investment strategy.” [4]

UNEP, UN-REDD[5] and the UNFCCC consider REDD+ as a front-runner in creating a market to generate revenues from the capacities and processes of nature.[6] On 4 December 2011, during Forest Day 5 of the COP 17 of the UNFCCC in Durban, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary to the UNFCCC announced that, “… almost 200 governments of the world are doing nothing less than writing a global business plan for the planet” and indicated that REDD was “the spiritual core of this business plan.”[7] A large chunk of this business plan entails identifying elements and processes of nature and biodiversity, and giving them “economic visibility” as commodities to be traded on international markets.

In UN-REDD parlance, a Green Development transition implies expanding the range of nature-biodiversity based commodities that can be used to attract private investment:

“REDD+ investments can be leveraged to induce other investments that can deliver or realize economic value from these other ecosystem services…. Thus REDD+ would deliver not only direct investments in forests but it would also help to lower thresholds for other investments into ecosystem services and the conservation of biodiversity… REDD+ can deliver biodiversity conservation as an additional benefit for mitigation and development. Investments can be directed at a broad portfolio of forest land-use types, not just protected areas.”[8]

REDD+ is a trail-blazer in UNEP’s Green Economy, which promotes new ways to extract revenues from nature. Central to the framework are increased roles for private investors and finance capital, international open markets for climate mitigation, tradable pollution permits, international PES (Payments for Ecosystem Services) schemes, removing tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in environmental goods and services, and further liberalization of agriculture trade under the World Trade Organisation. It creates a new system of natural resource appropriation and commodification whereby eco-systems and biodiversity are valued more in monetary terms than for the varieties of life that that they sustain.

Why Not Protect Forests and Forest Peoples?

Over 35 % of the Asia-Pacific region is covered by forests, accounting for approximately a fifth of the world’s forests. At current estimation, about 450 million people in the region rely on forests for their livelihoods which are becoming increasingly insecure. Despite their tremendous social, cultural, economic and environmental value, the region’s forests are being destroyed at an alarming rate—almost 4 million hectares per year—because of land conversions (mainly for industrial agriculture and plantations), timber extraction, mining and infrastructure projects. Although rural, forest-dependent and indigenous peoples’ communities have stewarded forests for generations, they face increasing restrictions on using forestlands and are rarely consulted about official forest management plans. On the contrary, dominant models of forestry that include logging quotas, industrial forestry and national parks to conserve protected areas have tended to weaken local people’s rights and access to forests.

Forest loss and degradation are said to contribute approximately 15-18 percent of global GHG emissions annually[9] and by many estimates, half of this amount comes from deforestation and forest degradation in Asia.[10] A great deal of attention is being paid to bringing forests in Asia-Pacific into mitigation plans, especially to offset emissions in industrialised countries.

REDD+ is being promoted across much of Asia as a “potentially large new source of financing for sustainable rural development in developing countries tied to securing forest ecosystem services that generate local, regional and global benefits.”[11] Bilateral donors, UN agencies and International Financial Institutions (IFIs) are pouring millions of dollars on national “REDD Readiness” (capacity building) programmes. Investment firms, environmental organisations and governments are teaming up to develop pilot projects to generate revenues through international forest carbon markets (for example in Nepal, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand and the Lao PDR).

However, none of these massive outlays of money will cut GHGs emissions, address the drivers of deforestation, protect native eco-systems and ensure security of tenure of local communities to their forests. Instead, land, soils and forests will be economically manipulated to allow investors to profit from the climate and environmental crisis. It is crucial that we protect our forests and the livelihoods of forest dependent communities, but selling forest carbon credits will neither protect forests and community rights, nor cool the planet. In its current structure, REDD is little more than a framework to extract value from forests and create a new financial bubble out of living, breathing, eco-systems.

If forests are to be protected and regenerated, the main drivers of deforestation and degradation must be urgently named and tackled. This is a crucial political step since these drivers include powerful corporations, military and government actors, and wealthy consumers. Forest-based and rural communities eking out subsistence livelihoods are not the primary threats to forests. Destructive commercial interests must be effectively shut out of “solutions” and the demands for the products they source from these lands (minerals, biofuels, animal feeds, rubber, high value timber, etc.) should be drastically reduced. Conversions of forest and agricultural lands to agro-industrial estates and industrial plantations must be stopped. At the same time, the tenurial rights of local communities to lands, forests and eco-systems should be secured and protected, and their abilities to protect and manage these eco-systems should be strengthened and supported. Local communities and all citizens need to become aware of the implications of allowing market mechanisms to determine how natural resources are used and managed.

