Download - Third World Network

Cause and effectThailand has endured a perfect storm of factors, both natural and man-made, thathave starkly exposed the consequences of poor planning and management.Bundit KertbunditE C O L O G YWHEN all is said and done, the 2011flood will certainly rank among theworst in modern Thai history.The numbers are monumental.One-third of the country under water.Nearly 10 million people affected. Upto 1 million now unemployed, witheconomic losses estimated as high as500 billion baht, or 5% of gross domesticproduct.Why? Yes, there is no questionthat rainfall this year has been heavy,at 20-30% over seasonal averages.But this is a man-made disaster asmuch as it is a natural one, expertstold the Bangkok Post.The underlying factors of the crisisare many and complex.Adis Israngkura, dean of developmenteconomics at the NationalInstitute of Development Administration(NIDA), says poor drainage managementand deforestation are keyfactors.‘Hong Kong and Singapore faceimmense levels of rainfall each year,but there are no floods in those countries,’he said.‘It’s convenient for people topoint fingers at nature. But eventhough rainfall this year has beenheavy, it’s actually manageable andshouldn’t cause severe flooding. Buthere, the water levels have risen twoorthree-fold.’Deforestation, Adis said, has hada grievous effect on the ability of thecountry to absorb rainfall. As forestshave given way to crop and animalfarms, vulnerability to flooding hasincreased.Mismanagement is another factor.Adis notes that waterways fromnorthern Thailand converge atNakhon Sawan and Ayutthaya, in turnflowing into the Chao Phraya Riverand ultimately to the Gulf of Thailand.Instead, more paths are needed toThe Thai floods of 2011 were as much a man-made disaster as a natural one, sayexperts.improve the efficiency of water drainage,he said.Sasin Chalermlarp, secretarygeneralof the Seub NakasathienFoundation, notes that Rangsit Canalshould be used as a model in a rethinkof water management strategy.Rather than just storing water, thecanal is used to gradually and systematicallydrain excess runoff into rivers.This prevents the canal from accumulatingtoo much water if rainfallincreases unpredictably, Sasin said.Poor town planningThaweewong Sriburi, managingdirector of Chula Unisearch atChulalongkorn University, argues thatpoor town planning is another contributingfactor to the floods.The past several decades haveproduced a buildup of infrastructure– roads, houses and industrial estates– that either impede natural waterwaysor take up space in low-levelcatchment areas that in the past helpedmitigate flooding.The seven industrial estatesflooded in Ayutthaya and PathumThani, for instance, all are based inlow-lying land that is a major floodbasin running into the Chao Phrayadelta.‘Years ago, I recommended zoningthese areas to be exclusively reservedfor agriculture and irrigationpurposes. But I was laughed at,’ saidThaweewong.‘State officials said that times hadchanged, and we had to allow factoriesthere, even though they knew thatdoing so would limit the area availablefor reservoirs.’The industrial estates built embankmentsand installed water pumps,which in hindsight were inadequateto cope with the 12 billion cubic metresnow spread across the centralplains.Sasin of the Seub NakasathienFoundation agreed that town planningstrategies must change. Low-lyingareas such as Ayutthaya and PathumThani are simply unsuitable for industrialestates, he said.But given the vast industrial developmentalready in the area –Ayutthaya and Pathum Thani representkey clusters for the automotive,electronics and electrical goods sectors– the only option now is to investTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/2562

E C O N O M I C SUS free trade pacts face oppositionin AsiaAsian governments which seek to enter into free trade agreements with the UShave to face strong resistance at home. Chee Yoke Heong explains the bases ofthe opposition.US-LED free trade agreements(FTAs) continue to face stiff oppositioneven as they gain traction withsome governments turning to suchpacts in the hope of boosting theirsagging economies.The latest is the Trans-PacificPartnership (TPP) Agreement thatcurrently involves the US, Singapore,Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Australia,Peru, Vietnam and Malaysia inan intensive series of talks.Negotiators who were recently inKuala Lumpur for the latest round oftalks were confronted by protesters atthe venue of their meeting on 5 December.The activists expressed concernthat the TPP could spell disaster tolocal farmers, especially rice producers,as they would be unable to competewith heavily subsidised US farmerswho would deluge the market withtheir cheap rice.They also said the push forstronger patent rights regimes willhamper access to medicines and thatthe TPP will erode the government’sability to regulate foreign corporationsas well as put in place environmentaland health regulations.Japanese oppositionJapanese Prime MinisterYoshihiko Noda’s announcement on11 November during the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC) meeting in Hawaii to enterinto the TPP talks, also came amidststrong opposition even from withinhis own ruling party, the DemocraticParty of Japan.The Party has engaged in a longand protracted debate over the meritsof joining the pact, and its own TPPJapanese farmers at a rally against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement.A major concern with the TPP is that participating countries will be required toliberalise sectors like agriculture if the US has its way.panel, in the week before the APECmeeting, could not come to a conclusionand only agreed to ‘suggest thegovernment decide cautiously’, accordingto a 14 November Wall StreetJournal (WSJ) report.In announcing the decision to USPresident Barack Obama, Nodavowed to ‘protect what needs to beprotected, and win what we need togain’, as he tried to allay public concernsabout the TPP.‘Despite many voices of concern,I decided to participate in the talks inorder to revitalise the nation’seconomy and help create a prosperingand stable Asia,’ Noda said.The issue was so sensitive that theprime minister had delayed by a daybefore making the public announcementin Hawaii due to worries over apossible backlash especially frommembers of parliament who opposedthe TPP, some of whom had threatenedto defect from the DemocraticParty if Noda goes ahead with plansto join the TPP.To placate the anti-TPPlawmakers, Noda denied that Japanwill join the TPP negotiations, sayingit will only ‘start talks with relatedcountries toward participation in theTPP negotiations’.Before the announcement, groupsfrom various sectors which will beaffected by the TPP had actively exercisedtheir political clout to influencethe process. The Central Unionof Agricultural Cooperatives sponsoreda petition in parliament whichsucceeded in garnering support fromaround half the 722 members in bothhouses of parliament to oppose theTPP. Almost all opposition parties –the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP),the Social Democratic Party as wellas New Komeito – opposed the TPP.The LDP has even threatened a noconfidencemotion against Noda.A major concern with the TPP isthat participating countries will berequired to liberalise almost all sectorssuch as agriculture if the US hasits way. This was indicated by USTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/2566

E C O N O M I C STrade Representative Ron Kirk whenhe emphasised that Japan must be preparedto meet ‘high standards’ of liberalisationand to address US concernsregarding barriers to agriculture,services and manufacturing trade, includingnon-tariff measures.Japan’s agriculture sector ishighly protected and heavily subsidised,especially rice farming. Thefarming community, though numberingonly a few million farmer households,is nonetheless a key votingbase. It has been estimated that about90% of rice production would be replacedby imports under the TPP, togetherwith almost all of Japan’s sugarand wheat output, as well as beef,chicken and pork products worth 1.1trillion yen ($14 billion) per year.According to the Ministry of Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries, theopening up of the agriculture sectorto global competition will slash Japan’sGDP by 7.9 trillion yen ($102.8billion) and cut some 3.4 million jobs.Furthermore, opponents of theTPP maintain that the opening of theagriculture sector would not only bedevastating on the livelihoods of millionsbut could also spell disaster forthe culture, way of life and landscapeof the countryside.While past bilateral trade agreementswhich Japan had signed withother countries have shielded sensitivesectors such as rice from tariff removals,there are doubts that these exemptionscould be achieved under theTPP, hence the opposition.Because of the comprehensivenature of the talks, where wide-rangingissues such as medical and financialservices and government procurementare on the negotiating table,there are fears that the TPP would affectthe country beyond the agriculturalsector. Fierce resistance to theTPP has also come from professionalgroups such as doctors and pharmacists,who fear that the pact wouldresult in the dismantling of Japan’suniversal healthcare system and replaceit with a market-driven one withadverse impacts on access to healthservices.Differences among lawmakersover the TPP have also centred on thedilemma over the quest to strengthenties with the US on the one handagainst, on the other, those who wishto see closer relations with China,which is not a party to the TPP talks.A rally in Seoul against the South Korea-US FTA. Opposition to the agreement hascontinued in South Korea even after it was approved by parliament.A Japanese rice farmer. It has been estimated that about 90% of rice production inJapan would be replaced by imports under the proposed Trans-Pacific PartnershipAgreement.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/2567In the meantime, proponents ofthe TPP have been drumming up supportfor the accord.The Ministry of Economy, Tradeand Industry has estimated that Japanwill lose 10.5 trillion yen ($136.1 billion)in exports in 2020 if it does nottake part in the TPP, according to theWSJ report.The business community believesthat the TPP will help to open up exportmarkets for auto and electricalmachinery makers.While Japan grapples with its decisionto enter into talks over the USbackedTPP, opposition against FTAscontinues unabated in neighbouringSouth Korea even after parliamentapproved the South Korea-US FTA on22 November.Protesters held rallies in Seoul todenounce the passing of the bill ratifyingthe agreement. Deep divisionsremain among the various parties onwhether the FTA will benefit SouthKorea. Opposition political leaders,looking ahead to National Assemblyelections in April and the election ofa new president in December 2012,vowed to fight to kill the agreement,which takes effect on 1 January, accordingto a Christian Science Monitorreport of 23 November.Critics voiced concerns over reducedrevenue collection as a resultof lower car tariffs set out in the FTA.They also worried that further openingup of the South Korean market tolarge US companies such as Walmartcould crowd out small businesses. ÿuChee Yoke Heong is a researcher with the ThirdWorld Network.

E C O N O M I C SMultinational retail firms in IndiaThe Indian government’s move to open up the country’s retail market to foreigndirect investment provoked widespread protests. Jayati Ghosh explains that theconcerns raised by critics are serious and well-grounded.THE Indian government’s sudden decisionto allow hitherto prohibited foreigndirect investment in multi-brandretail as well as full ownership in single-brandretail generated huge publicoutcry, to the extent that the governmentwas forced to pause. Oneimportant ally of the government,fearing for her own popularity in thestate of West Bengal where she is currentlyChief Minister, declared thatthe policy is temporarily ‘on hold’, tobe greeted only with awkward silencefrom the government. Finally the governmentwas forced to announce thatthe policy is to be kept on hold until‘consensus’ is achieved, which certainlyseems unlikely at present.What this episode does showclearly is that this is a highly contentiousand potentially very unpopularpolicy, and that politicians are nowgetting more aware of this. So despitethe raucous support from corporatisedmedia and more subtle but possiblymore influential lobbying by big multinationalbusiness, this policy couldnot be easily forced down in the faceof massive public outcry.Dubious claimsMembers of the National Association of Street Vendors of India demonstrate againstgovernment plans to allow foreign direct investment in the retail sector. One estimatesuggests that for every job Walmart creates in India, it would displace 17-18 localsmall traders and their employees.The Indian debate provides anopportunity to consider the actual impactof large corporate retail, and especiallymultinational retail chains, indeveloping countries in general. Proponentsof such corporate retailingmake several claims: that they ‘modernise’distribution by bringing inmore efficient techniques that also reducewastage and costs of storage anddistribution; that they provide morechoice to consumers; that they lowerdistribution margins and providegoods more cheaply; that they are betterfor direct producers, such as farmers,because they reduce the numberof intermediaries in the distributionchain; that they provide more employmentopportunities.In fact, all of these claims are suspect,and several are completely false.This is particularly so in the case ofemployment generation: experienceacross the world makes it incontrovertiblethat large retail companiesdisplace many more jobs of petty tradersthan they create in the form ofemployees. This has been true of allcountries that have opened up to suchcompanies, from Turkey in the 1990sto South Africa. Large retail chainstypically use much more capital-intensivetechniques, and have muchmore floor space, goods and salesturnover per worker.One estimate suggests that forevery job Walmart (the largest globalretail chain) creates in India, it woulddisplace 17 to 18 local small tradersand their employees. In a country likeIndia, this is of major significance,since around 44 million people arenow involved in retail trade (26 millionin urban areas) and they are overwhelminglyin small shops or selfemployed.Since other organised activitiesin India create hardly any additionalnet employment, and overallthere has been a severe slowdown injob growth in the past five years, thisis obviously a matter that simply cannotbe ignored.The argument that such large retailbenefits direct producers likefarmers is also very problematic.Greater market power of these largeintermediaries has been associated inmany other countries with higher marketingmargins and exploitation ofsmall producers. This is even true ofthe developed world, with more organisedand vocal farmers protestingagainst giant retailers squeezing theprices paid to the farmers for theirproducts, in some instances forcingthem to sell at below cost prices. TheEuropean Parliament actually adopteda declaration in February 2008 stating:‘Throughout the EU, retailing isincreasingly dominated by a smallV Sudershan/FrontlineTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/2568

E C O N O M I C Snumber of supermarket chains… evidencefrom across the EU suggestslarge supermarkets are abusing theirbuying power to force down pricespaid to suppliers (based both withinand outside the EU) to unsustainablelevels and impose unfair conditionsupon them.’ In the United States, marketingmargins for major food itemsincreased rapidly in the 1990s, a periodwhen there was significant concentrationof food retail.The idea that cold storage andother facilities can only be developedby large private corporates involvedin retail food distribution is foolish:proactive public intervention can (andhas, in several countries) ensured bettercold storage and other facilitiesthrough various incentives and promotionof more farmers’ cooperatives.The argument is also made that corporateretail will encourage more corporateproduction, which in turn supposedlyinvolves more efficient andless ‘wasteful’ use of the production.But calculations of efficiency basedonly on marketed output really missthe mark, because they do not includethe varied uses of by-products byfarmers. Biomass is used extensivelyand very scrupulously by most smallcultivators, but industrial-style farmingtends to negate it and does noteven measure it. Biodiversity, use ofbiomass and interdependence that createresilient and adaptive farming systemsare all threatened by the shift tomore corporate control of agriculture.Food production andconsumptionThere is another crucial implicationthat is all too often ignored in discussionsof corporate retail. Corporateinvolvement in the process of fooddistribution causes changes in eatinghabits and farming patterns, whichcreate not just unsustainable forms ofproduction that are ecologically devastating,but also unhealthy consumptionchoices. In the developed world,this has been effectively documentedby books like Eric Schlosser’s FastFood Nation and Michael Pollan’sThe Omnivore’s Dilemma.In the Baltic countries, this hasA Walmart store in China. Many of the claimed benefits of bringing multinationalretail chains into developing countries are suspect.led to a striking breakdown of any reallink between local production and thesupply of food. The global supplychain has become the source of mostfood and the European market hasbecome the destination of food production:all mediated by large chainsthat deal in buying from farmers (oftenin contract farming arrangementsthat specify inputs and crops beforehand)and in food distribution downto retail outlets. Anecdotal evidencesuggests that farmers have not gainedfrom this even in aperiod of risingfood prices, as theyare powerless relativeto the largetraders who nowcontrol the market.And consumerscomplain about therising prices offood, which thesupposedly more‘efficient’ supermarketshave notprevented at all.As affluentWestern marketsreach saturation point, global food anddrink firms have been seeking entryinto developing-country markets, oftentargeting poor families and changingfood consumption habits. Suchhighly processed food and drink isalso a major cause of increased incidenceof lifestyle diseases such asobesity, diabetes, heart disease andalcoholism, all of which have been risingrapidly in the developing world.The recent experience of South Africais especially telling: around onefourthof schoolchildren are nowobese or overweight, as are 60% ofwomen and 31% of men. Diabetesrates are soaring. Yet, nearly 20% ofchildren aged one to nine have stuntedgrowth, having suffered the kind oflong-term malnutrition that leaves irreversibledamage. And it has beenfound that obesity and malnutritionoften occur in the same household.Around 44 million people in India are involved in retail trade,mostly in small shops or self-employed.These considerations – which areat least being noticed in the fierce debatenow raging in India around thisissue – surely deserve greater publicattention across the world. ÿuJayati Ghosh is Professor of Economics atJawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. Thisarticle is reproduced from the Triple Crisis blog(triplecrisis.com/multinational-retail-firms-in-india,9 December 2011).THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/2569

Keeping markets happyIt’s not public-sector deficits that are at fault for the euro crisis – it’s the policies thathave enabled the financial sector to wield so much power.THE new fiscal pact agreed to by themajority of European Union (EU)countries (save Britain) on 9 Decemberin Brussels will do little to avoida pending catastrophe. It neither addressesthe main causes of the currenteurozone crisis nor calls for theeconomic policies urgently neededto restore stability and increase employmentand growth.The dominant discourse of thepact places the blame for the crisissquarely on public-sector profligacy,yet the crisis did not begin in thepublic sector. It began in the privatefinance sector, where it was triggeredby risky overleveraging by theunregulated shadow banking systemof non-bank financial institutions,many of which were exploiting adangerous housing bubble in theUnited States and Europe that wentneglected by authorities. It quicklybecame a public-sector deficit crisis,however, as lavish bank bailoutswere put together and tax revenuesfell because of the economic recession.Yet the initial problems of theunregulated nature of the financialsector and its reckless use of derivativesand commodity market speculation,not to mention the ‘too big tofail’ moral dilemma, have not been resolvedat all, leaving the door openfor the possibility of more financialcrises in the future.Another root cause of theeurozone crisis lies in the unwillingnessof the European Central Bank(ECB) to modify its current rules sothat it can act more like a proper centralbank. Although the ECB’s recentmoves to cut interest rates for the secondstraight month and expand emergencyfinancing for cash-starvedbanks are steps in the right direction,its continued unwillingness to buy thebonds of troubled eurozone countrieswill only deepen the crisis. True, thereis a technical ECB rule prohibitingunlimited bond purchases, yet oneE C O N O M I C SRick Rowdencc ArcCanThe European Central Bank building inFrankfurt, Germany. The ECB’s monetarypolicy is narrowly focused on maintaininglow inflation over other goals such aspromoting higher employment and growth.would think staring into the abyss ofa global depression might be a goodenough reason to break this rule.This fundamental failure to actwith bond purchases reflects theeurozone’s neoliberal architecture,which overtly seeks to diminish therole of the state and enhance thepower of the market. This thinking isalso reflected in the ECB’s monetarypolicy, which is narrowly focused onmaintaining low inflation over othergoals such as promoting higher employmentand growth. Becauseeurozone governments do not controltheir own national currencies and thuscannot devalue their way out of thecrisis, the only other option for increasingtheir export competitivenessis to drive wages down and furtherweaken labour rights, a process referredto as an ‘internal devaluation’through the adoption of ‘labour flexibility’reforms.In fact, the new EU plan to restrictdeficit spending to 3% of GDPand have EU countries cut and starvetheir way out of this recessionsmacks of the misguided fiscal andmonetary policy of 1937 and thesame anti-growth, anti-worker, andanti-public-investment toxic cocktailsthat have long characterised theInternational Monetary Fund(IMF)’s approach in developingcountries. These policies to drivewages lower and adopt budget austerityin the current context of a recessionwill surely fail as consumerdemand falls further, unemploymentworsens, tax receipts continue to decline,and public deficits rise anyway.Also at fault in the crisis is Germany’slongstanding beggar-thyneighbourapproach of using low inflationand low wages to out-competeits EU trading partners, whicheventually created destabilising imbalanceswithin the eurozone. Theapproach worked so well over thelast decade that it earned Germany amassive trade surplus while saddlingthe country’s less competitive EUpartners with large trade deficits. Inso doing, however, it wiped out thepurchasing power in these markets,which can no longer afford to buyGerman goods, thus killing the goosethat laid the golden eggs.So if these are the problems at theheart of the debt crisis, what are thesolutions? European leaders couldavoid eurozone imbalances in the firstplace by adopting sanctions againstboth deficit and surplus countries.Surplus countries could be requiredto provide countercyclical long-termfinancing to deficit countries duringcrises through a system of regionaltransfers, and adopt stimulus or evenmildly inflationary policies at hometo help boost the exports of deficitcountries. But such steps to avoidTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25610

E C O N O M I C Simbalances in the future will requireabandoning the current laissez-fairearchitecture of the eurozone.Europe must also turn its attentionto meaningful regulation. In the1970s, the finance sector famouslycomplained that too much regulationwas constraining its animal spirits andamounted to ‘financial repression,’prompting US President RonaldReagan and British Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher to set finance freewith financial liberalisation. But howfree is too free, and at what point doesa reckless and oversized finance sectorbecome a problem? These are thequestions that voices ranging from theOccupy Wall Street movement toAdair Turner, chairman of Britain’sFinancial Services Authority, are nowraising, yet they are questionspolicymakers are still ignoring.Economic historians such asHyman Minsky and Joan Robinsonhave noted that over the last 300 years,periodic financial crises have beenpreceded by exuberant speculativebubbles enabled by periods of financialliberalisation, triggered by a crescendoof risky overleveraging, andfollowed by a period of re-regulation.Notably, however, there was no periodof re-regulation following eitherthe collapse of the dot-com bubble inthe late 1990s or the more recent housingbubble in 2008. Finance may haveavoided re-regulation after these recentbubbles because of the politicalpower it has amassed over the years,as suggested by former IMF chiefeconomist Simon Johnson in his Atlanticarticle, ‘The Quiet Coup’.The pathologies associated withthe financial sector’s dominance overthe rest of the economy were on fulldisplay in recent days as Europeanpolicymakers found themselves inimpossible positions to please financialmarkets. Investors seem to behappy when governments imposeharsh austerity to shore up confidencethat bond issues will be repaid in full,and then unhappy when that austerityproduces worsening economic projections.This whiplashing of elected officialsand near-total surrender of economicpolicy to the whims of the financialmarkets suggests that thingshave gone too far. It also suggests thatany steps toward restoring both financialstability and higher economicgrowth will necessarily involve reinstitutingsome of the constraints thatconservatives used to deride as financialrepression. It is increasingly apparentthat after 30 years of financialliberalisation, we are today in desperateneed of restoring policies that canagain incentivise investment capitalto move away from the casinoeconomy and back into the realeconomy that produces jobs andgrowth. But this, too, will require jettisoningneoliberal policies.A matter of policyGiven the recent replacements ofthe Italian and Greek governmentswith others more to the market’s liking,it is easy to get swept up in thenotion that the bond markets havesomehow seized control. As WallStreet investment banker RogerAltman has stated, financial marketshave become ‘a global supra-government.They oust entrenched regimeswhere normal political processescould not do so. They force austerity,banking bailouts and other majorpolicy changes.… Leaving aside unusablenuclear weapons, they havebecome the most powerful force onearth’.But citizens must resist this characterisationof financial markets as amysterious, uncontrollable force ofnature and the driving force in thisdrama. In fact, these developments aremerely the result of a particular set ofpolicy choices. The circumstancesunder which financial marketsbrought about a run first on the debtof Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, andmore recently on the debt of Italy andSpain, were created by the ECB’sneoliberal policies.Chief among these is the priorityof keeping inflation at low levels atall costs. The ECB has also enshrined‘central bank independence’ in its architecture,which in theory enables thebank to fight inflation without citizens,parliaments, or finance ministriesseeking to increase deficits andprint money during economic recessions(thus jeopardising the priorityof low inflation). While the bond marketsvery much like low inflation (itkeeps the value of their bond issuesfrom deteriorating before they get repaid),neoliberal policies have effectivelysubordinated fiscal policy –even in times of crisis – to the goal ofkeeping these markets happy.Other monetary policy choicesand ECB architectural designs exist,and these alternatives deserve considerationtoday more than ever. TheECB, for example, could have pursueda different policy that focusedon promoting growth and employment,and it could have acted to buytroubled eurozone bonds to diffuse theimmediate crisis. New thinking inmacroeconomics, on display at a remarkableIMF conference this March,has increasingly questioned the single-mindedfocus on inflation-targetingin central bank policy. There is agrowing appreciation for context andcomplexity and the use of more targetsand instruments in monetarypolicy, but none of this seems to havebeen absorbed yet by eurozonepolicymakers. Sadly, the ECB hasopted for a deliberate neoliberalpolicy of lessening the role of thestate, and it appears to be using thiscrisis to underfund governments witha fiscal straitjacket and compel themto drive wages lower and weaken labourgenerally, thereby guaranteeinga deeper, longer, and harsher recessionyet to come.The policies that today give somuch power to the whims of the bondmarkets are not etched in stone, andhistory shows that reasonable peoplecan decide to make new arrangementsat any time – if citizens would onlymobilise to demand such policychanges. For now, under the currentpolicies, it looks like everybody isgoing to lose.ÿuRick Rowden is a doctoral candidate in economicsat Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi andthe author of The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism.Previously he worked on economic developmentpolicy at the United Nations Conference on Tradeand Development in Geneva and ActionAid inWashington, DC. He contributed this article byinvitation to ForeignPolicy.com, from which it isreproduced.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25611

Cameron’s Euro triumphBritish Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to endorse the fiscal straitjacketproposed by the EU to resolve the Euro crisis may seem to be at odds with the Toryinsistence on fiscal austerity, but it is intelligible in the context of his party’s higherallegiance to London’s financial markets.PRIME Minister David Cameron’s refusalto sign up to the European Union’sfiscal stability pact in Brusselsin December was viewed by a majorityof people in Britain as a ‘triumph.’Sixty-two percent thought he had indeedstood up for Britain and shownthat ‘bulldog spirit’ which his backbenchershad urged him to exhibit.The popular press treated him like apublic school playground hero confronting‘the bullies of Europe.’ ‘OneBrave Man Faces Down 26 DeludedNations’ was the headline ofthe Mail on Sunday.After the initial euphoria,recriminations soon setin. How could he have exerciseda ‘veto’ over a fiscalcompact which will goahead anyway, whether supportedby 26 or 27 of thecountries in the EU? Deputypremier Nick Clegg, untilnow the ever-compliantarachnid of the ruling coalition,spinning clichés forevery occasion, at first declaredCameron’s ‘red lines’at the Euro-summit modestand reasonable. The fury ofhis Liberal Democrat Partysoon caused him to modifythis reaction, and he swiftly adopteda pose of sorrow, saying he was ‘bitterlydisappointed’ with Cameron’simpetuosity.Just below the surface in Britainstill flows the toxic sludge of an imperialist,xenophobic past, alwaysready to surface where the ideologicalcrust is thinnest. Before his visitto Brussels, the rhetoric of ‘appeasement’was aired once more, andCameron was warned by the ToryRight not to come back waving apiece of paper. Munich and Vichywere invoked. The spectre of Germancontrol of Europe, talk of the FourthE C O N O M I C SJeremy SeabrookBritish Prime Minister David Cameron speaking to the mediaoutside the venue of the EU summit in Brussels in December.His refusal at the summit to sign up to the EU’s fiscal stabilitypact was attributed to a desire to protect London’s financialservices industry from a mooted financial transaction tax.Reich, was followed by the story ofCameron standing alone, as Britainhad done in the Blitz, showing we cantake it. The elasticity of the memoryof World War Two knows no limits:it can be evoked even after 70 yearsto inform contemporary debate, freshas ever, a precious garment preservedin tissue paper in the wardrobe of history,to be put on by the remote descendantsof its original wearer.Cameron, despite hispresentational skills and his extensiveexperience in public relations (hisonly job prior to his political career),has something of an older Tory dilettantismin the hands-off style of hispremiership. He has not taken thetrouble to establish personal relationshipswith the leaders of Europe. Hisfrequent U-turns on policy suggest atemperament ill-suited to mature deliberationand reflection. Some sympathisersdescribed the outcome of themeeting in Brussels as somehow ‘accidental.’THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25612Protecting the CityIt is significant and highly symbolicthat the ostensible sticking pointwas the ‘safeguards’ Cameron demandedfor the City of London, thefinancial services industry, which isnow said to earn for Britain between8% and 10% of GDP, almost as muchas manufacturing, towards whichCameron and Clegg had declared adetermination to ‘re-balance’ theeconomy in what they called ‘themarch of the makers.’ Thatthe City and the financialservices sector were at theheart of the crisis whichstarted four years ago, hasnot dented the Conservatives’love of Big Money,and their readiness, despitethe much-advertised ‘reforms’recommended bythe Independent Commissionon Banking (themselvesmore stringent, accordingto Treasury Secretary,the Liberal DemocratDanny Alexander, thananything threatened by Europe),to appease, not theghost of Hitler which thepopular press sees in thesteely Angela Merkel, but the financialmarkets, whose higher jurisdictionis now the ultimate global courtof appeal for all human affairs.Cameron’s refusal was all themore puzzling since the fiscal straitjacketproposed by the EU mirrorsUK government policy. This ought tohave caused the Conservative Partyto rejoice; so why did he reject it inorder to ‘protect’ London’s financialservices sector? His real fear was the‘financial transaction tax’ to whichEurope is committed (sometimescalled the Robin Hood tax, or Tobintax, after its originator), which would

Durban ushers in new UN climatetalks without an equitableframeworkThe latest UN negotiations on climate change in Durban have further underminedthe prospects of realising an international treaty to tackle global warming which istruly equitable and just to the developing countries. Martin Khor reports.THE United Nations ClimateChange Conference in Durban,South Africa ended earlymorning of 11 Decemberwith the launch of negotiationsfor a new global climatedeal to be completed in 2015.The new deal aims toensure ‘the highest possiblemitigation efforts by all Parties’,meaning that the countriesshould undertake deepgreenhouse gas emissionscuts, or lower the growthrates of their emissions.It will take the form ofeither ‘a protocol, another legalinstrument or an agreed outcomewith legal force’.In a night of high drama, the EuropeanUnion tried to pressurise Indiaand China to agree to commit to alegally binding treaty such as a protocol,and to agree to cancel the term‘legal outcome’ from the list of threepossible results, as they said this wastoo weak an option.The EU and the United StatesThe Durban conference agreed to launch talks on a newdeal to tackle climate change, but conspicuously absentfrom the terms of reference of this new regime was theequity principle.C O V E RThe 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference washeld in Durban, South Africa from 28 November to 11December.have said they want major developingcountries to undertake emissionscuttingobligations similar to them.This is a departure from the UNFramework Convention on ClimateChange which distinguishes betweenthe binding climate change mitigationcommitments that developed countrieshave to undertake and the voluntarymitigation actions that developingcountries should do.At the closing plenaryon 11 December,Indian environmentminister JayanthiNatarajan gave a passionatedefence onwhy India was againstcommitting to a legallybinding protocol,and the need to basethe new talks on equity.Why, she asked,should India give ablank cheque byagreeing upfront tojoining a protocol when thecontent of that protocol wasnot yet known?‘We are not talkingabout changing lifestyles butabout effects on the livelihoodsof millions of poorfarmers,’ she said. ‘Whyshould I sign away the rightsof 1.2 billion people (todevelopment)? Is that equity?’Jayanthi said that theresolution on the new roundof talks did not even containthe words ‘equity’ or ‘commonbut differentiated responsibilities’,a term in the Conventionmeaning that rich countriesshould contribute more than poor onesin the fight against climate change.(This principle is based on the industrialcountries’ historical responsibilityfor causing the accumulated greenhousegases in the atmosphere andconsequent climate change.)If such a protocol is developed,in which poor countries had to cuttheir emissions as much as rich countries,‘we will be giving up the equityprinciple. It is goodbye to commonand differentiated responsibility. Itwould be the greatest tragedy.’Several countries, includingChina, the Philippines, Pakistan andEgypt, supported India’sposition. Eventually, it was agreedthat the term ‘legal outcome’ bechanged to ‘agreed outcome with legalforce’, and the conference approvedthe launching of the new talks.At the same time, the Durbanconference also took steps to winddown the current framework of cli-THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25614

