[Autochtones-cop21] Report on Climate Change and the Negotiations for Paris / Alberto Saldamando, Indigenous Environmental Network

Irène Bellier ibellier at ehess.fr
Mer 25 Nov 11:39:22 CET 2015


Bonjour
Et en pièce jointe le programme de la journée organisée par les 
autochtones nords-américains à la COP 21


Le 25/11/15 11:03, Silvanu a écrit :
>
>
>   The Road to Paris: A Report by Alberto Saldamando
>   <http://indigenousrising.org/the-road-to-paris-a-report-by-alberto-saldamando/>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/> <https://twitter.com/> 
> <https://www.tumblr.com/> <mailto:> 
> <http://indigenousrising.org/feed/rss/>
>
> *Report on Climate Change and the Negotiations for Paris*
> Alberto Saldamando, Indigenous Environmental Network
>
> *The Road to Paris: *
>
> The Kyoto Protocol uses as a base the States’ emission of GHG in 1990. 
> And the reductions of emissions are measured in tons of GHG and are 
> legally binding. But since the Cancun COP in 2010 another system of 
> reductions has emerged, called, Intended Nationally Determined 
> Contributions (INDC). These contributions are not legally binding. 
> They are only a declaration by each State of the amounts of GHG they 
> are willing (or intend) to reduce. These INDC declarations began at 
> COP 20, Lima.
>
> A 2015 Bulletin of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on 
> greenhouse gases 
> <https://www.wmo.int/media/content/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-hit-yet-another-record>reports 
> that between 1990 and 2014 the world experienced an increase of 36% 
> global emissions! The Centre for Science and Environment, cited below, 
> using EPA’s own data, reports an increase of 8% of US GHG emissions 
> since 1990.
>
> The US NDIC propose to reduce their emissions by 26-28% from 2005 to 
> 2025 and 34-37% of 2005 levels by 2030. A report by the Centre for 
> Science and Environment 
> <http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Capitan-America-Report.pdf>analyzes 
> the Contribution of the United States to reducing GHG. This Indian 
> NGO, using data published by the US EPA, reports that based on 1990 
> emission levels, the current reduction in the US will be only 13-15% 
> by 2025 and 23-27% by the year 2030. In comparison, the European Union 
> has committed to reduce its emissions to 40% of their 1990 emissions 
> by the year 2030.
>
> Based on their NDIC US per capita emissions by 2030 will be 12.5 - 13 
> metric tons of GHG, while the per capita emissions in the European 
> Union will be 6.5 metric tons. In addition, the US announced that to 
> reach its goal, it will use carbon sinks (mainly the oceans and 
> forests) and Land Use and Land Use Change (LULUC) to eliminate 250 
> million tons of emissions, cutting their emissions reduction 
> commitment almost in half. That is, they intend to continue their 
> emissions over and above their NDICs, relying on carbon sinks to 
> absorb 250 million tons of the “excess” GHG.
>
> UNEP, the United Nations Environmental Programme, estimates 
> <http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=26854&ArticleID=35542&l=en>that 
> the total INDCs that have so far been made are half of what’s required 
> to reach the objective of 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, 
> 2100. It hopes, in very optimistic language for more “enhanced 
> ambition” by States in their INDCs in the future.
>
> *The Major issues Leading to Paris:*
>
> The Kyoto Protocol, (KP) is based on the principle of common but 
> differentiated responsibilities; it imposes a higher obligation to 
> reduce emissions from developed countries because they are 
> historically responsible for the high levels of Green House Gases in 
> the atmosphere. The KP also recognizes that those responsible should 
> pay for adaptation and the transfer of technology needed by developing 
> and under-developed States to adapt and to mitigate global warming. 
> “Loss and Damage” funding for the catastrophic damage caused by 
> climate change not only the past but also the future is also contentious.
>
> Other contentious issues:
>
>  1. Whether INDCs, such as they are, should be binding. The United
>     States is opposed, saying that if they were mandatory and binding
>     "it would stifle ambitions." Another theme is the distinction made
>     in Kyoto Protocol between “Developed” and “Developing” States;
>  2. Since emissions from China and some developing countries have
>     reached seriously high levels, they should be treated in the same
