Imagine losing your home to catastrophic floods, your loved ones to unprecedented hurricanes, your livelihood to raging wildfires, or your ancestors’ graves to rising sea levels.  

Then, to add insult to injury, imagine losing your voice and rights in the very UN institution mandated to alleviate the costs of these climate-related harms for the hardest hit in communities such as yours.  

Technocrats talking about you, without you; decisions made – including, ironically, on participation and stakeholder engagement – while you have no meaningful say. Justice denied from the outset.   

This could be the dire reality when the new board of the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) convenes for the first time in Abu Dhabi (UAE) next week (April 30 – May 2). Designed to provide long-awaited justice for those suffering the most from climate impacts, the fund risks failing right from the start by limiting access for those it claims to support. 

Expectations mount as loss and damage fund staggers to its feet

Those most affected by the climate crisis know all too well the losses and damages they are suffering and how to repair these harms. Their involvement in the LDF is essential not only for its effectiveness but for its legitimacy and for justice. Even more than any other, this fund needs to be driven by people, to respect their rights, and hear their voices. 

Let’s start with the basics: public participation and access to information are human rights. Accountability, transparency and participation in decision-making are the hallmarks of democratic governance – and their importance for the LDF’s ability to meet local needs and priorities cannot be overstated.  

These fundamental rights are rooted in the understanding that people should hold power over decisions that concern their lives and communities. Science and experience show that such participation also leads to more effective and sustainable outcomes. Getting participation right from the start is essential to the LDF’s legitimacy, equity, effectiveness and potential for transformative change.  

Sidelined in planning 

The LDF would not exist if it were not for the decades-long relentless calls for justice and affirmative action by communities, civil society and Indigenous Peoples, which escalated to an impossible-to-ignore volume over the last few years.  

Despite these loud calls, rightsholders’ representatives were sidelined during the fund’s planning stages last year. While a small group of countries in a Transitional Committee debated the fund’s scope and aims, civil society consistently had to put up a fight merely to be let into the room. 

And history is repeating itself. The LDF’s Governing Instrument (adopted at COP28) reinforces the need to support local communities and recognition of their participation. Yet the first board meeting limits participation to two people per UNFCCC stakeholder group – some of which represent millions, even billions, of people – such as Indigenous Peoples, youth, and women and girls.  

Such overly restrictive numbers do not allow for the representation of the diversity of voices, groups and organisations under the umbrellas of these groups, and will lead to the exclusion of critical voices. 

As donors dither, Indigenous funds seek to decolonise green finance

These limitations are in stark contrast with participation at another UN fund, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which – while it still has a long way to go to enable effective participation – does not limit board meeting observer attendance either in number or by stakeholder groups. The GCF had a significantly higher attendance than the LDF at its first meetings.  

Restricted seating in the actual room will further limit direct interaction with LDF board members making the decisions. The claimed ‘space constraints’ behind the restrictions are particularly unconvincing, coming from a country that organised the biggest climate talks in history just a few months ago.  

Climate justice requires inclusion  

The LDF has the potential to set a new precedent for climate finance – one that values human dignity and amplifies the voices of its beneficiaries. This requires more than a token dialogue with a handful of stakeholders in the first meeting; it necessitates a broad, inclusive consultation process that genuinely influences the fund’s policies.  

By explicitly endorsing the principles of inclusion, non-discrimination, transparency, access to information, empowerment, collaboration, and accountability, and proactively enabling active participation at all stages – from designing board policies and assessing community-level needs to implementation and decision-making – the LDF could live up to expectations and deliver climate justice.  

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

If the Board does not explicitly and meaningfully include the diverse voices of the rightsholders who are meant to be the LDF’s main beneficiaries, the fund risks becoming another bureaucratic relic, preserving the status quo of climate injustice.  

During its first meeting next week, the board has a chance to overcome business-as-usual, as decision-makers will discuss procedures for the participation of observers and stakeholders. It must radically choose to enable and support meaningful participation by the diverse range of groups involved.  