C O V E Rmate talks, comprising the Kyoto Protocoland the Bali Road Map (a mandateadopted in 2007 at the annualclimate talks in Bali, Indonesia).The Kyoto Protocol was savedfrom extinction by a decision bymainly European countries (the EUand Norway) to enter a second periodof emissions reduction commitmentsto start in 2013. The first commitmentperiod of cuts under the Protocol endsin December 2012.However, the Kyoto Protocolimplementation has been significantlyand perhaps fatally weakened. Japan,Russia and Canada have pulled outof a second commitment period, whileAustralia and New Zealand notifiedthat they may or may not join in.With only the European countriesleft, the Kyoto Protocol may live ontill 2017 or 2020, but by then it mayalready be overshadowed by the newdeal.The sketchy terms of reference ofthis new deal were remarkable forbeing so one-sided in favour of developedcountries, as the equity principlewas conspicuously absent, andthe implied principle was that allcountries had to take part, and takeon a high ambition for total emissioncuts.The Durban conference also finaliseddetails for a new Green ClimateFund, which will start operatingwith a Board and interim secretariatby early 2012.At times the Durban talks lookedas if they were going off-track, withdisagreements on many issues. Evenat the last session after the two-weektalks were extended by another day,there were grumbles about how theSouth Africans, who chaired and managedthe meeting, were trying to pushthrough resolutions and texts withoutallowing for changes.In the end, Durban may be rememberedfor phasing out climatechange frameworks based on equityand launching talks for a new treatywhose contours are yet to be defined.ÿuMartin Khor is Executive Director of the SouthCentre, an intergovernmental policy think-tank ofdeveloping countries, and former Director of theThird World Network.By Chee Yoke LingIn 1992 the historic UN Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED,popularly known as the Earth Summit) held inRio de Janeiro, Brazil witnessed unprecedentedpolitical will and commitment amonggovernments to make a paradigm shift tosustainable development. Acknowledging the twincrises of poverty and the environment UNCEDconcluded that the prevailing economic modelwas unsustainable. The Rio Declaration onEnvironment and Development that emerged fromintense discussion, debate and negotiations wasthus the framework of principles adopted byHeads of States and Governments for thatparadigm shift.Almost 20 years later, as governments, civilsociety organisations and international institutionsprepare for the UN Conference on Sustainable ISBN: 978-967-5412-48-6 72 ppDevelopment in June 2012 to be held again in Rio,there is growing questioning by the North, and even rejection by some governments ofthe North, of some of the most fundamental of the Rio principles. The spirit of Rio1992 was generally one of multilateralism, cooperation and solidarity based on thefundamental principle of common but differentiated responsibilities even though theNorth had shown reluctance in crucial issues such as reforms in global economic systemsand taking the lead in changing consumption and production patterns. Today, that spiritis ebbing as competition and inequities dominate international relations. The objectivesof Rio+20 is “to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development”.We hope that this booklet that provides a summary of the negotiation history of the RioDeclaration can contribute to that objective.Price PostageMalaysia RM9.00 RM1.00Third World countries US$6.00 US$2.00 (air); US$1.00 (sea)Other foreign countries US$8.00 US$2.00 (air); US$1.00 (sea)Orders from Malaysia – please pay by credit card/crossed cheque or postal order.Orders from Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, UK,USA – please pay by credit card/cheque/bank draft/international money order in owncurrency, US$ or Euro.If paying in own currency or Euro, please calculate equivalent ofUS$ rate. If paying in US$, please ensure that the agent bank is located in the USA.Rest of the world – please pay by credit card/cheque/bank draft/international moneyorder in US$ or Euro. If paying in Euro, please calculate equivalent of US$ rate. Ifpaying in US$, please ensure that the agent bank is located in the USA.All payments should be made in favour of: THIRD WORLD NETWORK BHD.,131 Jalan Macalister, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 60-4-2266728/2266159;Fax: 60-4-2264505; Email: twnet@po.jaring.my; Website: www.twnside.org.sgI would like to order .............. copy/copies of The Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development: An Assessment.I enclose the amount of .......................... by cheque/bank draft/IMO.Please charge the amount of US$/Euro/RM ..................... to my credit card:American Express Visa MastercardA/c No.: Expiry date:Signature:Name:Address:The Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment: An AssessmentTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25615

C O V E RThe clash of paradigms in DurbanThe UN climate negotiations in Durban proved to be painfully protracted becauseparties had different paradigms on the substance and shape of a fair and effectiveclimate change regime. Meena Raman delineates the deep differences whichemerged during the debate before they were papered over with an ambiguouscompromise.Conference President Maite Nkoana-Mashabane (centre) being applauded at theconclusion of the Durban talks. The main outcome of the conference was the launchingof a new round of negotiations known as the Durban Platform.THE main outcome of the two-weekDurban climate change conferencewas the launching of a new round ofnegotiations known as the DurbanPlatform aimed at a new regime(whether a protocol or other legal instrumentor an agreed outcome withlegal force) under the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) and involving all countries.The draft decision on this wasprovided at an informal plenary lateon the night of 10 December, long afterthe conference was scheduled toend and when many ministers andsenior officials had already left Durban.It was given to participants as partof a package of four decisions on atake-it-or-leave-it basis, with littletime for the members to consider ordiscuss among themselves, in an unusualand unprecedented set of procedures.The decision on the Durban Platformand how it was reached will bedebated for a long time to come. Itwas also unusual how a decision tolaunch such an important negotiationwas made with very little terms ofreference to frame the talks or theoutcome that will emerge from them.The details of the terms of referenceare now scheduled to be workedout in the coming year. Given the circumstancesin which the Durban Platformwas launched, these talks on theframework to underpin the new regimecan be expected to be tough andlengthy.This is especially because differentParties to the UNFCCC have differentparadigms on the substance andshape of a fair and effective climatechange regime.Many of the differences were paperedover in the take-it-or-leave-itdecision-making mode of the finalplenary meetings at Durban. The objectionsof developing countries, especiallyto many parts of the reportsand decisions from the Ad Hoc WorkingGroups on Long-term CooperativeAction under the Convention(AWGLCA) and on Further Commitmentsfor Annex I Parties under theKyoto Protocol (AWGKP) were simplybrushed aside by the workinggroup chairpersons (officials from theUS and New Zealand respectively)and by the conference president herself.However, the basic differenceswere most evident in the discussionson the reports of the working groups,and on the draft decision on the DurbanPlatform during the plenary meetingson 10 December night and 11December morning that precededtheir adoption.At the informal plenary discussionon the Durban Platform, the highlightwas a lengthy and eloquent pleaby the Indian Environment Ministerfor equity to underpin any future regime,following a call by the EuropeanUnion’s chief climate official toalter the draft decision to ensure thatthe outcome of the new talks wouldbe legally binding.It was a long, intense and dramaticending at the Durban climateconference, which concluded onlyaround 7 am on 11 December when itwas scheduled to finish on the eveningof 9 December.Negotiations were particularlyintense over the push mainly by developedcountries, led by the EuropeanUnion, for a launch of a newprocess to develop a legally bindinginstrument aimed at mitigation effortsby all Parties, but without the usualreference (so prominent in previoussuch resolutions) to the principles ofequity or common but differentiatedresponsibilities (CBDR). Accordingto diplomatic sources, the UnitedStates was especially adamant thatthere be no references to these prin-Photo courtesy of IISD/Earth Negotiations BulletinTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25616

C O V E RIndia’s Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan (pic)made a strong plea at Durban for equity to underpinany future climate change regime.ciples in the decision.The draft decision proposedto the plenary by theSouth African Foreign MinisterMaite Nkoana-Mashabane,in her capacity as President ofthe 17th session of the Conferenceof the Parties (COP) to theUNFCCC, was to ‘launch aprocess to develop a protocol,another legal instrument or alegal outcome under the Conventionapplicable to all Parties,through a subsidiary bodyunder the Convention herebyestablished and to be known asthe Ad Hoc Working Group onthe Durban Platform for EnhancedAction’.This draft had been the outcomeof a series of closed-door talks overthe last few days and nights among20 to 30 Parties. The EU and otherEuropean countries and several developingcountries, including the Allianceof Small Island States, were insistenton a legally binding regime(thus the terms ‘protocol’ or ‘anotherlegal instrument’) whereas India andChina wanted to add the third optionof ‘legal outcome’.The third option was included inthe final draft put forward by the COP17 Presidency to the plenary. Althoughan appeal was made to acceptthe texts of the four decisions as awhole, the EU’s chief climate officialConnie Hedegaard asked for reopeningthe Durban Platform decision inorder to cancel the third option of ‘legaloutcome’.India’s Environment MinisterJayanthi Natarajan then made a strongplea for all options in terms of the legalform of the new process to remainon the table, including a ‘legal outcome’(instead of only a protocol orlegal instrument as possible options),stressing the need for equity and theprinciple of CBDR to be the centrepieceof the climate change debate.The Indian Minister appealed toParties not to push aside equity in theDurban outcome, as this would be thegreatest tragedy. The Minister was notprepared to give a blank cheque andsign away the livelihoods of the poorwhen she did not know what the document(from the new process) wouldcontain.India’s position was supported byseveral developing countries includingChina, Pakistan, Bolivia, Egypt,the Philippines and El Salvador.In the draft given to the final plenary,the new process of negotiationswas to commence work in the firsthalf of 2012 and was to be completedno later than 2015 in order for theadoption of a protocol, legal instrumentor legal outcome under the Convention,applicable to all Parties, atthe 21st session (in 2015) of the COP,and for it to come into effect and beimplemented from 2020. The optionof ‘legal outcome’ was the bone ofcontention.At the plenary, following the pleaby the Indian Minister to retain the‘legal outcome’ option, the EU’s ClimateChange CommissionerHedegaard proposed discussions withIndia on how to accommodate the latter’sconcerns over the issue of equity.The COP 17 President Nkoana-Mashabane then proposed a suspensionof the session (at around 3.30 amon 11 December morning) for an ‘informalhuddle’ between the EU andIndia to discuss this issue. This huddlesoon saw many other Parties joiningthe discussions, including theUnited States, China, and Brazil.According to one source whowitnessed what took place, India waswilling to take out the words ‘legaloutcome’ if the principles of equityand CBDR were incorporated in thedocument. According to thesource, the EU was willing toaccept this but US chief negotiatorTodd Stern opposed thisand said that equity and CBDR‘will never fly’ for the US andthus blocked an agreement betweenthe EU and India.Following further wrangling,in the final compromise,the words ‘legal outcome’ werereplaced with ‘agreed outcomewith legal force’, which wassuggested by Brazil’s chief negotiator,Ambassador LuisFigueiredo Machado.This left many wonderingwhat the difference, if any, was between‘legal outcome’ and ‘outcomewith legal force.’What was most worrying for ministersand senior officials from severaldeveloping countries who wereinterviewed was that the Durban climatetalks were marked by an attemptby developed countries to push asidethe principles of equity and CBDR,especially on the issue of launchingthe negotiations for a new regime. TheUS in particular was opposed to anyreference to equity and CBDR in thedecision to launch the new process.Despite the explicit absence ofthe words ‘equity’ and ‘CBDR’ in thetext, several lawyers and senior negotiatorswere of the view that a protocol,legal instrument or agreed outcomewith legal force under the Conventionmust be consistent with theexisting principles and provisions ofthe Convention and therefore the principlesof equity and CBDR can beimplied to apply. However, this viewcan be expected to be challenged, especiallyby the United States, whenthe negotiations start.The EU’s strong push for a newmitigation treaty came as a quid proquo for it to undertake a second commitmentperiod under the Kyoto Protocol(KP) for emissions reductions.A decision was also adopted on theKyoto Protocol on 11 Decembermorning. It however fell short of confirminga second commitment periodof the Protocol.According to one expert observer,the language of the Kyoto ProtocolTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25617

C O V E Rdecision was only of the nature of‘taking note’ of the ‘intention’ of Partiesto convert targets to real commitments‘with a view’ to adopting themat the next climate conference in December2012. It thus remains to beseen if the commitments will be made,and, if so, what the numbers and substancewill be.In return, developed countriessucceeded in securing a new processof climate talks on mitigation effortsby all Parties, without explicit referenceto equity and CBDR.Heated exchangeThe often heated exchange on theDurban Platform took place at a jointinformal meeting of COP 17 and the7th session of the Conference of theParties serving as the meeting of theParties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP)which was convened by COP/CMPPresident Nkoana-Mashabane late on10 December, following the closingsessions of the AWGKP andAWGLCA.Nkoana-Mashabane outlined theelements of what she called the ‘Durbanpackage’, which were (i) the secondcommitment period (2CP) foremissions reductions by Annex I Partiesunder the KP; (ii) a decision onthe work of the AWGLCA; (iii) a decisionon the Green Climate Fund(GCF); and (iv) an agreement on theDurban Platform for enhanced action.Nkoana-Mashabane asked Partiesto adopt each of the decisionswithout further debate and amendmentswhen they were presented duringthe formal sessions of the COPand the CMP respectively, saying thatParties required ‘assurances fromeach other to agree to all the draft decisions’,clearly suggesting a ‘take-itor-leave-it’approach. She said thatthis was needed to ‘make history andstrengthen multilateralism’.Several delegations expressedfrustration that their concerns werenot heard when they were first raisedduring the closing sessions of theAWGKP and the AWGLCA prior tothe joint informal meeting of the COPand CMP.Hedegaard said the EU had a‘Equity has to be thecentrepiece’The following is the text of remarks byIndian Minister for Environment andForests Jayanthi Natarajan at aclosed-door ministerial session at theDurban conference on 10 December,following strong statements by severaldeveloped-country ministers and aparticularly accusatory one by CanadianEnvironment Minister Peter Kent.The Indian Minister’s remarks met withapplause in the room.I DO not know how to start. I haveheard people across the room carefully.I am from India and I represent1.2 billion people. My country has atiny per capita carbon footprint of 1.7ton and our per capita GDP is evenlower.I was astonished and disturbed bythe comments of my colleague fromCanada who was pointing at us as towhy we are against the roadmap. I amdisturbed to find that a legally bindingprotocol to the Convention, negotiatedjust 14 years ago, is now being junkedin a cavalier manner. Countries whichhad signed and ratified it are walkingaway without even a polite goodbye.And yet, pointing at others.I was also deeply moved listeningto the comments of my colleaguesand friends from the small islandstates. Our positions may be different,but their sentiments resonate with mevery strongly. India has 600 islandswhich may be submerged, we havedeltaic region in which millions of peoplelive. We are absolutely at the forefrontof the vulnerability of climatechange. When I talk here, I have infront of my eyes, the face of the lastIndian who is affected by the effects ofclimate change.It would be helpful if we do not talkat each other and do not prejudge eachother.As a developing country, the principlesof equity and CBDR are centralfor us. India is asking for space for basicdevelopment for its people and povertyeradication. Is this an unreasonabledemand? Former Prime Ministerof India Indira Gandhi said that povertyis the greatest polluter and developmentis the greatest healer. Equityhas to be the centrepiece of the climatediscussion and our negotiationsshould be built on it. We cannot acceptthe principle of CBDR to be diluted.The firewall of CBDR must notbe broken. Equity in the debate mustbe secured.I too raise my voice for urgency.Climate change is the most pressingand urgent problem for us. I too havea grandson, the son of my son. Climatechange affects us too. What isimportant is what action we are takingto address it. We are not saying nothingshould be done now, or no actionshould be taken. On the contrary. Weare asking that the actions of the developed-countryParties must be reviewed.We have taken ambitious stepsin India to address climate change. MyPrime Minister has announced thatour per capita emissions would neverexceed that of developed countries.Has any other country done this? Wehave ambitious energy efficiency targets.We have pledged to lower theemissions intensity of our GDP by 20-25% by 2020. A recent report from theStockholm Institute has noted that themitigation pledges of developing countriesamount to more mitigation thanthat of developed countries.What we demand is for existingcommitments to be met. What we demandis comparability of actions. Wedemand that the emissions gap mustbe bridged.Coming to the text you have presented,Madam Chair, I have threecomments.First of all, there is an imbalancein the two texts. The KP is weak. Itdoes not have:• The numbers for KP Parties, nottill next years• A timeline for ratification• An indication of how the gap inthe implementation will be avoided.My biggest concern with referenceto the texts is that there is noreference to the fundamental principleof equity and CBDR in the biggerpicture text.We should have clear timelinesthat advance the actions and ambitionof Parties. We in the developing worldare taking very ambitious domesticactions. It is because we need urgentactions that we should urgently implementthe Bali Action Plan andoperationalise the Cancun Agreements.We should have an ambitious implementationphase till 2013 and thengo to the Review in 2013-15 to makean assessment based on science andcommitments.We should then begin work on thearrangements that can enhance ourambition further. We should not confuselegally binding arrangements withambition. We need commitments, notmere hollow promises. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25618

C O V E RIndian Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan (seated far left) and EU Climate ChangeCommissioner Connie Hedegaard (seated far right) meeting in an ‘informal huddle’ inthe early morning of 11 December to debate the nature and form of the Durban Platformclimate regime.point of utmost concern on the Durbanpackage. What was within reachwas a legally binding deal or a prospectfor such a deal. For the EU, therewas a need for a legally binding dealas voluntary means (in relation toemissions reductions) were notenough and international legislationwas needed. She said the KP did manageto reduce emissions. The EUwanted further progress through anotherprotocol or legal instrument butwas concerned about the words ‘legaloutcome’ as this put in doubtwhether Parties were ready to commit(to emission cuts). She said thatthe EU was ready to commit to a 2CPfor another five years and was almostalone in the KP. It was not too muchfor it to ask that after the 2CP, all Parties(including the US and developingcountries) would be legally boundto take emission cuts under a singlelegal instrument or protocol by 2018.Colombia supported the call bythe EU and wanted a legal instrumentunder the Convention by 2018. Switzerlandalso expressed similar views,saying that this was a new page in history.India’s Minister of Environmentand Forests, Jayanthi Natarajan, in apassionate and strong response to theEU, said equity was a centrepiece inthe debate on climate change not onlyfor India but also for the entire world.She said many Parties came to her indifferent tones and voices and told herthat unless she dropped the option ofa ‘legal outcome’ (in relation to theDurban Platform) India would beblamed (for blocking the negotiations).She asked what the problemwas in adding one more option.The Indian Minister said that shewould not be threatened by intimidation.Referring to calls for a legal instrument,she asked how she couldgive a blank cheque and sign awaythe livelihoods of the poor (and notlifestyles of the rich) when she did notknow what the document would contain.She asked where the principle ofCBDR was reflected and had no doubtthat efforts were being made to shiftthe entire burden of climate changeonto countries that did not contributeto the problem.Referring to the Durban Platformdocument, she said it was weak onCBDR as it referred to ‘launching aprocess to develop a protocol or anotherlegal instrument or a legal outcomeunder the Convention applicableto all Parties.’ Natarajan emphasisedthat she represented 1.2 billionpeople and that India had a tiny percapita carbon footprint of 1.7 tons andits per capita GDP was also low.She said that India must not bemade a scapegoat of the multilateralprocess. Referring to the Durban Platformdocument, she said that it was aproduct of six days of talking and allideas were put forward and what wascaptured in the document was thesense of the Chair.She reminded Parties that Indiahad placed the issue of equity on theagenda of the COP but this waspushed somewhere else and was notin the main text (of the AWGLCAoutcome document). She made a pleafor the issue of equity not to be heldhostage and said that it would be agrave tragedy if equity was put asidein Durban.She appealed to Parties to allowthe word ‘outcome’ to remain in theDurban Platform document as a furtheroption. She asked how this couldbe a crime and how India could beaccused of collapsing the talks.Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman/Vice-Minister of the National Developmentand Reform Commission ofChina, in a very strong response, supportedIndia. He said that the existingConvention and Protocol are legallybinding but questioned if Parties wereimplementing them. The existing legalinstruments spell out the principlesof CBDR, respective capabilitiesand equity. To deal with climatechange, all countries need to collaboratetowards common goals, in accordancewith respective capabilities,strengthen cooperation, and respondcollectively. Till now, some countrieshave made promises, but have notfulfilled them. They have not takenreal actions. Xie said developingcountries need to develop, protect theenvironment, mitigate climate changeand eradicate poverty. Developedcountries have to fulfil their promises,take concrete actions, and trulyachieve the objectives in coping withclimate change. Developing countriesdo not care what they are saying butneed to see what is being done. Manydeveloped countries have not fulfilledtheir promises. ‘We have done whatwe are supposed to do, whereas theyhave not done their part. What positionare they in to judge us?’THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25619

C O V E RGrenada, speaking forthe Alliance of Small IslandStates, said that theywanted a 2CP with meaningfulnumbers under theKP but did not get that inDurban. Hence, the effortwas to bring up the ambitionlevel through the legalform. Referring to theoptions in the DurbanPlatform document, it saidthat it was difficult to acceptthe option of ‘legaloutcome’ as it appeared tobe an option for climbingdown the ladder in termsof mitigation ambition byallowing countries to continue on thetrack that brought climate change. Ifthere was no legal instrument, Partieswould be relegating vulnerableeconomies to death, with beautifulwords such as ‘access to development’.It said that if ‘they develop wedie’. It could not accept terms withno limits on emissions.Bolivia, in supporting India, saidthere is a need to think of commitmentsto emission reductions but alsoto address the right to development,right to food, right to eradicate povertyetc. The work of the new workinggroup for the Durban Platformmust address this. There is also theright of countries to equitable accessto the atmosphere which has beenused by a small group of countries.In an apparent reference to the US,Bolivia said that it is a paradox that acountry with a large share of the emissionsis not in the KP. When a legalregime is being built, Parties must becareful as to how the atmosphericspace is distributed as those who arerich do not want to cut emissionswhile they want others to do this. Thenotion of a legal instrument applyingto all must take into account povertyand the right to development. Behindthe issues of emissions, there iswealth, misery and poverty and vestedinterests.The Philippines was concernedthat the Convention and the KP werein danger of being a relic of the past.It expressed deep concern that afterover five years of negotiations on theXie Zhenhua (pic), Vice Chairman of China’s NationalDevelopment and Reform Commission, said that developedcountries have to fulfil their promises and take concrete actionsto deal with climate change.further commitments for Annex I Partiesunder the KP, Parties had againfallen short of arriving at a ratifiableamendment to the KP’s Annex B thatwould have ultimately gotten the Protocolout of intensive care and backinto life. It was deeply concerned thatParties had come short of this and hadonce again procrastinated. Partieswere expected to send a strong politicalsignal to the world in the form ofadopting fully ratifiable amendmentsfor the establishment of the secondcommitment period of the Protocol.It was heart-broken to see Parties dividedand made a plea for not pittingone against another. It said they wereagainst one real cruel enemy – climatechange.The Philippines was for environmentalintegrity as well as for sustainableand equitable growth. It stressedthat equity is a fundamental conceptwhose reflection in the processes willensure a fair and just outcome thatachieves the objective of the Convention.It was open to a legally bindinginstrument, as it agreed that a legalregime was important, but it shouldhave been with a view to saving theKP which had not gotten out of intensivecare.Pakistan also said that it stoodbehind equity and CBDR. No matterhow much the world has changed,CBDR is still applicable. It said thatit was strange that there was no reflectionin the document on equity andCBDR. It said that real consensus waswhen everyone was on board and thatno single view should forceothers to submit. Truemultilateralism should haveeveryone on board.El Salvador stressedthe need to raise the levelof ambition and address thefinance gap, the mitigationgap and the equity gap. Ithoped that the processlaunched in Durban wouldtake Parties in the directionneeded.Brazil said that climatechange is a huge challenge,as is fighting poverty, andno country has done moreto reduce emissions thanBrazil. On a legally binding deal, itsaid Parties were on the verge of approvingpotentially what was morethan the Berlin mandate (where theprocess towards the KP was launched)and the adoption of the 2CP under theKP. It was open to a new era of cooperation.Egypt, in response to the EU onthe need for clarity (in relation to mitigation),said there was a need also forclarity on the issue of financial supportwith predictability, additionalityand transparency. It said that developed-countryParties, who were callingfor a new legally binding instrument,did not show the same passionfor the KP. It also stressed the importanceof equity and CBDR. It said thatthe form of the legal outcome shouldfollow the function. There was a needfor flexibility in the Durban Platformto allow for the form of agreementneeded according to what agreementsare reached.Senegal supported Egypt and theneed for CBDR. It said that the Durbanpackage was weak.Gambia, speaking for the leastdeveloped countries (LDCs), reiteratedthe need for a legally binding instrumentthat must provide for strongand binding enforcement to addressall the pillars of the Bali Action Plan.Bangladesh supported the Durbanpackage and a legally bindingdeal, in addition to the 2CP. Althoughthe texts (in relation to the decisions)had been watered down, it was preparedto accept them.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25620

C O V E RNorway shared the view of Indiathat equity is important but wanted alegal instrument in 2015 and did notsupport a mere ‘legal outcome’.The US said it embraced the fullDurban package, including the needfor a new legal instrument.The Democratic Republic ofCongo, speaking for the AfricanGroup, said that in Durban, the KPdid not die; there were outcomes onadaptation, financing, technologytransfer and capacity building and theoperationalising of the institutions ofthe Convention. It regretted the lackof ambition and balance but couldsupport the move for further progresson increasing the mitigation ambitionso that Africa was secure.Malaysia said that it was not clearon how the outcome from theAWGLCA was going to be addressedwhen several Parties had pointed to aserious lack of balance and the needfor further work before it could beadopted. It was looking for a goodpackage that allowed the AWGLCAsufficient time to restore the balanceneeded next year.The COP President did not addressMalaysia’s concerns.The formal sessions of the CMPand the COP were then convened oneafter the other. At the CMP, severalconcerns were raised over the outcomeof work from the AWGKP butthese concerns were not addressed byNkoana-Mashabane, who proceededto gavel the adoption of the outcomes.At the closing sessions of theAWGKP and AWGLCA held beforethe COP/CMP joint informal sessionon 10 December, many Parties hadraised several concerns they had onthe respective reports by the Chairsof the two working groups, which reflectedthe outcomes of the work. Inthe case of the AWGKP session, severaldeveloping countries wantedamendments to be made to the outcomedocument but none were entertainedby the Chair, Adrian Maceyfrom New Zealand, except for anamendment suggested by the EU onthe duration of the 2CP from a fiveyearperiod (2013-2017) to an eightyearperiod (2013-2020). Both theseoptions are now on the table. The reportand the outcome of the work ofthe AWGKP was presented ‘under theauthority and responsibility of theChair’, which was unprecedented.Likewise, in the case of the outcomeof the work of the AWGLCA,the Chair of the working group, DanielReifsnyder from the US, ignoredcalls by several developing countriesnot to adopt the report and to allowfor further work to be done next yearon the outcome document to rectifythe existing imbalances, especiallywhen the document was only presentedto Parties late in the morningof 10 December. The Chair did notagree with the proposal and proceededto transmit the document to the COPPresident under his own responsibilityalthough it did not receive consensus,which was also an unusual move.Decision-makingDuring and after the Durbanmeeting, negotiators of many developingcountries expressed deep concernabout the procedures for adoptingdecisions at COP 17. The conferencehad been extended for almosttwo days, and ministers and officialsof many countries had already left.The closed-door meeting of 20-30IS China still a developing country,or has it joined the ranks of the advanceddeveloped countries?This has become a topical question,especially after US PresidentBarack Obama said at the recentAPEC summit in Hawaii that Chinahad to act more responsibly, now thatit has ‘grown up’.By telling China that it has becomea grown-up adult, Obama meantParties left many others that were notinvited in the dark.The documents for the decisionsin the final plenary meetings were distributedlate, and some Parties complainedthey did not have the papers.There was no time for the Parties tostudy the papers. The Chairs of theAWGKP and AWGLCA did not takeinto account the disagreements thatmost Parties registered on the draftdecisions but decided to transmit theirreports almost unchanged (the onlychanges were to accommodate the EUon the Kyoto Protocol) to the COP andCMP. When the COP and CMP meetingswere convened, there was littleopportunity to reopen the reports andsome attempts made by developingcountries were ignored, while the onlyopportunity to reopen was providedto the EU over the ‘legal outcome’issue.While COP 17 and CMP 7 did notfall apart as many had predicted in thelast day of the conference, the mannerin which the decisions wereachieved may be debated, includingwhat it means for the future of decision-makingin a UN multilateral settingfor years to come. ÿuMeena Raman is a legal adviser and seniorresearcher with the Third World Network.Is China still a developing country?In the climate change talks, pressure has beenexerted on the likes of China to undertake emissionscuts similar to those of the industrial countries. MartinKhor considers whether it is fair to demand thatChina take on the responsibilities of a developedcountry, in the context of the US president’s recentassertion that China has ‘grown up’.that China should now be treated justlike the US or Europe in terms of internationalobligations. Like takingon binding commitments to reducegreenhouse gas emissions, cutting itstariffs to near zero and giving up itssubsidies under the World Trade Organisation(WTO), giving aid to poorcountries and letting its currency float.This is what the US has beenpressurising China to do in the recentTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25621

C O V E Rnegotiations on climate change, in theWTO’s Doha talks, at various meetingsof the United Nations and at theAPEC summit. In fact, most of theimportant multilateral negotiations arestalled because the US (with Europeand Japan standing behind it) insiststhat China give up its developingcountrystatus and take on the obligationsof a developed country.It’s not only China, of course.They also want India and Brazil to dolikewise. And often also mentionedare South Africa and the wealthier orbigger South-East Asian countries.The main focus, however, isChina. There has been a growing respectfor or rather fear of China, thatit is growing so fast and has becomeso big and powerful it might swallowup the Western world in a decade ortwo.Developed or developing?So, the question is pertinent. IsChina a developed country?The answer depends on what criteriaare used. In absolute terms,China is indeed a big economy. Itsgross national product (GNP) is secondonly to that of the United States.It has become the biggest emitter ofgreenhouse gases, having overtakenthe US.But this is mainly because Chinais a big country in terms of population.With 1.3 billion people, it’s theworld’s most populous country. Indiais not far behind with 1.2 billionpeople and is on track to overtakeChina in two decades.However, despite the mighty imageit has been given by the worldmedia, China looks like a very ordinarydeveloping country once we considerper capita indicators.Whether one is a developed ordeveloping country is defined by theUN and by the International MonetaryFund (IMF) and World Bank, and themost important criterion is income percapita.By that yardstick, China is verymuch a developing country.The IMF, in its latest World EconomicOutlook, classifies China as adeveloping country, with a per capitagross domestic product (GDP) in2010 of $4,382, ranked a lowly 91 of184 countries in the world.Six African countries (EquatorialGuinea, Gabon, Botswana, Mauritius,South Africa and Namibia) had GDPper capita levels higher than China.China’s GDP per capita was less thana tenth that of the United States, whichhad $46,860. Luxembourg had thehighest ranking, with $108,952.The World Bank classifies countriesinto four income groups. In itslatest report, economies were dividedaccording to 2008 gross national incomeper capita according to the followingranges of income:• low-income countries with GNIper capita below $1,006• lower-middle-income countrieswith GNI per capita between $1,006and $3,975• upper-middle-income countrieswith GNI per capita between $3,976and $12,275• high-income countries withGNI per capita above $12,276.The World Bank classifies alllow- and middle-income countries asdeveloping. According to the Bank’sfigures, China’s GNP per capita was$2,050 in 2006, $2,490 in 2007,$3,050 in 2008, $3,650 in 2009 and$4,260 in 2010. In fact, China has inrecent years been in the category oflower-middle-income countries untilit crossed over to the upper-middleincomegroup in 2010.Economists also use the measureof GNP per capita in ‘gross purchasingpower’ (or GPP). This is to takeinto account differences in the cost ofliving in different countries. Peopleliving in countries with a lower costof living could enjoy a higher livingstandard than their country’s GNPimplies.In 2010, in GDP (at GPP) percapita terms, China was lower still atNo. 95 with $7,544, just below Ecuadorand Bosnia and Herzegovina, andjust above Albania, El Salvador,Tonga and Guyana.The UN Development Programme(UNDP) has a Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI) that measuresquality of life in terms of income,schooling, life expectancy and so on.UNDP’s Human Development Report2011 shows China at No. 101 of 187countries with an HDI of 0.687 andin a category of ‘medium human development’.It is below many otherdeveloping countries in the very highor high human development categories,such as Chile, Argentina, Barbados,Uruguay, Cuba, Bahamas,Panama, Malaysia, Libya, Grenada,Lebanon, Venezuela, Mauritius, Jamaica,Ecuador, Brazil, Iran, Tongoand Tunisia.What about climate change?China, again mainly because of itshuge population, is the top greenhouse-gas-emittingcountry, with atotal of 7,232 megatonnes of CO 2equivalent in 2005. The US is secondwith 6,914 Mtonnes, and Indiafifth with 1,859 Mtonnes.But in per capita terms, China’semissions level was 5.5 CO 2equivalentper person, ranked 84 in theworld. By contrast, the US’s per capitaemission was 23.4 CO 2equivalent,Australia 27.3, Canada 22.9, Russia13.7, Germany 11.9, Singapore 11.4,Japan 10.5, Malaysia 9.2, South Africa9.0, Brazil 5.4, Indonesia 2.7,India 1.7, Tanzania 1.5 and Rwanda0.4.Thus, as No. 91 in the world inGDP per capita, No. 101 in the HumanDevelopment Index and No. 84in per capita emissions, China is lookinglike, and is, a middle-level or evenlower-middle-level developing country,with not only all the developedcountries but also many developingcountries ahead of it.China also shares the same characteristicsof many developing countries.More than 700 million of its 1.3billion people live in rural areas, andin 2008 there was a large imbalance,with the urban disposable householdincome 3.3 times bigger on averagethan in rural areas.According to China’s own standard,43 million Chinese are low-income(below $160 a year). By thehigher UN standard, 150 million peopleare poor, living on less than $1 aday.Each year, 12 million people arenewly added to the job market, outnumberingthe population of Greece,THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25622