Forests are not suffering because of lack of money. On the contrary, it is indeed money that leads to deforestation and degradation, and that will—in a cynical twist—provide perverse incentives to threaten forests through REDD (unless it is drastically reformed). The huge amounts of funds available for REDD Readiness could instead be used to support national programmes and infrastructure that directly support and strengthen rights-based forms of forest and ecosystem conservation and restoration, and natural regeneration with local-national support, community forestry and fisheries, local livelihoods and economic foundations, and production, consumption and lifestyles that are genuinely green, in harmony with nature.

CARTA de MATO GROSSO: Cupula dos povos e a Rio+20: Desafios e Perspectivas “Qual economia queremos”

Sunday, June 17th, 2012

Para ler a carta, cliqueCARTA de MATO GROSSO

CARTA de MATO GROSSO (Photo @ Rebecca Sommer)

CARTA de MATO GROSSO (Photo @ Rebecca Sommer)

Bolivia no lleva propuestas para Río+20

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

LA PAZ/OPINIÓN | 22/04/2012 |

El Gobierno boliviano se marginó totalmente de la próxima Conferencia Mundial sobre la preservación del planeta tierra, denominada Río +20 que se realizará en julio próximo, al extremo de que el documento oficial que discutirán delegados y gobiernos ni siquiera incluye el término Madre Tierra, acuñado y promovido por la administración del presidente Evo Morales.

Mother Earth Rights defender Pablo Solón (Photo © Pueblos de la Tierra)

Mother Earth Rights defender Pablo Solón (Photo © Pueblos de la Tierra)

La denuncia la hizo a OPINIÓN el exembajador del gobierno de Morales, ante las Naciones Unidas, Pablo Solón, quien también fue parte del equipo y proceso de negociación de Bolivia en las anteriores Cumbres sobre Cambio Climático, tanto en Durban (2011) como en Cancún (2010).

El exembajador calificó esta situación de “preocupante” para Bolivia, ya que existe un documento consolidado de todas las propuestas que hicieron llegar los países y grupos negociadores que asistirán a la Cumbre y que se constituirá en la Declaración de Río. El límite para la presentación de propuestas venció el 29 de febrero y el país no presentó ninguna.

El documento presentado por países y grupos negociadores, según explicó Pablo Solón, no incluye ninguna de las posiciones que se discutieron en la Conferencia Mundial de los Pueblos y Derechos de la Madre Tierra realizada en Tiquipaya (2010).  Lamentablemente, dijo Solón, no es que no se haya recogido la posición boliviana, sino que el país no la presentó.

El exembajador Solón afirmó que el actual negociador para Río +20, René Orellana, trató de justificar la ausencia boliviana señalando que la estrategia será presentar la propuesta en el G77 + China (grupo de países en vías de desarrollo). Solón aseguró, sin embargo, que bajo el nombre de G77 tampoco se podía encontrar las propuestas de Bolivia, “al extremo de que ni siquiera la palabra Madre Tierra figura en el documento consolidado”.

Los países industrializados llevan la delantera.

En Río +20, al parecer, no se debatirá sobre los derechos de la naturaleza sino cómo mercantilizarla.

Según explicó Solón, los países más industrializados del norte presentarán la propuesta de la “economía verde” que si bien es un término “naif” y aparentemente inocuo, es en realidad una serie de mecanismos para llevar adelante procesos de mercantilización de las funciones de la naturaleza. Es esa propuesta que los países industrializados pretenden que se apruebe en Río + 20.

“Lo vemos en la propuesta consolidada que está en mesa, hay una clara propuesta de los países industrializados, la solución es más capitalismo, un capitalismo ‘verde’ que incorpore a la naturaleza”, advierte el exembajador.