The time to act is now. At its inaugural meeting, the board must choose to champion transformative change and genuine justice, setting a course that will define the fund’s legacy. The lives and livelihoods of far too many are on the line.

The post Limiting frontline voices in the Loss and Damage Fund is a recipe for disaster appeared first on Climate Home News.

Green groups celebrate the Margarita Declaration (Pic: @socialprecop/Twitter)

By Sophie Yeo

A UN-backed conference in Venezuela has ended with a declaration to scrap carbon markets and reject the green economy.

The Margarita Declaration was issued at the end of a four-day meeting of around 130 green activist groups, which the Venezuelan government hosted in order to raise the volume of civil society demands in UN discussions on climate change.

“The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system,” the final declaration said. “To combat climate change it is necessary to change the system.”

The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year.

The meeting, called the Social Pre-COP, is the first time that civil society has been invited to participate with the UN at this scale at international climate talks.

Groups who participated in the meeting include WWF, CAN International, Third World Network and Christian Aid.

Venezuela said the purpose of the meeting is to “set the basis of an alliance between peoples and governments”.

While it is unclear who signed the declaration, it contrasts with the views of many national governments, which see the transition to a green economy as underpinning efforts to tackle climate change.

‘False solution’

The declaration also conflicts with the UN’s own schemes to tackle climate change.

It says carbon markets are a “false solution” to the problem of climate change and brands a UN-backed forest conservation scheme “dangerous and unethical”.

The forests programme, called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Land Degradation (REDD), was first introduced into UN proceedings in 2005 at the request of the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica.

Under this mechanism, rich countries pay developing nations to preserve their forests, removing some of the financial incentive to chop them down.

Deforestation is a significant contributor to climate change as it releases the carbon that is stored in trees.

Similarly, the UN has set up its own carbon market, called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows developed countries to pay for projects that will reduce the carbon footprint of poor countries.

The latest set of proposals for a global climate treaty recently released UN officials explicitly includes references to market-based solutions aimed at tackling environmental degradation and raising investment capital.

Maria de Pilar García-Guadilla, a professor at the Simon Bolivar University in Venezuela, said that there was an underlying assumption in the declaration that capitalism was the cause of climate change – a position maintained by the Venezuelan government in its own development plan – but that this was a “fallacy”.

“Venezuela relies heavily on the use of hydrocarbons, or the extractive economies, to support their anti-neoliberal socialist policies. The extractive economy has a severe negative social and environmental impacts in the indigenous communities and in the most biodiverse areas,” she said.

She added that the Margarita Declaration is “very discursive and the real issues are not inside.”

Mixed opinions

Objections to the concept of a “green economy”, which encourages green growth through carbon markets and clean energy investments, prompted a walkout at the Rio+20 summit in 2012.

Some developing countries are concerned that this model could put them at a commercial disadvantage, and that rich countries should instead focus on how to transfer cash and sustainable technologies to poorer nations.

Venezuela, a staunchly socialist government, has long opposed the “green economy” concept, alongside other Latin American countries including Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.

But the opinions of civil society are more mixed. CAN International, a coalition of green NGOs which was present at the Social Pre-COP, said that REDD is “key to emissions reductions” in the manifesto that it released before the UN’s last climate conference, in Warsaw last year.

One participant at last week’s meeting told RTCC on condition of anonymity that: “In terms of being a neutral observer, [the Venezuelan government] do have their views and they definitely have their ways”.

He added that most of the Venezuelan groups present at the meeting were supportive of the government’s position, in contrast to the 34 Venezuelan NGOs who rejected their invitation to the gathering, due to concerns that it would provide an opportunity for the government to push their socialist agenda.

“That made Venezuela not need to actively push for things, letting the movements propose their views instead,” he said.

The post Venezuela climate summit calls for end to “green economy” appeared first on Climate Home News.