C O V E Rand it is quite a task to find them jobs.This does not deny the fact thatthere are high points in China’s development:its big GNP in absoluteterms, its high rate of economicgrowth and foreign reserves of above$3 trillion.But the fact remains that whileChina has become a big economicpower in absolute terms, it is still amiddle-level developing country, withthe socioeconomic problems thatmost developing countries have.India was targeted by developed countries and the mainstreammedia as an obstacle to forging a new climate changemitigation treaty, and expected to (with other developingcountries) take on heavier obligations than least developedcountries and small island states. Below are two sets of data onthe reality of India.Reality check on India and climatepoliticsDale Jiajun WenIN his article above, Martin Khor, theExecutive Director of the South Centre,lays out all the facts and numbersin per capita terms of indicators includingGDP, the Human DevelopmentIndex, and carbon emissions, allof which unequivocally show thatChina is still a developing country. Hefinishes the article with the followingsentence: ‘China’s fight to retain itsdeveloping-country status is of interestto other developing countries, forif China loses that fight, they will benext.’ The politics of the Durban climatenegotiations confirmed his prediction.As the Durban negotiations intensified,media reports started to portrayIndia as the stumbling block.There were headlines like ‘Durbanclimate talks “roadmap” held up byIndia’, ‘China readies big climate offer,India mulls support’. And someNGOs started to call for leadershipfrom India. It is time for a realityAnd if China is pressurised totake on the duties of a developedcountry and to forgo the status andbenefits of a developing country, thenmany other developing countries thatare ahead of China (at least in percapita terms) may soon be also askedto do the same.Thus China’s fight to retain itsdeveloping-country status is of interestto other developing countries, forif China loses that fight, they will benext.ÿucheck.In 2010, India was ranked a lowly132 out of 184 countries in per capitaGDP. Its level was $1,370, comparedto $46,860 for the US, according toIMF data.In 2008, India was ranked 138 inper capita carbon dioxide emission;its level of 1.48 tons compares with17.52 tons for the US, according toUN data. Its high total emission islargely due to its huge population of1.2 billion, for which it can hardly beblamed. A similar thing can be saidabout India’s emerging-economy status.In terms of per capita GDP, countrieslike Tonga and Congo are doingbetter than India.Some 400 million people in Indiado not have access to electricity.According to a 2005 WorldBank estimate, 41.6% of the total Indianpopulation fall belowthe international poverty line of $1.25a day (in purchasing power parityterms).The 2011 Global Hunger Index(GHI) Report ranks India 15thamongst leading countries with a hungersituation. It also places Indiaamongst the three countries where theGHI went up between 1996 and 2011,while 78 out of the 81 developingcountries studied, including Pakistan,Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kenya,Nigeria, Myanmar, Uganda, Zimbabweand Malawi, succeeded in improvinghunger condition.India is also one of the countriesmost vulnerable to climate change.During the 2010 Cancun climate negotiations,the World Food Programmereleased a ‘Food insecurityand climate change’ map. In terms ofthe ‘hunger and climate vulnerabilityindex’, mostly together with Africancountries, India gets the highest rating,meaning it has a very high chanceof facing even worse food insecuritybecause of climate change.For hundreds of millions of poorIndians, the right to development isthe right to survival. Some narrativeswhich pitch the right to survival(mostly in relation to the small islandstates and African countries) againstbig developing countries’ (includingIndia’s) right to development are nothingbut a false dichotomy. India hasvery good reasons to insist on historicalresponsibility and equity, to insistthat developed countries implementwhat they have already agreed underthe UN Framework Convention onClimate Change, under the Bali ActionPlan and under the Cancun agreement,while it itself is on track to implementingits nationally appropriatemitigation actions. (India has announceda domestic goal of reducingthe emissions intensity of its outputby 20-25% by 2020 based on 2005levels. It has a National Action Planon Climate Change to meet this objective,and further steps to implementa strategy that will meet this domesticgoal are being taken as part of implementationof the 12th Five YearPlan.)India embodies the double challengeof climate change to developingcountries: to avoid the high-carbondevelopment pathway of theWest, and to lift its people out of poverty.As a country with such heartwrenchingpoverty, it undoubtedlyTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25623

C O V E Rneeds help in the form of financialsupport, technology transfer and capacity-buildingassistance from theNorth.Global emissions need to peak assoon as possible, thus it is urgent tohave an honest look at how much atmosphericspace is still available andhow we can share it in an equitablemanner. On 3 December in Durban,experts from Brazil, China, India andSouth Africa jointly launched an equitypaper, which is an example ofongoing efforts on this front. However,instead of engaging in such discussion,the West has largely avoidedthe topic and is using the emissiongrowth of countries like India andChina as a smokescreen.For example, it is widely reportedthat India’s emissions grew by 9% between2009-2010, but little known isthe fact that US emissions also grewby 4%. In absolute terms, the US increaseof 0.2 billion tons is actuallylarger than India’s 0.15 billion tons.It is not only the US. The EU-15 emissionsalso grew by 2.8%, with thoseof Germany and the UK up by 4%.Sivan KarthaLet’s get back to workTHE common wisdom is that we’vecome here to save Africa. Africa, wehear every day, is a continent populatedwith poor people on thefrontlines of climate change, whereimmediate adaptation is a priority andclimate delay means death. India, wehear, is the grim reaper. 1 And the purposeof COP 17 is, in large part, tocompel India to step back from thebrink and help save Africa. Indiashould stop being an obstructionistand should come to the rescue of Africa.Well ... some comparisons are inorder.Africa is poor. VERY poor. SeventeenAfricans live on the income ofBut somehow, these countries are stillconsidered forerunners of the supposedlyprogressive EU – let’s not forgetthat all these developed countries havea legal obligation to reduce emissions.Instead of showing real leadership, itseems that the EU is now hiding behindthe US and even India. How canglobal emissions peak under such circumstances?We are here to fight for the future,especially for the future of children.Indian children are already in adire situation. Of Indian children under5, 43.5% are underweight due tomalnutrition, the highest rate in theworld, even worse than that of anyleast developed country. By insistingon equity in the climate negotiations,India is already showing leadership.The Indian government and peoplehave much to do at home but in termsof international negotiations, it is simplyunfair to ask India for more. CallingIndia a stumbling block in the climatetalks is almost tantamount tocalling Chad or Lesotho a stumblingblock.ÿuDr Dale Jiajun Wen is a fellow at the InternationalForum on Globalisation.one American. And India? Turns outthe number of Indians who live on theincome of one American is ... 16. Yes,India is a bit closer to Africa than it isto the US on this score.But, even though India’s ‘average’income is just about the same asAfrica’s, it’s still crawling with millionaireslike Mukesh Ambani, right?Actually, 1.1% of Africans have madeit into the top global wealth decile,whereas 0.9% of Indians have. Rathereven, I’d say. And again, India standsa bit closer to Africa than to the US(with 21% of Americans in the topglobal decile).But, anyway, Africa is a low emitterwhich is suffering from the rest ofthe world’s emissions, whereas Indiais on a planet-incinerating coal binge,right? After all, an African’s per capitagreenhouse gas emissions are onlyone-sixth of an American’s. And India?Well ... only a tenth of an American’s,actually. And, if you don’t likeper capita comparisons (you don’tthink India should get a break for beingpopulous?), India’s ‘total’ emissionsare only two-thirds of Africa’s.And as for vulnerability? Wheredoes India’s water come from? Fromthe Himalayan glaciers and from themonsoons. My guess is climatechange will be no kinder to India thanto Africa.Of course, the point of this is notto compare Africa and India so we canfigure out who is poorer, who is sufferingmore, and who is less responsiblefor climate change. The point isto ask why so many people havegotten sucked in by the India scapegoating,which is so obviously a diversion.The whole ‘survival versusdevelopment’ false dichotomy has alwaysbeen dangerous, but never moreso than when applied to Africa andIndia. It is no surprise that India appearsto some to have gone on the defensive,dug in its heels, and startedlooking for allies wherever it can possiblyfind them.In these negotiations, we’ve gotto turn our attention back to the Partieswho are the real blockers: thegreedy Parties that are demandingevery loophole; the free-riders whoare putting forward paltry pledges thatare completely at odds with their capacityand responsibility; the tightfistedcountries that are still refusingto put real money on the table to helpstop climate catastrophe, ostensiblybecause of their self-inflicted financialwoes.Shall we get back to work?uDr Sivan Kartha is a Senior Scientist at theStockholm Environment Institute (US Office).Endnote1. Editor’s note: This is a referenceto an advertisement in the 10December edition of the FinancialTimes portraying India as one offour countries depicted as ‘grimreapers’ bringing climate death anddestruction to Africa.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25624

C O V E RFuture of Kyoto Protocol stillshrouded in uncertaintyOfficial claims that the Durban conference registered a success in securing asecond round of emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol are exaggerated, saysChee Yoke Ling. The countries concerned have merely indicated their intention toundertake emission cuts which have yet to be quantified for a second commitmentperiod yet to be determined.Civil society delegates at a session of the Kyoto Protocol ad hoc working group(AWGKP) in Durban. More than five years of negotiations in the AWGKP had failed toyield an agreement on developed countries’ emission reduction targets in the secondcommitment period of the Protocol.IN Cancun last year the climate talksended with the Kyoto Protocol relegatedto intensive care. As the Durbanclimate conference was extendedofficially by an extra day, and finallyclosed after 6 am on 11 Decemberafter another all-nighter, pressuresmounted and an injection was giventhat allowed an official announcementof ‘success’ in adopting a decision onthe next round of greenhouse gasemissions cuts by developed countries.But what did Durban actuallydeliver?Unfortunately, what emergedwere still pledges by developed countriesthat have indicated their intentionto take on a second commitmentperiod under the Kyoto Protocol (KP)to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Even these are conditional on the domesticprocesses of some developedcountryParties or a new legally bindingagreement on greenhouse gasemissions reduction that would effectivelyreplace the KP in the future.Those under a legal obligation totake on cuts are developed countriesand countries with economies in transitionlisted in Annex I of the UNFramework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC). Of the Annex Icountries, the United States is notablyabsent from the list of Parties tothe KP.But the US agreed in 2007 at theBali climate conference that it wouldtake ‘comparable efforts’ to KP Partiesin reducing its own huge emissions.The quid pro quo was that developingcountries would take nationallyappropriate mitigation actions(with financial and technology supportfrom developed countries includingthe US) as a trade-off to pull theUS into the global mitigation effort.This set of actions under the UNFCCCwould complement the KP secondcommitment period of emissions cutsso that we move more quickly to slowdown global temperature increase.Meanwhile the KP legal regimewas designed to avoid a gap betweenthe first and second commitment periods.The first commitment periodruns from 2008 up to 31 December2012. Consequently, in December2005 the Ad Hoc Working Group onFurther Commitments for Annex IParties under the Kyoto Protocol(AWGKP) was mandated to ‘to considerfurther commitments for Partiesincluded in Annex I for the periodbeyond 2012 in accordance with Article3, paragraph 9, of the Protocol’.The specific mandate is to agree onthe reduction targets in aggregate andindividually or jointly of Annex I Parties.As thousands of participants arrivedin Durban, more than five yearsof negotiations in the AWGKP failedto yield an agreement, with only verylow pledges made by mainly Europeancountries. Since 2007 Annex IParties had also increased their demandsand conditions on developingcountries such as China and India totake on mitigation commitments in anew legally binding treaty, in the mistakenhope that this would also pullthe US into taking action. As manyobservers and developing-countrydelegates remarked again and again,if the US administration cannot evenPhoto courtesy of IISD/Earth Negotiations BulletinTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25625

C O V E Rget a domestic climate law passed inthe US Congress, how can it be partof any new international treaty?However, before Durban, theEuropean Union already made it clearthat it wanted its ‘roadmap’ adoptedin Durban: it would accept a ‘political’second commitment period (nota finalised legal amendment to the KPto be adopted in Durban to incorporatea second commitment period) onthe condition that a new treaty processbe launched. This new treatywould replace the KP.On the other hand, developingcountries were of one voice instrongly insisting that the level ofmitigation ambition in the secondcommitment period must be in accordancewith the requirements of scienceand there must be no gap after2012 (as agreed by all KP Parties).The KP must be kept alive and its implementationstrengthened – the factthat the KP covers only Annex I Partiesis because of their historical responsibilityfor global warming, andequity requires them to take the leadto do more.Besides, since 2010 with theCancun decisions, developing countries(except for least developed countriesand small island states) have alreadycommitted to taking mitigationactions that will be subject to internationaltransparency requirements, beyondtheir UNFCCC obligations.So the pressure was intense inDurban as to who will be responsiblefor ‘killing’ the KP if no second commitmentperiod was accepted.The South African governmentthat hosted the 17th and 7th meetingsof the Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the UNFCCC, and the COPserving as the Meeting of the Partiesto the KP (CMP 7), respectively, wasdetermined to have a success underits watch. Foreign Minister MaiteNkoana-Mashabane, in her capacityas President of the COP 17/CMP 7,was a key player. It was hard over the15 days to not conclude that the EUagenda was at the forefront of thePresidency’s preoccupations.At an informal joint plenary ofthe COP and CMP on the night of 10December, the ‘Durban package’ waspresented to Parties comprising (i) thesecond commitment period for emissionsreductions by Annex I Partiesunder the Kyoto Protocol; (ii) a decisionon the work of the Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on Long-term CooperativeAction under the Convention(AWGLCA); (iii) a decision on theGreen Climate Fund; and (iv) anagreement on the establishment of anew ad hoc working group on theDurban Platform for Enhanced Action(to develop ‘a protocol, another legalinstrument or an agreed outcome withlegal force’). The ‘Durban Platform’document triggered strong statements,disagreements among developed anddeveloping countries, and considerablefrustration and confusion.Nkoana-Mashabane asked Partiesto adopt each of the decisionswithout further debate and amendmentswhen they were presented duringthe formal sessions of the COPand the CMP respectively, saying thatParties required ‘assurances fromeach other to agree to all the draft decisions’,clearly suggesting a ‘take-itor-leave-it’approach.Up until the last hours of the conference,when the AWGKP met afterthe informal joint plenary, there wasstill no consensus on the draft decisionon the second commitment periodprepared by the AWGKP Chair,Adrian Macey of New Zealand. Proposalsby several developing countriesto strengthen the decision werenot accepted, and the only change thatentered the document was from theEU to include an option of an eightyearcommitment period as opposedto five years (this was in the Chair’sdraft and reflects the position of almostall developing countries becauselow pledges over a longer periodmeans even less real emissions reduction).After a heated debate, with severaldeveloping-country Parties expressingfrustration and disappointment,Macey decided to transmit thedraft decision under his own responsibilityfor approval by the CMP 7.As the dust settles in the aftermathof the Durban conference, manydeveloping-country Parties are concernedthat there is still no legallybinding second commitment period asenvisaged under the KP; the ambitionlevel is too low compared to what isrequired by science; there is no aggregatenumber for the overall greenhousegas reduction with each Partyfree to set its own level; and the lengthof the commitment period is uncertain(it can be five or eight years, tobe decided in 2012). Some expert observersare of the view that the essentiallyvoluntary nature of the Durbandecision, with no political support forany more commitment periods, willmark the effective end of the KP.This weak decision was neverthelessadopted in a manner that poses aserious threat to the multilateral, open,inclusive and transparent decisionmakingprocesses that we expect ofthe UN. The South African Presidency,the Chairs of the AWGKP andthe AWGLCA (Daniel Reifsnyder ofthe US) and some who would neverbe officially named wielded considerableinfluence by ultimately shapingdraft decisions that they consideredwere ‘balanced’ and ‘politicallyachievable’. (See the articles ‘Theclash of paradigms in Durban’ and ‘Aflagrant violation of practice and procedure’in this issue.)Debate in AWGKPDuring the AWGKP plenary fromabout 6.30 pm to 8.15 pm, Nicaragua,on behalf of the Bolivarian Allianceof the Peoples of Our America(ALBA), Bolivia and Kenya proposedspecific amendments to strengthen thedraft decision, expressing deep concernsover the weak operative paragraphsthrough the use of terms suchas ‘takes note’ (rather than ‘acknowledges’)and ‘invites’ (rather than‘mandates’).The paragraphs concerned andlater adopted by the CMP 7 withoutany change are as follows:Para 3: ‘Takes note of the proposedamendments to the Kyoto Protocol’developed by the AWGKP containedin the Annexes of the Decision;Para 4: ‘Further takes note of thequantified economy-wide emissionreduction targets to be implementedby Parties included in Annex I as com-THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25626

C O V E Rmunicated by them … and of the intentionof these Parties to convertthese targets to quantified emissionlimitation or reduction objectives(QELROs) for the second commitmentperiod under the Kyoto Protocol’;Para 5: ‘Invites Parties includedin Annex I listed in Annex 1 to thisdecision to submit information ontheir QELROs for the second commitmentperiod under the Kyoto Protocolby 1 May 2012 for considerationby’ the AWGKP in its 17th session in2012.Other Parties including Venezuelaand Saudi Arabia also spokestrongly on the weakness of theseparagraphs as a way forward for theKP.Bolivia also pointed out theweakness of preambular paragraph 9that states, ‘Aiming to ensure that aggregateemissions of greenhousegases by Parties included in Annex Iare reduced by at least 25-40% below1990 levels by 2020 …’It expressed concern that thisrange (25-40%) is too big; it does notgive a clear answer of how much ofthe greenhouse gases should be reducedfor the next years. What isneeded are single numbers of intentionof how much reduction will bemade, Bolivia said.Kenya proposed the insertion inpreambular paragraph 8 of the words:‘to ensure no gap between the first andsecond commitment periods of theKP’. It asked for replacement ofpreambular paragraph 9 with ‘Reaffirmingthat immediate action shall betaken by Annex I Parties to ensure thatthe emissions reduction commitmentsare science-based and sufficient tocontribute in an equitable manner towardslimiting the global averagetemperature increase to well belowbelow 1.5 degrees Centigrade aboveindustrial levels in a time frame thatprotects the ecosystem, food productionand sustainable development’.It concurred with those whofound the language in paragraphs 3,4, 5 and 6 to be weak. It also proposedparagraph 6bis: ‘Decides that the secondcommitment period shall applyto all Parties immediately upon theconclusion of the first commitmentperiod … and shall apply on a provisionalbasis until entry into force ofthe amendment of each Party’.Nicaragua made several proposalsthat it repeated at the CMP 7 finalplenary (see below).The European Union made threeamendment proposals. The first wasto include the option of ending thesecond commitment period in 2020(Macey’s text stated 2017) and thiswas accepted even though severalcountries including Grenada, Bolivia,Gambia, Kenya and Colombia hadspoken against the change.Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s ClimateChange Commissioner, said ithad been raised in the ministerial consultationsand that there is a generalunderstanding that there has to be asymmetry between what is done in theKP and the LCA (long-term cooperativeaction under the UNFCCC thatis addressed by a separate ad hocworking group), and so it must be2020.(The year 2020 relates to the decisionsubsequently adopted by theUNFCCC COP on a new process ofnegotiations to commence work in thefirst half of 2012 and to be completedno later than 2015 in order for theadoption of a protocol, another legalinstrument or agreed outcome with legalforce under the Convention, applicableto all Parties, in 2015 and forit to come into effect and be implementedfrom 2020.)The EU’s other proposed amendmentswere to delete part of a paragraphrelating to units acquired fromemissions trading under Article 17 ofthe KP and to include a paragraph onland use, land-use change and forestry.Japan and the Russian Federationalso had proposals for amendments.Saudi Arabia had some proposalsbut the Chair did not allow thedelegate to proceed, stating that ‘wehave passed the time for amendments.Any amendments that Parties reallywant to propose will have to be donein the plenary’.When Saudi Arabia retorted thatthe Chair had accepted from otherParties proposals that went into brackets(referring to the EU), the Chairresponded by saying that he had notaccepted proposals from other Parties.‘They were read out quickly. I listento other proposals. It is unlikely thatany of the proposals can achieve consensusand that remains my view. Weare past the stage to listen to long listsof amendments,’ Macey said.‘Can you explain pleasewhat stage of democracyin this process we arein?’ – Venezuelandelegate Claudia SalernoCalderaVenezuela’s climate envoy,Claudia Salerno Caldera, intervenedat this stage and asked for some clarityon the procedures. ‘I have beenvery patient in this room listening todeveloped countries putting ideas forward,on bracket ideas put forward,and actually anchoring their low levelsof ambition, and then developingcountryParties are not allowed to talkabout what they think about this futurewe are heading to. I have seenyou give [time for consideration oftheir positions] to developed-countryParties. So can you explain pleasewhat stage of democracy in this processwe are in?’ she asked, to applausein the hall.The EU’s Hedegaard respondedthat everybody will know the EU willnot give empty pledges. ‘I think thatit will be hard to find anyone here withall their pledges as ambitious as ournational leg. We are very much ready,and that is also in the text, still to havea 30% proposal on the table. It is notthat the commitment period is emptybecause of the EU. We are actuallyone of the few ones who will be inthe second commitment period. It isfair to state that.’To that, Venezuela said, ‘To bevery frank, the only thing that we arehaving from the EU is actually whatthey already have in their national legislation,so they are not offering any-THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25627

C O V E Rthing to this body. Let us just be clearabout that. They already have a legalsystem that is based on that number(20% reduction from 1990 levels) thatthey are generously offering to us.‘But now I will underline this.The only thing that we are going tohave here tonight is the continuationand the insurance that we are goingto protect the only legal regime wehave until, I don’t know, 2017 or2020, and the having that as the onlything actually is what the EU is offering.‘We are actually in a legally bindingagreement where we “take noteof a proposed amendment” – is thatlanguage that you honestly think wecan reach consensus on? “Furthertakes note of an intention…” – whatkind of language is that to a legallybinding regime? Can you tell mewhere the consensus lies? Because Idon’t understand.’The only change that was allowedfinally was the proposal by the EU toinclude the option of 2020 as the endof the second commitment period.The adopted decision now reads:‘Decides that the second commitmentperiod under the Kyoto Protocol shallbegin on 1 January 2013 and end eitheron 31 December 2017 or 31 December2020, to be decided by theAWGKP at its 17th session [in 2012]’.Only pledges, with QELROsdeferred to 2012In addition to the weak nature ofthe operational paragraphs 3 to 5 ofthe decision that developing countrieshad raised, what currently exist areonly pledges and even then, not allAnnex I Parties have submitted those.Annex 1 to the CMP 7 decisioncontains a table that is to be the newAnnex B to the Kyoto Protocol settingout the greenhouse gas emissionsreduction targets of developed countriesand countries with economies intransition that are Parties to the Protocol.Annex B is designed to containthe quantified emission limitation orreduction objectives (QELROs) ofeach Party concerned.[The QELRO, expressed as a percentagein relation to a base yearAWGKP Chair Adrian Macey speaking with UNFCCC Executive Secretary ChristianaFigueres in Durban. After a heated debate in the AWGKP, Macey decided to transmitthe draft decision on the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period under his ownresponsibility for approval by the main plenary.(1990 for the first commitment period),denotes the average level ofemissions that an Annex B Party couldemit on an annual basis during a givencommitment period. Pledges representthe end point of a trajectory ofemissions that a Party sets itself toachieve. The transformation ofpledges into QELROs situates thepledges in the context of a commitmentperiod and related accounting ofemissions and removals under the KP.In practical terms, it involves calculatingthe average annual emissionsrelative to a base year that would fitthe emissions trajectory leading to thepledged target. Source: UNFCCCSecretariat.]The EU has inscribed its 20%emissions reduction pledge in Annex1 of the CMP decision, which is alreadylegislated as its own internallyagreed emissions reduction target. ‘Aspart of a global and comprehensiveagreement for the period beyond2012’, the EU makes ‘a conditionaloffer to move to a 30% reduction by2020 compared to 1990 levels, providedthat other developed countriescommit themselves to comparableemission reductions and developingcountries contribute adequately accordingto their responsibilities andrespective capabilities’ [footnote (g)in Annex 1 of the decision].Australia and New Zealand havenot inscribed any numbers and indicatethey are ‘prepared to consider’submitting information on theirQELROs pursuant to the CMP decision‘following the necessary domesticprocesses and taking into account’the rest of the Durban package andthe new decisions on the accountingand other rules under the KP [footnotes(a) and (l) in Annex 1 of thedecision].Whether there will be QELROsfrom all Annex I Parties by 1 May2012 (the deadline for submission) remainsto be seen.Meanwhile on 8 June 2011,Canada had notified the UNFCCCSecretariat that it did not intend toparticipate in a second commitmentperiod of the Kyoto Protocol. Thiswas followed by an announcement on12 December (the day after the Durbanconference ended) by EnvironmentMinister Peter Kent that Canadais invoking its legal right to withdrawfrom the Protocol. Kent was in Durban.(Canada is not able to meet itsfirst commitment period reductiontarget by 2012 when the period ends.)In December 2010 the RussianFederation and Japan were the first toinform the UNFCCC Secretariat thatthey did not intend to take on a secondcommitment period.Photo courtesy of IISD/Earth Negotiations BulletinTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25628

C O V E RWeak decision adoptedDespite the continued efforts bysome developing countries tostrengthen the decision during the finalformal CMP 7 plenary, the takeit-or-leave-itapproach to the adoptionof all the key decisions in Durban alsoplayed out for this one.In her opening remarks when theplenary convened in the early hoursof 11 December, COP/CMP PresidentNkoana-Mashabane reminded Partiesof the undertaking that was made onthe work of the AWGKP (referring tothe informal joint plenary of the COP17 and CMP 7 a few hours earlierwhere she urged Parties to adopt the‘Durban package’ without further debateand amendments at the formalsessions of the COP and the CMP respectively).Macey as Chair of the AWGKPreported on the work during the pastyear on other issues and said that unfortunatelythe working group was notable to agree on the text (on the secondcommitment period) which he hadpresented under his own responsibilityand based on his best assessmentof what is a balanced and achievableoutcome. He then said he was forwardingthat text to the CMP for itsconsideration.He said further that during theclosing plenary of the AWGKP Partiesindicated a number of areas wherethey would like changes made. He reviewedthese carefully, aiming to assesswhich changes could be agreedand whether these could impact on thedelicate political balance needed to beachieved.Macey said that a primary issueof concern to Parties was the lengthof the commitment period, pointing tothe options of five or eight years –2017 or 2020 – in the text. This wouldbe decided at the next session of theAWGKP in 2012.Bolivia said that in the AWGKPplenary it had supported a Party (Gambia,speaking on behalf of the leastdeveloped countries) that suggestedthe deletion or bracketing of paragraph12bis (to be added to Article 3 of theKP). This had not been done and Boliviaasked for an explanation.(Paragraph 12bis reads: ‘Anyunits generated from market-basedmechanisms to be established underthe Convention or its instruments maybe used by Parties included in AnnexI to assist them in achieving compliancewith their quantified emissionlimitation and reduction commitmentsunder Article 3. Any such units whicha Party acquires from another Partyto the Convention shall be added tothe assigned amount for the acquiringParty and subtracted from thequantity of units held by the transferringParty.’)Bolivia was not given any responseto its query.Papua New Guinea said that itwould be very comfortable workingwith Bolivia on non-market optionsand it would expect that they workwith it on market options. It was notabout vetoing one country’s ideasagainst another’s. It did not acceptdeletion.Bolivia replied that its observationon paragraph 12bis was not becauseit is linked with market mechanismsof the KP but because it makesa linkage with future market-basedmechanisms under the Convention. Itimplies the possibility – that is a question– to have those mechanisms inthe context of the AWGLCA work.They still have to consider those documentsin the context of the AWGLCA;it is written in future terms, marketbasedmechanisms that have not beendesigned yet. They have not approvedit yet. Bolivia suggested putting thatparagraph in brackets.Its request was ignored.Nicaragua (on behalf of ALBA)said the group had proposed amendmentsin both the ministerial meetingand on the floor in the AWGKP. Tohave a truly binding second commitmentperiod paragraph 4 should read‘acknowledges commitments’ ratherthan ‘takes note of intention’. Furthermoreif there are amendments to theKP, paragraph 3 that states ‘takes noteof the proposed amendments’ shouldbe ‘approves the proposed amendments’.On paragraph 1 that decides thatthe second commitment period shallbegin on 1 January 2013 and end on31 December 2017 and paragraph 5where QELROs will be decided by2012, Nicaragua said ratificationwould not be available for all Partiesbetween May 2012 and 1 January2013. This would open up the issueof a gap. So it had requested anamendment to eliminate the gap becausethere was a consensus of allconcerned to avoid a gap.It was also concerned over thepreambular paragraph about notingthe importance of developing a comprehensiveglobal response to climatechange – it saw this as contradictoryto Article 10 (of the KP, on commonbut differentiated responsibilities). Itadded that language needs to be introducedto reinforce that CBDR isnot being abandoned under any circumstancesnor should this be interpretedas leading to merging bothtracks (KP and LCA) or erasing everythingfrom the blackboard and startingagain. So instead of ‘global response’,there should be language toreflect CBDR.Nicaragua stressed it was disconcertedthat after the two presentations(at the ministerial meeting andAWGKP) not one of ALBA’s proposedchanges had been introducedinto the text. Nor was it given any explanationwhy they were not. So itraised once again, for the third time,the serious concerns it had. The purposewas to get to an agreement, butunder conditions that could be acceptedby all.The EU said it was a little bit surprisedby this discussion because inthe light of the package that had beenadopted why were they spending somuch time on this? It said it could alsomake a little change ‘dear to our heart’on paragraph 12ter to delete ‘If theseunits are acquired under Art 17’. Itwas happy to take that back if they allstuck to the package that had just beenapproved a few moments ago.At this point the COP Presidentsaid she thought questions were askedfor clarity which she was going to giveto the AWGKP Chair to quickly respondto. ‘We’ve spent hours on thisin the joint informal plenary on thepackage. If you are to open one sideof the package we are inviting otherTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25629

C O V E RThe venue of the 1997 talks in Kyoto, Japan which resulted in the eponymously titledProtocol. After Durban, many developing countries are concerned that there is stillno legally binding second commitment period as envisaged under the Protocol.delegations to go back to open – andwe start tit for tat and then back tochicken and egg and then we will getourselves back to where we started,which will not be correct,’ she said.Macey said that in the course ofthe last few days and most recently atthe plenary of the AWGKP, Partieswould be very well aware of the majorconcerns of Parties on parts of thetext. It is a difficult process to reachconsensus here. He reiterated that hedid review very carefully all proposalsand suggestions heard at the(AWGKP) plenary and he needed toassess if any of the changes could beagreed and whether this could disturbthe very delicate political balance thathad been achieved. He reiterated thatthe text before the CMP was his assessmentof where consensus couldbe found.The President then continued toread the other elements of the decision(on matters related to emissionstrading, greenhouse gas inventoriesetc) and proposed that these decisionsbe a part of the comprehensive Durbanoutcome.She gavelled, and in the midst ofapplause Bolivia asked to speak.Bolivia said it asked for the floorand waited respectfully for the Presidentto finish. It was referring to thedocument to make observations andsuddenly it was approved. As Partiesthey had the right to make observations.It did not want to be an obstacleto that but it had the right to presentobservations. It wanted an outcome.It asked for registration of the fact thatit did not agree with paragaphs 3 and12bis of the document that had beenapproved. ‘We are a Party and we askyou please to respect our opinion.’Nkoana-Mashabane told Boliviaits request would be noted and immediatelyproceeded to resume the COP17 session to adopt COP decisions.(The COP was convened right afterthe CMP but done in such a hurriedfashion, without first acknowledgingthose who still wanted to speak, thatthere was confusion over the formalitiesof the two legally distinctplenaries.)The Secretariat at this point drewher attention to Nicaragua that hadalso asked to speak.Nicaragua said it also had askedfor the floor previously. It clarifiedthat the ALBA group had made itsproposal twice, once in the ministerialmeeting and the second time inthe AWGKP meeting. Therefore itwould expect that if the (Chair of theworking group) had his observation,(Parties) could receive an explanationfor why the Chair was not in agreementrather than having a wholesaleelimination of all the proposals. Thiswas essential so that the approval bythe (Parties) could be done with fullinformation and queries, preoccupationsand concerns could be addressedin a spirit of frank, open and fraternaldialogue looking at producing a realconsensus and not an apparent consensus.It said that when its concerns herehad not been clarified – it had had nodialogue on them – this even becamea matter of whether the consultationprocesses were real when somethingwas presented two times but was ignored.‘It does not mean every recommendationis going to be approved.Quite obviously, you win some andyou lose some. But to lose them all,and you do not get any explanation,really does not seem to be appropriate.’As for the package that the EUmentioned, Nicaragua said that not allof them were in on the package.‘There are not two classes of sovereignstates here – those in the packageand those outside. Our opinionsare just as worthy in international lawand just as worthy in reaching thesedecisions as those inside the package.’Nicaragua said that the AWGKPChair did not have to waste time andcould dialogue with it on its proposals.They could do so in the spirit ofimproving and fortifying the documentas well as addressing concerns.Nkoana-Mashabane said shewould allow the AWGKP Chair to dialoguewith Nicaragua and went on tosay, ‘With your permission I ask thatwe continue, and I thank you for yourcontribution and your understanding.’Japan then said that it is in a positionto follow the consensus butwanted to make sure it is not in a positionto submit its QELRO and willsend a letter to the Secretary to makesure its position is respected (i.e. itwill not take part in the second commitmentperiod).With that the CMP 7 plenary wasended.ÿuChee Yoke Ling is Director of Programmes at theThird World Network.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25630

