Archive for January, 2013

Controversial Ilisu Dam on Hasankeyf Halted by Turkish Court

Thursday, January 31st, 2013

By Doga Dernegi

The Turkish State Council ruled on January 7 2013 in favour of the legal case filed by the Chamber of Architects and Engineers (TMMOB) against the construction of the Ilisu dam project, ordering an immediate halt to the controversial dam construction in southeast Turkey.

The Council of State concluded that the Ilisu dam construction on the Tigris River, proceeding without the legally required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), goes against Turkish Environment law and EIA regulations.

The massive dam being constructed on the Tigris River has drawn international controversy because it will flood the ancient city of Hasankeyf whose history stretches back over 12,000 years. It is an area that meets nine out of 10 UNESCO criteria for World Heritage status, but the government is refusing to nominate the site and guarantee its protection because it would stand in the way of plans for the Ilisu dam.

The dam’s project outline was finalised in the 1980s but it prompted strong reaction from local communities, environmental, cultural heritage and human rights groups as well as academics and celebrities in Turkey and abroad. In 2009, three European Credit Agencies withdrew from the project due to the Turkish government’s failure to meet international standards to protect nature, culture and the rights of over 25,000 people who would be displaced.

This is the second time the government lost a case on the Ilisu dam before the State Council. In 2011 the State Council had already ruled against government’s attempt to bypass EIA regulations. Then, the Turkish government introduced new regulation exonerating the project from the required EIA in an attempt to override the ruling. The Office of the Prime Minister had also published a circular order allowing all works related to the infrastructure of the dam including roads, power lines etc. to go ahead without any EIA.

TMMOB countered the Turkish government’s actions again last year by bringing the case before the State Council a second time. The Council’s recent ruling against the government brings hope to the local communities and NGOs that have been trying to stop the ongoing dam construction.

The government can object to the State Council’s ruling within seven days. Alternatively, the government may again choose to pass new legislation to override the court’s ruling.

“It is evident from the actions of government that the Ilisu dam could never be built if the law were observed. The Turkish government has instead been choosing to bypass conservation laws by passing new regulations designed to allow the dam’s construction at whatever cost,” said Engin Yilmaz, Executive Director of Doga Dernegi (BirdLife Turkey). “This time the world is watching. The ruling must stand, in the interest of protecting our common natural and cultural heritage. The project must be cancelled, and the region designated as a World Heritage Site,” he said.

Maasai herders breed fewer, stronger cattle to tackle climate change

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

By Lucas Liganga, in Dar es Salaam.

The loss of more than half their livestock in the 2009 drought has led Maasai pastoralists in northern Tanzania’s Arusha region to breed fewer, stronger cattle and end their traditional focus on numbers alone as symbols of wealth and status.

The impact of that devastating drought, which dealt a blow to the whole nation’s economy, is still visible in the small number of cattle in many villages of Engarenaibor in Arusha’s Longido district.

The district’s cattle breeders and owners lost at least 120,000 cattle, more than half the total herd of 200,000, as a result of the drought, which plunged the region into poverty and threatened the pastoralists’ traditional livelihood.

The good news emerging from this blow to their way of life is that breeders have realized that in a time of climate change their wealth lies not in the size of their herd but in its quality.

DROUGHT ‘TAUGHT US A LESSON’

“The days of keeping many head of cattle for prestige are gone thanks to the 2009 drought. It has taught us a lesson. A lesson to adapt to climate change,” says cattle owner Ngaiyok Legilisho Kipainoi.

For many years, Maasai pastoralists had resisted government pressure to reduce the size of their herds, until the drought made clear the need to adapt to the changing environment.

Reducing their herds has allowed herders to use less water and reduce the degradation of grazing land.

As Kipainoi sees it, his fellow villagers are “graduating from the culture of keeping livestock for fame to increasing the productivity of their animals in a well-managed manner.”

“We have started selling our animals and we use the proceeds to build decent homes or pay school fees for our children,” says Kipainoi, a 35-year-old who has two wives and six children. All his children attend primary school.

At the onset of the drought Kipainoi boasted a herd of 480 cattle, but he emerged from the catastrophe with less than half as many.

BREEDING FOR RESILIENCE

“After the drought we realised that our local Zebu breed can withstand adverse weather conditions and are well adapted to the environment. So if we are to improve earnings from livestock, without risking another loss to drought, we must practise proper animal husbandry,” says Kipainoi, standing beside his new motorcycle at the site of his new house, bought with earnings from his cattle herd.

Other local cattle farmers have also started selective breeding to build up a productive stock that is resilient to climate change, he says.

“This involves selling cattle that are weak and cross-breeding new stock from animals that display strong characteristics of high productivity and resilience. Preferred animals are those that feed selectively on the range, can trek long distances and are resistant to local diseases,” he says.

Ongoing experiments concentrate on cross-breeding exotic cattle varieties with local Zebu and Borana cattle and popularisation of the hardy Gabra breed of goats.

“Our plan is to ensure that calving takes place at the start of the short rainy season, when fresh pastures enable cows to yield more milk. In that way calves stay healthy enough to survive their first dry spell and then benefit from the long rains before the long dry season sets in,” Kipainoi explains.

To back up the pastoralists’ efforts, the Arusha-based Tanzania Natural Resource Forum has come up with a climate change adaptation project that focuses on the drylands of Longido, Monduli and Ngorongoro districts in the Arusha region.

Similar projects are under way in Ethiopia, Kenya and Nepal, according to Ced Hesse, a drylands development researcher with the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development, which is backing the Tanzania adaptation effort.

Grave situation in northern Burma

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

We are sharing this letter (below) from Guy Horton, an analyst appealing to the world.

His letter highlights the current and very grave situation in northern Burma and explains why relevant entities (UN, Mission’s to the UN to the UN = Governments) must intervene with the current barbaric attacks from Burmese military in Northern Burma in order to protect the innocent civilians and to prevent the horrors of mass killings and other atrocities.

The Burmese Military characteristically directly attacks, both airstrike and mortar shelling, the civilian population.

LETTER from Guy Horton, Jan. 25 2013

Dear People,

I am writing to you from northern Kachin State on the border of Burma and China. For days I have listened to sustained heavy mortar and artillery fire from the Burma army as it slowly closes in. The civilians are preparing for the worst.

The Churches are open on a 24 hour basis.The people pray for deliverance from a conflict where Kachin soldiers, with the support of tens of thousands of civilians, are fighting for survival against an army several times their number. In such a conflict, article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, protecting civilians from intentional violence, applies.The Kachin authorities, it should be noted, are not a terrorist group, as for example the former Tamil Tigers were; nor are they a gang of war lords involved in narcotics: rather they have been carrying out the duties of self government responsibly for many years, and are supported by most of the Kachin people who are bonded by their Christian faith. They are targeted , however, by the Burma army on the basis of what constitutes their identity: their religion and their ethnicity.The law of genocide thus applies.

The first point that should be made is that there has been no ceasefire and there is no ceasefire. On the morning of Saturday the 19 of January at 6.00 a.m., the time the ceasefire was due to commence according to President Thein Sein’s order, I stepped outside my house to be soon greeted with the sound of mortar and artillery fire.This was not sporadic small arms fire, but systematic heavy shelling from the Burma army.It was replicated elsewhere in Kachin State, but only a small fraction of it has been captured and transmitted by the media.I would therefore like to express grave concern at much of the international community’s gullible acceptance of the “ceasefire” which was either a deliberate grotesque hoax, or the result of a systemic failure in the Burma army chain of command to implement President Thein Sein’s order.

The second point is that Kachin fixed defensive positions protecting civilians are probably unsustainable.Confronted with jet bombers, artillery, heavy mortars and overwhelming numbers of ground troops, Kachin soldiers may be unable to protect their civilians in the long, or even medium term.

The third point is that in such an eventuality there may be not just a humanitarian disaster, but the infliction of widespread crimes against humanity. This is for two reasons. Firstly the civilians are likely to resist because they have nowhere to flee.Gentle people I know are preparing to fight. Women are reportedly leaving their babies on the China side of the border and returning to resist. A probable humanitarian disaster is thus likely to be exacerbated by appalling human rights violations. Part of my time here has been spent listening to testimonies of violently displaced Kachin people.They are some of the worst I have heard in all my time in Burma. One young mother of a seventeen day old baby was reported by her father to have been
bayoneted to death: another gang raped to death; another woman was shot in her village while her young son hid watching in a sugar cane field. I have to live with the boy’s eyes forever. A woman described her husband being shot in the stomach, then facially grotesquely mutilated. The point of telling you this is to alert you to the very serious possibility that such acts may be repeated on a large scale in the event of a Burma army victory, especially where civilians try to resist and there is no foreign observer force.

The fourth point is that as this massive assault on Kachin areas continues, the more likely it is that other non Burman groups will resort to active resistance in solidarity. Burma may disintegrate further into civil war.

Effective action must therefore be taken very quickly to avoid repetition of previous disasters. The UN has carried out studies of its failures in Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka and described at least one of them as amounting to “Complicity with evil”.The same fatal passive complicity may result in a disaster in northern Kachin State. This letter is thus the gravest appeal to the outside world to stop it from happening.This is not a “communal riot” : this is a massive military attack on the Kachin ethnic religious group which is trying to resist in the limited territory it controls.

The following should therefore be implemented::

1. Appointment of an effective UN envoy, genuinely committed to the principles and articles of The Charter, mandated by the Security Council with the right to unhindered access to all areas of Kachin
State and especially to internally displaced people.If the military controlled government refuses access, it could be facilitated by China which is supportive of a ceasefire and does not wish to be flooded with refugees. Some of the most threatened Kachin areas are, it should be noted, adjacent to China;

2. A ceasefire, preferably mandated by the Security Council, supported by the Chinese and US governments, the EU, and relevant UN organs, monitored by an effective UN observer group, should be declared..

3. A just and lasting peace, with the objective of establishing real autonomy within the context of a genuine Federal Union, should be negotiated and implemented, if the so called reform process is to have any validity.

4. A firm reminder to the military controlled government that sanctions were suspended, not cancelled, and in the event of a refusal to implement a ceasefire they will be reimposed. If a genocidal attack on civilians occurs an appropriate response will be made.

Laugh or Cry? Obama’s New Commitment on Climate Change

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

By Rachel Smolker – Biofuelwatch/Energy Justice Network

In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke eloquently about his intent to address climate change, saying: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” Following on, the right-wing deniers predictably flew into a frenzy of obnoxious blather, largely serving to clog up the media. Meanwhile the liberals, progressives and enviros cheered with glee, as if the mere mention of the word “climate” were a big happy victory, a frankly pathetic display that I can only imagine the right-wing deniers found amusing. The spectrum of responses is a clear reflection of the extreme dysfunction of, most especially, Washington D.C. Even as Sandy smashed NYC to smithereens and prolonged drought decimated crops across the Midwest, the leader of the country most responsible for this frightening mess is so cowed by his detractors as to feel it necessary to wait until after his reelection to even mention that seven-letter word? Oh yay.