Nicolas Milton, Practical Action:
“Adaptation is an issue that has been little on the agenda in Bangkok but needs to urgently be in Doha. Many of the delegates I’ve spoken to here over the last week agree that climate adaptation must go up the UN’s agenda and there needs to be a much better balance of when it comes to funding (currently only about 10% of climate finance is spent on adaptation). To do this they have formed an Adaptation Committee which is due to meet for the first time immediately after the talks in Bangkok. A big part of their work will be to mandate countries to draw up National Adaptation Plans, both for developed and developing nations.”

Meena Raman, Third World Network:
“The United States and its allies want the UN to ‘be silent’ on issues where they haven’t yet reached agreement. To be clear that means they want the UN to be silent on solving climate change. The US is taking a wrecking ball to the climate convention and any hope of stopping run away climate catastrophe.”

Alex Hanafi, Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund:
“In Bangkok, it became clearer still that the prospect of a new climate deal that calls for all countries to do their part to lower emissions is still in its very early stages, and countries are grappling with how to transition from the old regime to a still as-yet-undefined new one.

“Now countries’ ability to expeditiously resolve their differences on the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, and to then focus on making substantive progress toward achieving a strong, enforceable and flexible climate agreement by 2015, will be the ultimate yardstick by which success in Doha’s negotiations will be measured.”

Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists:
“The world has warmed less than 1 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, yet we are already starting to experience the devastating impacts of human-induced climate change. Meanwhile, the collective low level of ambition on emissions reductions will soon foreclose our ability to stay below the 2 degrees increase in global temperatures that world leaders have committed to avoid. The time for finger-pointing, blame-casting, and hiding behind the inaction of others is over. What we demand from all countries in Doha is three things: action, ambition, and accountability.”

Wael Hmaidan, CAN International:
“We welcome the openness towards civil society input that Qatar is showing, but they need to step up their leadership role if they want to achieve a successful outcome at COP18 in Doha. In the very short time remaining before the start of the conference, Qatar must reach out to a wider group of countries to understand their priorities for COP18, especially small island states and least developed countries, who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

“Qatar should also submit an emission limitation pledge to the international community. Although it is a relatively easy step, given the capabilities Qatar has, such a pledge will send a strong political signal that Qatar is serious about climate change.”

Tove Ryding, Greenpeace International:
“While people around the world are fighting life or death struggles against extreme storms and droughts, the EU, US and the emerging economies have not made any progress to resolving political barriers to tackling the climate crisis. So far, the governments have managed to resolve some technical issues and admitted that we have a very serious problem but completely failed to take the necessary action.”

Tasneem Essop, WWF:
“Some parties need to get a reality check and get out of the negotiation “bubble” – they need to look the vulnerable in the eye – so we suggest that they use the time between now and Doha to do a field trip to witness first hand the impacts of climate change already being felt in many places such as the drought-ridden Horn of Africa and central US, Tuvalu with sea-level rise, Philippines, India and Thailand with frequent flooding, Brazil with land-slides due to heavy rainfalls and the Arctic where in this week we are bearing witness to the highest recorded levels of sea-ice melting! Maybe this is what we need to give those who lack a sense of urgency a wake up call.”

Harjeet Singh, ActionAid:

“Rich countries’ negotiating tactics have further delayed steps to reduce emissions and provide poor countries with the cash needed to tackle climate-related disasters. Recent flooding in the Philippines, a hurricane in the US, and a typhoon in North Korea show that we can’t go on ignoring climate change.”

Related Articles:

Bangkok 2012: UN climate talks close with ‘unofficial’ draft on Kyoto Protocol 2nd period

Bangkok 2012 – Door not closed on 30% emission cut, says lead EU negotiator

Bangkok 2012 – UN climate talks leaving world on pathway to 3°C says new report

The post Bangkok 2012: Civil society react to latest round of UN climate talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

1. The world still believes in Common But Differentiated Responsibility

Small islands and oceans both got a boost at Rio+20 (Source: Rafael Avila Coya)

This week RTCC dissected the text to find out exactly what the consequences of it would be for climate change.