>     way as Developed countries. But this implies a rejection of the
>     historical responsibility for climate change and the principle of
>     “equal but differentiated responsibilities.”
>
> *The Free Market:*
>
> The Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol established 
> carbon credits and carbon offsets. The poison of the atmosphere became 
> a commodity that can be sold on the open market. These carbon credits 
> can be purchased by carbon emitting countries and companies to allow 
> them to continue with their emissions over limitations, whether 
> voluntary or not.
>
> Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is 
> a program that generates offsets and carbon credits that can be sold 
> on the carbon market. REDD + has received almost universal acceptance 
> among States. Under REDD + investments in forests and reforestation 
> increasing the amounts of carbon sequestered by forests can generate 
> carbon credits for the same amounts of forest carbon increases. These 
> credits can then be sold to States and corporate emitters to meet 
> their emission limits. To paraphrase the Center for Biological 
> Diversity (Comments on CARB White Paper) forest offsets only change 
> the location of emissions - offsets do not reduce them.
>
> *Positions of Indigenous Peoples:
> *
> The persistent demands of all Indigenous Peoples and indigenous NGOs 
> <http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/un-framework-convention-climate-change-unfccc/news/2015/10/international-indigenous-peoples-d>is 
> that in every action, every project on climate change, States parties 
> recognize, respect and observe the rights of Indigenous Peoples to 
> their lands, territories and resources and be subject to free, prior 
> and informed consent, including the right to say "yes" or "no," in 
> accordance with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 
> the UN (2007) and ILO Convention 169 (1989).
>
> Along with other human rights, women and youth accords:
>
> /“This Agreement shall be implemented on the basis of equity and 
> science, in [full] accordance with the principles of equity and common 
> but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities[, in 
> the light of national circumstances] [the principles and provisions of 
> the Convention], while /*/ensuring the respect, protection, promotion 
> and fulfillment of human rights, including the rights of indigenous 
> peoples; /*/gender equality and the full and equal participation of 
> women; intergenerational equity; a just transition of the workforce 
> that creates decent work and quality jobs;/*/food security; and the 
> integrity and resilience of natural ecosystems.”/*
>
> It may not seem like much but it has been and will be a battle. *The 
> problem is that the Western States (EU, North America + Japan) do not 
> recognize collective rights as "human rights." I think we all 
> appreciate that our individual rights are respected. But there is an 
> urgent need for our collective rights to be respected and observed. *
>
> On the cessation of emissions there is also a single Indigenous 
> Peoples and NGOs position, that States stop emitting Green House 
> Gases. There is also a consensus opposition to free market carbon 
> offsets and credits. There is also a position on the financing of 
> mitigation and adaptation and REDD projects, that indigenous peoples 
> directly receive funds for the aforestation and reforestation of 
> forests. And I think there's consensus position that oil and other 
> fossil fuels be left in the ground.
>
> These positions are complicated by REDD and REDD+. REDD is clearly 
> intended to generate carbon credits and offsets for the free market. 
> But some indigenous peoples see REDD as guaranteeing the titling to 
> their lands and territories. Others see REDD projects to be financed 
> directly to the owners of the forests, and that indigenous people will 
> be able to enjoy its benefits without State impositions interference. 
> They have a vision of an Indigenous REDD 
> <http://theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdf/coica_indigenous_redd.pdf>where 
> all the rights of indigenous peoples are recognized and respected, and 
> their lands and territories recognized and demarcated, with 
> sovereignty and self determination over their lands, territories and 
> resources, under their direct control.
>
> The Great REDD Gamble 
> <http://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/The-great-REDD-gamble.pdf>, 
> a recent report by Friends of the Earth (FoE) pointed to the failures 