For climate justice activists, the question is: Should we laugh or should we cry? It has certainly been disturbing to watch Obama, facing the greatest threat to life on Earth ever (yes, far greater even than the economic crisis) fail to even utter that word. But, we are also aware that when he has in fact stepped up to the plate on climate, it has not usually been pretty. For example, in 2009, when, at the eleventh hour he flew to the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen to push through, via the back rooms, a “made in the U.S.” deal that removed any teeth from the negotiated agreement that had been painstakingly hammered out in accordance with participatory UN protocols. That showing in the international climate debate followed on the heels of years of U.S. interference and obstructionism, remarkable given that the we are not even a signatory to the Kyoto protocol. Going back even further into history prior to Copenhagen, there was the U.S. role in demanding (against the will of many other countries at the time) that the main approach to reducing greenhouse gases be a market-based approach: carbon trade, which has subsequently and predictably, entirely failed. A headline of the Financial Times reads:”EU Carbon Prices Crash to Record Low.”

So the question is: What will our emboldened president offer up this time? Will it be more false solutions intended to create an impression of doing something while really just ensuring more profitable business opportunities for the 1 percent? A good indication this is likely is Obama’s “Blueprint for a New Bioeconomy.” In sum, that plan is to maintain business as usual by simply converting from fossil to biological carbon — that means running cars on biofuels, packaging our stuff in bioplastics, dousing ourselves and the planet with biochemicals, treating subsequent illnesses with bio-pharmaceuticals. All that will be required is astronomical quantities of land, water, soil and nutrients — several planet’s worth. It will also require a biotech industry free-for-all. Their role is to deliver GMO crops that “make more biomass” and also synthetic microbes that will magically convert all that biomass into all the products and goods we presumably must buy and sell to ensure that the economy keeps on growing ad infinitum. A big part of the “new bioeconomy blueprint” is to remove regulatory “barriers,” so, for example, synthetic microbes and GMO crops can be quickly and easily approved and sent on their way to commercialization. We know how well the already slack regulatory process works. Just this week we learned that regulators have belatedly found viral genes present in many GMO food crops that is likely to result in greater susceptibility to all manner of viral infections for both humans and plants. Oops. So now we should further loosen regulation even as we introduce even more risky synthetic organisms — microbes capable of liquefying plant life?

The arrogance underlying the entire concept of a “bioeconomy” is phenomenal. We are told that we shall ” harness the biological sciences for the benefit of the Nation.” The whole concept illustrates utter disregard, disrespect for and misunderstanding of nature — as if we so mightily master all of creation that it is entirely under our control to be precisely and predictably manipulated and engineered for our own purposes. No problem. Have faith!

Further we are enticed to accept the idea with claims that the bioeconomy will provide all manner of new jobs and economic opportunities, while freeing us from our dependence on the increasingly unfriendly world community of nations from whence we currently derive our fossil fuel energy. But of course we shall need their biomass, if not their oil.

Other than the bioeconomy vision, what else might we expect from Obama? The last comprehensive climate legislation that was floated seriously in D.C. was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act. James Hansen along with many in the environmental justice community referred to it as “worse than nothing.” Among other features, the bill sought to establish a cap and trade scheme for emissions trading. Hopefully, the total collapse of the EU emissions trading scheme since then should give lawmakers pause. But we can be just about certain that market-based approaches will prevail, and one way or another, we will yet again face a charade of false solutions whose primary purpose is not to effectively address the problem but rather turn the crisis into an opportunity to capitalize — maintaining and enhancing the excessive profits of big corporations who got us into this mess — oil, coal, gas, nukes, big agriculture and biotech.

This may serve to create an appearance of doing something to forestall the nightmarish consequences of our failure, but Earth, the climate and future generations will not be fooled. My kids tell me I am “too negative.” I try to encourage them in that perception rather than embracing the realities of what we are doing to their future. A few days ago my daughter exclaimed “you have the most important job of all (as climate activist) — and I am counting on you.” Well, I hate to be such a downer, but frankly, difficult to join the squadrons cheering as Obama spoke “the word.” When he takes, as his first of many bold steps the executive decision to halt the Keystone XL pipeline, referred to as the “fuse leading to the ultimate climate time bomb”, then l will in fact, at long last, stand up and cheer. So what will it be, Mr. President: more bioeconomy B.S. or diffusion of the bomb? Remember your own words about “betraying future generations”?

International Expert Group Meeting on indigenous youth – 29 – 31 January 2013, UN Headquarters, New York

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

International Expert Group Meeting

29 – 31 January 2013, UN Headquarters, New York

The United Nations will hold the first international expert group meeting on indigenous youth, from 29 to 31 January 2013 at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The theme is “Indigenous youth: identity, challenges and hope: articles 14, 17, 21 and 25 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.

Seven indigenous youth experts from around the world will be in New York for the meeting and are available for interviews:

Mr. Niwamanya Rodgers Matuna is a Muwa from the Batwa hunters and gatherers peoples in western Uganda. He has worked with a number of organizations in advocating for indigenous people’s right to health, and has carried out community-based health sensitization on family planning, clean water, and infectious diseases. He has partnered with government officials in order to advocate for the rights of indigenous Batwa, and has represented Batwa youth in various meetings at the national level. (Languages: English, French)

Mr. Steven Brown belongs to the Bundjalung and Yuin Nation Tribes from New South Wales (Australia). In 2004, Steven commenced working in the Australian public service; he has been a member of the National Indigenous Youth Leadership Group that provided advice to the Australian Government from 2005 to 2006; most recently he participated in the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education in Peru (2011). Steven has worked in the philanthropic sector for the Foundation for Young Australians to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In 2012, Steven participated in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York, where he addressed the importance of protecting the rights of Indigenous Children and Youth. (Language: English)

Ms. Andrea Landry is currently attaining her Masters in Communications and Social Justice at the University of Windsor (Canada). She has been engaged in advocacy within the indigenous community on a local, provincial, national and international level. She is currently the Youth Executive for the National Association of Friendship Centre. She has also been discussing political engagement strategies with Canadian authorities to create better lives for aboriginal people living in Canada. She took part in UN events such as the International Day of Peace and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Andrea is also a key organizer of the Idle No More national events, an indigenous movement on the rise. She is also the holder of the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Award. (Language: English)

Mr. Meenakshi Munda is currently President of Asia Pacific Indigenous Youth Network (APIYN), Baguio City, Philippines. (Language: English)

Mr. Igor Yando is a young indigenous person from the Yamal region in the Russian Federation. With a background as a teacher in his own community, Igor is currently working in a youth centre in the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous district, with the aim of organizing temporary employment opportunities for youth. He is also involved in the Yamal-region television to produce information and audiovisual materials for his community. (Language: Russian)

Mr. Tuomas Aslak Juuso has been active in the National Finnish Sámi Youths (SSN) organization since the year 2003 and currenty is the president of the organization. In 2008 he was selected as the youngest member ever to the Sámi parliament of Finland. He led the planning work of the youth council of the parliament. He has also been active on youth issues on the international level as in 2012 he was selected as a co-chair of the Global Indigenous Youth Caucus (GIYC). In 2012 he was also selected as a youth representative to the Global Coordinating Group in charge of consultations for the United Nations World Conference of the Indigenous Peoples. (Language: English)

Ms. Tania Edith Pariona Tarqui is Quechua from the region of Ayacucho in Peru. She has extensive experience in human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples. She took part in a programme on human rights for indigenous leaders as well as a programme on Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples and the UN system offered by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Since 2004, she further strengthened her leadership skills as a young indigenous woman, including by attending the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues from 2010 to 2012 as a representative of the Youth Caucus. Tania is currently member of a number of local, regional and international organizations, where she is a strong advocate for the rights of indigenous youth and women. (Language: Spanish)

BACKGROUND:

With some 370 million indigenous people in the world, there are approximately 67 million indigenous youth globally. In many countries, indigenous youth have low school enrolment, high dropout rates and lag behind other groups in terms of academic achievement. High illiteracy rates are a direct result of educational exclusion in the form of poor access, low funding, and culturally and linguistically inadequate education.

Indigenous youth tend to experience higher unemployment rates and lower incomes compared to non-indigenous youth workers, due to a range of factors such as geographic disadvantages, lower education and training levels, discrimination, and labour market discouragement.

The pressure to leave their communities in search of employment and education opportunities, paralleled by the desire to stay in their communities, present serious challenges to indigenous youth’s identity. Life in urban areas, away from the community, makes indigenous youth vulnerable to abusive labour practices. Young indigenous women often face multiple forms of discrimination due to their indigenous identity and their gender.

Geographic and cultural isolation limit many indigenous youth’s access to health and prevention services, including those concerned with HIV/AIDS and reproductive health. Mental health represents an urgent priority. Where data is available, it has been demonstrated that indigenous youth suicide rates are significantly higher than rates among their non-indigenous peers.

The Expert Group Meeting will analyze how international human rights standards and policies could be more responsive to advancing the rights of indigenous youth. The meeting also represents an opportunity to exchange information on the social and economic conditions of indigenous youth, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health, and social security, among others. It will help to identify options and possible strategies to protect the economic and social rights of indigenous youth, such as empowering and strengthening indigenous youth organizations. The final report and recommendations of the Expert Group Meeting will be submitted to the twelfth session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, in May 2013.

To schedule an interview, please contact Ms. Martina Donlon, tel: +1 212-963-6816 or email: donlon@un.org – United Nations Department of Public Information

To contact the Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, please get in touch with Ms. Nilla Bernardi, tel: +1 212-963-8379 or email: bernardi@un.org – UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Problemas com REDD e pagamentos por serviços ambientais no Acre

Tuesday, January 29th, 2013

Problemas com REDD e pagamentos por serviços ambientais no Acre

Por Chris Lang, 1 de novembro 2012 em www.redd-monitor.org
Tradução: Michael F. Schmidlehner

O estado do Acre ganhou manchetes no mundo em dezembro de 1988 com o assassinato de Chico Mendes, o presidente do Sindicato dos Trabalhadores Rurais de Xapuri. Um ano antes de sua morte, as organizações ambientalistas estadunidenses Environmental Defense Fund (Fundo de Defesa Ambiental) EDF e National Wildlife Federation (Federação Nacional de Vida Selvagem) levaram Mendes para Washington, DC, com o objetivo de convencer o Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento, o Banco Mundial, e do Congresso dos EUA para apoiar a criação de reservas extrativistas.