Small island states and the oceans received a boost while the increased use  and cost effectiveness of renewable energy was promoted.

Perhaps most importantly, the text brings back into play the principles of Common But Differentiated Responsibility. This short phrase means some countries have a greater duty to pay for the damage to the earth than others – usually the ‘developed’ world.

It’s an intensely controversial topic – that has dominated the last three major climate conferences – so the fact CBDR made it into the final Rio+20 text is significant.

But not everything or everyone made the cut. We analysed what was omitted from the text.

The green economy, finance or state commitments countries are all missing – key components of any future climate deal.

2. Rio+40 could look very different

With the Earth Summit seen by many as a colossal failure, NGOs and Trade Unions called for civil society to ‘mobilise’ for change.

Could we soon see a new era for civil society with a place at the negotiating table?

Youth and Civil Society groups staged a walk out at the conference to protest against governments lack of action (Source: Youth Policy)

Monique Barbut from the Global Environment Facility (a key UN Financial mechanism) called for more synergy to be created between the three Rio Conventions on climate change, biodiversity and desertification. All fighting the same problem – so let’s fight as one!

Meanwhile Carbon War Room chief and former President of Costa Rica Jose Maria Figueres has said that negotiators should not be involved in the process for more than four or five years to ensure we have a group of negotiators who are ‘connected to reality’.

3. Business leads on sustainable development

Greenpeace chief Kumi Naidoo slated politicians in Rio for being in the pockets of the corporations, but the conference did demonstrate the work that businesses large and small are doing to drive sustainability.

Take wind energy giants Suzlon, or Airbus – who told us about their plans to run a ‘perfect flight’ on 50% biofuels.

But what is the motivation of business to get involved in these talks? For Norine Kennedy from the US Council for International Business the answer is simple: “Business cannot succeed in societies that fail.”

4. The UK sees boost in renewables, but also in emissions 

The UK has a long way to go on its climate and energy policies (© UN)

Meanwhile, outside of the world of negotiations, new figures from the National Office of Statistics looking at the UK’s energy and environment performance were a mixed bag.

While some progress have been made on renewables, forestry and fossil fuel use, the country is still not meeting its emission targets.

This was a warning echoed by the UK’s Committee on Climate Change this week, as they said Britain could face missing climate goals because the economic slump, not proactive policy, has been the main reason behind the greenhouse gas emissions fall seen in recent years.

5. Australia’s outback could bear brunt from climate change

New research this week from the University of Adelaide warned that South Australia’s Arabunna region could be one of the worst hit regions from climate change, as it becomes hotter and drier.

Damage in the area could include bushfires, dust storms and drought and could impact local food sources, warned the report.

It urged urgent work to set up adaptation plans, and said working alongside the indigenous communities in the area would be vital in doing this.

The post A week in climate change: Five things we learnt appeared first on Climate Home News.

Seen as a major failure of collective leadership, the Rio+20 Earth Summit produced a document lacking substance and showing no real commitment to put the world on the right path for a sustainable future.

Criticised for acting on behalf of vested interests – and protecting the very machines which are aiding the destruction of the planet – civil society groups around the world found a united voice, denouncing the work of politicians and turning their backs on the hollow promises in which they have lost trust.

“One thing has become clear,” said Kumi Naidoom, Executive Secretary of Greenpeace International. “We can not continue to put our faith in the political leader who far too often is in the pockets of the big polluting corporations and would rather serve the interests of the big corporation than serve the interests of ordinary people.”

But without the global negotiations to put focus upon, who can take up the challenge?

Maybe the answer is simple.

It is now the turn of the individual, and the collective to act.

Youth and Civil Society groups staged a walk out at the conference to protest against governments' lack of action (© Youth Policy)

In an article for the New York Times, Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defence Council and Trip Van Noppen, President of Earthjustice, laid out their argument.