Pablo Solon (Photo @ Rebecca Sommer)

Pablo Solon (Photo @ Rebecca Sommer)

Y la respuesta, agrega, es solamente defensiva. Los países en vías de desarrollo aglutinados en el G77 + China, tienen en su propuesta defensiva el lenguaje acordado en el marco de Naciones Unidas: derecho al desarrollo, soberanía, no intervención en asuntos internos, derecho al agua, todos de importancia “pero no hay una nueva propuesta para decir queremos esto o proponemos esta otra visión”.

La propuesta redondeada y que será defendida por los países industrializados parte de la afirmación de que hay un desequilibrio con la naturaleza debido a que ésta no se ha incorporado como parte del capital. “Proponen que haya un capitalismo tridimensional, que tenga un soporte físico (maquinarias, insumos), un soporte humano (los trabajadores) y una tercera que sea la naturaleza, y solo en la medida en que se incorpore la naturaleza a los procesos de mercado –como objeto material y como procesos y funciones que cumple- se podrá preservar ese equilibrio porque tendrá un precio”, explicó Solón.

Antes, agrega Solón, hubo procesos de mercantilización de la naturaleza, por ejemplo los árboles, madre, de plantas, “pero nunca antes hasta ahora hubo un proceso de mercantilización de las funciones”. En otras palabras, ya no se trata de la madera del árbol, sino de la capacidad de absorción de gases de efecto invernadero del bosque.

Perdimos la oportunidad.

Sin una propuesta alternativa, que Bolivia tuvo la oportunidad de presentar hasta el 29 de febrero y no lo hizo, el resultado de la conferencia no es el más esperanzador.

Previa a la reunión de julio, los movimientos sociales se reunirán en mayo para debatir qué se hace, pero Solón advierte que sin una propuesta alternativa, se puede prever el resultado de las negociaciones.

El gran error, según Pablo Solón, es haber tratado a la naturaleza como un objeto y ponerle precio a todo, cuando lo sensato es respetar las leyes intrínsecas de la naturaleza, sus ciclos vitales y reconocer que los seres humanos son parte de esa naturaleza, y no está por encima de ella.

Por su parte, el mercado capitalista debe reconocer que la actividad económica tiene límites, uno de ellos es cuando se empieza a afectar los ciclos vitales y la capacidad regenerativa del planeta.

La visión trabajada en Tiquipaya –reconocer que se vive en un sistema interdependiente- está ausente del documento de Río + 20. Pese a que el negociador boliviano señaló que se iba a incluir este fin de mes en la ronda que se inicia en Nueva York, esa posibilidad es muy remota o inexistente, según Solón. Bolivia perdió su oportunidad.

Datos.

Dióxido de carbono

El negocio “verde” tiene además una cadena de intermediación. El costo de una tonelada de dióxido de carbono depende de la demanda. Si ésta es mucha el valor de la tonelada puede ser de 40 a 50 dólares americanos. En algún momento la tonelada se cotizaba a 30 dólares, pero hoy está entre tres y siete dólares, según explicación del exembajador ante la ONU, Pablo Solón.

Fracaso

La baja de estos precios obedece al fracaso de la Cumbre de Durban (Sudáfrica 2011), en la que los compromisos de reducción son tan bajos que las empresas de los países industrializados no están ni presionadas ni obligadas a efectuar grandes reducciones.

Mecanismo ficticio

Así, resulta en un negocio ficticio. Si en un mercado de maderas se produce mesas o escritorios, en el caso de los certificados de emisiones no se produce nada, el bosque siempre ha absorbido dióxido de carbono.

Lógica perversa vs realidad

Entrar a una “economía verde” no garantiza recursos para una gestión integral del bosque, por ejemplo. El exembajador de Bolivia ante la ONU, Pablo Solón explica que con el mecanismo de los certificados de emisión, generaría recursos de acuerdo al costo de la tonelada de dióxido de carbono, sin embargo lo que realmente llegaría a la comunidad o país no supe-raría el 25 por ciento del total, “tres cuartas partes de ese dinero se van al sistema de intermediarios”.

Una opción real, planteada originalmente hasta el año pasado, es lograr recursos reales que provengan no de un mecanismo de mercado sino de un impuesto a las transacciones financieras internacionales, afirma Solón.

El exembajador hace referencia a un estudio de la CEPAL, que señala que de aplicarse un impuesto del 0.05 por ciento podría recabarse 680 billones de dólares, mientras que el mecanismo de mercantilización de los bosques, a través de su capacidad de absorción de dióxido de carbono, solo lograría 10 billones de dólares.