Desde então, o Acre recebeu financiamento do Banco Mundial, o Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento e do Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES) para proteger suas florestas. O sitio Ecosystem Marketplace (Mercado de Ecossistemas) relata que, em 2007, a Agência Alemã de Cooperação Técnica (GTZ – agora rebatizado como GIZ) financiou um relatório sobre o potencial de um programa estadual de REDD no Acre. WWF, UICN, a Universidade Federal do Acre, IPAM, Woods Hole Research Center, da Embrapa e da GTZ começaram a trabalhar em REDD no Acre.

Oficinas foram realizadas durante seis meses entre 2009 e 2010 para discutir propostas de orientações para um programa de PSA-carbono no Acre. Depois de assistir a uma dessas oficinas, Beto Borges, do programa Comunidades e Mercados da organização Forest Trends descreveu Acre como

“O mais avançado de todos os estados da Amazônia no Brasil, para desenvolver e implementar políticas PSA … um estado com um histórico comprovado de conservação da floresta e envolvimento das comunidades tradicionais”.

Em 2010, o Estado lançou um Sistema de Incentivo a Serviços Ambientais – SISA. Mas nem todo mundo está feliz com a promoção de soluções mercadologicas para os problemas ambientais do Acre. Um artigo de Elder Andrade de Paula, professor da Universidade Federal do Acre, publicado na edição de outubro de 2012 do boletim do World Rainforest Movement (Movimento Mundial pelas Florestas Tropicais) questiona a adoção da “economia verde” e os mecanismos de mercado supostamente destinadas a salvar as florestas. Em um extenso artigo sobre Acre (versão do boletim em espanhol em rio20.net) Paula escreve:

“(…) a comercialização de “carbono” e outros serviços ambientais expressam uma ameaça frontal a autonomia, a liberdade e o controle dos “povos da floresta” sobre seus territórios, além de “compensar” equivocadamente pela poluição continuada de países industrializados no Norte, como é o caso de California e sua vinculação com os estados do Acre (Brasil) e Chiapas (México). Todavia, tal como ocorreu no passado, as populações e povos que tem as florestas como sua “morada no mundo”, reagem e colocam-se em luta contra as velhas e novas formas de destruição e espoliação.”

Paula observa que o Acre continua sendo um dos estados mais pobres do Brasil. Os povos indígenas continuam a lutar pela demarcação de seus territórios. Enquanto isso, a quantidade de gado no Acre aumentou durante a última década, de 800 mil para 2,5 milhões. Desmatamento continua e a área de floresta derrubada está aumentando.

Paula cita Dercy Teles, o presidente do Sindicato dos Trabalhadores Rurais de Xapuri:

“(…) as políticas de PSA só vem a amordaçar a vida dessas pessoas. Elas ficam sem vez sem voz. Sem voz porque assinam um contrato que é no mínimo de trinta anos. Disponibiliza a área de moradia delas por trinta anos pra que o governo e as multinacionais pesquisem e se usufruam de todo o conhecimento da área por uma mixaria que é insignificante. E o mais grave ainda é que elas não podem mais mexer na área, elas não podem mais pescar, elas não podem mais tirar madeira para seu uso, elas não podem mais caçar, elas não podem mais nada. “

O Sindicato dos Trabalhadores Rurais de Xapuri também produziu um folheto descrevendo suas preocupações sobre REDD e PSA no estado do Acre. O folheto pode ser baixado como um arquivo pdf aqui

Isang Buksan Letter sa Klima Justice Ngayon! Isang Tawag para sa pananagutan Mula

Saturday, January 26th, 2013

Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ekolohiya Project at Orin Langelle, board chair, Global Justice Ekolohiya Project

Global Justice Ekolohiya Project ay isang founding miyembro ng Klima Justice Ngayon! (CJN!) sa Bali, Indonesia noong 2007 at bago sa na isang kalahok sa ang gusali ng ang kilusan para sa klima katarungan dahil namin co-itinatag ang Group Durban para sa Klima Justice sa Oktubre 2004 at kinuha bahagi sa ang kasunod UNFCCC Kop-10 sa Buenos Aires noong 2004 (aming unang klima Kop).

Dahil nito founding bilang isang kahalili sa market-ligalig, repormista at malaking NGO-dominado Network Klima Action (CAN), CJN! ay struggled sa pilosopiko at strategic na mga pagkakaiba gitna nito miyembro organisasyon. Tiyak ang pagkakaroon ng mas malaki mas konserbatibo group, mas maliit mas radikal na mga grupo at panlipunan paggalaw na ginawa para sa ilang mga buhay na buhay at minsan nakakadismaya na debate sa loob CJN! sa mga nakaraang taon.

Ngunit habang ito ay magulo, CJN! Hinahain ang isang kritikal na papel upang dalhin ang tinig at
pananaw ng social paggalaw at mga naapektuhang komunidad, hindi lamang sa COPs, kundi pati na rin sa internasyonal na pampublikong sa pamamagitan ng malawak media trabaho. Ito nakalantad at critiqued maling solusyon sa pagbabago ng klima na na niyakap ng ang konserbatibo NGO – mula sa carbon kalakalan sa agrofuels sa REDD – sa pamamagitan ng pagbabahagi na may at pakikinig sa naapektuhan komunidad, katutubo organisasyon at panlipunan paggalaw sa buong mundo upang matulungan maaga mga kampanya laban sa mga maling solusyon. CJN! nagsilbi sa mahalaga papel upang makatulong na tukuyin ‘klima katarungan’ at pigilan ito mula sa pagiging lubos na nakuha sa
pamamagitan ng ang mga korporasyon at ang kanilang mga collaborator. Pati na rin, tinatawag na ito
ang corporate dominasyon ng proseso mismo ng pulis.

Dahil ang lakas nito, CJN! ay nabigyan ng opisyal na katayuan sa loob ng bureaucracy ng UNFCCC. MAAARI ay sapilitang upang ibahagi ang kanilang mga espasyo sa ENGO, kanilang espasyo sa pulong at ang kanilang mga oras ng interbensyon.

Sa mga ito at iba pang mga nakamit sa pamamagitan ng CJN! hindi dahil sa pagsusumikap ng ilang
mga kalahok at facilitators. Sa partikular, ang Bawiin ng Power pagkilos at sa People ‘Assembly, na joint mga hakbangin ng CJN! at Klima Justice Action sa Copenhagen sa Kop 15 ay isang napakalaking show ng lakas ng pandaigdigang kilusan ng hustisya sa klima. Aling ng kurso ay kung bakit ito ay natugunan na may tulad na matinding pagkakasupil – mula sa mga pre-emptive arrests ng organizers may pasubali, sa Danish pulis matalo kinikilalang Kop kalahok, sa mga pangunahing organizers na naaresto sa singil terorismo. At ang panghuling mang-insulto, ang pagbuga ng halos lahat ng mga observers NGO mula sa panghuling araw ng Kop.

Ngunit mula noon, CJN! ay sa mas maraming mga pag-panloob. Ilan ng character na kasangkot ang pagpunta mapaghamong para sa CJN!, At ang listserve ay naghahati at imposible sa beses. Ito ay para sa mga dahilan na ang kongkreto mga desisyon ay ginawa upang tugunan ang mga problemang ito sa isang mukha-sa harapin CJN! pulong ng pagsunod sa Cancun Kop sa 2010. Mga desisyon na kasama sa samahan ng isang pang-internasyonal na mukha-sa-mukha pulong diskarte para CJN! group na kumakatawan sa constituencies katutubo, pati na rin ang konstruksiyon ng isang bagong CJN! organizers ‘listserve kung saan ang mga kalahok ay kailangang ma-vouched para sa bago sila maaaring lumahok (isang sistema kung saan gumagana nang mahusay para sa iba pang mga malawak na koalisyon / alyansa listserves).

Mga desisyon na ito ay hindi kailanman sinundan sa pamamagitan ng. Isang taon mamaya, isang
lubos hiwalay na pandaigdigang pulong ay nakaayos (naniniwala kami sa ang ilan ng CJN! pasilitasyon ng koponan bilang organizers) upang tipunin ang hustisya sa klima aktibista. Ang isang ito sa ilalim ng isang bagong banner ng Global Kampanya upang Demand Klima Justice. Paano nangyari ito? Ano ang nangyari sa mga commitment ng sa CJN!? Siyempre mga tao ay maaaring simulan ang bagong mga at magkaroon ng mga pagpupulong, ngunit hindi dapat bago commitment ng pinarangalan?

Bilang CJN! lumago sa mga nakaraang taon, iba’t-ibang mga kaalyado binigyan kami ng impormasyon tungkol sa back-room pakikitungo tila orchestrated sa papanghinain CJN!. Subalit ay hindi ang aming layunin sa karagdagang kilusan malapit na labanan, at kami ay igalang ang pagiging kumpidensyal ng maraming mga kasamahan na ibinahagi impormasyon na may amin. Nais lamang namin ilang pananagutan. Kami ay, sa pagliko, kinikilala aming sariling sisihin sa CJN ‘s problema -! GJEP hunhon napaka mahirap upang mapanatili ang isang radikal na platform para sa CJN!. Marahil namin hunhon masyadong matigas.

Bago ang Durban Kop, hiniling namin sa CJN! ‘Pasilitasyon ng koponan, sa pamamagitan ng CJN! Ang
listserve, upang simulan CJN-Durban listserve para CJN!-kaakibat na mga grupo at aktibista na sa Durban upang makatulong na coordinate ang aming mga gawain. Namin din ng mga email sa mga namin naunawaan ay sa pasilitasyon ng koponan na may ang ideya sa pag-publish ng isang “inside-out/outside sa” newsletter upang paganahin ang pagbabahagi ng impormasyon sa pagitan ng mga nasa loob at mga sa labas. Mga kahilingan na ito ay nakamit sa katahimikan. Kaya GJEP at isa pang pangkat Nagsimula ng CJN-Durban listserve sa aming sarili, at makontak ang UNFCCC tungkol-secure ng ang CJN! espasyo ng pulong ng umaga.

Ano ang nangyari sa CJN! sa pagitan ng Cancun at Durban ay hindi kailanman ipinaliwanag. Ngunit
mula sa kung ano ang namin nakasaksi at kung ano ang aming narinig, lumilitaw na sa likod ng eksena isang tao ay kumukuha ang mga string upang matiyak na CJN! ay sapat subverted upang render ito hindi epektibo.

Ang intensyonal undermining ng CJN! tila kumpirmahin sa Durban, kung saan ang parallel na pulong ay nakaayos na competed lantaran para sa CJN! espasyo ng pulong ng umaga – pagkatapos ng paggamit ng mga puwang na iyon ay consensed kapag sa isang CJN! pulong. Ang mga organizers ng mga parallel pulong, na binubuo ng ‘malubhang NGO negotiators,’ na na-claim pahintulot ng CJN! pasilitasyon ng koponan. Ito hiwalay na grupo na hinati CJN! pagpupulong at klima mga
pagsusumikap sa katarungan ay karagdagang bali.

