Day 4: Thursday, December 10, 2009

December 10 is Human Rights Day. And per the request of EarthJustice: World, did you know that "climate change is a human rights issue."

First update 12:12 pm

We have begun to fill the Bella Center with tables and computers taken up almost exclusively. The Plenary was shut down for entrance around 11:30. Downside for me - my camera is still in there. Hope I get it back, but not a big deal if I don't. Just kinda crappy as I would like to document this conference! But I am kinda like that; leaving cameras places. UPDATE: I got my camera from the room. Find the photos included!

News - still no consensus on how to move forward. AOSIS and LCDs want a contact group. Developed nations don't; among others. Tuvalu recommended continuing the Bali Action Plan two track process. Developed/developing countries (coalition of 47) led by Brazil and China  wishes to collapse discussions into a single track. Also discussion to limit scope to Bali discussion of only Annex B rather than whole Kyoto Protocol. Debate is ongoing at this time.

Remember you can always watch live.

Update 12:30 pm Friday, December 11

Check out the photos - one at left doesn't say "CMP". Objections were raised to note it in the logo and magically VIOLA! See the pic below!

So much to write, I am very behind and apologize. Thursday was a very busy day. Essentially the entire conference is being held up in both the COP/MOP and the CMP in whether this Conference as a whole will result in a legally binding document or a political accord. Tuvalu (AOSIS) is supporting the legally binding document angle with full transparent (and possibly duplicative) process. The opposition wants to streamline tracks and limit discussion to anything outside of modifying or supplementing the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile, contact groups are meeting and other areas of the Bali Action Plan are being worked on. Again, great strides but if an accord is not reached, it is rather academic. Most are betting on a political accord to come out of this meeting; something will be reached, just not anything that is legally binding. But I agree with those are saying that anything is still possible. We do still have a week here.

I attended a Youth rally yesterday that was fascinating - and had a butterfly loose in the room. They had the Ministers in from Spain and the Maldives. The Spanish representative (the woman in the audience) ended up scolding the Youth, saying essentially "great that you are here. Glad to hear your voice. Why don't you choose better environmental habits, eat better food and practice safer healthy lifestyles. When you do that, we will listen." It was hard to listen and I wonder how many of the young folks understood they were being chastised and not taken seriously.

The Maldives representative was amazing. This Minister is from the flood-prone island nation that held an underwater cabinet meeting to show leaders and the world the problems the coral reef is having around the islands. "I have more hope in you than I do he negotiators," he said. He explained to the students and young people that there is not enough public demand for action and thus that is why leaders are struggling to reach an agreement. "Hopefully, when your generation chooses political leaders, you will choose based off of their climate change beliefs." He noted that when that happens, climate change agreements will no longer have difficulty in passage.

My next briefing was with EarthJustice (a great organization that I encourage you to get involved in - their tag line is "Because earth needs a good lawyer"). As happenstance would have it, they were able to host a presentation on human rights issues and the climate change debate on Human Rights Day. Some of you know that Eleanor Roosevelt is one of my idols. As the architect and champion of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, this issue is very near and dear to my heart. Plus, it was lead by lawyers so my little pea brain was really really happy!

Seychelles started off the panel, noting that when negotiations on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change started, human rights was never a concern. It began as a scientific debate and then moved into what is largely now a financial and trade discussion. Human rights seems to be an afterthought.

Island nations are faced with a difficult situation - how do you negotiate an accord when you may end up having a new population of people (mostly from island states) that are going to be significantly displaced? Further, under international contexts, these "climate change refugees" are not refugees. The definition under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees for "refugee" is a person "owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." Meaning, people displaced by climate change due to water shortage, food shortage or loss of land (submerged or uninhabitable) are "displaced". Refugees by definition have a place to go home to. Climate change displaced persons do not - so what are they?

This very important legal question has not yet been addressed by negotiations in the COP or other bodies. Of course, I got disgusted and depressed and on the border of tears with little sleep and a long day. How could the international community really have forgotten about this issue? Because climate change is a hoax?! When international civil unrest starts happening, I will just listen to Boss-Limbaugh and it will all be okay.

