Confirmation that Cameroon will not qualify for help came from the US. “Fast start financial agreements were announced with the intent of getting an agreement in Copenhagen. Countries that reject the overall effort – that say ‘no, I have no interest in your agreement, I want something different’ – I am not quite sure they should be part of this financing,” said the head of the US delegation at the latest round of negotiations here in Bonn, Dr Jonathan Pershing.

Developing countries  were offered $30 bn over the next three years at the Copenhagen summit  to let them start work immediately on climate adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer, capacity building and forest conservation.  Most of the money is still to be made available by donors. In the long term, the stated intention is to provide $100 bn annually from 2020.

Asked why Cameroon had not signed the Accord, the head of its delegation, Mr Joe Armathe, said: “I cannot answer that question.” He explained that after the Copenhagen summit the delegation made a proposal to the Prime Minister and President of Cameroon. The proposal, he said, outlined specific activities to be undertaken in the area of climate adaptation and mitigation  in the country.

So it is for the Prime Minister and possibly the Presidency to decide whether Cameroon signs the Accord or not. According to Mr Armathe, signing it, however imperfect it may be, would constitute a first step towards a legally-binding agreement on tackling climate change.

Other African states have also not signed the Accord, in some cases apparently because of fundamental differences of principle with its key architects, including the US, UK and the European Union. In the case of Cameroon, Mr Armathe speculated that its failure to sign could be simply the result of bureaucracy.

He acknowledged that Cameroon will miss out on the current funding offer. If this happens, it would mean that Cameroon may not have the money needed to continue work in many climate change adaptation and mitigation activities. Recognizing the urgency of securing eligibility for the funding, Mr Armathe said he would initiate a letter to the Prime Minister through the Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection to inform him of the disadvantages of not signing the Accord.

Even though Cameroon is excluded from benefitting from the fast start financing now, it could still do so if it signs the Accord in future. Among the 191 countries that make up the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 127 have signed. Zimbabwe, Sudan, Niger, Liberia, Egypt, Somalia, Libya, Sao Tome & Principe and Equatorial Guinea are among the few African countries that have not signed the Accord.

“We do not have to leave Copenhagen with a document that does not reflect the wishes of the people. If we cannot agree, we have to agree that we cannot agree and move it to next time”, she said. “If leaders feel the deal is not worth signing, they should not sign it. They can always sign it another day.”

Heads of State have been arriving in Copenhagen for the closing of the 2009 climate change talks amidst high hopes that an ambitious, comprehensive and legally binding agreement will still crown the meeting.

The Danish government has been desperately working behind the scenes to ensure that the meeting is successful. Earlier the G77+China group reacted with fury to a draft text which they claimed shortcircuited the UN negotiation system and undermined their demands.

A major contentious and sticky issue has been money. Developing countries have asked for hundreds of billions of dollars, not only to adapt to the impacts of climate change and to mitigate its causes but also in reparation for what they claim is the industrialized countries’ historic responsibility for polluting the atmosphere.

Wangari Maathai echoed that view. “I think that in some countries like in Africa and small island states, people are already suffering, and I think that the rich countries have a responsibility to do what is morally right, just and fair.

“It is a matter of  social justice to support these countries because rich countries are largely responsible for what is happening. Let us hope they are not going to slap us in the face.”

Even though the executive secretary of the UN Climate Change Convention, Yvo de Boer, has consistently downplayed any rift between the various negotiating blocs, some unease still lingers. But while Wangari Maathai thinks groups in such big meetings may not always agree, what is important in her opinion is that all  work in collaboration and do not “point fingers – you caused it and you are responsible for it”.

She also acknowledged that developing countries ought to understand that the money they are seeking is taxpayers’ money, which means that leaders of industrialized countries must persuade their citizens of the moral rightness of assisting poor countries.

World Will Not Come to End without a Deal

Stakes at the Copenhagen summit have been high since the Bali conference in 2007, and for over two years the international community expected the world to deliver an accord that would be legally binding and ambitious enough to solve the climate change dilemma.

But with only a few months to Copenhagen it became clear that the summit might not meet its objectives. For Wangari Maathai, the world will not end if a deal is not reached.

“It is important that we do what is right when we go back home. In the final analysis, it is we who must dig those holes and plant those trees and refuse international timber companies coming from the same countries that are now refusing to commit money”, she said.