At ngayon nakita natin ang isang kamakailan-lamang na tawag sa ibabaw ng CJN! listserve para sa
CJN! sa sumali pwersa sa Klima Action Network sa Doha. Dahil mayroon kaming nakatanggap ng isang makagulo ng mga email mula sa mga tao na kasangkot sa klima katarungan-aayos na humihiling sa amin kung ano ang pagpunta sa may CJN!

Din namin magtaka kung paano ito posibleng palakasin ang CJN! upang sumali sa repormista at nakompromiso CAN. Chain ay lamang bilang malakas na bilang nito pinakamahina link. Kahit na ang chain ang maaaring mas mahaba sa pamamagitan ng pagdaragdag ng maraming
mahina link, hindi ito magkakaroon ng anumang malakas.

Kaya kung ano ang nangyari? Bakit ay ang mga desisyon na ginawa sa pulong ng Cancun ay hindi
kailanman sinundan sa pamamagitan ng? Bakit ay nag-aalok upang makatulong na matugunan na may
katahimikan? Kung bakit, sa halip, ay isang hiwalay na pulong mangyari sa isang taon mamaya sa ilalim ng lubos na bagong ‘Global Kampanya Demand Klima Justice’ banner? Ano ang na papel ng kampanya? Sino ang ginawa ng mga desisyon? Sila funder-nahimok? Saan ang pananagutan? May CJN! pasilitasyon koponan, at kung ito, na ito? At kung ano ang kasalukuyang katayuan ng CJN!?

Naniniwala kami na ito ay mahalaga para sa klima ng hustisya ng kilusan upang maunawaan kung ano ang nangyari sa CJN! upang maaari itong susuriin. Kailangan namin upang matuto mula sa aming mga pagkakamali o nahatulan sa ulitin ang mga ito. Kami ay sa isa ng ang pinaka kritikal junctures sa tao kasaysayan at pinakadulo buhay support system ng planeta ay sa taya. Ang liham na ito ay isang tawag para sa pagkakahayag, patungo ilalim-up-aayos at pagtatapos sa likod ng mga eksena pagmamanipula. CJN! ay itinatag sa mga prinsipyo na rebolusyonaryo; tubuan transformative, anti-market critiques at itinaas ang mga tanawin at mga pangangailangan ng front komunidad linya shut ng proseso, pa direkta naapektuhan ng pagbabago ng klima. Ibinigay ito ng isang mahalagang tinig para sa klima katarungan paggalaw. Kailangang isa lamang tumingin sa Poznan statement at ang pahayag Copenhagen isipin ito:

Ang Poznan Statement:

Radikal BAGONG agenda na kinakailangan upang makamit ang katarungan ng klima Poznan pahayag mula sa Klima Justice Ngayon! alyansa

12 Disyembre 2008

Mga miyembro ng Klima Justice Ngayon! – Isang pandaigdigang alyansa ng higit sa 160 organisasyon – ay sa Poznan para sa nakalipas na dalawang linggo malapit sumusunod na development sa UN klima negotiations. Ang pahayag na ito ay aming pagtatasa ng ang Conference ng Partido (pulis) 14, at articulates ang aming mga prinsipyo para sa pagkamit ng hustisya sa klima.

ANG Pagmamadali NG Klima Justice

Hindi namin magagawang upang itigil ang pagbabago ng klima kung hindi namin baguhin ang neo-liberal at corporate-based ekonomiya na hinto sa amin mula sa pagkamit napapanatiling lipunan. Corporate globalization ay dapat tumigil.

Ang makasaysayang responsibilidad para sa karamihan ng greenhouse gas emissions ay namamalagi sa mga industrialized mga bansa ng North. Kahit na ang pangunahing responsibilidad ng North upang mabawasan ang emissions ay kinikilala sa Convention, ang mga gawi ng kanilang produksyon at pagkonsumo patuloy na nagbabanta sa ang kaligtasan ng buhay ng sangkatauhan at biodiversity.

Ito ay sapilitan na ang North mapilit nagbabago sa isang mababang carbon ekonomiya. Sa parehong oras upang maiwasan ang damaging carbon intensive modelo ng industrialization, South ay may karapatan sa mga mapagkukunan at teknolohiya upang sa transition na ito.

Naniniwala kami na ang anumang ‘ibinahaging pangitain’ sa pagtugon sa krisis sa klima dapat magsimula sa klima katarungan at sa isang radikal na muling pag-iisip ng nangingibabaw unlad modelo.

Mga Katutubong Tao, magsasaka komunidad, fisherfolk, at lalo na babae sa mga komunidad, ay nakatira harmoniously at sustainably may

Earth para sa millennia. Ito ay hindi lamang ang pinaka-apektado sa pamamagitan ng klima pagbabago, ngunit din nito maling solusyon, tulad ng mga agrofuels, Mega-Dam, genetic pagbabago, puno plantations at carbon offset scheme. Sa halip ng market humantong scheme, ang kanilang mga napapanatiling mga kasanayan ay dapat nakikita bilang nag-aalok ang tunay na solusyon sa pagbabago ng klima.

UNFCCC SA krisis

Pamahalaan at internasyonal na institusyon upang makilala na ang Kyoto mekanismo ay nabigo upang mabawasan ang greenhouse emissions gas.

Ang mga prinsipyo ng Estados Convention Nations Framework sa Klima Baguhin ang (UNFCCC) – karaniwang ngunit differentiated responsibilidad, maki-generational equity, at polluter binabayaran – ay undermined sa pabor ng mga mekanismo ng merkado. Ang tatlong pangunahing mga haligi ng kasunduan ng Kyoto – ang malinis na mekanismo unlad, magkasanib na pagpapatupad at emissions pangangalakal scheme – ganap na hindi epektibo sa pagbabawas ng emissions, pa patuloy sila sa gitna ng negotiations.

Kyoto ay batay sa carbon-pangkalakal na mekanismo na nagbibigay-daan sa Northern bansa upang magpatuloy ng negosyo gaya ng dati sa pamamagitan ng pagbabayad para sa “malinis na pag-
unlad” proyekto sa pagbubuo at transition bansa. Ito ay isang scheme dinisenyo sadyang upang payagan ang mga polluters upang maiwasan ang pagbabawas ng mga emissions domestically.

Malinis na mekanismo unlad proyekto, na kung saan ay dapat upang suportahan “napapanatiling pag-unlad”, kasama ang mga proyekto imprastraktura tulad ng malaking Dam at karbon-fired kapangyarihan halaman, at puno ng monoculture plantations. Hindi lamang ang mga proyekto nabigo upang mabawasan ang mga emissions ng carbon, sila mapabilis ang privatization at corporate tumagal-over ng natural na mundo, sa gastos ng mga lokal na komunidad at mga Katutubong Tao.

Panukala sa talahanayan sa Poznan ay heading sa parehong direksyon.

Sa kasalukuyang negotiations, industrialized bansa patuloy na kumilos sa ang batayan ng self-interes, gamit ang lahat ng kanilang uusap ukol sa taktika upang maiwasan ang kanilang mga obligasyon upang mabawasan ang emissions carbon, gastusan paglalapat at pagpapagaan at mag-transfer ng teknolohiya sa South.

Sa kanilang pagtugis ng paglago sa anumang gastos, maraming Southern pamahalaan sa uusap Trading layo ng ang mga karapatan ng kanilang mga mamamayan at mga mapagkukunan.
Namin ipaalala sa kanila na ang isang kasunduan sa klima ay hindi isang kasunduan ng kalakalan.

Ang mga pangunahing protagonists para sa katatagan ng klima – Mga Katutubong Tao, kababaihan, magsasaka at pamilya magsasaka, fisherfolk, kagubatan nakasalalay komunidad, kabataan, at marginalized at apektado na komunidad sa pandaigdigang South at North, ay sistematikong ibinukod. Sa kabila ng paulit-ulit na pangangailangan, ang mga Katutubong People ay hindi nakilala bilang isang opisyal party sa negotiations. Wala alinman sa kababaihan tinig at kasarian pagsasaalang-alang na kinikilala at kasama sa proseso.

Kasabay nito, pribadong mamumuhunan ay ligid ang mga pag-uusap tulad vultures, swooping in sa bawat pagkakataon para sa paglikha ng mga bagong kita. Negosyo at corporate lobbyists pinalawak sa kanilang impluwensiya at akaparahin conference espasyo sa Poznan. Hindi bababa sa 1500 industriya lobbyists ay alinman bilang mga NGO o bilang mga miyembro ng pamahalaan delegations.

Ang Pagbawas Emissions mula sa Deforestation at Forest pagkababa ng ranggo (REDD) scheme ay maaaring lumikha ng pinakamalaking ang klima rehimen kailanman lusutan, na
nagbibigay Northern polluters sa isa pang pagkakataon upang bumili ng kanilang mga paraan ng emissions reductions. Gamit hindi pagbanggit ng biodiversity o Katutubong ‘karapatan ng mga Tao, ang scheme na ito ay maaaring magbigay ng isang malaking insentibo para sa mga bansa sa magbenta off ang kanilang mga kagubatan, paalisin ang mga Katutubong at magsasaka komunidad,
at ibahin ang anyo ng mga kagubatan sa puno plantations sa ilalim ng corporate-kontrol.

Plantations hindi kagubatan. Privatisation at umagaw ng karapatan ng pagkamay-ari sa
pamamagitan ng REDD o anumang iba pang mga mekanismo ay dapat na tumigil.

Ang World Bank ay sinusubukang upang paghiwa-hiwain ang isang niche sa internasyonal na klima pagbabago rehimen. Ito ay hindi katanggap-tanggap bilang ang Bank patuloy upang pondohan polluting industriya at deforestation ng biyahe sa pamamagitan ng pagsusulong ng pang-industriya pagtatala at agrofuels. Bank kamakailan Inilunsad Klima Investment

Pondo napupunta laban sa mga hakbangin ng gobyerno sa UN at nagpapalaganap ng marumi industriya tulad ng karbon, habang pagpilit pagbuo ng mga bansa sa sa panimula may nakalalamang aid framework ng donor at tatanggap. Ang World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility apunta sa Finance REDD sa pamamagitan ng isang gubat carbon mekanismo Naghahain ang interes ng mga pribadong kompanya at bubukas ang path para sa commodification ng mga gubat.

Mga development na ito ay na inaasahan. Ideolohiya ng Market ay lubos infiltrated ang pag-uusap ng klima, at ang UNFCCC negotiations na ngayon i mga trade fairs hawking pagkakataon investment.