> of these aspirations in existing REDD+ projects, finding that REDD 
> worsens tensions around land tenure and access to resources: “as REDD 
> presents governments with an increasing financial incentive for the 
> state to retain or assert ownership.”
>
> “One common factor that emerges very strongly from these case studies 
> is the extraordinarily disruptive influence that REDD+ projects can 
> have on Indigenous Peoples and local communities, especially if people 
> have not consented to the project in question or been engaged in its 
> design, or if there are existing uncertainties about land tenure. We 
> also found that REDD+ projects can trample over existing local 
> knowledge, and interfere with local food security.”
>
> It is the States that define and implement any international accords, 
> and the histories of the implementation of indigenous rights (as well 
> as human rights) does not auger well for an “Indigenous” market REDD. 
> IEN and others do not have any confidence in the States and are 
> totally opposed to REDD based on the free market. Forests must be 
> rescued because they are the lungs of Mother Earth. Financing should 
> be from public funds and not the market, leaving indigenous peoples in 
> peace, free from roads, mono-crop plantations, mineral and fossil fuel 
> extraction and other forms of mega projects, all permissible under 
> REDD. We doubt that a market based REDD will leave indigenous peoples 
> free to care for their forests in their cultural, spiritual and 
> historical role.
>
>
>
> *Conclusion:*
> The States have been unable to address the problem of greenhouse gas 
> emissions directly and as time passes global warming grows almost 
> exponentially. The negotiations in Paris, to confront climate change 
> in accordance with reality would have to take a very different 
> approach than the one taken since 1992 to date, one based on reality 
> and urgency.
>
> Faced with this failure, given the "solutions" market proposals in the 
> negotiations since 1992 (REDD, intelligent agriculture, LULUC), the 
> forests, lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples are 
> faced with the threat of land and resource grabs on a massive and 
> global scale.
>
> Indigenous peoples and NGOs hope to be there, in the streets and 
> alleys outside the COP in Paris with other civil society raising our 
> voices. There is still hope in mobilizations. But given the recent 
> tragic terrorist attacks, national and local demonstrations during 
> negotiations may be the only means of providing support and strength 
> to the demand for the “Buen Vivir” of indigenous peoples and the well 
> being of humanity.
>
> http://indigenousrising.org/the-road-to-paris-a-report-by-alberto-saldamando/
>
> ----
>
>
>       Bio Description
>
> This report is provided by Alberto Saldamondo.  Alberto Saldamando, 
> (Chicano/Zapoteca) has a BA and JD from the University of Arizona and 
> is admitted to the practice of law California (retired status, Arizona 
> Bar). Mr. Saldamando served as General Counsel to the International 
> Indian Treaty Council (1994-2011) and is presently counsel to the 
> Indigenous Environmental Network on climate change and Indigenous 
> rights issues (2011 – present).
>
> Mr. Saldamando has developed expertise on the Right to Food, and in 
> the United Nation's mechanisms for the vindication of Indigenous Human 
> Rights and provides representation, training and technical assistance 
> in both Spanish and English to grass-roots Indigenous Communities on 
> international human rights law, standards and practice.
>

-- 
Irène Bellier
Directrice de Recherches au CNRS -- IIAC/LAIOS
Directrice du Laboratoire d'Anthropologie des Institutions et des Organisations Sociales (EHESS)

Responsable scientifique SOGIP (ERC 249236)
Scales of governance: the UN, the States and Indigenous Peoples
http://www.sogip.ehess.fr

190, avenue de France  Paris 75013
tel : + 33 (1) 49542198 (secrétariat), O149542220 (direct)
fax : + 33 (1) 49542190

-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe HTML a été nettoyée...
URL: </pipermail/autochtones-cop21/attachments/20151125/997a4d86/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pièce jointe autre que texte a été nettoyée...
Nom: North America Day at IP Pavilion FINAL.pdf
Type: application/vnd.pdf
Taille: 166193 octets
Desc: non disponible
URL: </pipermail/autochtones-cop21/attachments/20151125/997a4d86/attachment-0001.bin>


Plus d'informations sur la liste de diffusion Autochtones-cop21