“Rio+20 is a catalyst. It is a starting point for change, not a finish line. It is a call to action for all of us who now realise that we can’t just rely on governments, negotiators or verbose and hyper-compromised documents to save our planet.

“We must do it ourselves. But here is what else we witnessed at Rio+20. We can do it ourselves.”

They use the examples of all of the schemes announced throughout the two weeks, from everyone from the private sector to local governments.

They also praised all those who participated in the conference, not only in person but by using technologies such as YouTube and Twitter to attend wherever they were in the world saying “the incredible energy and enthusiasm they demonstrated is only a hint of what individuals can do.”

Take for example, the #endfossilfuelsubsidies Twitter Storm. Targeted specifically to coincide with the second week of the Rio+20 conference, it mobilised millions of people around the globe, clogging the social networking sites and getting the topic trending worldwide on Twitter.

The ITUC also joined in civil action in Rio (© ITUC)

Teamed with a global petition handing into governments and a protest on the beach front in Rio – it was hard for any person to ignore the sheer volume of the collective voice it brought together.

And it is not only online that acts of defiance and protests already show hints of this mobilisation that the civil society groups describe. In the UK over the weekend, following the disappointment of the conference, four activists from the group Climate Siren scaled the gates of Buckingham Palace and secured themselves to the railings.

The banner they carried was taken directly from Prince Charles’ speech from Rio+20 reading “the doomsday clock on climate change is ticking ever faster.”

So whether millions online, or four people in a city, signs of this mobilisation have already begun, and many of the major groups attending the conference warn that countries’ governments will see much more collective action.

Following a meeting with the UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon at the end of the conference, Sharon Burrows, from the International Trade Union Confederation, who had over 700 members at the conference, told journalists: “We told him that with civil society, the trade unions would now mobilise – 175 million members, more than the population of most countries.

“We will now mobilise and leaders have to know that in every country – not just at the global level but in every country – they have to feel the pressure of people saying ‘We want a different alternative, we want a different economic model, we want a sustainable future and it can’t happen here [in Rio].”

Related audio: Listen to what Sharon Burrows from the ITUC and Kumi Naidoom from Greenpeace International had to say at the end of the conference…

Her sentiments were shared by trade union groups across the globe. On both sides of the Atlantic in the US and UK, bloggers set to work sharing these ideas, and echoing Burrows warning, “There are no jobs on a dead planet.”

Writing in the UK, Philip Pearson, from the TUC, argued that “the failure of leadership demonstrated in Rio has simply strengthened the determination for trade unions to go back to our countries…and build the social power that will make the alternative model we are proposing the best possible solution.”

If we once again look at the Rio outcome document but through a different lens, is the document a good starting point for this new civil society action?

The document is filled with words such as “reaffirm”, “encourage”, “take note”, “commit” and “strengthen”. Both Oxfam and Christian Aid pledged in their closing statements to stand with their partners to make sure these words turn into the actions necessary and to push governments and the private sector to take the right pathway.

For example, the commitment by the Rio text to begin the process of a new set of Sustainable Development Goals, gives these groups, and groups around the world to push for these gaols to be all inclusive and to represent the needs and the wants of those people they represent.

Related audio: See what Meenakshi Raman from Third World Network had to say about the next steps for civil society groups…

Speaking to RTCC at the conference Meenakshi Raman, from Third World Network said: “We should not cry over what we did not see. But what this shows is a signal to civil society and social movements [that] we really need to unite and mobilise in all of our countries and I think the document gives us that opportunity.

“All is not lost. You can look at it as glass half full or glass half empty and I see it as half full. I think we can build on it.”

The post Rio+20: What next for civil society following Earth Summit ‘failure’? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Following just two days of what can hardly be called negotiations – an endless stream of nations pre-prepared and uninterrupted statements – the negotiators and heads of state at the Rio+20 conference prepare to ratify the conference outcome.

Finalised on Tuesday and despite late pleas from the major groups, Date of History winner 17-year-old Brittany Trilford and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the draft outcome was hardly debated at all during the high-level segment of the conference.