Ang tunay na SOLUSYON

Mga Solusyon sa krisis sa klima ay hindi ay darating mula sa industrialized bansa at malaking negosyo. Epektibong at matatag na solusyon ay darating mula sa mga na protektado ang kapaligiran – Mga Katutubong Tao, kababaihan, magsasaka at pamilya magsasaka, fisherfolk, kagubatan nakasalalay komunidad, kabataan at marginalized at maapektuhan ang mga komunidad sa pandaigdigang South at North. Kabilang dito ang:

· Pagkamit ng mababang carbon ekonomiya, nang walang resorting sa offsetting at maling solusyon tulad ng nuclear enerhiya at “malinis karbon”, habang nagpoprotekta sa mga karapatan ng mga apektadong ng paglipat, lalo manggagawa.
· Pagpapanatiling mga fossil na nagbibigay lakas sa lupa.
· Pagpapatupad ng tao pagkain at enerhiya soberanya. · Guaranteeing ang kontrol ng komunidad ng mga likas na yaman.
·Re-lokalisasyon ng produksyon at pagkonsumo, prioritizing lokal market
· Buong pagkilala ng mga Katutubong Tao, magsasaka at mga lokal na komunidad karapatan,
· Democratically kinokontrol malinis Renewable enerhiya.
· Karapatan batay sa konserbasyon ng mapagkukunan na nagpapatupad ng katutubong lupain karapatan at nagpapalaganap ng kapangyarihan ng mga mamamayan at pampublikong pagmamay-
ari sa paglipas ng enerhiya, gubat, buto, lupa at tubig
· Pagtatapos deforestation at ang mga kalakip na sanhi.
· Pagtatapos ng labis na pagkonsumo ng mga
elites sa North at sa South.
· Napakalaking investment sa pampublikong transportasyon
· pagtiyak kasarian katarungan sa pamamagitan ng pagkilala ng umiiral na mga injustices ng kasarian at kinasasangkutan ng mga kababaihan sa paggawa ng desisyon.
· Kinakansela sa labas ang mga utang na inaangkin ng hilagang pamahalaan at IFIs. Ang paglabag sa batas ng mga utang ay underscored sa pamamagitan ng ang mas makasaysayang, panlipunan at ecological utang na inutang sa mga tao ng South.

Pinaninindigan namin sa sangang-daan. Tinatawag namin para sa isang radikal na pagbabago sa
direksyon sa ilagay ang hustisya sa klima at tao karapatan sa gitna ng mga negotiations.

Sa ng lead-up sa 2009 Kop 15 sa Copenhagen at higit pa, sa Klima Justice Ngayon! alyansa ay patuloy na subaybayan ang mga pamahalaan at upang magpakilos panlipunan pwersa mula sa timog at sa hilaga upang makamit ang hustisya sa klima.

Ang CJN! Copenhagen Pahayag:
Tumawag para sa “System Baguhin ang hindi Pagbabago ng Klima” Unites Global Movement Sirang Copenhagen ‘kapasyahan’ inilalantad golpo sa pagitan ng mga mamamayan pangangailangan at pili pampulitika interes Ang mataas na inaasahang UN Pagbabago ng Klima Conference sa Copenhagen natapos sa isang mapanlinlang na kasunduan, ininhinyero ng Estados Unidos at bumaba sa conference sa huling sandali. Ang “kasunduan” ay hindi pinagtibay. Sa halip, ito ay “nabanggit” sa isang walang katotohanan parlyamentaryo imbensyon na idinisenyo sa tumanggap ng Estados Unidos at pinahihintulutan Ban Ki-moon sa tubos sa katawa-tawa pagpoproklama “Mayroon kaming deal.”

Ang UN conference ay hindi upang maghatid ng mga solusyon ang krisis sa klima, o kahit kaunting progreso patungo sa kanila. Sa halip, ang mga pag-uusap ay isang kumpletong pagkakanulo ng mga pinapaghirap bansa at isla estado, na gumagawa ng walang ngunit kahihiyan para sa United Nations at ang Danish pamahalaan. Sa isang conference na idinisenyo upang limitahan ang greenhouse emissions gas ay napaka kaunti talk ng reductions pagpapalabas. Rich, binuo patuloy na mga bansa upang antalahin ang anumang talk ng marahas reductions, sa halip ng paglilipat ang pasanin sa mas mababa binuo bansa at pagpapakita ng hindi pagpayag upang gumawa ng mga reparations para sa mga pinsala sanhi sila.

Ang Klima Justice Ngayon! koalisyon, sa tabi ng iba pang mga network, ay nagkakaisa dito sa COP15 sa tawag para sa System Baguhin, Hindi Pagbabago ng Klima. Sa kaibahan, ang conference Copenhagen klima na mismo nagpakita na real solusyon, bilang kabaligtaran sa maling, market-based na mga solusyon, hindi magiging pinagtibay hanggang namin pagtagumpayan ang umiiral na hindi makatarungan pampulitika at pang-ekonomiyang system.

Gobyerno at corporate elites dito sa Copenhagen ginawa walang pagtatangka upang masiyahan ang mga inaasahan ng mundo. Maling solusyon at korporasyon ganap na co-isinali sa proseso ng United Nations. Ang global pili ay gusto sa privatize ang kapaligiran sa pamamagitan ng market carbon; paghiwa-hiwain up ang natitirang gubat, bushes at grasslands ng mundo sa pamamagitan ng ang ng paglisan ng mga katutubong karapatan at lupa-daklot; convert real kagubatan sa plantations monoculture puno at agrikultura soils sa carbon lababo; at kumpletuhin ang mga kapitalistang enclosure ng mga hawak na tao. Halos bawat panukala tinalakay sa Copenhagen ay batay sa isang pagnanais upang lumikha ng pagkakataon para kumita kaysa upang mabawasan ang emissions.

Ang tanging mga talakayan ng mga tunay na solusyon sa Copenhagen naganap sa panlipunan paggalaw. Klima Justice Ngayon!, Klima Justice Action at Klimaforum09 articulated ng maraming creative mga ideya at tinangka upang maghatid ng mga ideya sa ang UN Conference Pagbabago sa Klima sa pamamagitan Klimaforum09 mga tao sa

Pahayag at ang Bawiin Power mga tao sa Assembly. Kabilang sa mga bansa, ang Alba bansa, maraming African bansa at AOSIS madalas echoed ng mga mensahe ng ang kilusan klima katarungan, nagsasalita ng ang pangangailangan upang bayaran klima utang, lumikha ng pagpapagaan at pagbagay pondo sa labas ng neoliberal institusyon tulad ng ang World Bank at IMF, at panatilihin ang global temperatura pagtaas sa ibaba 1.5 degrees.

Ang UN at ang Danish pamahalaan Hinahain ang mga interes ng mayaman, industrialized bansa, ang pagbubukod ng aming mga tinig at ang tinig ng hindi bababa sa malakas na sa buong mundo, at sinusubukang upang patahimikin ang aming mga pangangailangan sa makipag-usap tungkol sa mga tunay na solusyon. Mga Nevertheles, aming tinig lumago mas malakas at higit pa nagkakaisa araw-araw sa loob ng dalawang linggo conference. Bilang namin lumago malakas, ang mga mekanismo na ipinatupad sa pamamagitan ng UN at ang Danish para sa pagsasama ng sibil lipunan lumago mas dysfunctional, sumusupil at hindi makademokrasiya, napaka tulad ng WTO at Davos. Social kilusan paglahok ay limitado sa buong conference, lubhang puputulin sa linggo dalawang, at ilang sibil lipunan organisasyon kahit na ang kanilang mga kredensyal ng pagpasok binawi sa pagitan sa pamamagitan ng ikalawang linggo. Kasabay nito, ang patuloy na mga korporasyon paglalakad sa loob ng Bella Center.

Sa labas ng conference, ang Danish pulis pinahaba ang sumusupil framework, paglulunsad ng isang napakalaking clampdown sa karapatan sa malayang pagpapahayag at sa pag-aaresto at matalo ng mga libo-libong, kabilang ang sibil mga delegates lipunan sa conference klima. Aming kilusan overcame pagkakasupil ito upang taasan ang aming mga tinig sa may pasubali nang paulit-ulit. Aming demonstrations mobilized higit sa 100,000 mga tao sa Denmark sa pindutin para sa katarungan ng klima, habang panlipunan paggalaw sa buong mundo mobilized daan-daang libo higit pa sa demonstrations ng katarungan sa lokal na klima. Sa kabila ng pagkakasupil ng Danish pamahalaan at pagbubukod sa pamamagitan ng United Nations, ang mga kilusan para sa pagbabago ng sistema ay hindi pagbabago ng klima na ngayon ang mas malakas kaysa sa kapag kami dumating sa Denmark.

Habang Copenhagen ng kalamidad para sa mga solusyon ng klima, ay isang kagila watershed sandali sa labanan para sa katarungan ng klima. Ang pamahalaan ng pili ay may mga solusyon upang mag-alok, ngunit ang klima katarungan paggalaw ng strong pananaw at malinaw na mga alternatibo. Copenhagen ay remembered bilang isang makasaysayang kaganapan para sa mga global na panlipunan paggalaw. Ito ay remembered, kasama may Seattle at Cancun, bilang isang kritikal na sandali kapag ang magkakaibang mga agenda ng maraming panlipunan paggalaw coalesced at naging mas malakas, humihiling sa isang boses para sa pagbabago ng sistema, hindi pagbabago ng klima.

Ang Klima Justice Ngayon! koalisyon mga tawag para sa mga social paggalaw sa buong mundo upang magpakilos sa suporta ng klima katarungan.

Ay namin ang aming pakikibaka pasulong hindi lamang sa klima-uusap, ngunit sa lupa at sa mga lansangan ng, nagpo-promote ng mga tunay na solusyon na isama:

– Umaalis mga fossil na nagbibigay lakas sa lupa at pamumuhunan sa halip sa mga naaangkop na enerhiya-kahusayan at ligtas, malinis at komunidad humantong Renewable enerhiya
– radikal pagbabawas ng mapag-aksaya pagkonsumo, una sa lahat sa North, ngunit din sa pamamagitan ng Southern elites. – Malaking na paglilipat sa pananalapi mula sa North sa South, batay sa pagbabayad ng mga utang sa klima at nakabatay sa demokratikong kontrol. Ang mga gastos ng pagbagay at pagpapagaan dapat binayaran para sa sa pamamagitan ng pag-redirect ng mga militar na badyet, progresibong at makabagong mga buwis at pagkansela ng utang. – Karapatan-based na
mapagkukunan konserbasyon na nagpapatupad ng mga Katutubong karapatan sa lupa at nagpapalaganap ng mamamayan ‘kalayaan sa paglipas ng enerhiya, gubat, lupa at tubig. napapanatiling pagsasaka pamilya at pangingisda, at mamamayan ‘pagkain soberanya.

Kami ay nakatuon sa pagbuo ng isang magkakaibang kilusan – lokal at sa buong mundo – para sa isang mas mahusay na mundo.