C O V E RA flagrant violation of practice andprocedureAt Durban, the Chair of the working group tasked with the ‘effective and sustainedimplementation of the [UN Climate Change] Convention through long-termcooperative action’ blatantly disregarded proper procedures and the strongconcerns of many developing countries in presenting his report of his group’sMeena Ramandeliberations.DESPITE strong concerns raised bymany developing countries over thelack of balance in the report of the outcomeof the work of the Ad HocWorking Group on Long-term CooperativeAction (AWGLCA) under theUNFCCC, the Chair of the workinggroup, in an unprecedented move,transmitted the report to the Conferenceof the Parties (COP) under hisown authority.Late in the morning of 10 December(as the Durban climate talks wereextended beyond 9 December), theChair of the AWGLCA, DanielReifsnyder of the United States, madeavailable to Parties his draft conclusionson the outcome of the work ofthe Working Group, which comprised56 pages including annexes.When the AWGLCA met for itsfinal plenary session late evening thesame day, Reifsnyder formally presentedthe document to the Parties (referredto as document L4). He alsopresented another document reflectingthe work undertaken in the informalgroups as a note by him (referredto as Conference Room Paper – CRP39), which he said was to carry forwardideas and proposals in areas inwhich continued discussions are envisagednext year.Many concerns raised especiallyby developing countries during thefinal session of the AWGLCA werebrushed aside with the unusual procedureof transmitting the outcomedocument to the COP under the authorityof the Chair despite it not enjoyingany consensus from theChair Daniel Reifsnyder (centre) presides over a meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Groupon Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWGLCA) in Durban.Reifsnyder forwarded the draft report on the outcome of the AWGLCA’s work to theConference of the Parties under his own authority, despite strong concerns raisedby many developing countries.UNFCCC Parties.Several developing countriesraised concerns over many specificissues and the lack of balance in thetext, especially in relation to mitigationactions of developed and developingcountries, with the breakingdown of the firewall between them,and the absence of the recognition ofhistorical responsibility and the principleof common but differentiatedresponsibilities (CBDR).Many countries were unhappythat there was no expression of thelevel of mitigation ambition neededby developed countries and there wasno provision for the comparability ofefforts between the Kyoto Protocol(KP) Parties and the non-KP Parties(the US in particular). Some expresseddeep concern that a flexiblemitigation regime for developedcountries was being set up in place ofthe KP, and that it did not have anycompliance regime or common accountingframework.The US was opposed to any attemptin Durban to have any processto review its pledge or on how to raisethe ambition level of greenhouse gasemissions reduction. It also did notwant a common accounting frameworkor a compliance regime, whichwas called for by many developingcountries and the European Union.There were concerns also overlong-term finance, where there was noclarity on how the $100 billion peryear by 2020 as agreed to in Cancunwas going to be mobilised or on aroadmap for that to be put in place toensure predictable and sustainable financialresources to developing countries.Some developing countrieswanted the AWGLCA document to beworked on further to ‘restore the balance’and proposed that this be donenext year. They were not ready to supportthe adoption of the outcomedocument in Durban.The life of the AWGLCA wasextended for another year through adecision by Parties in the ‘DurbanPlatform’ document which reads asfollows:‘Decides to extend the Ad HocWorking Group on Long-term CooperativeAction under the Conventionfor one year in order for it to continueits work and reach the agreed outcomepursuant to decision 1/CP.13 (BaliPhoto courtesy of IISD/EarthNegotiations BulletinTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25631

C O V E RAction Plan) through decisionsadopted by the sixteenth, seventeenthand eighteenth sessions of the Conferenceof the Parties, at which timethe Ad Hoc Working Group on LongtermCooperative Action under theConvention shall be terminated.’The request to carry on furtherwork on the L4 document next yearwas, however, ignored by the Chair,who proceeded to transmit the documentto the COP under his own authority.There was deep frustrationamong many delegations. The Venezuelanclimate envoy ClaudiaSalerno had to stand on the chair withher country’s name plate to draw theattention of the AWGLCA Chair afterhe had gavelled the adoption of thereport of the meeting.Salerno said that the AWGLCAdocument had serious deficiencies.Yet, it was being transmitted to theCOP. She disclosed that there hadbeen threats that if Venezuela did notagree to the adoption of the text, therewould be no second commitment periodunder the Kyoto Protocol and themultilateral system would not be preserved.The Chair just ignored Venezuela’sprotest and adjourned the meeting.At the formal session of the COPplenary, Reifsnyder informed theCOP that Parties were not able toreach consensus. The text, he said,was rich and comprehensive and harvestedimportant progress. He hopedthat it could be adopted by the COPas part of the comprehensive Durbanpackage. The document was eventuallyadopted as part of the Durbanpackage.Institutional boost for climate change adaptation actionsChee Yoke LingALTHOUGH more political and mediaattention has been given to themitigation debate in the UN climatenegotiations, adaptation to the adverseeffects of climate change is equally, ifnot even more, crucial for countriesthat are already suffering from theimpacts of climate change. This isparticularly so for developing countries– from small island states and leastdeveloped countries to countries withhuge populations living in low-lyingcoastal areas and landlockedmountain states. No one is immune,with the poor and vulnerable sufferingdisproportionately.In the past few years, adaptationhas risen in priority in theimplementation of the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. Thereis recognition that adaptation is vital inorder to reduce the impacts of climatechange which are happening now andincrease resilience to future impacts,and that there is an urgent need for anintegrated policy response to theclimate change and developmentchallenge. Under the Conventiondeveloping countries are promisedfunding, insurance and technologytransfer, and scientific/technicalsupport to undertake adaptationactions.The 2010 Cancun decision 1/CP.16 on the Outcome of the Ad HocWorking Group on Long-termCooperative Action under theConvention (AWGLCA), in Part I on ‘Ashared vision for long-term cooperativeaction’, affirmed that ‘Adaptation mustbe addressed with the same priority asmitigation and requires appropriateinstitutional arrangements to enhanceadaptation action and support’.The Cancun Adaptation Frameworkand the Adaptation Committee wereestablished in 2010. The Framework isto enable sharing of knowledge andlessons learned from adaptation, and fordeveloping countries to develop andimplement adaptation measuressupported through scaled-up financialsupport, technology and capacitybuilding.The details of the Frameworkcontinue to be worked out through theAWGLCA negotiations. The Committeeis to promote the implementation ofenhanced action on adaptation in acoherent manner under the Convention,as provided for by the Framework.The discussion on adaptation inDurban concluded with some importantsteps towards increasing the profile ofthe work on adaptation, includingthrough the implementation of elementsagreed under the Adaptation Framework.Developing countries pushed fora focus on implementation of adaptationunder the Convention, moving awayfrom research and assessment ofvulnerabilities and impacts. Four decisionswere adopted by the COP as outcomesof the AWGLCA, the SubsidiaryBody for Implementation (SBI) and theSubsidiary Body for Scientific and TechnologicalAdvice (SBSTA), as well as theoperationalisation of the least developedcountry process for the formulation andimplementation of national adaptationplans.The decision on ‘Enhanced actionon adaptation’ in Part III of the AWGLCAoutcome document, which largely focusedon the operationalisation of theAdaptation Committee, was significant.It affirms the Committee as theoverall advisory body to the Conferenceof the Parties (COP) on adaptation tothe adverse effects of climate change,and decided that it shall operate underthe authority of, and be accountable to,the Conference of the Parties, whichshould decide on its policies in line withrelevant decisions.It decided that the Committeeshould make use of the followingmodalities in exercising its functions:workshops and meetings; expertgroups; compilation, review, synthesis,analysis reports of information,knowledge, experience and goodpractice; channels for sharinginformation, knowledge and expertise;coordination and linkages with allrelevant bodies, programmes,institutions and networks, within andoutside the Convention.The Committee during its first yearshall develop a three-year work plan,which should include milestones,activities, deliverables and resourcerequirements, as well as initiate someof the indicative activities listed in AnnexV to the Durban decision.The Committee is requested toengage and develop linkages throughthe COP with all adaptation-related workprogrammes, bodies and institutionsTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25632

C O V E R(The package comprises four decisionson: (i) the second commitmentperiod for emissions reductions byAnnex I Parties under the KP; (ii) thework of the AWGLCA; (iii) the GreenClimate Fund; and (iv) a new ad hocworking group on the Durban Platformfor Enhanced Action.)When the AWGLCA documentwas first presented to Parties, manyconcerns were raised.Saudi Arabia expressed its concernsin a number of areas. The textputs more emphasis on the mitigationelements for developing countries andweakens those for developed countries.For example, on the modalitieson international assessment and review(IAR) of developed countries,the need for unified accounting rulesis no longer in the text. (Several countries,both developed and developing,had called for common accountingrules for developed-country mitigationbut the US was opposed to this.)In the case of biennial update reports(BURs) for developing countries,the mandate from the (2010)Cancun decision was for such reportsto be submitted consistent with theircapabilities and the level of supportprovided for reporting [paragraph60(c) of the Cancun decision] but thelanguage in paragraph 41(f) of theAWGLCA document (L4) does notreflect that.[Paragraph 41(f) states: ‘Thatnon-Annex I (developing country)Parties shall submit a biennial updatereport every two years, either as asummary of parts of their nationalcommunications…’]Saudi Arabia said that there is nolink to the capabilities and nationalcircumstances (of developing coun-under the Convention, including theLeast Developed Countries ExpertGroup, the Consultative Group ofExperts on National Communicationsfrom developing-country Parties, theTechnology Executive Committee, theNairobi work programme on impacts,vulnerability and adaptation to climatechange, the work programme on lossand damage and the operating entitiesof the financial mechanism of theConvention, as appropriate.It is also requested to engage with,and draw on the expertise of, relevantinstitutions, organisations, frameworks,networks and centres outside of theConvention, including those at theintergovernmental, regional, nationaland, through them, sub-national levels,where appropriate.The Committee shall comprise 16members, who shall serve in theirpersonal capacity, and will be nominatedby Parties in their respective groups orconstituencies and elected by the COP,with the aim of achieving a fair, equitableand balanced representation as follows:(a) Two members from each of the fiveUnited Nations regional groups;(b) One member from a small islanddeveloping state;(c) One member from a leastdeveloped country Party;(d) Two members from Partiesincluded in Annex I to theConvention (developed countriesand countries with economies intransition);(e)Two members from Parties notincluded in Annex I to theConvention (developing countries).They shall serve for a term of twoyears and shall be eligible to serve amaximum of two consecutive terms ofoffice subject to prescribed rules.Parties are encouraged tonominate experts to the AdaptationCommittee with a diversity of experienceand knowledge relevant to adaptationto climate change, while also taking intoaccount the need to achieve genderbalance.The Committee can seek input fromintergovernmental, international,regional, national and sub-nationalorganisations, centres and networks,the private sector and civil society, inundertaking its work, and invite advisersdrawn from them to participate in itsmeetings as expert advisers on specificissues as they arise.The meetings of the Committeeshall be open to attendance byaccredited observer organisations,except where otherwise decided by theCommittee, with a view to encouraginga balanced representation of observersfrom developed- and developingcountryParties.The first meeting of the Committeewill be in 2012, expected to be in theearlier part of the year. The COP willreview the progress and performanceof the Committee in 2016.The work programme onapproaches to address loss anddamage associated with climatechange impacts in developingcountries that are particularlyvulnerable to the adverse effects ofclimate change was mandated inCancun. In Durban the SBIconcentrated the work on developingthe substance under each of the agreedthemes and provided questions to helpframe the workshops that will providesubstance to the discussions for adecision for the future of the workprogramme. Recommendations fromthe SBI will be submitted for the 2012COP to adopt.The Cancun conferenceestablished a process to enableleast developed country Parties toformulate and implement nationaladaptation plans as a means toidentify medium- and long-termadaptation needs and develop andimplement strategies andprogrammes to address those needs.Work on this also continued inDurban.Discussion on the Nairobi workprogramme on impacts,vulnerability and adaptation toclimate change had been mandatedto conclude in Cancun, and this wasextended for a year. In Durbandeveloping countries made strongcalls for improvements. The SBI andSBSTA also held an in-sessionworkshop to consider the outcomesof the work programme, to highlightthe scientific, technical and socioeconomicaspects of impacts,vulnerability and adaptation to climatechange. Under the Durban COPdecision, the SBSTA will reconsiderthe work areas concerned and makerecommendations to the COP in 2013on how to best support the objectivesof the work programme. Parties to theConvention and relevantorganisations are invited to submit tothe Secretariat, by 17 September2012, their views on potential futureareas of work of the Nairobi workprogramme.Other decisions in Durban relatedto technology, finance and capacitybuildingalso cover some aspects ofadaptation activities. uTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25633

C O V E Rtries), nor is there any referenceto the level of financialsupport.It did not see the Chairgiving the same treatmenton issues in trying to becomemore ambitious, referringto the issue of ‘economicand social consequencesof response measures’.In the Cancun decision,Parties agreed to striveto implement policies andmeasures to respond to climatechange in such a wayas to avoid negative socialand economic consequences.The language inthe document now urges Parties togive full consideration to the positiveand negative impacts of the implementationof response measures,which is a downgrading of the Cancundecision. It also attempts to put togethersome considerations of otherissues which go beyond the scope ofthe AWGLCA.On finance, Saudi Arabia askedhow the Standing Committee underthe COP could be just an advisorygroup. On long-term finance, in relationto mobilising climate finance, theAWGLCA document (in paragraph125) refers to assessment criteria in‘the report on mobilising climate financefor the G20’. This (referring tothe UNFCCC) is not a G20 forum.Saudi Arabia said there weremany examples apart from these concernsthat showed that more work wasneeded on the document as it was presentedfor the first time in the morning(of 10 December). It reiterated theneed for further work on the documentbefore it could be adopted and wasflexible on the process on how to dealwith concerns raised.Malaysia said that the approachadvanced by the Chair was to deferall issues in the CRP 39 document tonext year as these issues were controversialwith divergent views, whichdeveloped countries and some developingcountries were opposed to.These related to issues such as intellectualproperty rights, unilateral trademeasures and equity in the shared visiondocument. However, in theVenezuelan climate envoy Claudia Salerno (pic) protested thatthe AWGLCA outcome document had serious deficiencies,yet was being transmitted to the COP.AWGLCA L4 document, in caseswhere developing countries hadstrong views, their proposals had beenignored especially in relation to themitigation of developed countries, cooperativesectoral approaches, variousapproaches including opportunitiesfor using markets, and economic andsocial consequences of responsemeasures.The texts in relation to these aspectsreflected the proposals of developedcountries and did not reflect thepositions of several developing countries.In the case of mitigation by developedcountries, there are no numberson the need for the aggregateemission reductions target for AnnexI (developed country) Parties as calledfor by some developing countries.This is a problem as the ambition levelof the Annex I Parties is completelymissing. There is only a reference inthe preambular section ‘acknowledgingthat there is a gap between theaggregate level of reduction to beachieved through global mitigationefforts and the reduction needed.’Hence, the attempt here is to avoidany Annex I aggregate number but tomake it a responsibility of all Parties(including developing countries) tomeet the mitigation gap.The issue of comparability of effortsneeded among developed countries,between those which are KP Partiesand those which are not, whichwas in paragraph 1(b)(i) of the BaliAction Plan (mandate for theAWGLCA), is really missing, withPhoto courtesy of IISD/Earth Negotiations Bulletinonly a weak mention in thepreamble about recalling inrelation to the comparabilityof mitigation efforts. Withregard to the compliance ofdeveloped countries, there isreference in the IAR sectionbut it is very weak as it saysthat ‘… any revision of themodalities and proceduresfor IAR and review shouldtake into account any futureagreement on a complianceregime for mitigation targets…’This really underminesthe existing KP compliancesystem and puts inplace a much weaker regimewhich is to be negotiated in a futureagreement. This is completely unacceptableand allows for a weak mitigationregime for Annex I Parties andprovides for the ‘great escape’ fromthe KP.Malaysia said that to make mattersworse, the text has in effect madea decision for new market-basedmechanisms under ‘various approaches’when this was an issue ofcontroversy. Instead of this issue beingdeferred for consideration to nextyear in the absence of agreement inthe informal group, the text calls fornew market mechanisms.Further, on the issue of cooperativesectoral approaches, Malaysiawas concerned that the proposals ofdeveloped countries have been takenon board while concerns of developingcountries have not been reflected.In the circumstances, Malaysiacould not accept the L4 document asa balanced text and wanted the documentnot to be adopted but to be transmittedfor further work under theAWGLCA next year, along with CRP39.The Democratic Republic ofCongo, speaking for the AfricanGroup, was concerned that on mitigationof developed countries, Partieswere merely noting and clarifyingpledges, with no clear process for raisingambition or ensuring comparabilityof efforts. The decision should gobeyond merely urging countries to domore. This view is held by many includingfor those Annex I Parties un-THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25634

C O V E Rder the Kyoto Protocol. There was anapparent lack of balanced text on themitigation of developed countries andthat of developing countries. Whenreading the text, one wonders if it isfor developed countries or developingcountries and it does not reflectthe principle of CBDR.On long-term finance, there is noclear level of commitment for financingwhen the so-called fast start financeends (in 2012). The text hadstrong obligations for developingcountries without similar appropriateprovisions for developed-countrymitigation. The text does not reflectthat balance as contained in the Convention.Thailand also raised concernsover the mitigation chapter and saidthat there was no number for the aggregateemission reductions by developedcountries and the ambition levelwas missing. There was no strong texton the need for comparability of effortsamong developed countrieswhich were Parties to the KP andthose which were not. It was unhappythat a strong compliance regime wasabsent and found the document unacceptableand called for further workat the next session of the AWGLCA.The Philippines said it had difficultieswith the output of work. Therewas grave imbalance in the text inrelation to adaptation. Adaptation hasbeen regarded a poor cousin of mitigation.Securing resources for adaptationappeared to be a distant reality.It said there was opposition to linkingadaptation to finance. This was aprocess of give and take but developingcountries have been giving andgiving. On the issue of long-term finance,the language is very weak inrelation to the scaling up of resources.India said it shared the concernsraised by developing countries. Twoissues of concern for India were onagricultural emissions and trade. Itsaid that detailed discussions tookplace on views within the scope ofmitigation in agriculture as this sectorinvolved the livelihood of millionsof people in terms of employment andwas not merely an issue of CBDR.The agriculture sector still dependedon monsoons and was vulnerable toclimate change and was excludedfrom India’s mitigation targets. Theagriculture issue in the document wasnot mature enough to receive a directionfor a decision at COP 18 (in2012). It wanted this excluded fromthe text.On the issue of trade, India saidthat this was left out of the section on‘economic and social consequences ofresponse measures’ when there werethree options from developing countries,with one option having the supportof about 80 countries. This issuewas fundamental and further workneeds to take place next year as containedin the CRP 39 document forelaboration.The AWGLCA Chair confirmedthat this issue was still on the tableand will be forwarded for further worknext year.Pakistan said while there wasgood work done, progress had notbeen made to complete the work (ofthe AWGLCA). As regards the AdaptationCommittee, it said that theCommittee should have been giventhe right status as a subsidiary bodyof the Convention with more prominence.It expressed sadness that therewas no consensus in this regard.On the Standing Committee onfinance, it said the Committee shouldhave had a strong oversight mandate.On long-term finance, it was sad thatParties were not able to achieve anythingas there was a need for a commonunderstanding on how to scaleup adequate and predictable resources.On mitigation, the document wasdefinitely skewed heavily against developingcountries and blurred the distinctionbetween developed- and developing-countryobligations. Therewas a need to insert the notion of nationalcircumstances in relation to thesubmission of BURs and there wasno link to finance. Pakistan said thatit was at a loss on how the processwas going to unfold and would liketo see a way to work further.Venezuela said that the processhad downgraded the level of ambitionin relation to mitigation and the textwas seriously imbalanced. It did notsee how the clarification and understandingof the emission reductionpledges of developed countries willserve to improve the trust and confidencein Parties when there is no realambition in the mitigation targets. Thedelicate balance between the mitigationof developed and developingcountries was crossed when the principleof CBDR was taken out of thetext. There has been a redistributionof responsibilities and the commitmentsof developing countries arehigher than those asked of developedcountries. The world appeared upsidedownand this was not acceptable.On ‘market mechanisms’, therewas reference in the text to ‘buildingupon the existing flexibility mechanismsestablished under the KP’ andVenezuela was concerned if therewould indeed be a second commitmentperiod under the KP. It did notwant a link between the use of marketsand the undertaking of mitigationactions.Venezuela was concerned thatonce again, Parties were in a take-itor-leave-itsituation as regards thetext, which was given in the morning.There was frustration and fatigueand Parties did not have to accept anythingjust because it was late and peoplewere tired. This (L4) documentwas not ambitious enough and therewas a need to address what the planetneeds. It could not accept a documentthat suits just one country (in an apparentreference to the US for notwanting the level of ambition in mitigationfor developed countries to bein the text).Referring to the Durban package,where Parties could potentially losethe KP due to a lack of ambition, itdid not believe that the documentcould be taken seriously as the basisof a future legally binding regime withpledges, flexibilities and marketmechanisms to serve a few. It wantedthe Chair to tell Parties how to moveresponsibly to resolve the issues.Egypt also had concerns overlong-term finance as there was a needfor predictable and sustainable supportto enable developing countries toundertake mitigation and adaptationactions. The deal was not done interms of long-term finance and thereTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25635

C O V E Rwas a need for further elaboration onthe needs of developing countries andon the sources of finance. The BaliAction Plan work was not complete.Gambia, speaking for the leastdeveloped countries (LDCs), said adecision on long-term finance was notreflected in the text. However, it wasprepared for the Durban package tobe adopted.China shared the concerns raisedby other developing countries. It saidthat the work of the AWGLCA wasnot expressed in a balanced manner,especially on the mitigation commitmentsof developed countries as comparedto developing countries. Thereis no reflection of historical responsibilityand the level of mitigation targetsneeded. On long-term finance, itwas also concerned that there is noclear vision and provision for how the$100 billion per year by 2020 is goingto be achieved as agreed to inCancun. No means have been providedin the text to do this. This questionneeds further discussion.Saying that this was not the lastmeeting of the AWGLCA, Chinaadded that Parties will need to continueto make efforts to reach the outcomeof expectations under the BaliRoadmap (the Bali Action Plan andthe determination of the second commitmentperiod under the KP). Theimportant questions concern the nextsteps and how to make the arrangements.China asked the Chair to makeclear recommendations to the COP onthe need for clear arrangements for thework of the AWGLCA since this hasnot been made clear and many issuesunder the Bali Roadmap need solutions.On the (L4) document, Chinasaid that concerns had been expressedand there was a need to decide howto handle this. It asked how the documentwas going to be submitted to theCOP when it did not fulfil the expectationsof Parties and was far frombeing comprehensive and balanced.Bolivia also expressed concernsover the lack of balance in the text, asthe responsibility of undertaking mitigationefforts was falling on the shouldersof developing countries. As somecountries were withdrawing fromtheir commitments under the secondcommitment period of the KP, a weak‘REDD-plus’ decision further shapes actions on forestsChee Yoke Ling‘REDUCING emissions from deforestationin developing countries and approachesto stimulate action’ was first introducedinto the agenda of the Conference of theParties (COP) to the UNFCCC in 2005.There was increased interest in this as anarea for mitigation actions when theIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange alerted the world in 2007 to thehuge emissions from deforestation.After two years of negotiations, theCOP adopted a decision on ‘Reducingemissions from deforestation indeveloping countries: approaches tostimulate action’ in 2007 in Bali, Indonesia.In 2008, a work programme was initiatedon methodological issues related to arange of policy approaches and positiveincentives that reduce emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation(REDD) in developing countries. In 2008and 2009, this topic was expanded toinclude the role of conservation,sustainable management of forests, andenhancement of forest carbon stocks indeveloping countries (REDD-plus) andincluded in the negotiations of the Ad HocWorking Group on Long-term CooperativeAction under the UNFCCC (AWGLCA)mandated to work on the Bali Action Plan(adopted under a separate COP decisionin 2007).Ever since forests and their link toemissions/mitigation actions entered theclimate negotiations and pilot projects wereimplemented in some developing countries,there has been controversy and debate.There are concerns that this could open upanother channel for ‘commodification’ offorests and further violate the rights ofindigenous peoples and local communitiesover those forests. There are also otherswho see merit in addressing the forestclimatelinkages, and say this must be donewith environmental integrity andimplementation of safeguards thatguarantee the rights of indigenous peoplesand local communities.While debate took place outside thenegotiation process, there were alsodivisions and debate inside. Bolivia stoodout as a country with the most reservationsabout commodification of forests. A groupof developing and developed countries, withactive advocacy from the InternationalIndigenous Peoples’ Forum on ClimateChange (IIPFCC), worked to ensure thatthere are safeguards integrated in anyREDD-plus decision. All agree that theremust be environmental integrity inimplementing any action.In Cancun in 2010, a REDD-plusdecision was adopted (1/CP.16) that sets outthe principles and provisions for actions. Thedecision affirms that adequate andpredictable support should be given todeveloping countries so that all Parties can‘collectively aim to slow, halt and reverseforest cover and carbon loss, in accordancewith national circumstances’. Paragraph 70‘encourages developing country Parties tocontribute to mitigation actions in the forestsector by undertaking the following activities,as deemed appropriate by each Party andin accordance with their respectivecapabilities and national circumstances: (a)Reducing emissions from deforestation; (b)Reducing emissions from forestdegradation; (c) Conservation of forestcarbon stocks; (d) Sustainable managementof forests; (e) Enhancement of forest carbonstocks’.Appendix 1 para. 2 contains the list ofagreed safeguards when the above activitiesare undertaken:‘(a) That actions complement or areconsistent with the objectives of nationalforest programmes and relevantinternational conventions and agreements;(b) Transparent and effective nationalforest governance structures, taking intoaccount national legislation and sovereignty;(c) Respect for the knowledge andrights of indigenous peoples and membersof local communities, by taking into accountrelevant international obligations, nationalcircumstances and laws, and noting that theUnited Nations General Assembly hasadopted the United Nations Declaration onthe Rights of Indigenous Peoples;(d) The full and effective participationof relevant stakeholders, in particularindigenous peoples and local communities,in the actions referred to in paragraphs 70THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25636

C O V E Rand flexible regime was being put inplace with no compliance regime. Thepledges of Parties were not yet commitmentsand were unfair to those AnnexI Parties which remained in theKP and which were upholding the instrumentsand the KP systems.It expressed regret that the obligationsof developing countries to dotheir national communications (reportingevery four years), the BURsand participation in the registry wereall expected with their own resources.Bolivia said the principle ofCBDR was not expressed in the text.It was also concerned that the text wasopening the door to market mechanismswhen further analysis was requiredon the impacts of such mechanisms.It said that the document wasNicaragua advanced the idea ofthe use of Special Drawing Rights(SDRs) for climate finance. It said thatin 2009, the G20 proposed the issuanceof $250 billion in SDRs of which$100 billion was for developed countries.The International MonetaryFund was responsible for the issuanceand this was done at great speed. Ifsuch resources could be used to savethe banking system, it asked why thiswas not possible to save MotherEarth.Ecuador said that on long-termfinance, it had made a proposal on theissuance of Special Drawing Rights.It also had proposed financial transactiontaxes as well as taxes on importsof oil which could provide thesources for financing. It expressed reand72 of this decision;(e) That actions are consistent with theconservation of natural forests and biologicaldiversity, ensuring that the actions referredto in paragraph 70 of this decision are notused for the conversion of natural forests,but are instead used to incentivise theprotection and conservation of naturalforests and their ecosystem services, andto enhance other social and environmentalbenefits; [A footnote to this provision reads:‘Taking into account the need for sustainablelivelihoods of indigenous peoples and localcommunities and their interdependence onforests in most countries, reflected in theUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, as well as theInternational Mother Earth Day.’](f) Actions to address the risks ofreversals;(g) Actions to reduce displacement ofemissions.’Follow-up work was assigned to theSubsidiary Body for Scientific andTechnological Advice (SBSTA) that servesthe UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol.Two REDD-plus decisions wereadopted in Durban. The first was on‘guidance on systems for providinginformation on how safeguards areaddressed and respected and modalitiesrelating to forest reference emission levelsand forest reference levels as referred to indecision 1/CP.16, appendix I’. This was theresult of the work of the SBSTA.The second was contained in the COPdecision on the Outcome of the AWGLCA,under Part II on ‘Enhanced action onmitigation’.not balanced and could not be adoptedas it was but could be part of the discussionsnext year. Bolivia wanted itsconcerns recorded.Nicaragua said that theAWGLCA document on long-termfinance was all about undertaking furtherstudies on options for the mobilisationof resources. There was noroadmap for the mobilisation of the$100 billion per year by 2020. It saidthat some Parties were proposing noresources during this decade. TheGreen Climate Fund had been createdbut it was a Fund with no funds. Therewas no definition on the sources offinance and Nicaragua was concernedabout references to the G20 report onmobilising finance when that was anad hoc forum.In the run-up to Durban the key pointsdebated had been: (1) diversity of sourcesfor REDD-plus finance, (2) the definition andscope of results-based activities andactions, and (3) the linkage with the GreenClimate Fund.In the October 2011 session of theAWGLCA in Panama, the last before theDurban conference, Parties agreed thatthere should be a diversity of sources offunding for REDD-plus activities, includingpublic and private finance, with mostdeveloping countries stressing public sectorfunding to be the major source of fundingand private sector funding beingcomplementary. Several developedcountries such as Japan saw the privatesector and the market as the main sourceof funding for the full implementation ofREDD-plus activities.It was agreed in Durban that ‘resultsbasedfinance provided to developingcountry Parties that is new, additional andpredictable may come from a wide varietyof sources, public and private, bilateral andmultilateral, including alternative sources’(para. 65 of the AWGLCA decision).In para. 66 the COP ‘considers that,in the light of the experience gained fromcurrent and future demonstration activities,appropriate market-based approachescould be developed by the Conference ofthe Parties to support results-based actionsby developing country Parties … ensuringthat environmental integrity is preserved’,and the guidance and safeguards in theCancun decision are fully respected andshould be consistent with relevant provisionsof relevant COP decisions.The decision also ‘notes that nonmarket-basedapproaches, such as jointmitigation and adaptation approaches forthe integral and sustainable managementof forests as a non-market alternative thatsupports and strengthens governance,the application of safeguards as referredto in [the Cancun decision] and themultiple functions of forests, could bedeveloped’.There is no reference to the GreenClimate Fund and the decision onlyencourages the operating entities of thefinancial mechanism of the Convention toprovide results-based finance for theactions concerned (the GlobalEnvironment Facility is the currentoperating entity).The decision does not have thespecific term ‘indigenous peoples’.However, there are clear references to theparagraphs on safeguards contained inAppendix 1 of the Cancun decision thatconcern indigenous peoples, including theUN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.The AWGLCA and the SBSTA of theUNFCCC will continue to work on thedetails of the decisions from Cancun andDurban. Parties and accredited observerscan submit to the UNFCCC secretariat,by 5 March 2012, their views on modalitiesand procedures for financing resultsbasedactions and considering activitiesrelated to the Cancun decision 1/CP.16,paragraphs 68-70 and 72. The secretariatis to prepare a technical paper based onthese submissions and these will beinputs to a workshop to be held in 2012.uTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25637