The Seychelles Minister noted that he feels they delayed action as they hoped that by keeping relocation items out of the debate it would be less controversial and easier to reach an agreement. However, that wasn't the case and here we stand at this late date, already above 350 ppm.

From the perspective of Seychelles and other island nations - some countries are able to relocate people within their own countries such as Fiji and the Solomon Islands. However, Seychelles is already running into problems. The moved individuals are not being welcomed by the communities they are moving into. There are long standing tribal and cultural rifts and they are essentially making government forced conflict due to lack of habitable land as the oceans rise.

For those in LA, think of this as the entire beach community for Los Angeles moving into the mountain areas or Inland Empire. It wouldn't go well. Class warfare would result along with displacement of the communities in Inland Empire as the wealthy LA beachers moved in with cash resources and stipends from the government.

Here are several of the major issues to be faced by the legal community:

• If a people must relocate due to lost or uninhabitable territory, what are the rights of these peoples who are under a sovereign flag of a country that once has a geographic place in the world? One of the members here is talking about buying land in India. If purchased, would that land be like the UN property in New York where it is sovereign and governed under separate law? Would India allow that? If not, where can these peoples go? If yes, what does it mean to be sovereign in this construct? My take - this debate seems like a repeat of the discussion of the creation of Israel, just in a paradigm of possible acquiescence rather than the spoils of war.
  
  
• Even if land is under water or uninhabitable, that doesn't mean that there are not valuable assets that have been abandoned for lack of residence. Who owns the property? Oil and mineral rights? Fisheries and other aquatic life? Who polices this ownership? Maritime, property and mineral rights are a huge issue that may have foundations in existing Conventions - yet all current uninhabitable islands that are claimed by a nation still has a homeland that can act as the land's sovereign.

The Maldives pushed for this issue to be part of the Human Rights Councils agenda and Resolution 7/23 was passed in March 2008 with over 90 cosponsors (which is an unprecedented number of cosponsors). Cosponsors crossed regional and negotiation blocks showing the broad recognition that action is needed. From their Web site:

"On 25 March 2009, the Council adopted resolution 10/4 “Human rights and climate change” in which it, inter alia, notes that “climate change-related impacts have a range of implications, both direct and indirect, for the effective enjoyment of human rights …”; recognizes that the effects of climate change “will be felt most acutely by those segments of the population who are already in a vulnerable situation …”, recognizes that “effective international cooperation to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change … is important in order to support national efforts for the realization of human rights implicated by climate change-related impacts”, and affirms that “human rights obligations and commitments have the potential to inform and strengthen international and national policy-making in the area of climate change”. In resolution 10/4, the Council decided to hold a panel discussion on the relationship between climate change and human rights at its eleventh session in order to contribute to the realization of the goals set out in the Bali Action Plan."

So why are we still talking about this? Because nothing has been done yet to integrate these concerns into the Copenhagen draft document. EarthJustice distributed language they are trying to get into the document and are willing to talk to anyone.

The last session I attended was a Kenyan overview of what adaptation and mitigation actions they are taking. Again, teary-eyed Jen sat in the back and just listened. Starting my undergraduate work at Kansas State University, I am intimately aware of the work of the Grain Sciences world and the lack of knowledge that most farmers have on good farming techniques that can increase their yield without harming the earth (their future crops). A beautiful film of some of the projects that they are doing was shared. I will try to get ahold of the film.

Climate change has dramatically changed the rain cycles where it is flood > drought > flood > drought without predictable cycles in Kenya. Adaptation techniques have included holding ponds for runoff, fertilizing, and raised beds with irrigation systems. This infrastructure for education and irrigation has not yet been established. To do this takes financing - and begins the financing debate which is set at a paltry $10 billion right now for "fast start" money. Likely, $10 billion is what ONE NATION will need to successfully accomplish adaptation, mitigation and capacity building. Also, can't farmers get credit for using carbon intensive techniques bringing carbon safely and stored into soil? If so, how do you do this? Agriculture has not yet been adequately taken into account for carbon-trade mechanisms.

My take at the end of Thursday is "what's missing from Copenhagen? Substance."