Anne Petermann

Lettre ouverte à CJN! Appel à une attitude responsable (Adressée par Anne Petermann)

Saturday, January 26th, 2013

Adressée par Anne Petermann, directrice exécutive, Projet pour une
écologie globale et équitable, et par Orin Langelle, présidente du
conseil d’administration, Projet pour une écologie
globale et équitable (GIEP)

L’organisation “Projet pour une écologie globale et équitable”2 a été
l’un des fondateurs de CJN! à Bali en 2007. Elle a auparavant
participé à la construction de ce mouvement, en tant que co-fondateur
du Groupe de Durban pour une Justice Climatique en octobre 2004 et a
pris part à la Conférence des parties n° 10 de la Convention
structurelle des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique (UNFCCC
COP-10) 3 qui a suivi à Buenos Aires en 2004 (notre première
Conférence des parties pour le climat).

Depuis sa création comme alternative au Réseau pour une Action sur le
Climat (CAN)4, trop sensible aux sirènes du marché, réformiste et
dominé par les grosses organisations non gouvernementales5 CJN!est en
proie à des divergences philosophiques et stratégiques entre ses
différentes organisations membres. Nul doute que la coexistence de
forts groupes conservateurs avec des groupes radicaux et mouvements
sociaux moins puissants a produit au cours des années des débats
vivants, parfois frustrants, internes au CJN!
Mais pendant toute cette periode troublée, CJN! a joué un rôle
critique en apportant des avis et des perspectives provenant des
mouvements sociaux et des communautés concernées, non seulement dans
les Conférences des parties, mais aussi en direction du public
international grâce a un gros travail médiatique. L’organisation a mis
en lumière et critiqué les fausses solutions au changement climatique
privilégiées par les ONG conservatrices – depuis le commerce des
droits d’émission de carbone jusqu’aux agro-carburants et au programme
REDD6 – grâce à son écoute attentive des communautés concernées, des
organisations de base et des mouvements sociaux à travers le monde –
tout ceci afin d’aider au lancement de campagnes contre ces fausses
solutions. CJN! a joué un rôle crucial dans la définition de la lutte
pour la“justice climatique”, et l’a empêchée d’être sous l’emprise des
compagnies et de leurs collaborateurs. Il a dénoncé egalement la
méthode dominatrice de la Conférence des parties.

Du fait de son importance CJN! s’est vu attribuer un statut officiel
dans la hiérarchie interne de l’UNFCCC, le Réseau pour une Action sur
le Climat (CAN) a donc été obligé de partager avec lui la salle de
réunion et le temps d’intervention des ONG environnementales7 .

Toute cette activité et bien d’autres réalisations sont à mettre au
crédit du travail incessant de certains participants et médiateurs de
CJN! En particulier deux initiatives conjointes de CJN! et d’Agir pour
un climat équitable – l’action Reclaim Power et l’assemblée populaire,
menées à Copenhague lors de la Conférence des parties 15 – ont
constitué une incroyable démonstration de force du mouvement pour la
Justice climatique. C’est aussi ce qui a suscité une répression
exceptionnelle – depuis les arrestations préventives des organisateurs
de la manifestation, jusqu’aux coups portés par la police danoise à
des participants accrédités à la Conférence des parties et à
l’inculpation de pivots de l’organisation pour terrorisme.

Mais depuis lors, CJN! a connu de plus en plus de désordres internes.
Certains acteurs impliqués dans le mouvement ont fait de la
provocation, la liste de diffusion a été source de division et s’est
révélée par moment ingérable. Il a donc fallu prendre des décisions
concrètes pour résoudre ces problèmes; ce qui a été fait au cours du
face à face stratégique qui a suivi le Conférence des parties de
Cancun en 2010. Décisions incluant l’organisation d’une réunion
stratégique internationale en face a face pour les groupes
représentant les électeurs de base, ainsi que la mise en place d’une
liste de diffusion pour laquelle les participants devraient disposer
préalablement d’un référent (un système qui fonctionne très bien pour
d’autres listes de larges coalitions et alliances).
Ces décisions n’ont jamais été suivies d’effet. Un an plus tard, une
rencontre générale tout à fait distincte a été organisée
(vraisemblablement par le biais d’une équipe de médiateurs du CJN!)
afin de regrouper les militants de Justice climatique. Cela sous une
nouvelle bannière – celle de “Campagne générale pour exiger la justice
climatique ” (Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice)”8. Comment en
est-on arrivé là? Bien sûr on peut toujours fonder de nouveaux groupes
et faire des meetings, mais est ce qui il ne faut pas d’abord honorer
ses engagements précédents?

Pendant les années de la montée en puissance de CJN!, différents
alliés nous ont fourni des informations sur des manoeuvres de coulisse
orchestrées et destinées, semble-t’il, à saper CJN! Mais nous n’avons
pas l’intention d’aggraver les luttes intestines et nous entendons
respecter la confidentialité des informations fournies par les
collègues. Nous voulons simplement établir les responsabilités et en
retour, nous reconnaitrons notre propre culpabilité dans les problèmes
de CJN!. Nous avons peut-être exercé trop de pression.
Avant la Conférence des parties de Durban, nous avons demandé à
l’équipe de médiateurs de CJN!, via la liste de diffusion, de démarrer
une liste de diffusion propre à Durban, afin de permettre aux groupes
affiliés à CJN!.et aux militants de fournir une aide pour coordonner
nos activités. Nous avons également envoyé des courriers électroniques
à ceux que nous pensions faire partie de l’équipe de médiateurs, avec
l’idée de publier une Newsletter de coordination pour faciliter le
partage d’information. Nous n’avons eu aucune réponse. Le GIEP, ainsi
qu’un autre groupe, a alors mis en place une liste de diffusion propre
et a pris contact avec le UNFCCC pour obtenir la salle des réunions du
matin.
On ne nous a jamais donné d’explication sur ce qui est arrivé à CJN!
entre Cancun et Durban. Mais d’après ce qu’on devine et d’après les
bruits qui courent, il semble que, par derrière, quelqu’un tirait les
ficelles pour saboter l’efficacité de CJN!.

L’affaiblissement volontaire de CJN! semble s’être confirmé à Durban
avec l’organisation de meetings parallèles en concurrence ouverte pour
obtenir la salle de réunion de CJN! – dont l’usage avait été accordé à
un meeting de CJN!. Les organisateurs de ces meetings parallèles,
composés de “négociateurs sérieux des ONG”affirmaient qu’ils avaient
la permission de l’équipe de médiateurs de CJN!. Ce groupe distinct a
amené la division dans les meetings de CJN! et aussi ruiné les efforts
de la lutte pour la Justice Climatique.

Et maintenant on peut voir un appel sur la liste de diffusion de CJN!
pour rejoindre le Réseau pour une Action pour le climat (CAN) à Doha.
Depuis lors, nous avons reçu une avalanche de mails de la part de gens
appartenant à Justice Climatique pour demander ce qui se passe avec
CJN!.

Nous nous demandons aussi comment CJN! peut espérer se renforcer en
rejoignant une organisation aussi réformiste et compromise que le
Réseau pour une Action pour le climat (CAN). La force d’une chaine se
mesure à son maillon le plus faible, et ce n’est pas en ajoutant une
quantité de maillons faibles qu’on va la renforcer.
Qu’est ce qui s’est passé? Pourquoi les décisions prises au meeting de
Cancun n’ont-elles jamais été suivies? Pourquoi la main tendue
n’a-t-elle pas été saisie ? Pourquoi ce meeting sous cette bannière
complètement nouvelle de “Campagne globale pour exiger un climat
équitable” ? Quel est le rôle de cette campagne ? Qui a pris ces
décisions ? Où est le sens des responsabilités? Y a-t’il une équipe de
médiateurs de CJN! et si c’est le cas, qui en fait partie? Et quel est
le statut actuel de CJN!?

Nous sommes persuadés que le mouvement de lutte pour la Justice
climatique doit pouvoir comprendre, à des fins d’évaluation, ce qui
s’est passé à CJN!. Si on ne tire pas les leçons de ses erreurs, on
risque de les répéter. Nous sommes à un moment critique de l’histoire
de l’humanité et ce sont tous les systèmes indispensables à la vie sur
terre qui sont en question. Cette lettre est un appel à la
transparence, dont le but est la mise en place d’une organisation
démocratique et la fin des manipulations occultes.

CJN! a été fondé sur des principes révolutionnaires ; il a mis en
avant des critiques fondamentalement opposées au marché et a fait
connaitre les vues et les exigences des communautés situées en
première ligne mais qui n’ont pas voix au chapitre, bien qu’elles
soient les premières concernées par le changement climatique. Il a
donné une voix cruciale au mouvement pour une justice climatique. Il
suffit de se reporter à la déclaration de Poznan et à la déclaration
de Copenhague pour s’en souvenir :

Déclaration de Poznan

UN AGENDA RADICALEMENT NOUVEAU POUR PARVENIR A UNE JUSTICE CLIMATIQUE
Déclaration de Poznan publiée par l’alliance « Justice Climatique
Maintenant ! »
12 décembre 2008
Des membres de « Justice Climatique maintenant ! » ─ alliance
mondiale de plus de 160 organisations ─ sont à Poznań depuis deux
semaines pour suivre de près les développements des négociations des
Nations Unies sur le climat.
Cette déclaration représente notre point de vue sur la Conférence des
Parties n°14 et présente nos principes pour réaliser la justice en
matière de climat.
L’urgence de la justice pour le climat
Nous ne pourrons pas stopper les changements climatiques si nous ne
changeons pas l’économie néolibérale basée sur les grandes
entreprises, qui nous empêche de parvenir à des sociétés durables. Il
faut mettre fin au processus de globalisation par les grandes
entreprises.
La responsabilité historique pour la grande majorité des émissions de
gaz à effet de serre incombe aux pays industrialisés du Nord. Bien que
la responsabilité première du Nord à réduire ses émissions ait été
reconnue par la Convention, ses habitudes en matière de production et
de consommation continuent à menacer la survie de l’humanité et la
biodiversité. Il est urgent que le Nord passe rapidement à une
économie de faible production de carbone. Dans le même temps, afin
d’éviter de suivre ce modèle dangereux d’industrialisation à fortes
émissions de carbone, le Sud a droit à des ressources et des
technologies pour faire la transition.
Nous pensons que toute « vision partagée » pour faire face à la crise
climatique doit commencer par la justice en matière de climat et une
remise en question fondamentale du modèle de développement dominant.
Les Peuples Indigènes, les communautés de paysans et de pêcheurs, et
spécialement les femmes de ces communautés, vivent en harmonie avec la
Planète et sur un mode durable, depuis des millénaires. Ils ne sont
pas seulement les plus affectés par le changement climatique, ils le
sont aussi par les fausses solutions proposées, comme les
agro-carburants, les méga-barrages, la modification génétique, les
plantations d’arbres et les systèmes de compensations de carbone. En
lieu et place des programmes inspirés par les marchés, leurs pratiques
durables devraient être vues comme offrant les vraies solutions au
changement climatique .
L’UNFCCC EN CRISE
Les gouvernements et les institutions internationales doivent
reconnaître que les mécanismes de Kyoto n’ont pas réussi à réduire les
émissions de gaz à effet de serre.
Les principes de la Convention structurelle des Nations Unies sur le
changement climatique (UNFCCC) – responsabilités communes mais
différenciées, équité intergénérationnelle, et principe du
pollueur-payeur ─ ont été sabordés en faveurs des mécanismes du
marché. Les trois principaux piliers de l’accord de Kyoto : le
mécanisme pour un développement propre, la mise en œuvre conjointe et
les programmes d’échanges des émissions ─ ont été complètement
inefficaces dans la réduction des émissions et cependant restent au
centre des négociations.
Kyoto est basé sur des mécanismes d’échange de carbone qui permettent
aux pays du nord de continuer comme si de rien n’était en finançant
des projets de « développement propre » dans des pays en développement
ou en transition. C’est un programme conçu délibérément pour permettre
aux pollueurs de se soustraire à la réduction de leurs émissions de
carbone. Les projets de mécanismes de développement propre, qui sont
censés soutenir le « développement durable » incluent des projets
d’infrastructure tels que de grands barrages, des centrales au charbon
et des plantations d’arbres en monoculture. Non seulement ces projets
ne réussissent pas à réduire les émissions de carbone, mais elles
accélèrent la privatisation et la mainmise du monde naturel par les
grandes entreprises au détriment des communautés locales et des
Peuples Indigènes.
Les propositions mises sur la table à Poznan vont dans la même direction.