C O V E RMoving forward half-clearly on theTechnology MechanismElpidio V PeriaTHE technology transfer discussionsin the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change(UNFCCC) in Durban under the AdHoc Working Group on Long-term CooperativeAction (AWGLCA) may havebeen the least reported of all the topicsand may not have gotten the attentionof international media and activists.However, government negotiatorsslogged through the entire twoweekduration of the Conference of theParties (COP) to come up with a cleardecision on the various pending issuesabout technology development andtransfer, all aimed at making the TechnologyMechanism fully operational in2012.The Technology Mechanism isthe institutional entity created by lastyear’s climate talks in Cancun, Mexico,meant to address the lack of complianceby developed-country Partieswith their obligations to undertaketechnology development and transferof environmentally-sound technologiesunder the Convention. This wasthe result of years of persistent demandswith various proposals by developingcountries to implement a crucialpart of the Convention.The Mechanism is composed oftwo entities, a policy-making bodycalled the Technology Executive Committee(TEC) and the Climate TechnologyCentre and Network (CTC&N),which, though it exists only on paperuntil it is hosted by a pre-existing organisation,will get to implement actualtransfer of technologies, but to becarried out by such host organisationthat will perform its functions as mandatedby the COP.Paragraph 128 of Decision 1/CP.16 from Cancun had mandatedthat the COP in Durban resolve thefollowing:a) the relationship between theTEC and the CTC&N and their reportinglines;b) the governance structure andterms of reference for the CTC&N andhow the Centre will relate to the Network,drawing upon the results of aworkshop authorised by the Cancundecision;c) the procedure for calls for proposalsand the criteria to be used toevaluate and select the host of theCTC&N;d) the potential links between theTechnology Mechanism and the financialmechanism of the Convention; ande) consideration of additional functionsfor the TEC and CTC&N.Durban outcomesThe technology negotiation groupof the AWGLCA in Durban did not comeup with a clear articulation of the relationshipbetween the TEC and theCTC&N.The governance structure agreedupon for the CTC&N is an advisory body,the details of which are to be decided inthe next meeting of the Subsidiary Bodyfor Implementation, one of two permanentbodies of the UNFCCC and itsKyoto Protocol.The selection process for the hostof the CTC&N is that the TEC will nominatefrom within itself the six-personpanel who will do the initial technicalevaluation of the proposals and rankingof the bidders who want to be the host.The shortlist ranking of the bids will besubmitted to the Subsidiary Body forImplementation who in turn will agreeon a ranked list of up to three proponentsbased on the outcome of the assessmentconducted by the evaluationpanel and recommend the host of theCTC&N for approval by the COP at its18th session in Doha, Qatar in 2012.The Durban meeting sketched outthe link between the Technology Mechanismand the financial mechanism,though not to the satisfaction of the developingcountries negotiating under theumbrellas of the Group of 77 and Chinaand the least developed countries(LDCs).The consideration of additionalfunctions of the TEC and the CTC&N,approved during the informal session ofthe technology group, was not adopted,presumably deleted by the Chair of theAWGLCA, especially on the giving ofadvice and support, including capacitybuildingon the conduct of assessmentsof new and emerging technologies bythe CTC&N. The consideration of issuesrelating to intellectual property rights aspart of a new set of functions for theTEC was also not in the final text presentedfor adoption by the COP.To answer the question of whowon and who lost, the Durban duel betweendeveloped and developingcountries on the matter of technologytransfer resulted in the following:• The G77 and China originallywanted the TEC to be the entity thatwill exercise oversight and provideguidance to the CTC&N. At the startof the negotiations in Durban, theymodified their stance to a kind of aboard which is an intermediate bodybetween the COP, the TEC and theCTC&N, leaving some items for theTEC, such as the giving of strategicguidance on some key issues likeprioritisation and selection of networkmembers, among others. The advisorybody created by the Durban COPappears to be something similar in ageneral sense to what the G77 andChina wanted, though the role of theTEC over this advisory body is notclearly spelled out as the TEC will remainexercising its own mandate onits own concerns, not that of theCTC&N.• The US, supported by Canada,Australia, Japan and, to a certain extent,the EU, wanted the TEC out ofthe way in the running of the affairs ofthe CTC&N. They didn’t quite get tothat, as it was agreed that how thisrelationship will evolve or how they willrelate to each other, to ‘promote coherenceand synergy’ as called for bypara. 127 of Decision 1/CP.16 ofCancun, is a matter that will be seenthrough time; the test of such relationshipis in how the two will agree onthe modalities of their reporting to theCOP.The selection process for the hostorganisation is a partial achievementfor the G77 and China, as the TECgot to play a role in doing the technicalevaluation of the bids for hostingof the CTC&N, though the US prevailedin having the Subsidiary Bodyfor Implementation do a ranking of thelist of who may be recommended asthe host of the CTC&N.The final form, shape and functionsof the Technology Mechanismwill continue to be fought out in2012. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuElpidio Peria was a member of the Philippinedelegation to the Durban Climate ChangeConference. The views presented here are his ownand do not necessarily represent the views of thePhilippine delegation.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25638

C O V E RIndustrial emissions need to be cut as part of climate change mitigation efforts. InDurban, many developing countries were unhappy that the AWGLCA outcome textcontained no expression of the level of mitigation ambition for developed countries.gret that these proposals were not reflectedin the document and there wasa lack of consistency in the approach.It asked the Chair to find solutions thatdid not cross redlines.Paraguay stressed that the principlesof historical responsibility andCBDR should not be diluted. It calledfor the completion of the BaliRoadmap.Kenya said that the text fell shortfor Africa and was weak on adaptationand low on ambition on mitigation.It also stressed the importanceof comparability of efforts among developed-countryParties and the needto reflect a common accountingframework. The submissions of BURsby developing countries needed supportand flexibility in reporting. Itcalled for further improvement to thedocument before its adoption.Bangladesh said that the text waswatered down and crossed someredlines of the LDCs but it was preparedto accept the text with reservations.It said that the Adaptation Committeewas a good way forward.The European Union said it wasdisappointed with the AWGLCAdocument as it had weak language onthe (emissions reduction) ambitiongap and wanted a process to addressthis but this was not reflected in thedocument. The BUR guidelines fordeveloping countries were not strongenough. Nevertheless, it did not wantto run the risk of reopening the balancereached in the document andsupported its adoption.Switzerland said that the documentwas insufficient in a number ofchapters. On ‘shared vision’, it wasblind. The paragraphs on ambitionlevel and guidelines for reportingwere insufficient. The text on internationalconsultations and analysis(ICA) in relation to developing countrieswas weak. However, it was preparedto accept the document. The textwas something Parties must continuewith and develop further.The United States said that thenegotiations were difficult and Partiesneeded to move forward on what wasachieved and supported the adoptionof the text. It said that the guidelineson transparency for the targets andactions were not perfect but if therewas a delay, Parties would be renegingon the Cancun decision and wouldunravel the Durban package whichwas significant.Japan said that the document wasnot perfect but was a compromise thatit could agree to and called for itsadoption in its entirety.Following the reactions of Parties,the Chair of the AWGLCA saidthat his sense was that there was agreat deal of disappointment with thetext. A number of Parties were againstthe adoption of the document andwanted it forwarded for further worknext year. Despite this, he was goingto forward the document to the COPwith a recommendation for its adoptionunder his own authority.He asked Parties to consider thereport of the meeting of the AWGLCAfor adoption and quickly gavelled, notrecognising Venezuela who had askedfor the floor before the gavel.Venezuela’s Salerno had to standon her chair to get the attention of theChair when her repeated waving ofher country plaque was to no avail.She said that she had asked for thefloor before the gavel came down.Salerno said that the AWGLCA documenthad serious deficiencies, yet itwas being transmitted to the COP. Shedisclosed that there were threats thatif Venezuela did not agree to the adoptionof the text, there would be no secondcommitment period under the KPand the multilateral system would notbe preserved.The climate envoy said that suchthreats were supporting a weak regimewhich threatens the worldthrough a flexible system with norules for mitigation and where developedcountries can make pledges asthey want and do as they want whenthey want.Referring to the goal of mobilising$100 billion for climate financeand (developed countries) using thisas a bargaining chip, the Venezuelanenvoy said that there could be no pricefor our future and that of our children.She said that the farce has to stop andthere must be an end to a bad agreement.Despite the strong reaction fromVenezuela, the Chair of the AWGLCAsimply adjourned the meeting.When the final formal plenarysession of the COP convened in theearly morning of 11 December, theChair of the AWGLCA reported thatduring the AWGLCA session held earlier,Parties exchanged views andmany expressed support for the outcomeof the work of the AWGLCA ascontained in the L4 document, whileothers said that the document did nothave balance. Parties were not ableto reach consensus. The text, he said,was rich and comprehensive and harvestedimportant progress. He hopedthat it could be adopted by the COPas part of the comprehensive Durbanpackage.The AWGLCA outcome wasadopted as part of the Durban package.ÿuTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25639

C O V E RDecision on Green Climate FundadoptedA major issue at Durban was the Green Climate Fund – the fund established at lastyear’s Cancun Conference to raise and disburse the targeted sum of $100 billion a yearby 2020 to protect poor nations against climate impacts and assist them with lowcarbondevelopment. Meena Raman reports on the debate and decisions on the Fund.ther development of the fund that hadbeen established at the Cancun conferencea year ago.The COP decision agreed to approvethe governing instrument forthe GCF as transmitted to it (althoughONE significant outcome of the Durbanclimate talks was the adoption on11 December of a decision by theUNFCCC Conference of the Parties(COP) on the Green Climate Fund(GCF), thus clearing the way for furwithoutconsensus) by the TransitionalCommittee (TC) to design theFund, without any changes to the instrument.However, the accompanyingdecision that agreed to the instrumentcontained several importantThe Green Climate Fund decisionTHE decision adopted by the COP atDurban as regards the GCF is as follows:‘The Conference of Parties1. Welcomes the report of theTransitional Committee (FCCC/CP/2011/6 and Add.1), taking note withappreciation of the work of the TransitionalCommittee in responding to itsmandate given in decision 1/CP.16,paragraph 109;2. Approves the governing instrumentfor the Green Climate Fund annexedto this decision;3. Decides to designate theGreen Climate Fund as an operatingentity of the Financial Mechanism ofthe Convention, in accordance with Article11 of the Convention, with arrangementsto be concluded betweenthe Conference of the Parties and theFund at the eighteenth session of theConference of the Parties to ensurethat it is accountable to and functionsunder the guidance of the Conferenceof the Parties to support projects, programmes,policies and other activitiesin developing country Parties;4. Notes that the Green ClimateFund will be guided by the principlesand provisions of the Convention;5. Decides to provide guidance tothe Board of the Green Climate Fund,including on matters related to policies,programme priorities and eligibilitycriteria and matters relatedthereto, taking into account theBoard’s annual reports to the Conferenceof the Parties on its activities;6. Requests the Board tooperationalise the Fund in an expeditedmanner;7. Also requests the Board to developa transparent no-objection procedureto be conducted through nationaldesignated authorities referred to inparagraph 46 of the governing instrument,in order to ensure consistencywith national climate strategies andplans and a country driven approach andto provide for effective direct and indirectpublic and private sector financingby the Green Climate Fund. Further requeststhe Board to determine this procedureprior to approval of funding proposalsby the Fund;8. Further requests the Board tobalance the allocation of the Green ClimateFund resources between adaptationand mitigation activities;9. Stresses the need to securefunding for the Green Climate Fund, takinginto account paragraphs 29 and 30of the governing instrument, to facilitateits expeditious operationalisation, andrequests the Board to establish necessarypolicies and procedures, which willenable an early and adequate replenishmentprocess;[Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the governinginstrument relate to ‘financial inputs’and provide as follows:‘29. The Fund will receive financialinputs from developed country Partiesto the Convention.30. The Fund may also receive financialinputs from a variety of othersources, public and private, includingalternative sources.’]10. Invites Parties, through theirregional groupings and constituencies,to submit their nominations for the membersof the Board to the interim secretariatby 31 March 2012, in accordancewith paragraph 11 of the governing instrument;[Paragraph 11 reads: ‘The membersof the Board and their alternateswill be selected by their respective constituencyor regional group within a constituency.Members of the Board willhave the necessary experience andskills, notably in the areas of climatechange and development finance, withdue consideration given to gender balance.’]11. Decides that the Green ClimateFund be conferred juridical personalityand legal capacity and shall enjoy suchprivileges and immunities related to thedischarge and fulfilment of its functions,in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 8of the governing instrument;[Paragraphs 7 and 8 on the ‘Legalstatus’ of the Fund read as follows:‘7. In order to operate effectivelyinternationally, the Fund will possess juridicalpersonality and will have suchlegal capacity as is necessary for theexercise of its functions and the protectionof its interests.8. The Fund will enjoy such privilegesand immunities as are necessaryfor the fulfilment of its purposes. Theofficials of the Fund will similarly enjoysuch privileges and immunities as arenecessary for the independent exerciseof their official functions in connectionwith the Fund.’This was one of the most controversialissues in the Durban negotiations.The issue was how the GCF is tohave juridical personality and legal capacityand whether such legal statuswas sufficient to be conferred by a decisionof the COP or whether there was aTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25640

C O V E RA view of the dais during the presentation of the report of the Transitional Committeeto design the Green Climate Fund. The Durban conference approved the GCFgoverning instrument transmitted by the Committee.points that clarified or elaborated furtheron the instrument as well as ontransitional arrangements for the initialwork and operation of the Fund.Photo courtesy of IISD/Earth Negotiations BulletinThrough its decision, the COPwelcomed the report of the TransitionalCommittee (tasked to developthe instrument by the Cancun decision)and approved the governing instrumentfor the GCF, which was annexedto the decision.In Durban, while some countriesdid not want a renegotiation of thegoverning instrument of the Fund,others wanted their concerns to beaddressed. These concerns were addressedvia the decision of the COP.Among the key points negotiated atDurban were the legal personality ofthe Fund, the role of national authoritiesin agreeing to activities financedby the Fund (including via the privateneed for other legal arrangements.]12. Invites Parties, in line with theobjectives set forth in paragraph 11above, to submit to the Board expressionsof interest for hosting the GreenClimate Fund by 15 April 2012, basedon the following criteria:(a) The ability to confer and/or recognisejuridical personality and legalcapacity to the Fund for the protectionof its interests and the exercise of itsfunctions, to give effect to paragraphs 7and 8 of the governing instrument, includingbut not limited to the ability tocontract, acquire and dispose of immovableand movable property, and institutelegal proceedings;(b) The ability to provide privilegesand immunities to the Fund as are necessaryfor the fulfilment of its purposes,and to the officials of the Fund as arenecessary for the independent exerciseof their official functions in connectionwith the Fund;(c) Financial arrangements, administrativeand logistical support to theFund;(d) Any other information that thehost country wishes to provide;13. Requests the Board, followingthe receipt of expressions of interest, toconduct an open and transparent processfor the selection of the host country,and decide on a host country for endorsementby the Conference of theParties at its eighteenth session, in accordancewith paragraph 22 of the governinginstrument;[Paragraph 22 reads: ‘The selectionof the host country of the Fund willbe an open and transparent process.The selection of the host country will beendorsed by the COP.’]14. Requests the Board and thehost country of the Green Climate Fundto develop, in accordance with paragraphs7 and 8 of the governing instrument,the legal and administrative arrangementsfor hosting the Fund and toensure that juridical personality and legalcapacity are conferred to the Fund,and privileges and immunities as arenecessary are granted to the Fund andits officials in an expedited manner;15. Also requests the Board to establishthe independent secretariat of theGreen Climate Fund in the host countryin an expedited manner as soon as possible,in accordance with paragraph 19of the governing instrument;[Paragraph 19 provides as follows:‘The Fund will establish a secretariat,which will be fully independent. The secretariatwill service and be accountableto the Board. It will have effective managementcapabilities to execute the dayto-dayoperations of the Fund.’]16. Invites the Board to select thetrustee of the Green Climate Fundthrough an open, transparent and competitivebidding process in a timely mannerto ensure there is no discontinuityin trustee services;17. Requests the Board to initiatea process to collaborate with the AdaptationCommittee and the TechnologyExecutive Committee, as well as otherrelevant thematic bodies under the Convention,to define linkages between theFund and these bodies, as appropriate;18. Recognising the need to facilitatethe immediate functioning of theGreen Climate Fund and ensure its independence,requests the UNFCCCsecretariat jointly with the Global EnvironmentFacility secretariat to take thenecessary administrative steps to set upthe interim secretariat of the Green ClimateFund as an autonomous unit withinthe UNFCCC secretariat premises withoutundue delay after the seventeenthsession of the Conference of the Partiesso that the interim secretariat canprovide technical, administrative andlogistical support to the Board until theindependent secretariat of the GreenClimate Fund is established;19. Decides that the interim arrangementsshould terminate no laterthan the nineteenth session of theConference of the Parties;20. Decides that the interim secretariatshall be fully accountable to theBoard and shall function under its guidanceand authority, and that its headshall report to the Board;21. Urges the Board to movepromptly to appoint the head of the interimsecretariat;22. Decides that the criteria for theselection of the head of the interimsecretariat shall include, inter alia, expertisein the design or managementof funds, relevant administrative andmanagement experience, experiencein or working with developing countries,and policy expertise;23. Requests the interim secretariatto make arrangements for conveningthe first Board meeting by 30April 2012;24. Welcomes the offers of Switzerlandand the Republic of Korea tohost the first and second meetings ofthe Board respectively, and invitesParties to host subsequent meetings;25. Invites Parties to make financialcontributions for the start-up of theGreen Climate Fund, including administrativecosts of the Board and its interimsecretariat;26. Welcomes the generous offerof the Republic of Korea to contributeto the start-up cost of the GreenClimate Fund.’ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25641

C O V E RThe Green Climate Fund was established at the Cancun climatechange conference in 2010 (pic).sector), and the location ofthe transitional secretariatof the Fund.The decision concerningthe GCF was one of theoutcomes of the so-called‘Durban package’ and wasthe subject of intense negotiations,given that the reportof the TransitionalCommittee, which includedthe governing instrument,was transmitted to the COPwithout consensus by theChairs of the TC.The United States andSaudi Arabia, as membersof the TC, had withheldconsensus on the adoption of the reportin the final meeting of the TC inOctober, while several developingcountryTC members had also expressedconcerns over many parts ofthe GCF instrument.At the plenary session of the COPon 30 November, the developingcountryGroup of 77 and China calledfor an open, transparent and inclusiveprocess through a contact group todraft the decision necessary for theCOP in relation to the GCF.South African COP President,Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, proposedconducting informal consultationsbased on the report of the TC, whichled to negotiations over the draft decision.Parties through intense negotiationsarrived at a near-consensus overthe draft decision on 8 December,except over a key issue as to who isto host the interim secretariat of theGCF.The options on the table were: (i)the UNFCCC secretariat, (ii) the GlobalEnvironment Facility secretariat(GEF), or (iii) the UN Office in Geneva.The G77 and China rejected theGEF secretariat as an option, whiledeveloped countries were insistingotherwise.Following intense wrangling, acompromise was reached at ministerial-levelinformal consultations on 10December for the UNFCCC secretariatjointly with the GEF secretariatto take the necessary administrativeFollowing intense negotiations, the Durban meeting agreed to set up the interimsecretariat of the Green Climate Fund as an autonomous unit within the UNFCCCsecretariat premises in Bonn (pic).steps to set up the interimsecretariat of the GCF as anautonomous unit within theUNFCCC secretariatpremises in Bonn.Another issue that becamethe subject of muchsquabbling was the issue ofhow the GCF is to have legalpersonality and legal capacity.Parties managed toarrive at an agreement overthis, which is reflected inparagraphs 11 and 12 of thedecision (see box for the textof the decision).A further issue of concernfor many developingcountries was the provision in thegoverning instrument in paragraph 46that allowed the private sector to directlyaccess the GCF funds withoutthe need for their funding proposalsto be approved by the national designatedauthorities.Paragraph 46 of the governinginstrument reads: ‘Recipient countriesmay designate a national authority.This national designated authoritywill recommend to the Board [of theGCF] funding proposals in the contextof national climate strategies andplans, including through consultationprocesses. The national designated authoritieswill be consulted on otherfunding proposals for considerationprior to submission to the Fund toensure consistency with national climatestrategies and plans.’Following negotiations in Durban,this concern was addressed withthe following compromise in paragraph7 of the decision which reads:‘[The COP] requests the Board to developa transparent no-objection procedureto be conducted through nationaldesignated authorities referredto in paragraph 46 of the governinginstrument, in order to ensure consistencywith national climate strategiesand plans and a country driven approachand to provide for effectivedirect and indirect public and privatesector financing by the Green ClimateFund. Further requests the Board todetermine this procedure prior to approvalof funding proposals by theFund.’ÿuTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25642

Lessons learned from the financialcrisis: A cautionary tale for theGreen Climate FundAs the design, purpose and modalities of the Green Climate Fund were debated inDurban and its final shape is worked out in the coming year, there are some keylessons to learn from the financial crisis.THE Green Climate Fund (GCF) thatwas established in the Cancun climatetalks in 2010 was further developedat the Durban meeting, and will continueto be shaped by its newly establishedBoard. In the coming yearwhen the operational details areworked out, much can be learned fromthe financial crisis for climate financing.Since the financial crisis, it hasbecome clear that capital marketshave become extremelycomplex, interconnectedand financialised. In thepast, a home mortgage wasa matter between a localbank and a homeowner.Not anymore. In 2008, theworld saw how a housingbubble in the US had massiveeffects, triggering abanking meltdown, a globalrecession, and fiscalcalamity in many countries.According to manyscholars, even the currenteuro zone crisis is not somuch a problem of sovereignover-borrowing as itis a continuation of the2008 financial crisis, which is nowlaying bare the structural weaknessesof the European monetary union andits fragile banks.A short story of the financialcrisisConventional wisdom holds thatthe financial crisis was the fault of irresponsibleconsumers in the US whoborrowed more than they could afford.Although that undoubtedly wasC O V E RFriends of the Earth USone aspect of the problem, there wasa deeper driver: after the US loweredinterest rates after 11 September,2001, it not only made borrowing verycheap, it reduced bond yields, whichcaused institutional investors, such aspension funds, hedge funds, insurancecompanies and sovereign wealthfunds, in the capital markets to seekA climate fund of some $100 billion a year could attract Wall Streetfirms seeking to access or manage these resources.new investments.To meet this demand, Wall Streetbankers – through ‘financial innovation’– produced mortgage-backedsecurities (MBS). This new financialinstrument bundled together thousandsof home loans and sold them toinvestors around the world. Thesebecame so popular that financial intermediariesstarted underwritingmore and more of these securities tosatisfy what seemed like an unendingappetite for these products. WallStreet played an enormous role in inflatingthe housing bubble; as toomuch investment money chased toofew good assets, homes became dangerouslyovervalued and it spurred thebuildup of bad assets.This buildup of bad assets wasmade possible by a misalignment ofincentives, which led to recklessnessthroughout the value chain. Mortgagebrokers falsified loan applications,banks ignored lending standards, underwriterscreated riskysecurities that no onecould understand, creditrating agencies providedfaulty advice, and insurancecompaniesoverpromised on creditdefault swaps. The allureof short-term profits –especially when someoneelse had to take therisk – made it easy foreveryone involved toturn a blind eye.Of course, poor financialregulation – inno small part due to WallStreet’s influence overthe US Congress – wasa critical factor as well. Financialregulators failed to supervise the massivegrowth of the shadow bankingsector. Financial entities such ashedge funds, special purpose investmentvehicles, private equity firms,and others operated under very littleregulation. Many employed very riskystrategies, for example, using shorttermborrowing to invest in longerterminvestments, or speculating inthe unregulated over-the-counter derivativesmarkets.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25643

C O V E RLessons from the financialcrisis – and its application toclimate financeMany analysts and financial regulatorsunderstand that the US housingmarket did not cause the financial crisis,but simply sparked it. Instead,drivers such as financialisation, misalignedincentives, and poor regulationwere the real culprits, and unlessregulators address these underlyingproblems, policymakers will facesimilar crises in the future.In this sense, it is important forthe GCF to closely consider how similardynamics may impact the integrityand efficacy of climate finance, whichshould be treated as a global publicgood.Trading floor at a financial institution. Outsourcing GCF funding decisions to thefinancial markets produces the risk that financial engineers may create inappropriateand ineffective financing structures to ‘deliver’ climate finance.The tyranny of the marketsGlobally, institutional investorsmanage some $90 trillion in assets.Underwriting, asset management, andother services for institutional investorsare a lucrative Wall Street business,and this ‘giant pool of money’ isseen as the source of capital to fundeverything from home mortgages, tocorporate expansion, to governmentborrowing.Institutional investors are also beingviewed as the source to ‘leverage’climate finance. For example, the GCFcould raise money from institutionalinvestors by issuing bonds. Or theGCF could transfer money to fundmanagers, and require them to findmatching funds. Whether institutionalinvestors help capitalise the GCF ordisburse GCF funding, their involvementwill likely require a commercialrate of return at the very least. Someinvestors, such as certain hedge funds,seek much more than commercialrates, they seek profit maximisation.Allowing commercial interests toguide GCF financing decisions wouldlikely mean that non- or low-revenuegenerating activities, such as most adaptationefforts, would get short shrift.It would also mean that the very poorestcountries, which currently do notattract private finance, would continueto be bypassed. After all, it is likelythat a pension fund would put moneyinto an Emerging Asia power fund, butnot very likely that it will fund a programmeto resettle climate refugees.‘Financial innovation’ – and thedangersFinancial innovation can be agood thing, but as Lord Taylor of theUK Financial Services Authority haspointed out, it also ‘has producedsome products of very dubious socialvalue.’ In the run-up to the financialcrisis, financial innovation ‘becameover-complicated, we hadsecuritisation and re-securitisation,we had the over-development of thecredit-derivatives swaps market –somehow we just created this empireof activity.’ 1A climate fund of some $100 billionper year could very well attractan empire of activity as Wall Streetfirms seek to access or manage GCFfunds. But outsourcing GCF fundingdecisions to the financial markets createsthe risk that financial engineersmay create inappropriate and ultimatelyineffective financing structuresto ‘deliver’ climate finance. Perhapsthe best example of this in currentpractice can be found in the internationalcarbon markets.The Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) should be viewed as aprime example of how inefficient carbonmarkets can be for fundingprojects in developing countries. Onestudy found that only about 31% oftotal funds received for CDM creditscapitalise mitigation projects, with therest going to carbon traders and middlemen.2 In forest offset projects, intermediariesoften capture even more,over 50% of REDD financing. 3(Moreover, in any case, since carboncredits are used to offset developedcountryemissions, they should not beconsidered as climate finance.)Misalignment of incentivesThe 2008 financial crisis wascharacterised by a massive misalignmentof incentives and, in many cases,pure conflicts of interest. But there arecountless other examples of how themotivations of short-term capital haveclashed with the interests of those inthe real economy, particularly withthose looking to protect or promotethe public interest. In the 1990s,speculators’ rent-seeking behaviourcrashed Asian economies with hotmoney flows, and undermined governments.Ten years later, derivativestraders flooded agricultural commoditiesmarkets, pushing up food pricesand introducing volatility for farmersand buyers. Shareholders’ pursuit ofshort-term profit has long preventedresponsibly-minded corporationsfrom considering long-termsustainability.If the Green Climate Fund allowstoo many decisions and priorities tobe set by capital markets, this wouldTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25644

C O V E Rcreate a gross misalignment of interestsand undercut key UNFCCCpolicy goals, such as providing developingcountries with adaptation funds,and ensuring that ‘particularly vulnerable’areas receive priority.A Green Climate Fund bent on‘leveraging’ private capital, as somenegotiators are advocating, is certainto attract financial engineers withmore experience in intermediationthan in ensuring climate effectivenessin developing countries. In the worstcases, this can result in the creationof risky products and services that arenot only irresponsible from a fiduciaryperspective, but also may takeaway resources from worthy and effectiveadaptation and mitigation efforts.Over-excitement aboutleveraging the private sector has pervadedthe discourse on climate finance.Many questions remain as towhat extent public money has actuallyleveraged private finance andwhether such investment would havehappened anyway. As the OverseasDevelopment Institute notes, ‘Increasedtransparency in the use of internationalpublic finance would elucidatethe current and potential roleof public finance in leveraging privatefinance, and would increase understandingof the effectiveness and successrates of such efforts. Metrics tomeasure leverage and to count theimpact of public sector finance inleveraging private capital need to bedeveloped and agreed (AGF, 2010).’ 4One key strategy used to leverageprivate capital is the developmentof risk sharing or risk reduction instruments,such as loan guarantees orpolitical risk insurance (in some countries).While risk sharing products canbe valuable and legitimate in somecases, they always carry the dangerof misaligning incentives and creatingmoral hazard. They may have theperverse effect of weakening due diligenceprocesses and stimulating investmentin unsuccessful projects thatfail to mitigate greenhouse gas emissionsor provide genuine adaptationbenefits. Certain risk sharing instrumentscould also give rise to accusationsthat climate funds serve to privatiseprofits, while letting the publicshoulder financial losses, makingcommunities bear the brunt of anyenvironmental or social harms.Weak regulationsFinally, a massive failure in financialregulation played a major role inthe financial crisis. Unfortunately, inthe last few years, efforts to reformthe financial sector and bring more ofit under regulatory scrutiny have beenlacking, particularly at the internationallevel.Therefore, the GCF should striveto uphold the highest standards ingood financial governance, and, at thevery least, refrain from practices thatfrustrate financial regulation. Areas ofparticular concern include the unregulatedover-the-counter derivativesmarket, the proliferation of offshoretax and secrecy jurisdictions, and thepersistent lack of transparency thatcharacterises much of the financialsector, particularly non-bank financialinstitutions.For example, asset managerssuch as hedge funds and private equityfunds still operate as part of the‘shadow banking sector’. Unless theyare willing to be subject to financialregulation; subordinated to developing-countrygovernment priorities,strategies and requirements; andwiling and able to implement environmentaland social safeguard standards,these shadow banking institutionsshould not be involved in GCFfinancing. Similarly, the GCF fundshould not be involved in risky, unregulatedderivatives.RecommendationsIn light of these lessons learned,the GCF should approach the privatesector with a high degree of caution.In particular, the GCF:• Should not establish a privatesector facility that would allow corporationsand financiers to have directaccess to GCF funds. Rather, therole of the private sector in the GCFmust be decided, managed, regulatedand incentivised at the national andsub-national level in line with countries’preferences and needs and inaccordance with robust safeguards. 5• The GCF should only engageprivate finance to the extent that privatefinanciers can guarantee the implementationof robust due diligenceprocesses designed to address financial,social, and environmental risks,and produce effective mitigation andadaptation outcomes.• Since the purpose of climatefinance is not to help Annex I countriesmeet their own mitigation obligations,no GCF funds should be usedto finance carbon offset projects.• The GCF should uphold bestpractices in financial oversight andgovernance practices, including, butnot limited to, prohibiting the use oftax havens for all GCF-related investmentsand financing. ÿuThe above analysis was circulated as a Third WorldNetwork Briefing Paper in Durban.Endnotes1. Interview with Adair Turner, 27August 2009, in The Prospect,at http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/08/how-to-tame-globalfinance/2. ‘The cost efficiency of offsettingthrough the Clean DevelopmentMechanism’, Carbon Retirement,2009.3. Corbera et al., 2009; as quoted inHajek, F. et al. (2011): ‘Regimebuildingfor REDD+: Evidence froma cluster of local initiatives in southeasternPeru’. Environ. Sci. Policydoi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.12.0074. Brown, J. and Jacobs, M., OverseasDevelopment Institute, ‘Leveragingprivate investment: The role ofpublic sector climate finance,’ April2011, at http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/5701.pdf.5. Editor’s note: In Durban developingcountries objected to the privatesector being given direct access tothe GCF funds without the need fortheir funding proposals to beapproved by the national designatedauthorities. The final compromisewas that the GCF Board would firstestablish a procedure for somedegree of oversight by the nationaldesignated authorities.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25645

C O V E RAnnex I targets: A disappearingactAlthough the emission cut pledges under the Kyoto Protocol by the developedcountries and countries with economies in transition (Annex I Parties) seemsignificant, there are potential loopholes which negate these pledges.Payal Parekh explains.EACH new report that is released onclimate change paints an even moredire picture than its predecessor interms of the extent to which climatechange is already underway and theassociated impacts. The recently publishedBridging the Emissions Gapreport from the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) (2011)shows that the gap between what isnecessary to have a likely (greaterthan 66%) chance of limiting globaltemperature rise to 2°C and whatcountries have pledged is growing.The window for addressing climatechange is effectively closing witheach passing day of inaction.Yet, there is little talk of increasingthe ambition of mitigation targetsby developed countries so that theyare in agreement with science andprinciples of equity. Even worse,weak accounting rules mean thatpledged emission reductions actuallydisappear through loopholes.This article summarises the emissionreductions pledged by developedcountries and potential loopholes thatwould actually allow emissions torise.Annex I emission reductionsDeveloped countries’ emission reduction pledges are weakened by a series ofloopholes in the climate change rules. Picture shows a protest against such loopholestaking place on the sidelines of the Durban conference.The aggregate pledge of Annex IParties (developed countries andcountries with economies in transition)that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocolis in the range of 13-18% below1990 levels, much less than the emissioncuts that are needed to stay below2°C or 1.5°C and to be in linewith the principles of equity and historicalresponsibility. The Annex Ipledges are further weakened by aseries of accounting rules, methodologies,and other technical means, oftenreferred to as ‘loopholes’. Thecollective effect of these loopholes isto provide a way by which Annex IParties can comply with their reductiontargets without actually undertakingmitigation.We present results from a recentanalysis prepared by the StockholmEnvironment Institute and publishedby the South Centre (Kartha 2011)with updates on the magnitude of certainloopholes from the Bridging theEmissions Gap report (UNEP 2011).Under the rules of the Kyoto Protocol,developed countries are free touse these loopholes strategically overthe second commitment period. Theanalysis shows that the loopholescould be larger than the pledges ofAnnex I countries. If a weak pledgebasedapproach riddled with loopholesis adopted, we risk a 4°C rise inglobal temperatures or higher, whichwill lead to much higher regional temperaturerise in areas such as Africaand South Asia.Below the loopholes are describedin further detail.Surplus allowancesDuring the first commitment periodof the Kyoto Protocol manycountries received surplus ‘hot air’allowances based on inflated estimatesof greenhouse gases they expectedto release. Some countries’Kyoto targets were thus so weak that‘large amounts of surplus allowanceshave been and will be generated overthe 2008-2012 period, even withoutany environmental policy effort’(Rogelj et al. 2010). This surplus isestimated to be between 9 and 13 GtCO 2equivalent (UNEP 2011, denElzen et al. 2010), more than half ayear’s worth of emissions by all thedeveloped countries put together.There is also a risk that surplus allowancescould be generated post-2012,Yvonne MillerTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25646