Professor Maathai however remains guardedly optimistic that some results may be achieved. “More than a hundred Heads of State are coming to Copenhagen and I don’t think that they can come here and agree on something that can tomorrow be thrown into a waste paper basket,” she said.

“These are responsible leaders who know the science; they know what is happening all over the world. They cannot say they don’t know. So I think that they are not coming here for a dance.”

Key world leaders, including former US President Bill Clinton, the 2009 Nobel laureate in economics, Professor Elinor Ostrom,  and Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), all recognized the huge role forests play in solving the climate dilemma.

The world’s forests and forest soils currently store more than one trillion tons of carbon – twice the amount found floating free in the atmosphere – according to  studies by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation. But the destruction of forests adds almost six billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, approaching 20 per cent of all global emissions.

“It’s now clear that without action on forest-related emissions, the international community has no chance of keeping global warming below the two degree threshold”, said Seymour Francis, Director General of the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) which organized the conference. “Exceeding that threshold [for global average temperature rise above pre-industrial levels] would have catastrophic implications for hundreds of millions of people.”

But while he and others recognized the role of forests in reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, they also acknowledged that the role of indigenous peoples must be respected if policies are to succeed.

Professor Ostrom urged policymakers to ensure their policies were not “top-down”. Rather, she said, they should be “adaptive and include the concerns of  indigenous people.”

Ex-President Clinton said: “The global community must give more attention to helping poor communities adapt to climate change already under way. None of this will be easy, or it would have been done before. But it can be done.”

The international community has been considering the inclusion of forests in a future climate change deal in an approach known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). The conference spent much of its time examining REDD, its advantages and potential weaknesses. Forestry experts concluded that REDD cannot be successful without the collaboration of the agriculture, mining and finance sectors.

The Congo Basin forest, the second largest forest reserve in the world after the Amazon, is tipped to play a huge role in storing carbon. Cyriaque Sendashonga who heads CIFOR’s Central African regional office said the Basin has massive potential. But she acknowledged that there is a risk with the use that might be made with any money earned in this way, unless governance and institutional issues are addressed.

Ambassador Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping of Sudan, the head of the G77+China – of which all African countries are members – offered his response to the draft document in a hastily organized press conference on Wednesday afternoon. “I am hoping that this ill-perceived intention will not succeed. I hope that world leaders, scientists, NGOs, businesses and citizens of the world will not accept this proposal,” he said.

“The Prime Minister of Denmark is desperate for success at all cost, but he needs to distinguish between his political career and a successful deal that is just and equitable,” he added. According to Ambassador Lumumba, the Danish draft text favors only 20 per cent of the world population, namely the industrialised countries, while doing injustice to the remaining 80 per cent.

Ambassador Lumumba said developing and developed countries have their various demands and that it is important that they find the middle ground. However, he stated that a deal is only possible if it is just and equitable, and includes the world’s poor people. “Developing countries have made a minimum number of demands and without those demands being met, there will be no deal,” he said. The demands of developing countries include a serious proposal for long-term financing for adaptation, mitigation and  technology transfer, and allowing a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, said that he understands why governments are furious over the leaked document: “Countries are nervous because they think it is an imbalance, but it has not been on the table in a formal way. People see it as a document that should not be the basis for discussions. All discussions should be mandated by the parties.”

It is not clear whether the leaked draft document will affect the outcome of the negotiations. UN officials have argued that the only official document is the one that shall be presented by the chair of the conference on behalf of the member states.

Joining the variety of voices from developing countries pressing for an ambitious and comprehensive agreement, the executive chair of the Pan African Parliamentarians’ Network on Climate Change (PAPNCC), the Hon. Cyprian Awudu Baya of the National Assembly of Cameroon, called for nothing short of a legally-binding agreement.

“The Copenhagen agreement must have strong compliance mechanisms that penalize those countries that do not meet their commitments on emissions reductions or on finance”, he said. And despite the stalling of negotiations, Mr Awudu thinks there is still time for a legally-binding agreement.