Dans les négociations en cours, les pays industrialisés continuent à
baser leurs actions sur leur propre intérêt, en utilisant toutes leurs
tactiques de négociation pour échapper à leur obligation de réduire
les émissions de carbone, de financer les adaptations et les
compromis, de transférer des technologies vers le sud. Dans leur
poursuite de la croissance à tout prix, de nombreux gouvernements du
sud participant aux pourparlers bradent les droits de leurs peuples et
leurs ressources. Nous leur rappelons qu’un accord sur le climat n’est
pas un accord commercial.

Les principaux protagonistes de la stabilité climatique ─ les Peuples
Indigènes, les femmes, les familles de paysans et d’agriculteurs, les
communautés de pêcheurs, les communautés vivant de la forêt, les
jeunes et les communautés marginalisées et défavorisées dans le Sud et
le Nord du monde, sont systématiquement exclus. Malgré des demandes
répétées, les Peuples Indigènes ne sont pas reconnus comme
participants officiels aux négociations . La voix des femmes et les
considérations relatives à la situation particulière du fait de leur
sexe, ne sont pas non plus reconnues et incluses dans le processus.
En même temps, les investisseurs privés planent au-dessus des
discussions comme des vautours, fondant sur toutes les occasions pour
créer de nouveaux profits. Les groupes de pressions industriels et
financiers ont étendu leur influence et monopolisé l’espace de
conférence à Poznan. Il y avait au moins 1500 représentants de lobbies
à Poznan, soit comme ONG ou membres de délégations gouvernementales.
Le programme de Réduction des Émissions Provenant de la Déforestation
et de la Dégradation des Forêts (REDD) pourrait créer la plus
importante échappatoire jamais fournie au régime climatique, offrant
aux pollueurs du Nord une opportunité de plus pour acheter des
exemptions à l’obligation de réduire les émissions. En ne mentionnant
pas la biodiversité ou les droits des Peuples Indigènes, ce programme
pourrait inciter très fortement certains pays à brader leurs forêts,
expulser les communautés Indigènes et paysannes, transformer les
forêts en plantations arboricoles sous contrôle de grandes
entreprises. Les plantations ne sont pas des forêts. La privatisation
et l’expropriation par le biais de REDD ou de tout autre mécanisme
doivent être stoppées
La Banque Mondiale essaie de se creuser une niche dans le régime
international du changement climatique. C’est inacceptable, d’autant
que la Banque continue de financer des industries polluantes et de
pousser à la déforestation par la promotion de l’exploitation
industrielle du bois et des agro-combustibles. Le Fonds
d’Investissement pour le Climat, récemment lancé par la Banque, va à
l’encontre des initiatives gouvernementales aux Nations Unies et
encourage des industries sales, comme le charbon, tout en forçant les
pays en développement à entrer dans une relation fondamentalement
inégale d’assisté face à un donneur d’aide. Le système de partenariat
carbone-forêt de la Banque Mondiale ayant pour but de financer REDD à
travers un mécanisme carbone-forêt sert les intérêts de compagnies
privées et conduit à ce que les forêts deviennent traitées comme des
denrées.
De tels développements étaient à prévoir. L’idéologie de marché a
totalement infiltré les négociations sur le climat et les négociations
de l’UNFCCC sont maintenant des foires commerciales colportant des
opportunités d’investissements.
LES VRAIES SOLUTIONS
Les solutions à la crise climatique ne viendront pas des pays
industrialisés et du grand capital. Les solutions efficaces et
pérennes viendront de ceux qui ont protégé l’environnement ─ les
Peuples indi-gènes, les femmes, les familles de paysans et
d’agriculteurs, les communautés de pêcheurs, les communautés vivant de
la forêt, les jeunes et les communautés marginalisées et défavorisées
dans le Sud et le Nord de la planète. Ces solutions comprennent :
– Mettre en place des économies à bas niveau de carbone sans avoir
recours aux compensations et à de fausses solutions telles que
l’énergie nucléaire et le « charbon propre », tout en protégeant les
droits de ceux qui sont affectés par la transition, en particulier les
travailleurs.
– Ne pas extraire les carburants fossiles.
– Mettre en œuvre la souveraineté alimentaire et énergétique des peuples.
– Garantir le contrôle des ressources naturelles par les communautés.
– Relocaliser la production et la consommation. Donner la priorité
aux marchés locaux. – Pleine reconnaissance des droits des Peuples
Indigènes, des communautés paysannes et locales.
– Énergie propre et renouvelable contrôlée démocratiquement.
– conservation des ressources juridiquement garantie, qui applique
les droits territoriaux des indigènes et promeut la souveraineté des
peuples, la propriété publique de l’énergie, des forêts, des
semences, de la terre et de l’eau.
– Fin de la déforestation et de ses causes sous-jacentes.
– Fin des excès de consommation des élites dans le Nord comme dans le Sud.
– Investissements massifs dans les transports publics.
– Assurer l’égalité des sexes en reconnaissant les injustices
existantes et en impliquant les femmes dans les processus de
décision.
– Annuler les dettes illégitimes revendiquées par les gouvernements
du Nord et les IFI. Le caractère illégitime de ces dettes est
souligné par les dettes historiques, sociales et écologiques beaucoup
plus importantes du Nord envers le Sud.

Nous nous trouvons à la croisée des chemins. Nous appelons à un
changement radical de direction pour mettre la justice et les droits
des peuples au centre de ces négociations sur le climat.

Dans la période que précède la Conférence des Parties n°15 de 2009 à
Copenhague, et au-delà, l’alliance « CJN!» continuera à suivre de près
les gouvernements et à mobiliser les forces sociales du Sud et du Nord
pour obtenir justice dans la lutte climatique.

La déclaration de CJN! à Copenhague
L’appel à « changer le système, pas le climat » réunit un mouvement mondial
L’accord indigne de Copenhague révèle un gouffre entre les
revendications des peuples et les intérêts des élites.
La très attendue Conférence des Nations Unies sur le Changement
Climatique de Copenhague a débouché sur un accord de dupe, manigancé
par les USA et parachuté au dernier moment. « L’accord » n’a pas été
adopté, mais a été « pris en note », une invention législative absurde
conçue pour convenir aux USA et permettre à Ban Ki-moon de prononcer
cette déclaration ridicule « nous avons un accord ».
La conférence des Nations Unies a été incapable d’apporter des
solutions à la crise climatique, ni même une avancée minimale vers ces
solutions. Au contraire, les négociations ont complètement trahi les
nations appauvries et les états insulaires, ont jeté les Nations unies
et le gouvernement danois dans la plus grande confusion. Alors que
l’objectif central de la conférence était de limiter les émissions de
gaz à effet de serre, il a en finalement été très peu question. Les
pays riches et développés ont continué à retarder toute négociation
sur des réductions drastiques et contraignantes, préférant plutôt
reporter le fardeau sur les pays les moins développés, et ne montrant
aucune volonté de réparer les dégâts qu’ils ont causés.
La coalition CJN!, aux côtés d’autres réseaux, s’est jointe à l’appel
pour « changer le système, pas le climat » durant la Conférence des
parties n°15. La conférence de Copenhague sur le climat a, quant à
elle, montré que les solutions réelles, par opposition aux fausses
solutions basées sur le marché, ne pourront être adoptées tant que
nous n’aurons pas triomphé d’un système économique et politique
injuste.
À Copenhague, les responsables de gouvernement ou les grands patrons
n’ont fait aucune tentative pour satisfaire les attentes du monde
entier. Les fausses solutions et les multinationales ont complètement
phagocyté le processus des Nations Unies. Les élites mondiales
voudraient pouvoir privatiser l’atmosphère au travers des marchés
carbone, dépecer les forêts, broussailles et prairies du monde entier
en violant les droits des peuples indigènes et en s’accaparant les
terres; remplacer les vraies forêts par des plantations arborées
d’essence unique ; transformer les surfaces agricoles en puits de
carbone, et, enfin, finir de privatiser le bien commun. En pratique,
chaque proposition discutée à Copenhague était basée sur le désir de
créer des nouvelles opportunités de profit plutôt que sur la volonté
de réduire les émissions.
À Copenhague, les seules discussions sur des solutions réelles ont eu
lieu dans les mouvements sociaux. Climate Justice Now !, Climate
Justice Action et le Klimaforum 09 ont permis d’articuler des idées
novatrices et tenté de diffuser ces idées dans la Conférence des
Nations Unies par le biais de la « déclaration des peuples » du
Klimaforum 09 et des assemblées populaires « Reclaim Power »9. Parmi
les états, les pays de l’ALBA, de nombreux états africains et les
membres de l’AOSIS ont souvent fait écho aux messages du mouvement
pour la justice climatique, en parlant de la nécessité de payer pour
la dette climatique, de créer des fonds pour l’adaptation et la
réduction des émissions hors de la logique des institutions
néolibérales comme la Banque Mondiale et le FMI, ou encore de garder
l’augmentation globale de la température en dessous de 1,5 degré.
Les Nations Unies et le gouvernement danois ont servi les intérêts des
pays riches et industrialisés, excluant nos voix et celles des moins
puissants à travers la planète ; ils ont tenté de faire taire nos
demandes de négocier sur des solutions réelles. Néanmoins, nos voix se
sont renforcées, et unifiées jour après jour pendant les deux semaines
de la conférence. Au fur et à mesure que nous nous renforcions, les
mécanismes mis en œuvre par les Nations unies et les autorités
danoises pour permettre la participation de la société civile se sont
révélés de plus en plus dysfonctionnels, répressifs et
anti-démocratiques, à l’instar de ce qui se passe à l’OMC ou à Davos.
La participation des mouvements sociaux a été limitée tout au long de
la conférence, drastiquement restreinte durant la deuxième semaine, au
milieu de laquelle de nombreuses organisations de la société civile se
sont vu retirer leurs accréditations. Dans le même temps, les
multinationales poursuivaient leur lobbying à l’intérieur du Bella
Center.
À l’extérieur de la conférence, la police danoise a déployé un système
répressif, menant de vastes opérations contre le droit à la libre
expression, arrêtant et portant des coups à des milliers de personnes,
dont des délégués de la société civile auprès de la conférence des
Nations Unies. Notre mouvement a surmonté cette répression, et a
continué à protester encore plus fort. Nos manifestations ont
rassemblé plus de 100 000 personnes au Danemark, pour exiger la
justice climatique, pendant que les mouvements sociaux du monde entier
ont mobilisé des centaines de milliers d’autres personnes au cours de
manifestations locales pour la justice climatique. Malgré la
répression menée par le gouvernement danois et les exclusions pilotées
par les Nations unies, le mouvement pour « changer le système, pas le
climat » est désormais plus fort que lors de notre arrivée au
Danemark.
Bien que Copenhague ait été un désastre pour les solutions justes et
équitables au changement climatique, il marque un tournant
enthousiasmant du combat pour la justice climatique. Les
gouvernements défendant l’intérêt des élites n’ont aucune solution à
offrir, mais le mouvement pour la justice climatique a proposé une
vision forte et des alternatives claires. Copenhague restera un
événement historique pour les mouvements sociaux mondiaux, et, à
l’instar de Seattle et de Cancun, sera considéré comme un moment
crucial où les divers agendas de nombreux mouvements sociaux se sont
unis et renforcés, pour demander d’une même voix de changer le
système, pas le climat.
La coalition Justice climatique maitenant! appelle les mouvements
sociaux du monde entier à se mobiliser pour soutenir la justice
climatique.
Nous ne mènerons pas notre lutte lors des négociations sur le climat
seulement, mais sur le terrain et dans les rues, pour promouvoir de
véritables solutions, qui incluent ;
de laisser les combustibles fossiles dans le sous-sol et investir dans
l’énergie renouvelable, appropriée, efficace, sûre, propre et
contrôlée par les communautés
deréduire drastiquement le gaspillage, avant tout et surtout dans le
Nord, mais aussi par les élites du Sud
des transferts financiers énormes du nord vers le sud, en tant que
réparations des dettes climatiques, soumis à un contrôle démocratique.
Les coûts d’adaptation et d’atténuation doivent être financés par la
réorientation des budgets militaires, par des taxes innovantes et par
l’annulation de la dette.
la garantie juridique de la conservation des ressources, qui renforce
les droits des peuples indigènes à la terre et promeuve la
souveraineté des peuples sur l’énergie, les forêts, la terre et l’eau;
une agriculture et une pêche familiales et durables, la souveraineté
alimentaire des peuples