C O V E Rwhich could result in another loopholeof 0.7 to 1 Gt CO 2e in 2020 (denElzen et al. 2010).Land use, land-use changeand forestry accounting rulesAnnex I Parties are pushing toinclude weak land use, land-usechange and forestry (LULUCF) accountingrules that would allow themto increase their emissions. This couldbe achieved partly by allowing countriesto set their own reference levels(‘baselines’) for their emissions.Some countries are also proposingthat accounting for forest managementremains voluntary, thereby allowingAnnex I Parties to simply notaccount for any emissions increases.The size of this loophole could bebetween 0-0.6 Gt CO 2e/year subjectto the final agreement on accountingrules (UNEP 2011). The cumulative(2013-2020) magnitude of the loopholecould be as large as 4.8 Gt CO 2e.Non-additionality under theCDMThrough the Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM), developed countriescan obtain carbon credits fromprojects in developing countries to‘offset’ their emissions, so that developedcountries can continue to pollute.Projects have to prove that theyare ‘additional’ – that they could notbe built without the extra financingthrough the sale of carbon credits. Ifthis is not the case, the emission reductionsare not real and there is actuallyan increase in emissions.The number of emission reductioncredits to award a project is calculatedagainst a hypothetical baselineof what emissions would havebeen if a dirty alternative had beenbuilt. Setting the baseline too weakresults in the over-crediting of emissionreductions.It has been estimated that 20% toover 50% (Schneider 2007, Haya2009) of CDM projects are non-additional.Projected certified emissionreduction credits (CERs) to be generatedbetween 2013-2020 range fromOne loophole in the current climate change framework is the fact that emissionsfrom international aviation and shipping are not accounted for under the KyotoProtocol even though they are substantial.3.5 to 7 billion (IGES Aug 2011,UNEP RISOE Sept 2011). Assumingthat the percentage of non-additionalprojects is equivalent to the numberof non-additional CERs, the loopholecould be between 0.1-0.4 Gt CO 2e in2020 and 0.7-3.5 Gt CO 2e cumulatively.Double-counting of offsetsDue to the enormity of the climatecrisis, developing countries willalso have to contribute to mitigationefforts. It is expected that developedcountries will provide the full incrementalcosts for these emissions reductionsthrough National AppropriateMitigation Actions (NAMAs), butunlike offsets, the effort will be attributedto the developing countries themselves.Since emissions reductions fromboth offsets and NAMAs will takeplace in developing countries, the accountingof these reductions is extremelyimportant. In the case ofNAMAs it is clear that the effort willbe attributed to developing countries.In the case of offsets, it is essentialthat only one party claim the emissionsreductions due to the offsets. Ifboth the buyer (developed country)and the seller (developing party) countthese emissions reductions towardtheir goals, then this is a clear case ofdouble-counting. Unfortunately thereis little clarity in the negotiations asto whether and how double-countingcan be avoided.A recent study by the StockholmEnvironment Institute estimates thatdouble-counting would increase emissionsby 0.6-1.6 Gt CO 2e in 2020based on assumptions on demand andsupply of offsets (Erickson andLazarus 2011).International aviation andshippingCurrently emissions from internationalaviation and shipping are notaccounted for under the Kyoto Protocol,even though they are substantial.As such, Annex I Parties’ emissionsfrom this sector can continue to increasewithout affecting compliancewith their emission reduction commitments.Based on projections from theinternational aviation and shippingauthorities, growth in emissions fromAnnex I Parties is estimated to amountto a loophole of 0.4-0.9 Gt CO 2e in2020 (Terry 2010).Aggregate loopholesThese accounting loopholes,taken together, could more than negatethe pledges of Annex I countries.Taking the estimates of the ‘condi-THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25647

C O V E R‘If a weak pledge-based approach riddledwith loopholes is adopted, we risk a 4°Crise in global temperatures or higher...’tional’ (high) Annex I pledges, emissionreductions amount to roughly 3.8Gt CO 2e in 2020 (UNEP 2010). Theloopholes together add up to approximately3.3-7.4 Gt CO 2e in 2020. Ifwe assume that Annex I pledges areat the high end of the spectrum, wefind that pledged emission reductionsare significantly lower even when applyingthe lower end of the loopholeestimates and actually disappear whenapplying the higher end (see figure below).ConclusionIf developed countries are seriousabout fulfilling their responsibilityto lead in the fight against climatechange, they need to put ambitioustargets on the table that are in line withthe science and do away with loopholes.There is no plan(et) B. Everypassing day of inaction closes the doorfurther on preventing catastrophic climatechange. Unfortunately thosecountries failed to do their part inDurban – the pledges remain low anduncertain.ÿuDr Payal Parekh is a climate and energy expert whowas in Durban.Referencesden Elzen, M. et al. (May 2010).Loopholes 2020 (Gt CO 2e) Cumulative (Gt CO 2e)Surplus allowances CP1 1.5-2.9 9-13Surplus allowances CP2 0.7-1.0 0.7-1.0 *LULUCF 0-0.6 0-4.8Non-additional CDM credits 0.1-0.4 0.7-3.5Double-counting 0.6-1.6 0.6-1.6 *Aviation and shipping 0.4-0.9 0.4-0.9 *Total 3.3-7.4 11.5-24.8*No cumulative estimate availableEvaluation of the CopenhagenAccord: Chances and risks for the2°C climate goal. NetherlandsEnvironmental Assessment Agency(PBL). Available at http://www.ecofys.com/en/publications/23/.Erickson, P. and Lazarus, M. (2011). Theimplications of internationalgreenhouse gas offsets on globalclimate mitigation. StockholmEnvironment Institute WorkingPaper WP-US-1106. Available athttp://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-WorkingPaper-Erickson-ImplicationsOfInternationalGreenhouseGasOffsets-2011.pdf.IGES (2011). IGES CDM ProjectDatabase, 1 August 2011. Availableat http://www.iges.or.jp/en/cdm/report.htmlHaya, B. (2009). Measuring emissionsagainst an alternative future:fundamental flaws in the structure ofthe Kyoto Protocol’s CleanDevelopment Mechanism. Energyand Resources Group Working PaperERG09_001. Available at: http://erg.berkeley.edu/working_paper/2009/ERG09-001.pdfKartha, S. (2011). Annex 1 pledges,accounting ‘loopholes’, andimplications for the global 2°Cpathway. South Centre Policy Brief.Available at http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=2081&Itemid=182.Rogelj, J. et al. (2010). CopenhagenAccord pledges are paltry. Nature464, 1126-28. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/4641126a.Schneider, L. (2007). Is the CDMfulfilling its environmental andsustainable development objectives?An analysis of the CDM and optionsfor improvement. Öko Institut.Available at http://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/622/2007-162-en.pdf.Terry, S. (2010). Integrity Gap –Copenhagen Pledges and Loopholes.Sustainability Council of NewZealand. Available at http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/news_item.asp?sID=214.UNEP (2010). The Emissions Gap Report– Are the Copenhagen AccordPledges Sufficient to Limit GlobalWarming to 2°C or 1.5°C? Availableat http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/UNEP (2011). Bridging the EmissionsGap. Available at http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/bridgingemissionsgap/UNEP RISOE Pipeline Analysis andDatabase 1 September 2011.Available at: http://cdmpipeline.org/THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25648

The Durban package: ‘Laisserfaire, laisser passer’Bolivia’s former chief climate negotiator contends that the free market regime ofmeasures adopted by the climate change conferences in Copenhagen, Cancunand now Durban to tackle global warming will fail to stem an increase intemperatures beyond the critical 2°C.Pablo SolonC O V E RTHE Climate Change Conferenceended two days later than expected,adopting a set of decisions that wereknown only a few hours before theiradoption. Some decisions were noteven complete at the moment of theirconsideration. Paragraphs were missingand some delegations didn’t evenhave copies of these drafts. The packageof decisions was released by theSouth African presidency of the Conferenceof the Parties (COP) tothe United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change(UNFCCC) with the ultimatum of‘Take it or leave it’. Only the EuropeanUnion was allowed to make lastminuteamendments.Several delegations made harshcriticisms of the documents and expressedtheir opposition to sections ofthem. However, no delegation explicitlyobjected to the subsequent adoptionof these decisions. In the end, thewhole package was adopted by consensuswithout the objection of anydelegation. The core elements of theDurban package can be summarisedas follows:1) A zombie called Kyoto Protocol• A soulless undead: The promisesof reducing greenhouse gas emissionsfor the second commitment periodof the Kyoto Protocol representless than half of what is necessary tokeep the temperature increase below2°C.• This zombie (secondcommitment period of the Kyoto Protocol)will only finally go into effectnext year.• It is not known if the secondDelegates at the 1997 conference which led to the Kyoto Protocol. The presentpromises of reducing emissions under the Protocol’s second commitment periodrepresent less than half of what is necessary to keep temperature increase below2°C.period of the Kyoto Protocol willcover five or eight years.• Canada, Japan and Russia willbe out of this second commitment periodof the Kyoto Protocol. Australiaand New Zealand have not even madeany pledges yet, while the UnitedStates is not a Party.• This will be known as the lostdecade in the fight against climatechange.2) New regime of ‘laisser faire,laisser passer’• In 2020 a new legal instrumentwill come into effect that will replacethe Kyoto Protocol and will seriouslyimpact on the principles of theUNFCCC.• The core elements of this newlegal instrument can be already seendue to the results of thenegotiations so far: a) voluntarypromises rather than binding commitmentsto reduce emissions, b) moreflexibilities (carbon markets) for developedcountries to meet their emissionreduction promises, and c) aneven weaker compliance mechanismthan the Kyoto Protocol.• The new legal instrument willcover all the states, and developedcountries will want to remove the differencebetween developing and developedcountries. The principle of‘common but differentiated responsibilities’already established in theUNFCCC is in danger of disappearing.• The result will be the deepeningof the ‘laisser faire, laisser passer’regime inaugurated in Copenhagen,Cancun and Durban which will leadto an increase in temperature of morethan 4°C.3) A Green Climate Fund withno funds• The Green Climate Fund nowhas an institutional structure in whichthe World Bank is a key player.• The $100 billion a year by 2020is only a promise and will NOT beprovided for by the developed countries.• The money will come from thecarbon markets (which are collapsing),from private investments, fromcredits (to be paid) and from the developingcountries themselves.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25649

C O V E R4) A lifesaver for the carbonmarkets• The existing carbon markets willlive regardless of the fate of the KyotoProtocol.• Also, new carbon market mechanismswill be created to meet the emissionsreduction pledges of this decade.• It is a desperate attempt to avoidthe loss of the carbon markets, whichare collapsing due to the fall of thecarbon credits, from 30 euros per tonto 3 euros per ton of CO 2.• Developed countries will reduceless than what they promise becausethey will buy emission reduction certificatesfrom developing countries.5) REDD: a perverse incentiveto deforest in this decade• If you don’t cut down trees youwon’t be able to issue certificates ofreduction of deforestation when theREDD (reducing emissions from deforestationand forest degradation)mechanism comes into operation.• Consequence: deforest now ifyou want to be ready for REDD.• The safeguards for indigenouspeoples will be flexible and discretionaryfor each country.• The offer of funding for forestsis postponed until the next decade dueto the fact that demand for carboncredits will not increase until then becauseof the low emission reductionpromises.Amandla! Jallalla!In the actions and events of thesocial movements in Durban, two battlecries emerged: ‘Amandla’ and‘Jallalla’. The first one is a Xhosa andZulu word from South Africa whichmeans ‘power’. The second word isan expression in Aymara which means‘for life’. ‘Amandla! Jallalla!’ means‘Power for life!’This is the ‘power for life’ that wemust build, transcending borders,from our communities, neighbourhoods,workplaces and places of study,in order to stop this ongoing genocideand ecocide.ÿuInternational analyst and social activist Pablo Solonis former United Nations Ambassador and chiefclimate change negotiator of the Plurinational Stateof Bolivia.Panama Climate News Updates(October 2011)ISBN: 978-967-5412-61-5 64 ppThis is a collection of 18 NewsUpdates prepared by the ThirdWorld Network for and during therecent United Nations ClimateChange Talks – the third part of the14 th session of the Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on Long-term CooperativeAction under the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change(UNFCCC AWG-LCA 14), and thethird part of the 16 th session of theAd Hoc Working Group on FurtherCommitments for Annex I Partiesunder the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 16) – in Panama City, Panamafrom 1 to 7 October 2011.Price PostageMalaysia RM10.00 RM2.00Third World countries US$6.00 US$2.00 (air); US$1.00 (sea)Other foreign countries US$8.00 US$2.00 (air); US$1.00 (sea)Orders from Malaysia – please pay by credit card/crossed cheque or postalorder.Orders from Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore,Thailand, UK, USA – please pay by credit card/cheque/bank draft/internationalmoney order in own currency, US$ or Euro.If paying in own currency or Euro,please calculate equivalent of US$ rate. If paying in US$, please ensure thatthe agent bank is located in the USA.Rest of the world – please pay by credit card/cheque/bank draft/internationalmoney order in US$ or Euro. If paying in Euro, please calculate equivalent ofUS$ rate. If paying in US$, please ensure that the agent bank is located in theUSA.All payments should be made in favour of: THIRD WORLD NETWORKBHD., 131 Jalan Macalister, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 60-4-2266728/2266159; Fax: 60-4-2264505; Email: twnet@po.jaring.my; Website:www.twnside.org.sgI would like to order ............. copy/copies of Panama News Updates (October2011).I enclose the amount of .......................... by cheque/bank draft/IMO.Please charge the amount of US$/Euro/RM ..................... to my credit card:American Express Visa MastercardA/c No.: Expiry date:Signature:Name:Address:THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25650

C O V E RDurban’s climate zombie trippedby dying carbon marketsBasing the Green Climate Fund on market mechanisms, specifically carbonmarkets, is a recipe for disaster, says Patrick Bond.LOOKING back now that the dust hassettled, South Africa’s COP 17 presidencyappears disastrous. This wasconfirmed not only by Durban’s delayed,diplomatically decrepit denouement,but by plummeting carbonmarkets in the days immediately followingthe conference’s ignoble endon 11 December.Of course it is tempting to ignorethe stench of failure and declare Durban‘an outstanding success’, as didSouth African Environment MinisterEdna Molewa. ‘We have significantlystrengthened the international adaptationagenda,’ she explained aboutthe near-empty Green Climate Fund.‘The design of the fund includes innovativemechanisms for bringingprivate sector and market mechanismsinto play to increase the potential flowof funding into climate change responses.’Because the $100 billion promisedby Hillary Clinton in Copenhagentwo years ago is apparently fictional(aside from minor commitmentsby South Korea, Germany andDenmark), Molewa’s two crucial albeitunintended words are ‘play’ and‘potential.’ In our new book, Durban’sClimate Gamble: Trading Carbon,Betting the Earth, critical researchersshow why emissions markets are ascomatose as the Kyoto Protocol. Onlya casino drunkard would put money– much less the planet – on the oddsof a deathbed resurrection.Bolivia’s former UN ambassadorPablo Solon scolded the hosts forturning Kyoto into a ‘zombie, a soullessundead.’ The 1997 treaty’s soulwas a commitment that emissions cutswould be binding, but several of therichest polluting countries – the US,Canada, Japan, Russia, Australia andNew Zealand – won’t sign on to thesecond commitment period. To sabotageKyoto, Washington continues itsvoluntary ‘pledge and review’ policypantomime. Kyoto’s original braincontained a species survival mechanism:a pledge to keep the earth’s temperatureat a livable level. Now, theDurban Platform contains less thanhalf of the necessary cuts to keep thetemperature increase below 2°C, saysSolon.CDM scamAs the soul-deprived, braindead,heartless climate-policy zombiestumbled off the Durban Platform inthe direction of Qatar for COP 18 nextyear, it immediately tripped on thecrumpled carbon markets. The emissionstrade is failing not only in Europebut also in our own Durbanbackyard. An Africa Report investigationunveiled South Africa’s highest-profilepilot Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) project as a scam.At Bisasar Road landfill in theClare Estate neighbourhood, theR100+ million methane-to-electricityCDM project was despised becauseit kept the continent’s largest officialdump open far beyond the point itshould have been closed. Instead ofbeing burned and flared on-site, methanegas from Bisasar’s rotting rubbishshould have been piped out for industrialuse, far away from residentialareas, according to the late communityactivist Sajida Khan. Before dyingof cancer caused by the dump in2007, she tirelessly campaigned toclose Bisasar dump and thus end oneof Africa’s most notorious cases ofenvironmental racism.Khan failed, because in 2001 theWorld Bank promised funding formethane extraction that would keepthe dump operational. The crucial factor,according to Durban officials, isthat ‘landfill gas offers a viable renewableenergy source only when linkedto carbon finance or the CDM.’Based on the assumption thatwithout outside funds, the projectcould not be justified, in 2006 theUnited Nations listed Bisasar Road asan active supplier of CDM creditsthrough at least 2014. It turns out thiswas a fib. On an official tour ofBisasar on 30 November, journalistsfrom Africa Report and San Francisco-basedPacifica News interviewedDurban Solid Waste managerJohn Parkin, who admitted, ‘Westarted the project prior to the CDM.We were already down the road. It justmade it come faster because the fundingwas there.’Why is this scandalous? AfricaReport interprets: ‘It is questionableas to whether the project should havebeen approved as a CDM initiative atall, as approval requires the existenceof “additionality”. According to theUN, “Additionality is the cornerstoneof any credible CDM project, basicallyanswering the question whethera project is additional, or would it proceedanyway, without the CDM.” Thatis, without qualification as anadditionality, the [project] shouldn’tbe approved [under the CDM].’Parkin confirmed to the journalists,‘We already started the projectand we were going ahead no matterwhat. So whether CDM became a realityor not, the project was going togo ahead.’Crashing carbon marketsSuch a whimsical approach toclimate finance is why hopes byMolewa for filling the Green ClimateFund with carbon trade revenues willbe dashed. CDM trading volumes aredown 80% from their 2007 peak, andTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25651

C O V E Rthe European Union’s carbon futuresmarket – once above €35/tonne – hoveredbetween €11-14/tonne through2010-11 but crashed to €4.4/tonne on13 December.Remarked Susanna Twidale ofthe Point Carbon news service, ‘Whilea lot of the focus of the last fortnightof UN meetings was on supply of carboncredits, not one country deepenedits carbon target, leaving internationalcarbon offset prices languishing atnear record lows.’ Reuters news serviceconfirmed, ‘Carbon markets arestill on life support’, quoting a leadingtrader: ‘A sick market needs a cureand instead of deciding which cure touse, the doctors keep using pain reliefto gain more time to make the finalprognosis.’Back in Durban, 20,000 carboncredits are being issued from theBisasar Road CDM project eachmonth. According to Parkin, ‘Wedon’t have a partner to buy them atthe moment. But we’ll probably get€8 to €9 if we’re lucky.’ Durban isunlucky to have Parkin gambling withcity finances, the air in Clare Estate,and the planet’s health.ShameThose involved with both BisasarRoad and the UN’s Conference ofPolluters should have departed Durbanhanging their heads in shame. Allthey have to show for their work, duringthis planetary emergency, is thecreation of a dangerous zombie.In this milieu, Parkin was brutallyfrank, at least: ‘As the City, ifwe can make some money out of it, Idon’t see why it shouldn’t be doneand the whole moral issue is separatefrom the project. The project is successful.The moral issue, I have noinfluence on that – as a technocrat, Ido my job.’ÿuPatrick Bond edited Durban’s Climate Gamble(UNISA Press), authored Politics of Climate Justice(UKZN Press), and directs the University ofKwaZulu-Natal Centre for Civil Society in Durban.This is a revised version of an article which appearedon the Triple Crisis blog (triplecrisis.com/durbansclimate-zombie-tripped-by-dying-carbon-markets/,19 December 2011) and in Durban’s Mercurynewspaper.Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Changethrough Ecological AgricultureBy Lim Li ChingWhile agricultural productivity is adverselyaffected by climate change, agriculture isitself a significant contributor to globalwarming. Agricultural activities have beenidentified as a major source of thegreenhouse gas emissions responsible forclimate change.However, as this paper explains,agriculture also has considerable potentialfor climate change mitigation. In particular,the adoption of “ecological agriculture”,which integrates natural regenerativeprocesses, minimizes non-renewable inputsand fosters biological diversity, can havetremendous scope for reducing emissionsand enhancing soil carbon sequestration. Atthe same time, many ecological agriculturalpractices also constitute effective strategiesfor adapting to climate change, which is apriority for developing countries.This paper looks at the various ways inwhich ecological agriculture integratesmitigation and adaptation capacities, andPrice PostageMalaysia RM7.00 RM1.00Third World countries US$4.00 US$2.00 (air); US$1.00 (sea)Other foreign countries US$6.00 US$2.00 (air); US$1.00 (sea)Orders from Malaysia – please pay by credit card/crossed cheque or postal order.Orders from Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,UK, USA – please pay by credit card/cheque/bank draft/international money orderin own currency, US$ or Euro.If paying in own currency or Euro, please calculateequivalent of US$ rate. If paying in US$, please ensure that the agent bank islocated in the USA.Rest of the world – please pay by credit card/cheque/bank draft/internationalmoney order in US$ or Euro. If paying in Euro, please calculate equivalent of US$rate. If paying in US$, please ensure that the agent bank is located in the USA.All payments should be made in favour of: THIRD WORLD NETWORK BHD.,131 Jalan Macalister, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 60-4-2266728/2266159;Fax: 60-4-2264505; Email: twnet@po.jaring.my; Website: www.twnside.org.sgI would like to order .............. copy/copies of Mitigating and Adapting to ClimateChange through Ecological Agriculture.I enclose the amount of .......................... by cheque/bank draft/IMO.Please charge the amount of US$/Euro/RM ..................... to my credit card:American Express Visa MastercardA/c No.: Expiry date:Signature:Name:Address:Environment & Development Series no. 11ISBN: 978-967-5412-42-4 24ppcalls for more investment andpolicy support to be devotedto this productive andsustainable form of farming.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25652

W O R L D A F F A I R SOut of the backyardThe establishment of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States(CELAC), a new regional bloc that excludes both the US and Canada, is a trulyhistoric development, says Benjamin Dangl.RAIN clouds ringed the lush hillsidesand poor neighbourhoods cradlingCaracas, Venezuela as dozens of LatinAmerican and Caribbean heads ofstate trickled out of the airport andinto motorcades and hotel rooms.They were gathering for thefoundational summit of the Communityof Latin American and CaribbeanStates (CELAC), a new regional blocaimed at self-determination outsidethe scope of Washington’s power.Notably absent were the presidentsof the US and Canada – theywere not invited to participate. ‘It’sthe death sentence for the MonroeDoctrine,’ Nicaraguan President DanielOrtega said of the creation ofCELAC, referring to a US policy developedin 1823 that has served as apretext for Washington’s interventionsin the region. Indeed, CELAC hasbeen put forth by many participatingpresidents as an organisation to replacethe US-dominated Organisationof American States (OAS), empowerLatin American and Caribbean unity,and create a more equal and just societyon the region’s own terms.New realityThe CELAC meeting comes at atime when Washington’s presence inthe region is waning. Following thenightmarish decades of the Cold War,in which Washington propped up dictatorsand waged wars on LatinAmerican nations, a new era hasopened up; in the past decade a waveof leftist presidents have taken officeon socialist and anti-imperialist platforms.The creation of CELAC reflectedthis new reality, and is one of variousrecent developments aimed at unifyingLatin America and the Caribbeanas a progressive alternative to USdomination. Other such regional blocsinclude the Union of South AmericanLeaders at the foundational summit of the Community of Latin American andCaribbean States (CELAC) in Caracas in December. The 33 nations comprising CELACmake up some 600 million people and a combined GDP of around $6 trillion.Nations (UNASUR), which has successfullyresolved diplomatic criseswithout pressure from Washington,the Bank of the South, which is aimedat providing alternatives to the InternationalMonetary Fund and theWorld Bank, and the Bolivarian Alliancefor the Peoples of Our America(ALBA), which was created as an alternativeto the Free Trade Area of theAmericas, a deal which would haveexpanded the North American FreeTrade Agreement throughout LatinAmerica, but failed due to regionalopposition.The global economic crisis wason many of the leaders’ minds duringthe 2-3 December CELAC conference.‘It seems it’s a terminal, structuralcrisis of capitalism,’ BolivianPresident Evo Morales said in aspeech at the gathering. ‘I feel we’remeeting at a good moment to debate... the great unity of the countries ofAmerica, without the United States.’The 33 nations comprisingCELAC make up some 600 millionpeople, and together are the numberone food exporter on the planet. Thecombined GDP of the bloc is around$6 trillion, and in a time of global economicwoes, the region now has itslowest poverty rate in 20 years; thegrowth rate in 2010 was over 6% –more than twice that of the US. Thesenumbers reflect the success of the region’ssocial programmes and antipovertyinitiatives.In an interview with Telesur, EvoMorales said the space opened byCELAC provides a great opportunityto expand the commerce of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean in a waythat does not depend on the precariousmarkets of the US and Europe. Inthis respect he saw a central goal ofCELAC as being to ‘implement politicsof solidarity, with complementaryinstead of competitive commerce toresolve social problems…’While the US is the leading tradingpartner for most Latin Americanand Caribbean countries, China ismaking enormous inroads as well,becoming the main trade ally of theeconomic powerhouses of Brazil andChile. This shift was underlined bythe fact that Chinese President HuTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25653

W O R L D A F F A I R SJintao sent a letter of congratulationsto the leaders forming CELAC. Theletter, which was read out loud to thesummit participants by their host,Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez,congratulated the heads of state oncreating CELAC, and promised thatHu would work toward expanding relationswith the region’s new organisation.The US, for its part, did not senda word of congratulations. Indeed,Washington’s official take on theCELAC meeting downplayed the newgroup’s significance and reinforcedUS commitment to the OAS. Commentingon CELAC, US Departmentof State spokesman Mark Toner said,‘There [are] many sub-regional organisationsin the hemisphere, someof which we belong to. Others, suchas this, we don’t. We continue, obviously,to work through the OAS as thepreeminent multilateral organisationspeaking for the hemisphere.’Many heads of state actually sawthe CELAC meeting as the beginningof the end for the OAS in the region.This position, held most passionatelyby leaders from Ecuador, Bolivia,Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, wasbest articulated by Chavez. ‘As theyears pass, CELAC will leave behindthe old OAS,’ Chavez said at the summit.‘The OAS is far from the spiritof our peoples and integration in LatinAmerica. CELAC is born with a newspirit; it is a platform for people’s economic,political and social development,which is very different from theOAS.’ He later told reporters, ‘Therehave been many coup d’états with totalsupport from the OAS, and it won’tbe this way with CELAC.’Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speaking at the CELAC summit: ‘As the yearspass, CELAC will leave behind the old [Organisation of American States].’overcomes such differences andmakes concrete steps toward developingregional integration, combatingpoverty, upholding human rights, protectingthe environment and buildingpeace, among other goals. The finalagreements of the two-day meetingtouched upon expanding South-to-South business and trade deals, combatingclimate change and buildingbetter social programmes across theregion to impact marginalised communities.In addition, the CELAC participantsbacked the legalisation ofcoca leaves (widely used as a medicineand for cultural purposes in theAndes), condemned thecriminalisation of immigrants and migrants,and criticised the US for itsembargo against Cuba.Various presidents at the CELACmeeting spoke of how to approachthese dominant issues. Nicaragua’sOrtega said CELAC should ‘monitorand rate’ the US anti-drug efforts. Aslong as the US continues its consumptionof drugs, Ortega said, ‘all themoney, regardless of by how much it’sVariancesHowever, the presidents involvedin CELAC vary widely in politicalideology and foreign policy, and therewere differing opinions with regardto relations with the OAS. Some sawCELAC as something that could workalongside the OAS. As Mexican chancellorPatricia Espinosa said, the OASand CELAC are ‘complementaryforces of cooperation and dialogue’.A test of CELAC will be how itThe signing ceremony of the founding charter of the Bank of the South in 2007. Besidesthe creation of CELAC, the Bank of the South is another development aimed at unifyingLatin America and the Caribbean as a progressive alternative to US domination.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25654

W O R L D A F F A I R Smultiplied, and all the blood, no matterhow much is spilled’, won’t endthe drug trade.Yet there are plenty of contradictionswithin the CELAC organisationitself. The group is for democracy butincludes the participation of PorfirioLobo from Honduras, the presidentwho replaced Manuel Zelaya in unfairelections following a 2009 militarycoup. CELAC is for environmentalprotection, yet its largest participant,Brazil, is promoting an ecologicallydisastrous agricultural model ofsoy plantations, genetically modifiedcrops and poisonous pesticides that isruining the countryside and displacingsmall farmers. The group is forfairer trade networks and peace, yetvarious participating nations have alreadysigned devastating trade dealswith the US, and corrupt politiciansat high levels of government acrossthe region are deeply tied to the violenceand profits of the transnationaldrug trade.These are some of the seriouschallenges posed to Latin Americanand Caribbean unity and progress, butthey do not cancel out the new bloc’shistorical and political significance.The creation of CELAC will likelyprove to be a significant step towardthe deepening of a struggle for independenceand unity in the region, astruggle initiated nearly 200 years agoand largely led by Latin American liberatorSimon Bolivar, whose legacywas regularly invoked at the CELACconference.In 1829, a year before his death,Bolivar famously said, ‘The UnitedStates appears destined by Providenceto plague America with miseries in thename of Freedom.’ Yet with the foundationof CELAC under the clouds ofCaracas, the march toward self-determinationis still on.ÿuBenjamin Dangl, who attended the CELACconference, is the author of Dancing with Dynamite:Social Movements and States in Latin America (AKPress, 2010) and The Price of Fire: Resource Warsand Social Movements in Bolivia (AK Press, 2007).He is the editor of TowardFreedom.com, from whichthis article is reproduced. He alsoedits UpsideDownWorld.org, a website on activismand politics in Latin America.Correa says OAS should have beendisarticulated in 1982 during theMalvinas warECUADOREAN President RafaelCorrea has again questioned the existenceof the Organisation ofAmerican States (OAS), which hesays should have been disarticulatedin 1982 during the Falklands/Malvinas war, and insisted that theregion’s problems ‘should be discussedin the region and not inWashington’.Correa, who was in Caracas forthe CELAC summit, said that theinter-American system has ‘manyshortcomings, not from the currentadministration [of OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza] butfrom its own structure’, the OAS itself.He went on to say that in 1982during the Malvinas war when Argentinaand the UK clashed over theSouth Atlantic islands, ‘the OASshould have come to an end becausethe Inter-American Reciprocal ProtectionTreaty, TIAR, was violatedwhen Washington did not support amember country, but rather an outerregion country’.‘We need deep changes to thecurrent system and [should] build aLatin American model, where wecan discuss the problems of the regionin the region and not in Washingtonand according to our own circumstances,’underlined theEcuadorean president.Correa pointed out the paradoxof the OAS Inter-American HumanRights Commission, CIDH, whichwas born ‘to defend citizens fromdictatorships and now those samegroups which supported the dictatorshipsare the ones accusing progressivegovernments that arechanging the previous precarioussituation of Latin America’.Correa was referring to his ongoingdispute with the owners of theEcuadorean media whom he accusesof manipulating public opinion andhas combated with very strict andcontroversial legislation which hasled to appeals to the CIDH.Finally the Ecuadorean presidentregretted that the ‘OAS historicallyhas served the interests of theUnited States to the extent that Cubawas expelled because of the Revolution,but nothing of the sort happenedin Chile during the bloodycoup and dictatorship of GeneralPinochet’.Likewise Venezuelan PresidentHugo Chavez anticipated thatCELAC would become a ‘pole ofpower’ which with time will leavebehind the ‘old and worn-out OAS’.‘CELAC must become a politicalunion and on that political unionwe shall build a great pole ofpower in the 21st century,’ promisedChavez.Chavez compared the new organisationwith the OAS whichbrings together all the countries ofthe Americas with the exception ofCuba, kicked out in 1962.‘The OAS is the ancient regime,a space manipulated and dominatedby the US, crippled by the old’,while CELAC is born ‘with a newspirit like a weapon of political, economicand social integration’.However, he was also cautious,saying that ruling or prevailing ideologiesin the region’s differentcountries have nothing to do withCELAC.‘Forget ideologies, CELAC isan independent process, independentfrom Cuban Socialism, fromVenezuelan Socialism or from theideology that the Brazilian governmentmight be promoting, or thegovernments from Colombia, Nicaragua…’– MercoPress uTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25655

