This blog is cross-published and also available on the CC-RAI website: http://www.climateconsortium.ca/

As a graduate student from York University, I had the opportunity to attend the United Nations’ Conference of Parties (COP17) in Durban, South Africa this December. The experience helped me understand that climate justice is about knowing when to stop talking and start listening. It is about humility and creating institutional opportunities for the people who are most affected by climate change to voice their concerns.

During a COP17 protest, I sat down under a tree beside a group of rural women from Northern Cape, South Africa. They were tired, hungry, and thirsty from protesting all day, but they were there to fight for agricultural and land reform. I have tried to understand their cause, but I was left confused by their passion and determination for climate justice. My situation was a lot more different than theirs: I live a relatively comfortable life in Canada as a student researching climate change policies. I do not know what it means to have limited opportunities when your family goes hungry because of a shortage of food caused by climate change. I went to South Africa with a desire to better understand the Conference of Parties as a policy platform. However, I have quickly learned to stop asking pre-determined questions and just start listening. My lesson in the importance of listening can further be applied to the new ways that climate justice can be incorporated into the institutional structure of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the many programs that are part of this greater scheme.

The current market-based approach in the UNFCCC to regulate greenhouse gases is supported by some and opposed by others. An interesting aspect of COP17 was how these different opinions were concentrated in different physical locations. The physical structure of COP17 in South Africa can be divided into three main physical spaces. There was the Durban Exhibition Centre, which has over two hundred information booths from various research institutes, NGOs, and private companies; this was also the location of various panel discussions on the technicalities of UN’s programs as well as discussions on private and public involvement. The official place for governmental negotiations on international climate change initiatives was the International Conference Centre. In these two spaces there was very little opposition, with the exception of a number of civil society groups such as GreenPeace and the Canadian Youth Delegation, against a market-based approach in mitigating climate change.

The third location, a park called the “speakers corner”, became a public space where people from different parts of the world would gather to express their dissatisfaction with carbon markets and governmental inaction. The plurality of voices in this space provided different opinions on what can be considered adequate and realistic action on climate change. That said, the majority of protesters were against a profit-based approach and were either calling for more participatory, accountable, and transparent UN climate negotiations or the disposal of the current process and the establishment of a new system that would be based on peoples-solutions to climate change. I believe that there is space for both - the governmental and peoples-driven approaches to climate change - but the key to success is greater interaction between these two systems.

A recognized advantage for the majority of the world’s population during COP17, relative to other COPs, was that this conference took place on African soil. This presented an opportunity for many civil society people from Africa and Asia to be able to attend this international conference and place ‘climate justice’ on center stage by either protesting or participating in panel discussions. ‘Climate justice’ is based on the understanding that industrialized countries such as Canada and the United States are historically responsible for the current climate crises whereas ‘developing’ countries and lower-income communities (including communities in the ‘developed’ world) will be most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. In the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  (1992) the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ principle was introduced to outline that both ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries needed to introduce different measures to combat climate change as per their different responsibilities and capacities. This principle is arguably being eroded by the pressures of certain big players such as United States and Canada to incorporate ‘developing’ countries into a legally-binding climate agreement while refusing to provide adequate financial support to help developing countries develop their economies sustainably. Placing a greenhouse gas emissions’ cap on certain developing countries would limit their economic development. For this reason, a number of developing countries, including India, have been very vocal about ‘equity’ and ‘right to development’ during COP17 and in future international climate negotiations. The ‘climate justice’ slogan became a common sight and chant during COP17 protests. What does ‘climate justice’ mean now after the signing of the Durban deal where countries have agreed to move forward with a legally binding agreement that will incorporate the ‘developing’ world?

‘Climate justice’ in future COPs should be about creating the right institutional opportunities for those who are currently lacking the space to voice their concerns and propose their different solutions. In short, ‘climate justice’ is about recognizing that industrialized countries have a circumstantial privilege in not only dealing with climate-change impacts but also during climate change negotiations at the United Nations level. Countries such as Canada and the United States need to learn when to stop talking and start listening. Although COP17 proved to be the fertile ground to explore the realities of many developing countries that are already being disproportionately affected by climate change, the institutional structure and negotiation climate at COP17 did not place enough emphasis on the importance of listening. The official delegates were in Durban to represent their government’s perspective and their national interests. However, it must be recognized that it is in their interests to hear what others, including the protesters, have to say about climate change. The protesting of many people from around the world on climate change was often categorized as unrealistic and unpractical opinions. But the conversations that happened at protests contain valuable information on how to approach ‘climate justice’ in international climate change policy and should inform the future development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. ‘Climate justice’ is about meaningful dialogue between developed and developing countries, private and public sector representatives, and the national delegates and the people.