 Industrialized countries, he said, must be warned that Copenhagen was the last chance to act on climate change in order to safeguard future generations, many of whom would live in Africa.  Highlighting the continent’s vulnerability, he said Africa expected a deal that was just, equitable and which met its demands. And that meant industrialized countries must halve their emissions of greenhouse gases by 2017, go “beyond a carbon-free world” well before 2050, and commit at least 1.5% of their GDP towards climate finance.

In a sign of their determination, the African parliamentarians present at the talks threatened not to ratify any agreement that does not meet the aspirations of the people they represent. That is why the PAPNCC coordinator in East Africa, the Hon Kamar Margaret of Kenya, said they do not want a merely political agreement, but a legally-binding one.

Recently rumours have been circulating that there are deep divisions within the Africa group. But Mr Awudu warned against what he said were manipulations designed to destabilize the continent’s negotiatiors. “Africa’s slogan is one Africa, one voice, one position”, he said. He denied the existence of any rift within the group, saying there were always bound to be some differences within it given the variety of its membership.

Clearly absent from the press conference were any North African parliamentarians, though Mr Awudu did not attribute this to any rift within the delegation. On the contrary, he said, the African bloc at the negotiations was chaired by an Algerian, and “we are happy with the work he is doing”.

The Hon Ubani Uzechu, a Nigerian parliamentarian, said there were no divisions within the African delegation: “We are here to support our various governments in the negotiations, and that is just what we are doing.” Several other Members of Parliament were also at the press conference, including MPs from Kenya, South African and Congo-Brazzaville.

As governments and the international community grapple with the crucial challenges of global warming and hunger, an international research institution, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), is calling for tree planting as a means of fighting global development problems. Tree planting on farm land, ICRAF argues, has the potential to increase food productivity, combat climate change and increase income for farmers, particularly in Africa.

Speaking during an international gathering of more than 1,000 delegates in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, on August 24, the Director of ICRAF, Dr Dennis Garrity, said: “Trees throughout the world provide new opportunities for farmers to generate cash by growing fruit trees and other high value trees for both local and international markets. In addition to income generation, we have a food crisis in Africa. We are emphasising that the right kind of trees in the right place can be enormously important for helping to increase the yield of fruit crops.”

On how trees can combat climate change, Dr Garrity said: “What is important about trees today is that we have to adapt to climate change.” Trees have deep roots and so they are more adapted to climate change generally than food crops. Farmers, he said, can turn to trees for more stable income in times when there is drought, floods, high temperatures or when they are faced with other adverse environmental conditions that may kill their crops.

As ICRAF pushes the world community to put trees at the centre of major development efforts, current research from the institution has also confirmed that trees on farmland are on the increase while tree cover in forest areas is on the decline. The World Agroforestry Centre even argues that while farmers are frequently blamed for forest loss, a study it published on August 24 in Nairobi shows that about half of farmlands worldwide have significant tree cover. “Farmers are now part of the solution to deforestation rather than the problem”, said Dr Garrity.

Several other world environment leaders, notably the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Wangari Maathai, from Kenya, and United Nations Environment Programme Director Achim Steiner, have joined in the call for trees to be put at the heart of the development agenda. According to the Nobel laureate, trees on farms would make a huge positive impact on the environment and related global problems. While commending UNEP and ICRAF for planting more than five billion trees since the “Plant A Billion Trees” campaign was launched in 2006, Wangari regretted that in some parts of Kenya, the eucalyptus tree was still being planted and making heavy demands on water supplies.

Tree Species Improving Food Production

During the past few years, an African indigenous tree species has been used experimentally in various corners of Africa and proven to be extremely useful in increasing food production. Scientifically called faidherbia albida, the tree sheds its leaves during the rainy season and retains them during the dry season so that it does not compete with crops for light. In Zambia for instance, research conducted with faidherbia albida over several years shows mature trees can permit the production of  maize yields of as much as four tonnes per hectare compared with one tonne in traditional systems. Maize planted on farmland with faidherbia albida not only faces little competition for sunlight but also enjoys the decomposing leaves of faidherbia albida which serve as fertilizers.

Faidherbia albida has been used experimentally in twelve African countries, including Niger, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Malawi and Zambia and has proven very successful particularly in fighting the advancing Sahara in Niger and other countries threatened by the desert.

Faidherbia albida is native to Africa. It can grow 3–30 metres tall and up to two metres in circumference. Its deep penetrating tap roots make it highly resistant to drought.