W O R L D A F F A I R SPlaying with fireUS foreign policy has now taken an ominous turn, with the primary focus of itsmilitary strategy no longer on terrorism, but on the containment of China.Michael T Klare warns of a new Cold War in Asia.WHEN it comes to China policy, isthe Barack Obama administration inthe US leaping from the frying pandirectly into the fire? In an attemptto turn the page on two disastrouswars in the Greater Middle East, itmay have just launched a new ColdWar in Asia – once again, viewing oilas the key to global supremacy.The new policy was signalled byPresident Obama himself on 17 Novemberin an address to the AustralianParliament in which he laid outan audacious – and extremely dangerous– geopolitical vision. Instead offocusing on the Greater Middle East,as has been the case for the last decade,the United States will now concentrateits power in Asia and the Pacific.‘My guidance is clear,’ he declaredin Canberra. ‘As we plan andbudget for the future, we will allocatethe resources necessary to maintainour strong military presence in thisregion.’ While administration officialsinsist that this new policy is notaimed specifically at China, the implicationis clear enough: from nowon, the primary focus of Americanmilitary strategy will not becounterterrorism, but the containmentof that economically booming land –at whatever risk or cost.The planet’s new centre ofgravityThe new emphasis on Asia andthe containment of China is necessary,top officials insist, because the Asia-Pacific region now constitutes the‘centre of gravity’ of world economicactivity. While the United States wasbogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan,the argument goes, China had the leewayto expand its influence in the region.For the first time since the endof World War II, Washington is nolonger the dominant economic actorthere. If the United States is to retainWashington’s recent moves in Asia could heighten the risk of future incidentsinvolving US, Chinese and allied vessels, such as the one in March 2009 when Chinesenaval vessels surrounded a US anti-submarine warfare surveillance ship, theImpeccable (pic).its title as the world’s paramountpower, it must, this thinking goes, restoreits primacy in the region and rollback Chinese influence. In the comingdecades, no foreign policy taskwill, it is claimed, be more importantthan this.In line with its new strategy, theadministration has undertaken anumber of moves intended to bolsterAmerican power in Asia, and so putChina on the defensive. These includea decision to deploy an initial250 US Marines – someday to beupped to 2,500 – to an Australian airbase in Darwin on that country’s northcoast, and the adoption on 18 Novemberof ‘the Manila Declaration’, apledge of closer US military ties withthe Philippines.At the same time, the WhiteHouse announced the sale of 24 F-16fighter jets to Indonesia and a visit byHillary Clinton to isolated Burma,long a Chinese ally – the first thereby a US Secretary of State in 56years. Clinton has also spoken of increaseddiplomatic and military tieswith Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam– all countries surrounding Chinaor overlooking key trade routes thatChina relies on for importing rawmaterials and exporting manufacturedgoods.As portrayed by administrationofficials, such moves are intended tomaximise America’s advantages in thediplomatic and military realm at atime when China dominates the economicrealm regionally. In a recentarticle in Foreign Policy magazine,Clinton revealingly suggested that aneconomically weakened United Statescan no longer hope to prevail in multipleregions simultaneously. It mustchoose its battlefields carefully anddeploy its limited assets – most ofthem of a military nature – to maximumadvantage. Given Asia’s strategiccentrality to global power, thismeans concentrating resources there.‘Over the last 10 years,’ shewrites, ‘we have allocated immenseresources to [Iraq and Afghanistan].In the next 10 years, we need to besmart and systematic about where weinvest time and energy, so that we putourselves in the best position to sus-THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25656

W O R L D A F F A I R Stain our leadership [and] secure ourinterests... One of the most importanttasks of American statecraft over thenext decade will therefore be to lockin a substantially increased investment– diplomatic, economic, strategic,and otherwise – in the Asia-Pacificregion.’Such thinking, with its distinctlymilitary focus, appears dangerouslyprovocative. The steps announcedentail an increased military presencein waters bordering China and enhancedmilitary ties with that country’sneighbours – moves certain toarouse alarm in Beijing and strengthenthe hand of those in the ruling circle(especially in the Chinese militaryleadership) who favour a more activist,militarised response to US incursions.Whatever forms that takes, onething is certain: the leadership of theglobe’s number two economic poweris not going to let itself appear weakand indecisive in the face of an Americanbuildup on the periphery of itscountry. This, in turn, means that wemay be sowing the seeds of a newCold War in Asia in 2011.The US military buildup and thepotential for a powerful Chinese counter-thrusthave already been the subjectof discussion in the American andAsian press. But one crucial dimensionof this incipient struggle has receivedno attention at all: the degreeto which Washington’s sudden moveshave been dictated by a fresh analysisof the global energy equation, revealing(as the Obama administrationsees it) increased vulnerabilities forthe Chinese side and new advantagesfor Washington.The new energy equationFor decades, the United Stateshas been heavily dependent on importedoil, much of it obtained fromthe Middle East and Africa, whileChina was largely self-sufficient in oiloutput. In 2001, the United Statesconsumed 19.6 million barrels of oilper day, while producing only ninemillion barrels itself. The dependencyon foreign suppliers for that 10.6-million-barrelshortfall proved a sourceof enormous concern for WashingtonTwo US Navy ships on a training exercise in the South China Sea. The Obamaadministration is seeking to secure naval dominance of the South China Sea.policymakers. They responded byforging ever closer, more militarisedties with Middle Eastern oil producersand going to war on occasion toensure the safety of US supply lines.In 2001, China, on the other hand,consumed only five million barrelsper day and so, with a domestic outputof 3.3 million barrels, needed toimport only 1.7 million barrels.Those cold, hard numbers made itsleadership far less concerned aboutthe reliability of the country’s majoroverseas providers – and so it did notneed to duplicate the same sort of foreignpolicy entanglements that Washingtonhad long been involved in.Now, so the Obama administrationhas concluded, the tables are beginningto turn. As a result of China’sbooming economy and the emergenceof a sizeable and growing middleclass (many of whom have alreadybought their first cars), the country’soil consumption is exploding. Runningat about 7.8 million barrels perday in 2008, it will, according to recentprojections by the US Departmentof Energy, reach 13.6 millionbarrels in 2020, and 16.9 million in2035. Domestic oil production, on theother hand, is expected to grow from4.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to5.3 million in 2035. Not surprisingly,then, Chinese imports are expected toskyrocket from 3.8 million barrels perday in 2008 to a projected 11.6 millionin 2035 – at which time they willexceed those of the United States.The US, meanwhile, can lookforward to an improved energy situation.Thanks to increased productionin ‘tough oil’ areas of the UnitedStates, including the Arctic seas offAlaska, the deep waters of the Gulfof Mexico, and shale formations inMontana, North Dakota, and Texas,future imports are expected to decline,even as energy consumption rises. Inaddition, more oil is likely to be availablefrom the Western Hemisphererather than the Middle East or Africa.Again, this will be thanks to the exploitationof yet more ‘tough oil’ areas,including the Athabasca tar sandsof Canada, Brazilian oil fields in thedeep Atlantic, and increasingly pacifiedenergy-rich regions of previouslywar-torn Colombia. According to theDepartment of Energy, combined productionin the United States, Canada,and Brazil is expected to climb by10.6 million barrels per day between2009 and 2035 – an enormous jump,considering that most areas of theworld are expecting declining output.Whose sea lanes are theseanyway?From a geopolitical perspective,all this seems to confer a genuine advantageon the United States, even asChina becomes ever more vulnerableto the vagaries of events in, or along,the sea lanes to distant lands. It meansTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25657

W O R L D A F F A I R SWashington will be able to contemplatea gradual loosening ofits military and political ties tothe Middle Eastern oil statesthat have dominated its foreignpolicy for so long and have ledto those costly, devastatingwars.Indeed, as PresidentObama said in Canberra, theUS is now in a position to beginto refocus its military capabilitieselsewhere. ‘After adecade in which we fought twowars that cost us dearly,’ hedeclared, ‘the United States isturning our attention to the vastpotential of the Asia-Pacific region.’For China, all this spells potentialstrategic impairment. Althoughsome of China’s imported oil willtravel overland through pipelinesfrom Kazakhstan and Russia, the greatmajority of it will still come by tankerfrom the Middle East, Africa, andLatin America over sea lanes policedby the US Navy. Indeed, almost everytanker bringing oil to China travelsacross the South China Sea, a bodyof water the Obama administration isnow seeking to place under effectivenaval control.By securing naval dominance ofthe South China Sea and adjacentwaters, the Obama administrationevidently aims to acquire the 21stcenturyenergy equivalent of 20thcenturynuclear blackmail. Push ustoo far, the policy implies, and we’llbring your economy to its knees byblocking your flow of vital energysupplies. Of course, nothing like thiswill ever be said in public, but it isinconceivable that senior administrationofficials are not thinking alongjust these lines, and there is ampleevidence that the Chinese are deeplyworried about the risk – as indicated,for example, by their frantic effortsto build staggeringly expensive pipelinesacross the entire expanse of Asiato the Caspian Sea basin.As the underlying nature of thenew Obama strategic blueprint becomesclearer, there can be no questionthat the Chinese leadership will,in response, take steps to ensure theAn oil rig in the Arctic region. In the drive to promotegreater US self-sufficiency in energy output, the Obamaadministration is giving its approval to productiontechniques like Arctic drilling that could lead to furtherenvironmental catastrophe.safety of China’s energy lifelines.Some of these moves will undoubtedlybe economic and diplomatic, including,for example, efforts to courtregional players like Vietnam and Indonesiaas well as major oil supplierslike Angola, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.Make no mistake, however: otherswill be of a military nature. A significantbuildup of the Chinese navy– still small and backward when comparedto the fleets of the United Statesand its principal allies – would seemall but inevitable. Likewise, closermilitary ties between China and Russia,as well as with the Central Asianmember states of the Shanghai CooperationOrganisation (Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, andUzbekistan), are assured.In addition, Washington couldnow be sparking the beginnings of agenuine Cold-War-style arms race inAsia, which neither country can, in thelong run, afford. All of this is likelyto lead to greater tension and a heightenedrisk of inadvertent escalationarising out of future incidents involvingUS, Chinese, and allied vessels –like the one that occurred in March2009 when a flotilla of Chinese navalvessels surrounded a US anti-submarinewarfare surveillance ship, theImpeccable, and almost precipitateda shooting incident. As more warshipscirculate through these watersin an increasingly provocative fashion,the risk that such an incident willresult in something far more explosivecan only grow.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25658Nor will the potential risksand costs of such a militaryfirstpolicy aimed at China berestricted to Asia. In the driveto promote greater US self-sufficiencyin energy output, theObama administration is givingits approval to production techniques– Arctic drilling, deepoffshoredrilling, and hydraulicfracturing – that are guaranteedto lead to furtherDeepwater-Horizon-style environmentalcatastrophe athome. Greater reliance on Canadiantar sands, the ‘dirtiest’of energies, will result in increasedgreenhouse gas emissionsand a multitude of otherenvironmental hazards, while deepAtlantic oil production off the Braziliancoast and elsewhere has its ownset of grim dangers.Perilous courseAll of this ensures that, environmentally,militarily, and economically,we will find ourselves in a more, notless, perilous world. The desire to turnaway from disastrous land wars in theGreater Middle East to deal with keyissues now simmering in Asia is understandable,but choosing a strategythat puts such an emphasis on militarydominance and provocation isbound to provoke a response in kind.It is hardly a prudent path to headdown, nor will it, in the long run, advanceAmerica’s interests at a timewhen global economic cooperation iscrucial. Sacrificing the environmentto achieve greater energy independencemakes no more sense.A new Cold War in Asia and ahemispheric energy policy that couldendanger the planet: it’s a fatal brewthat should be reconsidered before theslide toward confrontation and environmentaldisaster becomes irreversible.You don’t have to be a seer toknow that this is not the definition ofgood statesmanship, but of the marchof folly.ÿuMichael T Klare is a professor of peace and worldsecurity studies at Hampshire College in the US,and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers,Shrinking Planet. This article is reproduced fromTomDispatch.com.

How the West helped inventRussia’s election fraudWith Russians on the streets protesting yet another fraud-riddled election, andHillary Clinton lecturing the Kremlin on the evils of election fraud, the website TheeXiled decided to repost this important background story on Russian election fraud,and how the West, led by Hillary’s husband Bill Clinton, enabled and whitewashedRussia’s 1996 stolen elections which assured that the hugely unpopular BorisYeltsin won. Yeltsin’s Western-backed victory allowed him to pick his successor,Vladimir Putin, in 2000.This article by Alexander Zaitchik and Mark Ames about the West’s activecomplicity in Russian election fraud, in creating the template still used today byPutin, was first published in The eXile (the precursor to The eXiled) on 30November 2007, the eve of Russia’s 2007 Duma elections, the last time before thisyear Russians voted in parliamentary elections.‘A Victory for Russian Democracy’– Title of a New YorkTimes editorial, days after theODIHR-approved 1996 presidentialelection‘Exit, Russian Democracy’– Title of a New York Times editorial,days before the ODIHR-boycotted2007 Duma electionsW O R L D A F F A I R SWHEN Russia told the Organisationfor Security and Co-operation in Europe(OSCE) that their election monitoringmission would be severely limitedlast month, it seemed as thoughPutin had fired an authoritarian shotout of the blue, baring his innerStalinist once and for all. The Westreacted as if the OSCE was the crucifixof democracy, and Putin’s rejectionof that crucifix was evil rejectinggood.Well, that’s one way of lookingat it. Another way is that the recentRussia-OSCE door-slamming episodeis the inevitable outcome of years ofcynical Western manipulation of anorganisation that once held enormouspromise and impeccable credentials,but is now with good reason considereda propaganda tool for the West.If that last sentence sounds likethe paranoid rant of a Putin-era silovikrevanchist, then think again. It’s theMuscovites voting in Russia’s 1996 presidential polls. Boris Yeltsin’s win in thoseelections was rife with fraud.view held by none other than the manwho headed the OSCE’s 1996 electionmission in Russia, MichaelMeadowcroft.‘The West let Russia down, andit’s a shame,’ said Meadowcroft, aformer British MP and veteran of 48election monitoring missions to 35countries.In a recent telephone interviewwith The eXile, Meadowcroft explainedhow he was pressured byOSCE and EU authorities to ignoreserious irregularities in Boris Yeltsin’sheavily manipulated 1996 electionvictory, and how EU officials suppresseda report about the Russianmedia’s near-total subservience topro-Yeltsin forces.‘Up to the last minute I was beingpressured by [the OSCE higherupsin] Warsaw to change what Iwanted to say,’ said Meadowcroft. ‘Interms of what the OSCE was preparedto say publicly about the election, theywere very opposed to any suggestionthat the election had been manipulated.’THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25659

W O R L D A F F A I R SIn fact, he says, the OSCE andthe West had made its mind up abouthow wonderfully free and fair BorisYeltsin’s election was before votingeven started.‘The OSCE parliamentary assemblyhad a separate mission who werepassionately pro-Yeltsin,’ he said. ‘Soyou had two OSCE missions for theelection, one of which arrived predisposedto say things were good.’ Theother was pressured to agree.Evidence of fraud, such as entiretowns in Chechnya voting overwhelminglyfor Yeltsin, causedMeadowcroft to liken the 1996 electionto those held in African dictatorships.‘In Chechnya they’d beenbombed out of existence, and therethey were all supposedly voting forYeltsin. It’s like what happens inCameroon,’ he said.While the Western media portraythe Russia-OSCE spat as a simplebattle between bright democracy anddark autocracy, the Russian elite havea deeply cynical view of the OSCEbased on personal experience. AsMeadowcroft was not allowed to sayat the time, Yeltsin’s victory in 1996was rife with fraud. Most importantto the outcome was the months-longblanket television support Yeltsin receivedand a ‘black PR’ campaignagainst his Communist foe, GennadyZyuganov; Russia’s print media wasalmost as bad. The election was not a‘victory for optimists’, as the HooverInstitute’s notorious Yeltsin-cheerleaderMichael McFaul wrote at thetime. Rather, the technology of thefraudulent election, blessed by theWest, served as the template for futureRussian elections. But if few inthe West know about this, it’s becausethe OSCE and the Western media onlybegan to emphasise Russia’s systemicelectoral fraud and media manipulationin 2003.‘[The West] didn’t want [preelection]criticism that the electionhad been manipulated, lest the Communistsget public mileage out of it,’said Meadowcroft. ‘And the Communistsregarded it as par for the coursethat they wouldn’t get a fair deal. Iwent to see the Zyuganov team andthey said, “Oh it’s a waste of time toThe Vienna headquarters of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.The OSCE’s conduct in monitoring elections in Russia has undermined its credibility.give you the dossier [on electionfraud], you’re not going to do anythingabout it anyway.”’He added that the EU tried to suppressa report about media manipulationsubmitted by a Belgian colleagueworking for an EU institution. Whenhe was barred from releasing the report,he handed it over toMeadowcroft, who released it to themedia as a private citizen. Few noticedor cared at the time.Instead, here’s the kind of spinWestern publics heard after the 1996election:‘The preliminary conclusion ofthe IRI delegation is that this electionwas Russia’s best ever and reflectedthe great strides made by the Russianpeople in institutionalising their democracy.’(American observerWilliam Ball III, of the US-funded InternationalRepublican Institute NGO,July 1996)‘Voting was held… in a democratic,impartial and fair manner.’(Ernst Meulemann, an observer fromthe Council of Europe, July 1996)‘Now it’s true that PresidentYeltsin used his incumbency to his ownadvantage. It’s also true that the Communistcandidate, Mr. Zyuganov, usedthe fact that the Communist Party, theRussian Federation, has a hugegrassroots organisation, by far thebest, the biggest, and most complexorganisation in Russia, to its advantage.But a number of internationalobservers have judged this to be a freeand fair election.’ (US Deputy Secretaryof State Strobe Talbott, July 1996)‘For all the mutual distrust andsuspicion that preceded the election,there was consensus on the part of theGovernment, the Communist oppositionand international observers thatSunday’s election had been for themost part free and fair.’ (New YorkTimes, 18 June 1996)‘OSCE: ELECTION GENER-ALLY FREE AND FAIR: Even beforethe final results had been tabulated,a delegation of 500 election monitorsfrom the OSCE issued a preliminarystatement on 17 June declaring thefirst round of the Russian presidentialelection “generally free andfair”.’ (Radio Free Europe/Radio LibertyEurope, June 1996)Meadowcroft is still shocked bythe manipulation of his assessment ofthe election. ‘I never said “free andfair”. The weasel words I used weresomething like “a step forward fordemocracy”, but I certainly wouldn’tsay “free and fair” as far as I was recordingit,’ he said.The OSCE continued pumpingTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25660

W O R L D A F F A I R Sout glass-half-full reports into thePutin era. In 2000, it was quick to signoff on Putin’s first-round victory, despitewidespread evidence of fraud,some of it uncovered by the MoscowTimes. ‘The OSCE should not haveapproved [the 2000 elections],’ theYabloko party spokesman, SergeiLoktyonov, told The eXile afterPutin’s 2003 reelection. ‘It’s hard tosay why they did that.’But is it? In 2000, Putin was stillseen as a ‘reformer’, as the West’sguy. He had not yet begun to crossWestern oil interests or to reassert anindependent and muscular foreignpolicy. Fast forward to 2003 and theOSCE was singing a different tune.The OSCE hasn’t just destroyedits credibility with its strange criteriafor judging some Russian electionsfair and others not. As the world considersMoscow’s charge of undueAmerican influence on the organisation,it’s worth pulling an OSCE‘greatest hit’ out of the memory hole.In the run-up to the Kosovo war, theorganisation was used as a front forthe CIA to deliver communicationsequipment to the Kosovo LiberationArmy (KLA), and to gather targetinginformation for an expected upcomingNATO bombing campaign. As reportedby the New York Times inMarch of 2000:‘When the Organisation for Securityand Co-operation in Europe(OSCE), which co-ordinated the [humanrights] monitoring, left Kosovoa week before airstrikes began a yearago, many of its satellite telephonesand global positioning systems weresecretly handed to the KLA, ensuringthat guerrilla commanders couldstay in touch with NATO and Washington.Several KLA leaders had themobile phone number of GeneralWesley Clark, the NATO commander.European diplomats then working forthe OSCE claim it was betrayed byan American policy that madeairstrikes inevitable. Some have questionedthe motives and loyalties ofWilliam Walker, the American OSCEhead of mission. “The Americanagenda consisted of their diplomaticobservers, aka the CIA, operating oncompletely different terms to the restof Europe and the OSCE,” said a Europeanenvoy.’To longtime democracy professionalsand election monitors likeMeadowcroft, this cynical exploitationof the organisation’s good nameset the stage for the OSCE’s downfall– a downfall now being blamedon ‘little brother’ non-NATO membercountries on the OSCE’s easternflank.‘The sad thing is that because theOSCE has not been as forthright as itshould have been, the people who regardmonitoring as a waste of time usethis as an argument against it,’ saidMeadowcroft, reflecting on the currentKremlin-OSCE row. ‘That’s thedistressing thing. I feel like even I wascompromised by not being tougher.But it’s hard when you’ve got fiveminutes to go before the press conferenceand this guy from Warsaw ison the phone saying “You can’t saythat!” I said, “Look I’m going to speakto the press.” The response was, “No,you can’t say that.” It was very difficultfor me.’Democracy on the deathbedMeadowcroft’s revelations aresignificant for a lot of reasons. In thefirst place, we at The eXile are leftonce again scratching our heads, wonderingwhy no one from the mainstreammedia bothered contacting theman who headed the observer missionduring the most ‘free and fair’ electionin post-communist Russian history.His revelations also help put intoperspective what is really going onwith Russia’s near-death experimentwith democracy. The new low thatwe’ve reached in late 2007 is notsome out-of-the-blue invention ofPutin and his siloviki cronies, butrather the result of a joint effort whichsaw the worst of both sides. Democracyas birthed and fed under BorisYeltsin was always something like thesemi-stillborn foetal-freakin Eraserhead. Most of the Yeltsin-eraelite saw formal democracy as a painin the ass that had to be kept alive forvisiting Western delegations, wholooked at the croaking, spitting foetus,covered in rot and slime, and declared,‘It looks just like Lady Liberty!’Meadowcroft relayed some of hisown experiences with Yeltsin’s elite‘young reformers’ and their Westernenablers – what he called the ‘economicmafia’:‘What I was being told [by them]in 1996… “Why are you bothering usabout elections? We’re not going tolet this place fall. We’re making toomuch money. Why bother with elections?”’This paints a familiar if often ignoredpicture, one that implicates theWest in the collapse of OSCE credibilityin particular, and the nearcomatosestate of Russian democracyin general. It’s not fair to simplyblame the West for Russia’s problems,but it’s equally disingenuous to denythe West’s role in screwing things up.The current narrative of a happy pastand pure elections versus a darkpresent and lost democracy is easy toswallow but destructive insofar as itincreases misunderstanding and paranoiaon both sides. Needless to say, italso enables those in the West to leadus into a new Cold War based partiallyon the fantasy of a glorious Russiandemocratic past that never was, or atleast not since Yeltsin’s shelling of hisopposition parliament in 1993.It’s not that the West won’t beright when it condemns this weekend’s[2007] vote. In OSCE jargon,the Duma elections will be ‘fundamentallyflawed’. They will ‘fall farshort’ of Western standards, if not expectations.It’s not a secret that theRussian state-run media are grotesquelypro-Putin. Or that the electionlaws have been changed to shutout opposition parties. Or that, as inprevious elections, there will likely besome old-fashioned ballot stuffing inthe provinces.Not for the first time, the MoscowTimes has helped fill in the blankswith regard to the electoral shenaniganstaking place across the country.In a report published 27 November,the paper details insider allegations offraud and the pressure – includingoutright intimidation and threats –some Russians are experiencing fromTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25661

W O R L D A F F A I R Stheir employers to vote for UnitedRussia, Putin’s party, on 2 December.Whatever adjectives are thrownat the elections on 3 December, everyoneagrees that ‘Swedish’ won’t beamong them.But of all the many statementsbeing made about Putin’s ‘manageddemocracy’, the boycott by theOSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutionsand Human Rights is consideredthe most profound. It is certainlythe most influential. The ODIHR isstill considered the gold standard inthe democracy watchdog game. Whenit says Boris Yeltsin was elected fairand square in 1996, the New YorkTimes and most of the rest of the Westernmedia were quick to declare a‘Victory for Russian Democracy’.When the same body decided not tobless Russia with its presence thisyear, the country’s democracy wasuniversally declared to have ‘Exited’.The truth is it never entered. Butthat didn’t used to bother the democracyexperts at the OSCE.Meadowcroft has been involvedin democracy-building and electionmonitoringin Russia and the CIScountries since 1989. In the beginning,he said, international electionmonitors were seen as ‘the goodguys’. That began to change when theOSCE wrested control of regionalelection-monitoring duties from theUnited Nations. That, he says, is whenthe ideological rot set in.‘You could trace the subversionof the OSCE from the moment thatthe UN had to give way to the OSCEfor election monitoring operations inits area,’ says Meadowcroft. ‘Therecame a point where the UN’s electoraldivision was not strong enough to insistthat it carry out missions in theOSCE region. It was forced to handover its mission to the OSCE. TheUN’s electoral affairs division wasoriginally part of the political departmentof the UN, which was verystrong. And it was shifted out. The UNwas in effect politically forced to letthe OSCE run stuff in its area. Thiswas largely an American initiative.’At the end of the Cold War, whenthe OSCE was still known as the Conferenceon Security and Cooperationin Europe, there were big hopes. TheCSCE had been the forum for themajor milestones that lessened superpowertensions and set the stage forthe end of the Cold War, from theHelsinki Declaration on HumanRights to early negotiations on theConventional Forces in EuropeTreaty.‘There was this idea that theCSCE would be a “UN for Europe”.Havel would be its godfather, theAmericans would endorse it, and itwould take over the old Federal Parliamentbuilding in Prague whenCzechoslovakia split,’ saidChristopher Lord, a former editorof Perspectives: A Central EuropeanJournal of Eastern European Affairsand a former consultant for the CzechMinistry of Foreign Affairs.‘What killed it was a proliferationof countries as the Eastern Blocfragmented,’ said Lord. ‘With thebreak-up of Yugoslavia the inherentweakness of the CSCE was revealed.Once it was exposed to the stressesof a hot war, the cold war dinosaurfell over sideways and died of shock.The urgency of the situation meantthat attention in foreign ministriesswung away from the CSCE and backto the UN, and especially NATO. TheCSCE, along with the Western EuropeanUnion, another structure whichcoulda been a contender, didn’t quitemake it.’The mid-1990s brought an expansionof OSCE programmes andsaw the beginning of a steady shift inits focus. For most of its first 20 years,the CSCE was largely dedicated tohard security issues, with democracyand human rights playing a smallerrole. After it was renamed the OSCE,the newly created Office for DemocraticInstitutions and Human Rightsquickly began sucking up scarce resourcesand energy. Since then, easternmembers have begun to tire of the‘soft’ half of the equation getting somuch attention.East-West tensions within theOSCE have been building for years.Now Russia and most other CIS countrieshave had enough of the democracylecturing and want to shift thefocus back to hard security matters.The OSCE is, after all, the one pan-European forum where they are, intheory, full and equal members.Behind the headlines of theOSCE-Moscow spat, a larger showdownwill take place at the end of themonth in Madrid, at the OSCE’s annualend-of-the-year meeting. There,a new group of OSCE nations, led byRussia, will try to redirect the futureof the organisation.Writing in the Eurasia DailyMonitor, Vladimir Socor describes thegoal of the new grouping: ‘The Russia-ledbloc calls for refocusing theOSCE on the military-political dimension…This move continues Moscow’slong-standing attempts to endowthe OSCE with functions thatcould duplicate or interfere with thoseof NATO and maintain a Russian-influencedgrey area in Europe’s East.The novel elements are the bloc basisand extended scope of the proposals.Russia hopes to build up the OSCEinto an all-European security bodyand counterpose it to NATO, particularlyin Europe’s East. This is whymost Western countries have long resistedturning the OSCE into a fullfledgedorganisation.’The Russia-led group is also proposingnew rules for the monitoringof elections. It wants to weaken whatit sees as the Western grip on theODIHR, slow the response time forissuing election reports, and spreadmonitoring missions more evenlyacross the OSCE’s turf – which famouslyspans ‘from Vancouver toVladivostok’. By all accounts theRussia-led bloc means business andis willing to obstruct the organisation’swork until a serious reform planis on the table.What all this means is that theOSCE’s judgment on this weekend’selections is irrelevant. And so is theOSCE as we have come to know it.uThis article first appeared in The eXile (30November 2007). It was reposted in the presentversion of the publication, The eXiled(exiledonline.com), after the December 2011 Russianparliamentary elections and is reproduced heretherefrom.Alexander Zaitchik is a journalist living in NewYork. Mark Ames is the founding editor of The eXileand co-editor of The eXiled. He is co-author withMatt Taibbi of the book The eXile: Sex, Drugs andLibel in the New Russia.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25662

W O R L D A F F A I R SIraq intervention ends withscarcely a whimperThe fact that there was no fanfare in the US to herald the end of the Iraq war is atelling commentary on how differently the war is viewed today, says Jim Lobe.WHEN the United States formallyended its eight-and-a-half-year militaryadventure in Iraq on 15 Decemberwith a flag-lowering ceremonypresided over by Defence SecretaryLeon Panetta in Baghdad, hardly anyonein the US seemed to notice, letalone mark the occasion in a specialmanner.Similarly, earlier in the sameweek, when US President BarackObama hosted Iraqi Prime MinisterNuri al-Maliki at the White House todiscuss – apparently rather inconclusively– the future strategic relationshipbetween the two countries, hardlyanyone paid attention.The surprising lack of interestcould be explained by the distractionsof the holiday season, the Republicanpresidential race or the health of theglobal and US economies.It could also be due to the factthat people were all too aware that,even as the last 4,000 US combattroops in Iraq headed for home, Washingtonstill has more than 90,000troops engaged in Afghanistan. Thatsituation, in the public mind, is notall that different from Iraq, particularlybecause former President GeorgeW. Bush depicted them both as partof the ‘global war on terror’, or, assome of his more extreme neo-conservativecheerleaders described it intheir typically apocalyptic hyperbole,‘World War IV’.Or perhaps people would just assoon forget as a bad dream what theformer head of the National SecurityAgency, the late Lt. Gen. WilliamOdom, called back in 2005 – just twoand a half years after the US invasion– ‘the greatest strategic disaster inUnited States history’.Within days of the 20 March2003 launch of Washington’s ‘shockand awe’ military campaign, some70% of the public told pollsters theysupported the war and thought it was‘the right thing to do’, against about25% who said the US should havestayed out.Eight and a half years later, thosenumbers are virtually reversed: in apoll conducted in November by CNN,68% of respondents said they opposethe US war in Iraq, while only 29%said they favour it.In a CBS News poll also conductedin November, 67% of respondentsassessed the Iraq war as ‘notworth the loss of American lives andother costs’ incurred. Only 24%, includinga plurality of Republicans,disagreed – eloquent testimony indeedto the deep disillusionment most citizensfeel about a war whose costs itsinitiators utterly failed to anticipate,let alone prepare for.On the US side of the ledger, thecosts have been staggering: nearly4,500 soldiers killed, with tens ofthousands more wounded in manyways, including severe brain injuriesand post-traumatic stress disorders(PTSDs) that haunt and disable theirvictims for the rest of their lives.The war’s official price tag ofapproximately $1 trillion over theeight years ignores the far greater indirectcosts.Joseph Stiglitz, winner of theNobel Prize for Economics, has estimatedtotal costs of the Iraq war onthe US economy, including the costsof health care for veterans, at morethan $3 trillion, a significant amountgiven the difficult economic straits inwhich this country finds itself.In addition, the US suffered animmeasurable loss in internationalcredibility. The stated justificationsfor going to war – Saddam Hussein’sties to Al Qaeda, weapons of massdestruction, a rapidly developing nuclearweapons programme – provedutterly unfounded, while the mightiest,highest-tech war machine in historyfailed to suppress a variety of ragtaginsurgencies.The Iraq war has beencalled ‘the greateststrategic disaster inUnited States history’.Of course, material US lossespale when compared to those of theIraqis – estimated at well over100,000 dead, and countless others,including hundreds of thousands ofchildren, injured or traumatised bytheir experiences.Nor can the social costs also beignored: the United Nations has estimatedthe number of people who havefled their homes since the invasion atnearly five million, roughly equallydivided between internally displacedpersons (IDPs) within Iraq and refugeeswho have fled to neighbouringcountries, including much of Iraq’spreviously thriving Christian community,or beyond.Moreover, the still-smoulderingembers of sectarian violence betweenthe Shi’a-led government forces andmilitias and their Sunni rivals, as wellas unresolved tensions between theKurdish population in the north andArabs over territorial claims in andaround Kirkuk, have not justreconfigured the country’s demographyand politics. They also remainlargely unresolved and therefore potentialsources of major future conflict,even civil war. – IPS ÿuTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25663