On Wednesday morning, Indigenous Peoples from Bolivia, Mexico, Kenya, US, and Canada voiced their concerns against UN's climate-change program that is going to convert their forests into carbon credits.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries has received lots of attention at COP17. The REDD initiative was first proposed at COP11 as a program that will transfer money to conserve forests in developing countries and prevent the release of about 20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are said to be caused by deforestation and forest degradation in the Global South. In official negotiations, REDD has become the win-win program as it would reward 'forest stewardship' in developing countries, and it would allow developed countries to bank-in carbon credits. A number of climate finance programs have been established to push forward the development and application of REDD. Some of these initiatives include: the World Bank's Forest Investment Program (FIP), World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), Norway's Amazon Fund, Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF), and Australia's International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI). These funds conveniently serve the role of transferring the money that has been promised in various UNFCCC protocols and accords to help developing countries introduce climate change measures. Additionally, this money helps in the continued development of the much-praised carbon economy, which will supposedly introduce cost-effectiveness to climate change mitigation efforts while at the same time allow private and public institutions to profit via carbon capitalism.

REDD and REDD+ works by converting a piece of forest into carbon credits that could then be used by 'developed' countries to either offset their GHG emissions or sell these carbon credits for profit. The REDD+ initiative is supposed to incorporate sustainable forest management initiatives into REDD projects. A number of REDD and REDD+ projects have resulted in Indigenous and rural people being robbed of their land and their livelihoods. As noted by the Nepali Indigenous Peoples, there are a number of problems in local communities that may arise from REDD projects such as "shifting, displacement, landlessness and poverty". When a piece of land is registered as a REDD project, legal restrictions are placed on how that land may be used; this may block Indigenous Peoples' access to their land and their livelihood. The problem is that there are no specific procedures that can guarantee on a project-by-project basis that Indigenous Peoples' rights will be respected. Inside the Durban Exhibition Centre at COP17, there is a number of booths where Indigenous People support the REDD program as a way to bring money into their communities. Their support, however, is conditional on full participation of Indigenous Peoples in the development and implementation of REDD projects on their lands.

A number of COP17 side-events have focused on improving the technicalities of the REDD initiative in order to introduce more transparency and consistency in forest commodification. COP17 is said to be the place where more guidelines will be introduced to improve REDD. That said, I have not seen any side-events that provided a critical perspective on the implications of commodifying forests in the Global South. Additionally, I was not able to find an Indigenous Peoples’ booth in the Durban Exhibition Centre that openly opposes the REDD initiative. As noted by Tom Goldtooth from the Indigenous Environmental Network, "there is marginalization of Indigenous Peoples that oppose the REDD program". The UNFCCC needs to maintain a spotless public campaign of Indigenous Peoples' support for REDD initiatives. However, there are some well-funded NGOs, such as Greenpeace International, that have openly opposed carbon capitalism.

As voiced in the protest outside the official COP17 negotiations, there are many Indigenous Peoples that oppose the conversion of their lands for private profit. The issue here is the application of carbon capitalism to Indigenous Peoples’ land as well as natural ecosystems. Carbon capitalism is a system where capitalists can utilize climate change as an opportunity to make profit. At the Wednesday's protest, Indigenous Peoples made a strong statement that they will not allow their forests to be converted into a money-making business. Their message to the national delegates at COP 17 is "Respect the Indigenous Peoples; Respect their rights; Respect their lands". What is interesting here is that while forests in the developing world have become the centre-piece of cost-effective climate change action, little attention is paid to the economic pressure that is placed on developing countries to cut down their forests.  What if we were to limit consumerism in industrialized countries?  What if we  were to look at what is currently happening in the forested lands of the ‘developed’ world? Industrialized countries such as Canada should focus on re-evaluating their (clear-cut) logging practices and monoculture reforestation programs. Thus, the question is once again, why is it that in COP17 the emphasis remains on limiting the ability of developing countries to pursue economic development while developed countries, responsible for today’s climate crises, can continue with business-as-usual?