Nous réaffirmons notre engagement dans la construction d’un mouvement
vaste et divers, localement et mondialement – pour un monde meilleur.

Anne Petermann directrice exécutive de Projet pour une écologie
globale et équitable
266 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 307 Buffalo, NY 14222

Campanha contra usina em Roraima “Salve o Rio Branco, patrimônio de Roraima”

Thursday, January 24th, 2013

BOA VISTA – . A campanha do movimento socioambiental Puraké pretende paralisar os procedimentos administrativos referentes à construção da Usina Hidrelétrica (UHE) do Bem Querer, na bacia do rio Branco, e alertar a sociedade quanto aos impactos ambientais.

Segundo um dos organizadores da campanha, como Ciro Campos e outros, a ação também é um meio de mostrar outras alternativas energéticas que o Estado oferece, e que são menos impactantes ao meio ambiente. De acordo com Campos, o lançamento da campanha é a convocatória para a formação de uma ‘Frente’ reunindo pessoas e organizações em defesa do rio Branco.

Segundo o integrante do Movimento Puraké, durante a campanha acontecerá coleta de assinaturas mais de 30 organizações que já colaboram com o movimento para o abaixo assinado contra a UHE do Bem Querer.

UHE do Bem Querer

A Usina Hidrelétrica (UHE) do Bem-Querer é um projeto do Governo Federal. O projeto visa a construção da Usina nas corredeiras do Bem Querer, localizadas no município de Caracaraí, a 125 quilômetros de Boa Vista. A obra faz parte do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento – PAC 2.
Segundo a Assessoria de Comunicação do PAC 2, do Ministério do Planejamento, a potência identificada para a UHE é de 708,4 MW. De acordo com a assessoria, a Usina encontra-se na fase de elaboração de Estudos de Viabilidade Técnica e Econômica – EVTE e licenciamento ambiental.

“No entanto o processo está paralisado devido às restrições presentes na Emenda Constitucional nº 021 de 6/8/2008, do Estado de Roraima que passou a constituir como patrimônio histórico, cultural, turístico, social, artístico, ambiental e cultural roraimense diversos bens de natureza ambiental material e imaterial tombados de forma isolada ou em conjunto, dentre eles as corredeiras do rio Branco”, informou a Assessoria ao portalamazonia.com.

Três empresas habilitadas para estudo de viabilidade da UHE Bem-Quer
Projeto deve demandar investimentos da ordem de R$3,9 bilhões;

A Empresa de Pesquisa Energia (EPE) revelou em Julho de 2012 as três empresas habilitadas para a concorrência pública que tem por objetivo contratar a realização dos estudos técnicos de viabilidade da futura hidrelétrica Bem Querer, prevista para ser construída no rio Branco, em Roraima.

Conforme consta no Diário Oficial da União (DOU) em Julho de 2012, estão habilitadas a CNEC Wokleyparsons Engenharia, a Engevix Engenharia e a Projetos e Consultorias de Engenharia (PCE).

A EPE explica que a contratação do serviços, que incluem consultoria técnica, levantamento e estudos de engenharia e viabilidade, será feira por menor preço. As propostas dessas empresas habilitada serão abertas no próximo dia 27 de julho 2012.

A UHE Bem-Querer deverá ter 708,4MW de potencia. O projeto é considerado importante para o desenvolvimento do estado de Roraima. A previsão de investimento é da ordem de R$3,9 bilhões.

Some worrisomely twisted, revisionist and just plain confused American eco-bourgeois “analysis” from 350.org McKibben.

Sunday, January 20th, 2013

“Some worrisomely twisted, revisionist and just plain confused American eco-bourgeois “analysis” from McKibben.

The idea that McKibben would just ignore the litany of voices, especially in California that YELLED, and continue to yell, and even file suit (!) against cap-and-trade is downright, dangerous disrespectful.

A response is definitely needed.” said MK Dorsey.

Bill McKibben is founder of 350.org and Schumann Distinguished Professor at Middlebury College in Vermont. He also serves on Grist’s Board of Directors.

READ 350.org McKibben questionable analyses:

By Bill McKibben

Watching the collapse of the effortto create a cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions in 2009-10 was profoundly depressing. Reading Theda Skocpol’s insightful history [PDF] isn’t much more fun — but it’s certainly useful, in aSantayana kind of way. Since this is a mistake we can’t afford to repeat (the planet is running out of spare presidential terms and congressional sessions), Skocpol performs a real service by helping figure out what went wrong.

The first thing to be said, I think, is that this behind-the-scenes route was worth a try. Given the stakes, you would think elite players, especially in the business community, would have been willing to make the relatively small and painless changes the cap-and-trade law envisioned. Such inside-the-Beltway lobbying is how most environmental change has come, at least since the decline of the ’70s-era movement that really powered the most important legislation.

But this was too big — there was too much money at stake. The climate issue, it turned out, didn’t fundamentally resemble acid rain after all. The fossil fuel companies, which had spent a lot of money helping erect the hard-right political edifice then near its height in D.C., saw that they didn’t have to give away anything. They could block even this small change for now, and continue to put away truly record profits.

If the inside-the-Beltway groups had been able to turn to a real grassroots activist movement, the outcome might have been different. But that movement didn’t really exist, and many of the big players had only disdain for its embryonic form — they liked talking with corporate honchos more than treehuggers. And so the lobbyists from the green groups were walking naked into the offices of senators, who recognized that they lacked the ability to inflict pain or offer reward. The result was the rout we saw.

Since then two things have changed that make progress more possible, I think.

One is a public far more concerned with climate change. That’s what happens when 80 percent of counties experience a federal disaster, when the biggest drought in half a century sends food prices through the roof, when superstorm Sandy devastates the most important city on the planet. Polling data indicates a readiness for real action; few politicians would be punished by voters for taking climate seriously (though they still would be punished by donors). This is precisely what needs bolstering in Skocpol’s vision of an emergent center-left swell.

Two is a grassroots movement revived enough to be something of a force, pushing that center-left swell in the direction it must go. 350.org, for instance, began organizing months after the cap-and-trade debacle, and now works in 191 countries; we were able to organize the biggest civil disobedience action in 30 years in this country, which in turn helped at least slow the Keystone pipeline. This is no juggernaut, but it is growing steadily — at the moment 210 campuses have active fossil-fuel divestment movements, for instance. (One hopes Professor Skocpol will work hard to push the effort at Harvard. Those of us who fought to get her tenure there in the early ’80s would be grateful if she used the freedom it affords to make a difference beyond her fine scholarship.)

The best chance for these two tendencies to come together in effective climate legislation is, as she points out, something like a fee-and-dividend proposal, where most of the money collected goes to citizens. It’s certainly more just — if anyone owns the sky, it’s us, not Exxon. And it’s possible to imagine ratcheting it up fast enough to matter, since every time the fee rises, so does the size of the check that comes in the mail. Americans like checks — my Harvard bachelor’s degree in political science entitles me to say that, I think.

But that does lead me to the final point about Skocpol’s paper, one that bears remembering. Her interest is political science, not science, but it’s the latter that ultimately governs here. Political realism is nice, but physics is calling the dance.

So designing a policy that can get through Congress is at best half the battle. What makes this different from health care is that in that case getting half a loaf actually helped; in this case it’s much less clear. This is the first time-limited giant problem we’ve ever faced (unless you count, say, World War II, which also couldn’t be postponed very long). At this point, having delayed action for so long, the easy baby steps are no longer helpful. A small price on carbon won’t get us as far as it would have a decade or two ago.

In the end, the problem isn’t getting a bill through Congress. The problem is global warming. And it may be useful to begin any discussion of strategy with that in mind.