H U M A N R I G H T SAn online repository of decades ofpolice terror in GuatemalaGuatemala’s 36-year counterinsurgency conflict, a US-backed war involvingdisappearances, torture, rape and murder which ultimately took the lives of250,000 – mostly indigenous Mayans – ended in 1996. Procuring the incriminatingevidence has proved difficult, but as in Chile, another victim of the US ‘dirty war’ inLatin America (see box), the process of bringing to justice those responsible haspicked up in recent years.Danilo ValladaresMILLIONS of documents from theGuatemalan national police archive,shedding light on torture, forced disappearancesand murders committedduring the 1960-1996 counterinsurgencywar in this country, are nowavailable online thanks to a collaborationwith the University of Texas atAustin.The Politics of Memory conferenceheld 2 December at the Universityof Texas unveiled a digital archivehosted by the university, holding 12million of the roughly 80 millionpages of national police documentsdiscovered by chance in 2005.The online digital repository fromthe Historical Archive of the NationalPolice of Guatemala (AHPN) will beavailable to the public ‘with no requisitewhatsoever,’ Alberto Fuentes,one of the experts working at theAHPN, told Inter Press Service (IPS).‘Essentially, it contains two things:documents on cases involving crimesand violence in the country, as wellas records of social control and surveillance,especially of oppositionpoliticians,’ Fuentes explained.‘We have found more than900,000 personal dossiers containingnames, photographs and fingerprintsof individuals, as well as notes abouttheir political activities,’ he said.In July 2005, the Procuraduia delos Derechos Humanos – the officeof Guatemala’s human rights ombudsman– found the abandoned documentsby accident in an abandonedmunitions depot on the north side ofA woman in Guatemala City arrangingphotographs of people who weredisappeared during Guatemala’s 1960-96counterinsurgency war. New records thatcame to light in 2005 document the roleplayed by the country’s National Policeduring and before the conflict.Guatemala City. The messy bundlesof records were stacked floorto ceiling in dozens of rooms infestedby rats, bats and cockroaches,and many of the files werein an advanced state of decay.The administrative policerecords, which date from 1882 to1997, document the repressive roleplayed by the police during the 36-year armed conflict between leftistinsurgents and governmentforces, which left a death toll of250,000.That total included at least45,000 people who were seized bythe security forces and forcibly disappeared,their bodies buried in unmarkedgraves in cemeteries or insecret graves, often in militarybases, according to the HistoricalClarification Commission. TheUN-mandated truth commissionfound that the army was responsiblefor more than 90% of the killingsin the civil war, most of whosevictims were rural Maya Indians.The records that came to lightin 2005 document the role played bythe National Police during – and before– the conflict. The AHPN beganto salvage and digitise the archives in2006. The documents are held undertight security.The archive includes arrest warrants,surveillance reports, identificationdocuments, interrogation records,snapshots of detainees and informants,and of unidentified bodies, fingerprintfiles, transcripts of radio communications,ledgers full of photographsand names, as well as moremundane documents like traffic tickets,drivers’ licence applications, invoicesfor new uniforms and personnelfiles.So far, 13 million documentshave been cleaned, classified and digitised.Documents from the archivehave served as evidence in several trialsagainst members of the militaryprosecuted for human rights abusescommitted during the war.‘In just one single case, the disappearanceof Fernando Garcia, atrade unionist and student leader, thearchive provided the court with 667THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25664

H U M A N R I G H T Sdocuments,’ Fuentes said. Garcia disappearedon 18 February 1984. But itwas not until 26 years later that twoof those responsible for his death, bothformer policemen, were sentenced to40 years in prison on charges of forceddisappearance.Fuentes said the AHPN also provideddocuments that contributed tothis year’s arrest of retired generalHector Lopez, accused of the crimeof genocide in connection with thedeaths of more than 300 people between1978 and 1985, and the arrestof former police chief Hector Bol forthe disappearance of Garcia.‘The documents in the archive arebeing used as proof to enable the justicesystem to issue arrest warrantsand bring people to trial,’ Fuentessaid.Justice is essential to bringingabout reconciliation in this impoverishedCentral American nation. AdaMelgar, whose father was assassinatedduring the armed conflict, toldIPS that ‘once it has been clearly demonstratedthat army officers and thehigh command played a role in thethousands of massacres and murdersin the country, we will be able to feela measure of peace.’The massacres included thewholesale destruction of around 440indigenous villages in the country, aspart of a scorched-earth counterinsurgencypolicy applied in the late 1970sand early 1980s.‘We have filed a case against thestate, because we are sure that my father’sdeath was planned by the securityforces,’ said the daughter of HugoRolando Melgar, a law professor atthe University of San Carlos who wasmachine-gunned on 24 March 1980.Ada Melgar, who works in thepolice archive, believes the institutionhas ‘very valuable documents that canprove the existence of lists of namesof people held in police custody thatcoincide with many men and womenwho were captured and disappeared.’Forensic experts have also foundanswers in the archive. ‘The first photoswe saw there were from postmortemrecords of several bodies thathad not been identified. But therewere even references in the recordsto the fingerprints that they took fromthe bodies,’ Jose Suasnabar, assistantdirector of the non-governmentalGuatemalan Forensic AnthropologyFoundation (FAFG), told IPS.Chilean judge indicts former US officerover coup killingsJoe HinchcliffeCHILE’s Supreme Court has requestedthe extradition of former USarmy officer, Capt. Raymond EDavis, over his alleged involvementin the murder of two US citizens inChile, days after the coup d’etat of11 September 1973 that ushered in17 years of brutal military rule.Judge Jorge Zepeda issued theindictment request as part of a longrunningtrial into the deaths ofCharles Horman and Frank Teruggi,triggered by a criminal suit filed in2000 by the widow of one of the victims,Joyce Horman.Capt. Davis, who was commanderof the US Military Group inChile, is accused of providing Chileanmilitary intelligence agents withinformation that led to the arrest, tortureand subsequent death in custodyof the journalists.The trial has already made significantadvances in its attempt to establishthe chain of command that ledto the arrest of former Chilean militaryofficers accused of tracking thejournalists in the last days of theirlives.The case was given high internationalprofile following the 1982release of the award-winning filmMissing, which promotes the allegationsof Joyce Horman that her husbandwas murdered because he wasunwittingly made aware of CIA involvementin the military coup.The victims were both involvedin the American Information Source(FIN), a left-wing organisation whichsupported socialist President SalvadorAllende in the years leading upto the coup.Horman is believed to haveThe AHPN ‘has become a primarysource of information’ for thesearch for people who were disappearedduring the armed conflict, hesaid. – IPSÿumade contact with Capt. Davis in ahotel in the port city of Viña del Marand was later driven by the formernaval officer to Santiago, days beforehis detention. Both bodies werelater discovered in the streets of thecapital, riddled with bullets andshowing signs of torture.In 2001 the Chilean governmentissued a request to hear the testimonyof former US Secretary of State,Henry Kissinger, over the role of USintelligence services in the case.The US government has officiallydenied any involvement in thecoup, although government documents,declassified by the Clintonadministration in 1999, declare that‘US intelligence may have played anunfortunate part in Horman’s death.’Judge Zepeda’s ruling drewheavily on evidence procured fromthe heavily redacted documents,which describe Capt. Davis as ‘beingin a position. . . [to] prevent themurder’ of the journalists, given his‘coordination with Chilean agents’.The US Embassy in Santiago releaseda statement stating that it doesnot comment on specific cases. ‘TheUS government continues to supporta thorough investigation into theHorman and Teruggi deaths in orderto bring those responsible to justice,’the statement said.Capt. Davis has denied his involvementin the murders. Hiswhereabouts are currently unknown.– The Santiago Times(www.santiagotimes.cl) ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuEditor’s note: Capt. Davis’ wife has sincebeen reported by the Associated Pressas saying that her husband is in a USnursing home suffering from Alzheimer’s.Patricia Davis, who lives inFlorida, refused to name the nursinghome.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25665

Giving up guns for motherhoodHundreds of Nepali women who were part of the Maoist armed resistance and itsdecade-long war for justice and equality are now returning to civilian life. SudeshnaSarkar highlights their dilemma and the difficult choices facing them.SONIKUMARI Jha puts onher green camouflage fatigues,deftly laces up herboots and is ready to step outand announce her decision toembrace a new life. Her fouryear-oldson, who has beenwatching the same rote foryears, is puzzled by an importantomission. ‘Mama, youhave forgotten your gun,’ hecalls out.‘No darling, mama won’thave to carry a gun any morefrom today,’ the 26-year-oldsays with a smile.Eight years ago,Sonikumari joined the Maoistguerrillas who were waging anunderground war to abolish monarchyin Nepal and promulgate a constitutionof, by and for the people.Today, the section commander inthe 2nd Division of the People’s LiberationArmy (PLA) has decided tosay farewell to arms five years afterthe insurgency ended.Hundreds of Maoist women warriors,who had joined the PLA attractedby its promise of equality andjustice during the 10-year war foughtfrom 1996, are now bidding adieu towarfare for the sake of their children,like Sonikumari.Voluntary retirement‘After our People’s War ended in2006, the combatants lived in cantonmentshoping they would be inductedinto the national army,’ says YamBahadur Adhikari, commander of the1st Division of the PLA.‘It took almost five years forthings to move. During that long interval,it was natural that many ofthem would marry and have kids.Now that the government has finallystarted addressing the lot of the PLA,most of the mothers, who have youngW O M E Nchildren, are opting for voluntary retirementinstead of joining the army.’When the Maoists signed thepeace accord in 2006, it was decidedthat the PLA, comprising over 19,500combatants, would be merged withthe Nepal Army. However, after oppositionfrom both the army and majorpolitical parties, it was decided thatonly up to 6,500 guerrilla fighterswould be recruited.The rest have two options: voluntaryretirement with cash compensationor rehabilitation, which includeseducation since many droppedout of school to join the guerrillas,vocational training and assistance insetting up micro business.In November, a Special Committeefanned out across the seven majorcantonments to ask the PLA fighterswhat they would like to do.According to Lt-Gen BalanandaSharma, coordinator of the committee,over 60% of the combatants wantto join the army. The rest are seekingvoluntary retirement, with only sixplumping for rehabilitation.But of the 3,526 women combatants,most of the married ones, especiallythose with young children, areseeking voluntary retirement.Gopal Gartoula/IPSMany of the women soldiers in Nepal’s Maoist People’sLiberation Army, like Rama Thakuri (seen here with herfive-month-old daughter), are seeking voluntaryretirement to look after their young children.Besides the necessity oflooking after the children aswell as fears that they mightfail the physical fitness test,many of the women, marriedto fellow PLA combatants, areopting to return to civilian lifeso that their husbands stand abetter chance of joining thearmy.Unfulfilled dreamsMuna Limbu, the daughterof a poor farmer in Ilam,eastern Nepal’s tea garden district,joined the PLA as a ninthgrader. Three years ago, the26-year-old married fellow PLA soldierBimal Limbu and the couple nowhave an 11-month-old daughter.As Bimal wants to be in the army,Muna has decided to take voluntaryretirement though the decision leavesher unhappy.‘My dream was not fulfilled,’ shesays and her face darkens. ‘I joinedthe Maoists to see the birth of a people’srepublic where there would beno oppression and injustice. I sacrificedthe best years of my life andnow, have been told by the party tomake a sacrifice once more for peaceand the new constitution.’Though the Maoists agreed todisband the PLA within six monthsof the peace accord and help to writea new constitution by 2010, neithermaterialised.Now, with the Supreme Courtordering the government to completethe new constitution by May 2012 orface fresh elections, the Maoists, whonow head the government, have finallystarted the process of dischargingthe PLA.The combatants are not happywith the options offered; still theyhave to make a choice under pressurefrom the party.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25666

W O M E NThough unmarried women warriorsare free to pursue their dream tojoin the army, there are some notedexceptions.Kamala Sharma, who received abullet in her left knee during the civilwar, is now severely disabled.Kamala, in her 20s, wants to join thearmy but doesn’t stand a chance dueto the physical fitness criteria.Though the government has announcededucation, marital status andage concessions for PLA fighterswanting to join the army, dozens ofdisabled warriors – including thosesuffering from untreated war injuries,amputees and the visually impaired –are agonised over their future.Adhikari says there are 19 disabledwomen in his division alone.Their number will be higher when allthe seven main cantonments and 21satellite camps are taken into consideration.‘It’s an injustice as well as humiliationfor the disabled women combatants,’Adhikari says. ‘They are beingforced to seek voluntary retirement.But if they do that, the money theywill get will be spent on treatment andthere will be nothing left to ensuretheir future.‘Also, in our society, womenhave to work harder than men. Thedisabled combatants can manage inthe cantonments because their comradeslook after them. But how willthey survive when they go back totheir village homes?’The PLA is urging the party andgovernment to come up with otheroptions for women combatants; theSpecial Committee too has madesimilar recommendations.‘Those with young children canbe given leave while the disabled canget non-combatant jobs in state departments,’Adhikari says. Otherwise,he warns, the consequences could begrave.‘These are people who receivedcombat training and know how tomake explosives and plan ambushes,’he says. ‘If ignored, frustration andhopelessness could drive them intocrime. Then the cycle of violence willnever end in Nepal.’ – IPS ÿuHope Not HypeThe future of agriculture guided by the IAASTDBy Jack A HeinemannCan we feed the world in the year 2050? If we can,will it be at the price of more distant futures of foodinsecurity? 21 st -century Earth is still trying to find away to feed its people. Despite global food surpluses,we have malnutrition, hunger and starvation. We alsohave mass obesity in the same societies. Both of thesephenomena are a symptom of the same centralproblem: a dominating single agriculture coming fromindustrialized countries responding to perverse andartificial market signals. It neither producessustainable surpluses of balanced and tasty diets nordoes it use food production to increase social andeconomic equity, increase the food security of the ISBN: 978-983-2729-81-5 176pppoorest, and pamper the planet back into health.This book is about a revolution in agriculture envisioned by the InternationalAssessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development(IAASTD), a five-year multi-million-dollar research exercise supervised by the UnitedNations and World Bank that charts sustainable solutions. The solutions are of coursenot purely technological, but technology will be a part of the solution.Which technology? Whose technology?Hope Not Hype is written for people who farm, but especially for people who eat.It takes a hard look at traditional, modern (e.g., genetic engineering) and emerging(e.g., agroecological) biotechnologies and sorts them on the basis of delivering foodwithout undermining the capacity to make more food. It cuts through the endlesspromises made by agrochemical corporations that leverage the public and privateinvestment in agriculture innovation. Here the case is made for the right biotechnologyrather than the “one size fits all” biotechnology on offer. This book providesgovernments and their citizens with the sound science in plain language to articulatetheir case for an agriculture of their own – one that works for them.PRICEPOSTAGEMalaysia Pb: RM25.00 Hb:RM40.00 RM4.00Third World countries Pb: US$10.00 $5.00 (air); $3.00 (sea)Hb: US$17.00$10.00 (air); $6.00 (sea)Other foreign countries Pb: US$15.00 $7.00 (air); $3.00 (sea)Hb: US$25.00$14.00 (air); $6.00 (sea)Orders from Malaysia – please pay by credit card/crossed cheque or postal order.Orders from Australia, Brunei, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, UK, USA– please pay by credit card/cheque/bank draft/international money order in own currency,US$ or Euro. If paying in own currency or Euro, please calculate equivalent ofUS$ rate. If paying in US$, please ensure that the agent bank is located in the USA.Rest of the world – please pay by credit card/cheque/bank draft/international moneyorder in US$ or Euro. If paying in Euro, please calculate equivalent of US$ rate. Ifpaying in US$, please ensure that the agent bank is located in the USA.All payments should be made in favour of Third World Network Bhd., 131 JalanMacalister, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 60-4-2266728/2266159; Fax: 60-4-2264505;Email: twnet@po.jaring.myI would like to order..................copy/copies of Hope Not Hype: The future of agricultureguided by the IAASTD.I enclose the amount of US$/Euro/RM ...................... (cheque/bank draft/IMO).Please charge the amount of US$/RM ............................. to my credit card:American Express Visa MastercardA/c no.: Expiry date:Signature:Name:Address:THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25667

T R I B U T EFrantz Fanon and the currentmultiple crisesThe writings of Frantz Fanon (20 July 1925-6 December 1961) on colonialism hada profound impact on the struggle for liberation in the Third World especially in the1970s. Fifty years after his death, despite the attainment of independence, theyhave a continuing relevance for these countries as they confront a variety of crises.Mireille Fanon Mendès-FranceAFTER half-a-century, the toll of independencein the African and Arabworlds has not been mitigated;whether on the social, economic orpolitical plane, the failure is total. Thegaining of independence has not liberatedthe people from the misery,injustice or neglect they suffered undercolonial domination. The takingof power by national bourgeoisies –of which Fanon had already identifiedforerunners in ‘The Misadventures ofNational Consciousness’ in his book,The Wretched of the Earth – has ledto a tragic wrong turning in the anticolonialstruggle.He describes in his book, yearsin advance, the neo-colonial pathologyas the perpetuation of dominationby the submission of corrupt and unpopularnational governments to theinterests of their former colonial masters:‘The national bourgeoisie thattook power at the end of the colonialera is an underdeveloped bourgeoisie.Its economic power is close to zeroand, in any case, is without the standingof the metropolitan bourgeoisie itseeks to replace. In its wilful narcissismthe national bourgeoisie has hadlittle difficulty in convincing itself thatit can easily replace the metropolitanbourgeoisie. But the independencethat put it literally at the foot of thewall will unleash catastrophic reactionsat home and oblige it to launchanguished calls in the direction of theformer metropolis. It is entirely channelledtowards intermediary activities.To be in the loop, in on the joke, thatFrantz Fanon.seems to be its deepest vocation. Thenational bourgeoisie has the psychologyof a politician, not an industrialist.’In the same vein, if he did see thefinal exit of the colonial state, thenthe key question would be the evolutionof the liberated states. The constructionof a just and prosperous societyshould take place through the allencompassingliberation of the menand women from the colonial legacy.Therefore it was essential to identifythe colonial state’s deficiencies, inorder to avoid a devastating sequel.The gaining of independence hasnot achieved the liberation or dis-alienationof oppressed peoples. Thesocieties have remained orphans ofthe stillborn state, the neo-colonialnetworks supporting despots whocome and go according to their interestand pronouncements. If the neocolonialstructures do not entirely explainthe failure of independence, thenthis half-century has been a woefuldemonstration of the effectiveness ofthe colonial time bomb.The evolution that Fanon anticipatedin The Wretched of the Earthwas to a large extent realised. Thestruggles for power, the tribalism andregionalism fed by the former colonialpowers and led by civilian andmilitary populists, have disfiguredindependence. The leading cliquesand the new bourgeoisies supportedby the ex-colonisers have to the advantageof the latter replaced the colonialadministrators. A firm grip onresources and the capture of rents bythe castes in power – civil or military– have trapped these countries in asituation of continued disintegration.The retreat of the colonial administrativepowers has not led to a realchange in the nature of the existenceled by the vast majority of the population.In fact the neo-colonial periodends a re-colonisation under newguises of the African continent and theArab-Islamic arc. Because all authoritarianismis accompanied by catastrophicsocio-economic mismanagementthe interests of the former colonisershave been preserved and aremore present than ever. On the strategiclevel, defence treaties have allowedfor the establishment of airbases across the continent where, inthe major airports, customs officialswork under foreign supervision;which says a lot about the state of subordination.In Africa, in Europe, Asia, theMiddle East and America, Fanon appearsmore current than ever. Hemakes sense to everyone who fightsfor freedom and human rights, be-THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25668

T R I B U T Ecause emancipation is always the firstobjective of a generation reachingpolitical maturity. Many men andwomen have learnt that the fight forliberty, democracy and human rightsis led against local despots and alsoagainst the tenets of the neo-colonialorder which they protect. They areused to pillage resources and thenejected when they are no longer useful.However, colonialism’s transfigurationdid not stop there. Humanitarianinterventions, which have takenon an overtly militaristic tone in thewar with Libya, have allowed for thequiet installation of non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs) which usurpthe influence of the state and tiepopulations, especially in rural areas,into structural relations of dependency.It must be noted that many ofthese NGOs are shut off to local expertiseand depend in fact on fundsallocated by their own governments,thus neglecting the opportunity totransfer skills. In this way they extendcharity-based forms of dependence.By definition, this renewed dominationinstils and perpetuates a neo-colonialmindset. Direct economic interferenceis accompanied by a politico-humanitariandiscourse whichbarely conceals its hegemonic interests.Undoubtedly, the never-endingand generalised war on terror hasgiven the West an excuse to put foreigntroops on the ground who arecharged with watching over multinationalinterests. The regions most affectedby this dynamic are those thatare home to strategic natural resources,as yet un- or under-exploited.These include Niger, Guinea and,most recently, Libya.From civil wars to coups d’etat,independence has seen states fall apartin the pursuit of profit for ‘intermediary’bureaucracies which are still inthe service of former colonisers. Moreor less quickly, the postcolonial stateshave transformed themselves intoneo-colonial states where recklessness,corruption and the privilegingof private interests have become therule. State bureaucracies are for themost part weighed down by these informalaspects.Pro-democracy protesters in Egypt. Fanon ‘makes sense to everyone who fights forfreedom and human rights...’Organised around the pillage ofresources, the concentration ofwealth, and capital flight, economicgovernance – whatever the supposedmodel – has settled the African continentand the Arab world into a pit ofvertiginous inequality, massivepauperisation and the inherent weaknessof the postcolonial state. Sincethe end of the last century, dictatorshave sat back and watched as the warmongeringredeployment of imperialismhas taken place in Iraq, Libyaand perhaps tomorrow in Syria. Allthe while, terrorism, which we pretendto fight, is in fact developing inauthoritarian and obscurantist statesallied with and protected by the West.The newest stage of imperialism– globalisation – consists in the openingof less developed countries’ marketsto the advances of multinationalcorporations. But the strategy of anchoringAfrican and Arab countries inglobal markets – delivered as a formof financial first aid – is challengedby the emergence of new actors.Emerging economies are comingto interrupt the cosy neo-colonial arrangementsand we see therefore theorder based on fiefdoms has startedto tremble as popular support is cut.This can be seen recently in Tunisiaand Egypt. (Not to mention quitesome time ago in Venezuela, Bolivia...)In the context of international relations,this forces Western powers toreformulate their relationships withcountries they had considered to beon the periphery. After the eternal waron terror – which valued highly thesupport of some of the worst dictators– the idea that part and parcel ofthese relationships is the right of interferenceis ever present. The rightof interference, sold as the legendaryresponsibility to protect.The discourse of the newpolitics of the gunboatFrom the paternalist tone of thepost-independence years has arisen,with the guidance of neo-conservativesin the West, a so-called ‘truthspeak’which presents itself as the discourseof uncomplicated right. It doesnot hesitate to publicly account for itsobviously racist foundations.It’s in the name of this partinggift, accepted as truth, that bit by bitthe hierarchy of races has found itselfreplaced by the so-called ‘war ofcivilisations’, humanitarian interventionand the propagation of the democraticfaith by drones. So begins thetale of the battleground to decide thenew propagandists of exclusion andexploitation. Selective memory, theforgetting and the incessant hammeringof dominant capitalist values aimto shape opinion, forging a representationof the other, the Muslim, theTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25669

T R I B U T EVehicles belonging to pro-Gaddafi forces explode after an air strike by coalition forcesin March. The West’s interventions like the one in Libya are accompanied by ‘a politicohumanitariandiscourse which barely conceals its hegemonic interests’.Arab, the black. The enemy who isgenetically incapable of universal values,and thus an irredeemable barbarian,is de facto excluded from humanity.In this context the Dakar discourseremains an important stage.For theoreticians of a repackaged,modernised racism, the failure of independenceis not due to the poisonedlegacy of colonialism, nor the destructiveinfluences of the former metropolis,nor to the endurance of dictatorsto whom the former colonisers havegiven the keys of power, but to theincapacity of people frozen in theirown ‘archaicness’ to take control oftheir destiny. Fanon’s book BlackSkin, White Masks is a fundamentalmilestone in the anti-racist struggle:a decoding of these mechanisms ofsegregation and their political insults,analysing the impulses of colonialismand its impact on the dominated. Tohim, it was articulated in the fightagainst racism in a universal movementof dis-alienation for the victimsof racism and the racists themselves.Faced with these attacks, far frombeing paralysed, the people have continuedto advance and have not abdicatedthe struggle for dignity, justiceand a better life. Whatever may be thepublic face of syndicated struggles –whether freedom of the press or selfdetermination– throughout the continent,the voices of the people are gettingstronger: women and men engagedin the political struggle for citizens’emancipation and to reject theneoliberal model. The founding mythsof the struggles for independence arenot dead. It is from this angle that onemust understand the popular revoltsin the Arab world. To reduce thesemovements to an expression of socialmalaise or hunger-riots is a mystification.But the lost half-century for developmentand social progress hasbeen a half-century of settling andpolitical clarification. In effect, thedogmatic prisms have lost their instructivepower and the only analyticframeworks which still function arethose based firmly on the principle ofreality.Fanon’s ideas can be used to confrontthe reality in countries previouslyunder colonial domination, disentangledfrom ideological blinkersand liberated of all dogma. In this regard,contrary to those who wouldrather see him iconified and forgotten,Fanon is more pertinent than ever.He was at once a psychiatrist, an AlgerianMujahideen, pan-African revolutionary,itinerant ambassador andfreedom fighter for all – includingthose who believe themselves to belongto the dominant world.Let us recall the following passagefrom Black Skin, White Masks:‘Me, a man of colour, I only want onething, to never be the instrument ofdomination. To never see one man inservitude to another. That is to say,myself to another. That I might discoverand want man wherever hemight be.’Under Fanon’s liberty critique,systems of power are revealed as whatthey truly are: systems of oppressionand pillage at the origin of all economic,social and cultural obstacles.Independence hollowed of its democraticcontent is vulnerable: the gainsof the struggle for liberation are in noway irreversible. Freedom for the peopleswho rise up has been confiscatedby the powers that be, supported bythe former colonisers. Domination hasonly changed its appearance and liberationis yet to come.For Fanon, ‘the freedom of theindividual does not follow from nationalliberation. An authentic nationalliberation only exists to the extent thatindividual liberation has irreversiblyset in motion its own liberation.’ So,with rare exception, the societies freedfrom the colonial yoke are societieswithout citizens.The objective, at the dawn of independence’ssecond stage, is to bringback the political content of independence,to one recognisable to the populationand without which the shape ofindependence is just a caricature.Man’s liberation is a universal fightbased on the defence of private andpublic freedoms, the primacy of thegeneral interest, the reduction of inequality,accountability of the elected,and the sovereignty of right.Real liberation is that which pursuesprocesses engaged in by independencestruggles, which can onlybe envisioned in the context of institutionswhich are genuinely democratic,strong and representative.Democratic freedoms are the onlyway for these countries to escape theTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25670

T R I B U T Eimpasse between domination and misery.An equally necessary preconditionis the modification of the relationshipbetween international forcesand their rebalancing in favour ofcountries in the Global South. But thisalso concerns the former colonialcountries, to submit to the yoke ofmarkets.In the context of international relations,the leaders, without any legitimacybut the strength of their armedforces and external support, commandno weight on the international stage.It will be time for the great powers,which consider themselves internallydemocratic, to end their desire tomaintain their hegemony over the lessdeveloped world.The opinionatedness of Fanon,and his determination, shows thatthere is no inevitability to failure, solong as the drama is known to be theway of life of the people. The solidarityof progress, and the convergenceof struggles, the resistance todictators and neo-colonial and imperialhegemony, are the milestones onthe road to redress. Solidarity and internationalism– which for Fanonwere inextricably linked – give a continuinghuman dimension to peoples’struggles.Fanon, with his skills as a psychiatrist,essayist and militant, hasturned the spotlight onto the unity ofthe colonised world, despite the factit is highly differentiated and riddledwith contradictions. Therefore, forFanon the Mujahideen, there is nodifference between the struggle ascarried forward by the people of theCaribbean, Africa or Latin America.One can even continue this Fanonesqueanalysis: globalisation, with itsexpansionary tendency, which hadtransferred liberalism’s modes of organisationonto the Global South, isnow doing the same to the North.The political and social dividescharacteristic of exclusion and exploitationtend to unify the world underthe interest of the tiny minorities. Thetreatment imposed on Greece was aresponse to a foreign debt racked upwith the complicity of the ultra-liberalsin the EU and the banks. This casereveals the strategies of dismantlingThe spirit of resistancewhich impregnates thework of Fanon inspiresthose who struggle forrights across the world.utes to the criminalisation of thoseexcluded and disenfranchised bythese processes. The media treatmentof the recent riots in the UK recallsthat seen in France during the revoltsin the working-class suburbs in 2005.By successive slides, facilitated by thesuperimposition of social and ethnoculturalcategories – the poor, blacks,Arabs, Muslims – Western regimeshave re-injected the colonial discourseinto domestic politics. By a paradoxwith a secret history, the indigene isever present not only in his originalform but equally in what Fanon called‘the forbidden towns’ where newforms of discrimination are enforced.He noted in The Wretched of the Earththat:‘The colonised world is cut intwo... The zone inhabited by the colonisedis not complementary to thezone inhabited by the coloniser. Thesetwo zones face each other but not aspart of a greater whole... The world iscompartmentalised, each occupied bya different species. The originality ofthe colonial context is that the economicreality, inequality, the enormousdifference between ways of life,never manages to mask the human reality.’It can be seen that, whilst themode of operation may have changed,oppression and domination of peopleis perennial. It has even widened toinclude in these categories the mostfragile populations, under the guise ofbeing ‘protected’ by the dominantnations. The form of alienation haschanged, but the ideological underpinningsof exploitation invariablyremain, and become elements ofsocial advances which are now beingput to work in the developed world.Surveillance culture, constructedin the name of anti-terrorism, contribglobalisationwhich make the planetconform to a uniform pattern. Theeconomic crisis is a crisis of Westerncapitalism. For the people of Africaand the Arab world, re-colonisation –under the auspices of military humanitarianintervention – no longer invokes‘the mission to civilise’ but theresponsibility to protect, a slippery inventionof the self-proclaimed ‘internationalcommunity’. It keeps its oppressivenature but with an alienating,depersonalised character.For those who would wish togloss over the colonial past and thepresent of injustice and dispossession,the works of Fanon will be left by thewayside and portrayed as nothing butan apology for violence. Its detractorswill recruit from neoconservative ‘intellectuals’who have commenced awitch-hunt against him. Throughskewed readings and biased representations,they reproduce their own ignoranceof Fanon’s works and theirracism.The violence defended by Fanon,as a last resort of those denied, exploitedand reduced to slavery, is thatof legitimate defence of the oppressedwho are subject to a much greater violence:that of domination, dispossessionand contempt.But, in the face of all manipulationsand propaganda, reality is stubborn.Various mechanisms are alwaysat work reshaping relations betweenformer colonies and former colonisers.The rejection of submission andlies, the spirit of resistance which impregnatesthe work of Fanon, inspiresthose who struggle for rights acrossthe world. In Palestine, as elsewhere,in the backyards of those who arewaking up to oppression, the thoughtsin action of Fanon are real, despitechanges in the world.Is our world free of dispossession,alienation and injustice? He callson us to resist and never surrender. uMireille Fanon Mendès-France is a member of theAdministrative Council of the Frantz FanonFoundation. This article is reproduced fromPambazuka News (Issue 561, 6 December 2011,www.pambazuka.org, English edition, ISSN 1753-6839). It was translated from the French forPambazuka News by Portia Roelofs, a mastersstudent of African Politics at the School of Orientaland African Studies, University of London.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25671

P O E T R YThe Lu (1907-1989), a Vietnamese poet who also wrote fiction, was distinguishedfor his introduction of new genres and styles to Vietnamese literature.Yearning for the jungleThe Lu(The voice of a tiger in captivity in a zoo)In the iron cage my heart seething with anger,I lie through long slow months,Despising the gang of addle swaggerersWho through tiny eyes dare to mock the jungle’s majesty.Now fallen and captive, I swallow my prideTo be a curiosity, a toy,An equal to the despicable bears,To the pair of clueless leopards next door.I drag a life filled with longing and loveFor good old days of mighty dominion,In the jungle amidst huge old shade trees,Mighty howling winds, and thundering falls,Roaring my epic and powerful roar,I strutted in commanding steps sure and proud,My rhythmic wave-like body strong and stout,Stalking silent ‘mongst brambles and sharp grass.In dark caves once I flashed my awesome eyesAll life lay quiet holding its hushed breath.I basked in smugness, king of all creatures,Roaming amidst the nameless plants and trees.Now where are those moonlit nights by the streamWhen hearty dinner done I savoured the moonlight?Where are those rainstorms that shook the jungle domainWhen I quietly surveyed my revived kingdom?Where are those daybreaks that bathed the lush treesAnd birdsongs that riotously awakened me?Where the blood-red rays that drowned the jungleWhen I couldn’t wait for the hot sun to dieSo I could seize its secret for myself.— Oh, where have they all gone, those glory days?I smother my deep perpetual angerHating the things that never ever change,The spaces that were deceitfully built,With tended blooms, mown grass, straight paths, grown trees,A dark trickle that passed as forest streamsLurking ‘mongst phony low-lying hillocksWith docile foliage shorn of mystery,Faking so miserably the wildernessAnd its eternal life’s solemnity.O noble proud land of majestyWhere my valiant kind always holds firm sway,The vast realm that I used to rule over,Country that I will never see again!Did you know in my days of dark despairI still nurture lofty grandiose dreamsIn my soul of being in your midst again,O my dear old awesome jungle domain?Translated by Thomas D LeTHIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25672