With the 17^th annual Conference of the Parties (COP17) taking place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 until December 9, the world is watching. As a member of the York University delegation for the second week of the conference, I am midway through a week of side events, interviews, information booths, and a COP-crazy Durban. This is my first time attending a Conference of the Parties. My first day of the conference was Monday, December 5. Below are some of my first impressions from my first day of COP – the good and the bad.

The Good

Overall, the conference seems rather sophisticated, with most of the action split between the Durban Exhibition Centre (DEC) and the International Conference Centre (ICC), located right next to one another in the heart of downtown Durban. Most of my time here is spent in the DEC, which is home to approximately 200 information booths set up by a variety of institutions and organizations (including the York University / Inuit Youth Delegation headquarters – booth 197). The information booths include pamphlets and other organization publications, as well as games and other giveaways, and allow for an effective use of time in between other events. The DEC contains several side event rooms with open delegate access, a media area, a computer centre with computers provided, and an area designed for bloggers to blog on their laptops.

Aside from additional side events and presentations not open for general delegate access, the ICC is also home to various information areas and transportation / travel information for delegates from out of town.

Furthermore, I have found the staff and volunteers at COP17 to be very helpful and friendly. They do a good job of keeping things running smoothly with their hard work.

The Bad

I, and several co-delegates, were perplexed by how difficult it can be to get a straight forward list of the day’s side events. There is a printed list of the day’s side events (complete with time and room) located in the DEC, but otherwise delegates are expected to get the day’s information on one of the CCTV screens located in the DEC and ICC. The screens contain a rolling list, requiring delegates to stand by and wait for the events of interest to appear so the time and room information can be recorded before it disappears. Daily programmes are printed and distributed at the publications counters in the DEC and ICC, yet these printouts include mainly a list of key international representatives and a limited side events list (inconveniently excluding the open events). Why not include the full event listing? I am at a loss. Highlighted on one of the programmes is a list containing some of the day’s open events, while omitting the times the events take place. Again I am baffled.

While not a huge impediment, I was struck by an irony regarding registration. Durban is packed with posters, banners and other advertising for COP17, from the airport to the downtown cityscape. Yet, there appeared to be very little advertising for where to register for the conference. I walked all around the demarcated conference grounds until finally coming to the registration/entrance tent.

One problem with so many side events occurring simultaneously is that neighbouring speakers are always clearly and loudly audible in any given side event room. This becomes a distraction and makes the speakers harder to fully hear and follow. Perhaps this is something that simply cannot be avoided.

Lastly, there is a significant shortage of chairs in the computer centre and blogger’s loft, as well as in eating areas. When things are especially busy, one can watch ordinary delegates degenerate (somewhat understandably) into sneaky, selfish chair seekers. Again, this is an issue perhaps not easily avoidable, given the huge number of delegates and the finite amount of conference space.

Concluding Remarks

On the whole, I am thus far impressed with COP17, aside from a few snags here and there. The conference itself (as a physical space) seems an overall success. Whether or not the conference will be a success in terms of making any progress toward any kind of climate justice is another issue – we will have a better sense of that before long. Unfortunately, few have high hopes.

As climate change talks in Durban continue to be submerged in self-interest and bureaucracy, Indian panel re-emphasizes the importance of equity and fairness for an effective climate agreement.

The continued controversial topic in COP17 is how 'developing' countries should be included in a post-Kyoto agreement. There is a number of very powerful developed countries, including the United States and Canada, that will not sign a legally binding agreement until developing countries (especially emerging economies such as India, China, and Brazil) are forced to limit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is supported by the argument that due to the global nature of GHGs, the actions of Annex I (developed) countries in limiting their GHG emissions will be offset by the emissions of developing countries as their economies grow. This definitely has some standing. However, the proposed as well as existing national climate change policies presented here in COP17 by developing countries show that the developing world is already taking action on climate change proportional to their political and economic realities.

Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests and Centre for Science and Environment side event at COP 17: The imperative of equity for an effective climate agreement. Monday, December 5, 2011

Developing countries want to take action on climate change, but they also want to make sure that any kind of (binding or voluntary) agreement that comes out of Durban will adequately incorporate equity and justice. The historical perspective on climate change is that 'developed' countries have contributed most to the present day crises: with less than 20% of the world's population, developed countries are responsible for 75% of global GHG emissions (UNFCCC 2009). The people most vulnerable to climate change impacts, however, are the undernourished communities in developing countries as well as climate-change refugees that will be displaced by sea-level rises and natural disasters. Yet, these people have not received the economic benefits that developed countries gained from industrial, carbon-intense development. Additionally, some developing countries were/are disadvantaged by industrial, and now, capitalistic development. In the name of climate-change action, how can we (the higher-income countries) now refuse developing countries their 'right to development'? Placing GHG emission targets on developing countries means limiting their economic growth.

A reality check for climate change negotiations is recognizing the different economic and political capacities of countries to introduce climate change mitigation measures. By allowing voluntary measures in the Cancun Agreement for both developed and developing countries, the financial burden for climate change action has shifted to developing countries. The Cancun Agreement moved away from the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' of developed and developing countries that was introduced in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The issue here is that while the developed world does not want to pay for climate change measures via GHG limits to capitalistic growth, developing countries cannot afford to pay for climate change action. Additionally, the Global South should not have to pay for something that they are not responsible for creating. If we want developing countries to economically grow in a sustainable manner, a lot of money will be required to decouple their economic growth from GHG emissions.

Reflecting on the COP17 side-events' schedule and coverage, it becomes clear that the discussion has shifted to financial-support instruments for developing countries and voluntary commitments for both the developed and the developing worlds. The idea of a second-commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol or an altogether new legally binding Durban Protocol seems to have been abandoned. But nothing is certain until the end of the negotiation talks. Presently, the side-events discussion has centered on the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as well as marked-based initiatives such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD). The continued discussion on the transfer of finances from the developed world is a welcomed initiative. But if we are talking about equity and justice in climate change negotiations, financial initiatives should not replace the necessary actions that developed countries should take as part of their responsibility for releasing GHG emissions.

Global Day of Action rally on the streets of Durban bring inspiration and hope to the 17th Conference of Parties in South Africa.

Ndayiragije Diendonne

Let me introduce to you Ndayiragije Diendonne, who travelled on a bus more than seven thousands kilometres from Burundi to make his voice heard at the climate change conference in Durban. Ndayiragije is part of the Trans-African “Caravan of Hope” where 300 farmers, youth, and activists from 10 eastern and southern African countries took busses to arrive at COP17 and try to tell the world how climate change is affecting their communities. After all, COP17 is hosted on African soil. And the people here, already disadvantaged by the current economic and political system, are and will continue to be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Before Saturday’s Global Day of Action protest, important gatherings took place in parks and the KwaZulu-Natal University where people shared their stories and talked about what climate justice means to them. Unfortunately, I was at the Convention Centre listening to a United States representative give a media update of hoping to achieve a “balanced outcome”, of major economies not being prepared to sign a legally binding agreement, and of different governments taking different pathways – the same old story.  But what I can write here are some of the messages that were voiced at the protest: “our Africa, our climate, our rights”, “protect our workers and communities”, “grow food, not emissions”, “listen to the people”, “respect the earth”,  “time for climate justice”…

Ndayiragije and the Trans-African Caravan of Hope are leaving Durban today because they do not have the money to stay until the end of the week when the COP17 negotiations come to an end. Meaningful participation of people from the ‘developing’ world in future COPs means that there should be financial resources for both the official delegates as well as for people from affected communities. Climate justice is about building institutional spaces within the United Nations so that ‘people’, and not just official delegates, get to participate in the formation of international law on climate change. The distance between the official delegates in the Convention Centre and those who are protesting outside is too big.

I have asked Ndayiragije if he believed that COP17 would result in an agreement. He just smiled. “Then your seven thousand kilometers journey was a waste of time”, I responded too quickly. He looked at me and then at the protest, and said, “no, this is not a waste of time.”

Please click here for videos on the protest