The conference was opened by a plea from 17-year-old Brittany Trilford (UN Photo/Mark Garten )

With groups accusing the delegates, who arrived at the conference on Wednesday, of agreeing to a weak text, their frustration spilled-over yesterday into a sit-in protest followed by a walkout by many civil society and youth groups.

Speaking at the conference Sharon Burrows from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) called for Civil Society to be given a voice at the table in these types of negotiations.

“Frankly the leaders didn’t even show the courage of even negotiating with each other,” she told reporters. “They accepted a low ambition text from the bureaucrats, from the diplomats and they did nothing to lift the aspiration.”

While the text shows a strong understanding of what must be done, recognises the importance of sustainable development, and re-affirms the pledges made 20 years ago at the first Earth Summit, Kumi Naidoo Executive Director of Greenpeace says it offers little in terms of concrete pledges.

“Our main issue is that there are no bench marks, no deadlines, no money on the table to make these things happen and we would be really stupid as a civil society, or as anybody really, if we just accept that they are now going to act in a way that the world requires.”

With financial crises hitting the world and many politicians looking inwards to their own countries rather than out towards the globe, and with discussions covering topics from poverty eradication to planetary limits and new economic systems to replace GDP, the discussions were never going to be simple.

For Meenakshi Raman, from Third World Network, the conference represented the state of the situation globally.

“The lack of ambition in the text that you see, really represents the state of global politics today and I think as the President of Brazil was saying giving the economic and the financial crisis internationally, countries particularly in the North are having domestic issues and are focusing domestic and are less willing to talk about international cooperation and international solidarity,” she told RTCC.

AUDIO: Meenakshi Raman gives RTCC’s Ed King her reaction to the Rio+20 outcome:

Rays of Hope

And while negotiations may have fallen far short of what many civil society groups, and many countries may have hoped for, it is not the end of the process and could be seen as a positive beginning.

“What you see in the outcome document is the reaffirmation of Rio principles including CBDR, you see in finance and technology what we actually got were mechanisms that we could get in the future,” added Raman. “There are positives but from where the developing countries began, to what they got, you can look at it as a glass half full.”

And while the final three days of negotiations have run fairly smoothly, the fraught process which has been going on behind the scenes for over a year now brought moments where it looked as if there would be no agreement at all.

NGOs say the road towards the 'future we want' is still open (UN/Maria Elisa Franco)

Erica Carroll, Policy Analyst from Christian Aid told RTCC: “Thanks to the leadership of the Brazilian government, the text went from being highly contentious with the possibility of no agreement, to a finely balanced compromise that all countries could sign on to, even if they were not happy with every aspect of it.

“We have a commitment to pursue a process to formulate sustainable development goals. If government and civil society, along with allies in the private sector take action on these commitments then we will be making some positive, measurable and accountable steps to a sustainable future.”

However, she too warned that civil society – especially those poorest and marginalised – must be incorporated into this process for it to be successful.

She praised the youth presence at the conference – both for their contribution to the negotiation process and their acts of protest – for an outcome that alone does little to secure their future.

“What needs to happen now,” she says, “is action and implementation of the commitments we see on paper, otherwise the fair, equitable and sustainable future that we really want many be just a distant dream.”

Other NGOs too recognised the rays of hope that could be taken from the civil society presence at the conference, and the positives that can be taken away from the process.

Barbara Stocking, Oxfam’s Chief Executive said: “Rio will go down as the hoax summit. They came, they talked, but they failed to act.

“The People’s Summit was a vision for a future we want with people at its centre, and a rejection of business as usual. It’s been a painful birth but the vision of an ambitious set of goals on environment and development, applicable to all countries, is a solitary light in the fog of Rio.

“But we need one set of goals for the people and planet – ending poverty and protecting the environment are inextricably linked and cannot be addressed in isolation.”

The post Rio+20: Long way to go on road to sustainable development, say NGOs appeared first on Climate Home News.