El negocio de la economía verde

La llamada –economía verde- que impulsan los países desarrollados y las propias Naciones Unidas y que constituye la propuesta central de la Conferencia de Río +20 de julio próximo, propone poner un precio a la capacidad de absorción de dióxido de carbono de los bosques y venderlo a las industrias que contaminan, y pagar para que no se deforeste, en lugar de pagar para que se preserve.

Según la explicación de Pablo Solón, exembajador del actual Gobierno ante las Naciones Unidas, es un mecanismo perverso la reducción de emisiones por la deforestación. “No es el pago por la conservación del bosque”.

Negocio ficticio, le llama Solón, porque no se produce nada. El bosque siempre ha estado absorbiendo el dióxido de carbono, de lo que se trata, agrega, es de introducir el tema a un sistema financiero que generará una gran ganancia pero al mismo tiempo especulación, por lo que será insostenible en el tiempo.

Para explicar esto de la economía verde, el exembajador al afirmar que se trata de otra lógica, ejemplifica que una empresa en el norte para disminuir sus emisiones de dióxido de carbono tiene que bajar mil toneladas. Tendría dos opciones. Una, cambiar maquinaria, chimeneas, etc., o, la otra, comprar certificados de reducción de emisiones de un bosque en algún país del sur. Así, la empresa podría asegurar que hizo la reducción de emisiones porque compró los certificados de determinado bosque.

Pero la empresa hará un cálculo de beneficio, prosigue explicando. Si para bajar mil toneladas debe invertir una cantidad que resulte mayor al costo de comprar los certificados, seguramente optará por comprarlos y podrá seguir contaminando el medio ambiente.

En última instancia, dice Solón, los certificados de reducción de emisiones se convierten en un permiso de contaminación para la empresa del país industrializado.

Indigenous Peoples from around the World agree on solidarity: RIO+20

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

Indigenous Peoples Caucus

3rd Intersessional Meeting of the Preparatory Process for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD)

March 26-27, 2012

New York

We, indigenous peoples representatives meeting together as an indigenous peoples caucus during the 3rd Intersessional meeting of the UNCSD, after a thorough discussion of urgent issues and concerns affecting indigenous peoples activities related to the Rio+20 process, resolve and agree to the following points:

1. We will take efforts to build solidarity among the different Brazilian IP organizations and regional networks in Latin America in the spirit of reconciliation, and seek the help of some of our brothers and sisters in this effort [Tom Goldtooth (IEN), Vicky Tauli-Corpuz (Tebtebba) and Miguel Palacin (CAOI);]

2. We uphold and support the messages and agreements of the Manaus Declaration “INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ROUTE TO THE RIO + 20 CONFERENCE” made during the Global preparatory meeting of Indigenous Peoples on Rio + 20 and Kari-Oca 2 on August 22- 24, 2011 in Manaus, Brazil. This declaration includes the agreement to “organize Kari-Oca 2 as a global conference of Indigenous Peoples where we will share our efforts to implement development with identity and culture or our self- determined development, … and endeavour to reach a consensus on themes and issues of Rio +20.”

3. We appreciate the ongoing efforts and hard work of the Inter-Tribal Council to prepare a site for Kari-Oca 2 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in accordance with the agreements reached during the Manaus meeting. We therefore urge the Global IP Steering Committee to support this effort and maximize the site being prepared for the Kari-Oca 2 Global Conference of indigenous peoples.

4. We further urge the Global IP Steering Committee to coordinate and harmonize the various indigenous peoples’ initiatives in Rio and come up with a common, unified calendar of activities for indigenous peoples during Rio+20 and Kari-Oca 2.

This will ensure that indigenous peoples will project a strong and united voice on the themes and issues related to Rio +20.

Agreed by the Indigenous Peoples Caucus with representatives from Latin America, North America, Africa and Asia on May 27, 2012, New York.

Rio+20 Peoples Summit: REGISTRATION Now Open

Monday, April 9th, 2012

Please note that the register for self organized activities, and activities of the “future territories” (spaces for popular alternatives and solutions) is open: Register here

In solidarity

Rio+20 Peoples Summit Office
55-21-2148-2730 / 2148-2733