Just before his last birthday Prince Charles, Britain’s future King visited the Harapan forest in Jambi on the island of Sumatra and planted an ironwood sapling, a fitting symbol of his wish to be remembered for saving the rainforests. Covering 101,000 hectares of degraded lowland forests in South Sumatra and Jambi provinces, Harapan, which means hope, is the latest forest to be endorsed by the prince’s Rainforest Project. It mirrors the prince’s twin visions of halting deforestation and mitigating climate change.

The Indonesian government has granted a concession to manage the restoration of the forest to a consortium of three non-governmental organisations. A local group Burung Indonesia, the UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), and BirdLife International formed a group called PT Restorasi Ekosistem Indonesia, known as PT REKI.

Angry farmers lobby against plans
Dieter Hoffmann of BirdLife International expects the trees to absorb up to five million tonnes of carbon annually, equivalent to the annual emissions of the UK city of Manchester. To finance the project, it plans to raise money from the carbon offset market by trading in carbon credits generated from the restoration of the forest. The money will go towards buying seedlings and employing workers to plant them.

But this optimism is not universally shared. The forest restoration project has angered landless farmers who say they were evicted from forest land now being managed by PT REKI. A month after Prince Charles planted his sapling, Sarwadi Sukiman, a small farmer from Sumatra, appeared in the Polish city of Poznan for the December 2008 United Nations climate change conference with a farmers’ pressure group, Via Campesina. They came to lobby against the project.

Evicted from forest land
Sarwadi comes from Tanjung Lebar village in a rural area that saw large-scale commercial logging in the 1980s.When the companies left in 2002 he said peasant farmers and indigenous people reclaimed the land to grow rice, beans and fruit. About 1,500 families, organised under the Indonesian Peasants’ Union occupied and cultivated a large area. Sarwadi said villagers were evicted after PT REKI took possession of the area in 2007, “We were forced to sign a letter promising to never come back again. Some peasants were jailed, though they were later released. One of them was detained for six months for defending his community’s land,” he said.  

In response to this allegation, PT REKI consortium has accused Via Campesina of distorting the situation on the ground. When asked about the evictions described by Mr Sarwadi, an RSPB spokesman said PT REKI had reported the presence of “illegal loggers” to the Indonesian police, “as required under Indonesian law. We are also discussing how Harapan rainforest can support the development of these communities,” he said, “It has already created employment opportunities for over 100 locals.” He added that PT REKI is helping around 500 indigenous Bathin Sembilan people to secure legal land tenure. 

UN rewards forest preservation
The row over Harapan is interesting in light of the UN’s efforts to reward governments in tropical countries for protecting their rainforests. The UN has adopted the principles of a scheme called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing countries (REDD) with the support of a majority of the 192 UNFCCC member governments. In short, the REDD scheme will ensure funds go to governments who preserve their native forests.

The Harapan project was not set up as a REDD initiative, but provides an early example of how future REDD schemes might work. It also exposes the potential for conflict between globally agreed environmental initiatives and the interests of landless rural and indigenous communities.

Land rights should be centre stage
Friends of the Earth International, which is campaigning to keep REDD out of the carbon market, says any proposal that increases the value of the forests may worsen land rights abuses in countries which do not recognise indigenous rights. 

Its forest and biodiversity programme coordinator, Belmond Tchoumba, said: “If the value of their forests increases, they may face governments and corporations willing to go to extreme lengths to wrest the forests away from them. To stop deforestation land rights must be centre stage. Yet these UN climate talks shamefully continue to take place without any meaningful participation by indigenous peoples.”

The REDD negotiating text is scheduled to be finalised at the next meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009. Moves to include indigenous rights have so far been thwarted by opposition from the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, countries that refuse to ratify the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Malaysian indigenous communities nervous
Concern about REDD is not confined to Indonesia. In Malaysia industrial logging, particularly in the two states of Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo, has long been criticised for its unresolved land-grab conflicts which have impoverished indigenous communities. 

In Sarawak alone, a majority of the nearly 200 outstanding land dispute cases filed by indigenous communities are related to oil palm and forest plantation development that has encroached into what they claim as ancestral land. 

The Indigenous Peoples’ Network of Malaysia is concerned that the plantation forest scheme currently promoted by the government will mean clear-felling and will further concentrate control of the land in the hands of a few powerful, politically-linked timber companies. 

“Since most of our land is not titled, it will be very easy for the government to designate areas within our territories for REDD schemes… we will lose but they will make lots of money from these deals,” said Adrian Lasimbang, the president of the Network.

The approach appears to be simple and straightforward: countries that ensure forests are kept as carbon sink in the global fight against global warming will be rewarded.

Developing countries in the tropical region led by Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Brazil had pushed successfully for forests to be recognised as the next viable solution to combating the scourge at the annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) in Bali in 2007.

Grouped under the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, they are seeking compensation for the carbon stored in their forests to be part of the agreement replacing the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol. Besides Indonesia and Brazil, other members of the coalition include Costa Rica, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malaysia, Mexico, Papua New Guinea and Peru.

The Protocol is a global treaty whereby, between 2008 and 2012, developed countries are legally compelled to cut their emission by 5 per cent from the 1990 emissions level.

Apart from domestic emissions cut, developed nations or Annex I countries are allowed to purchase carbon offset through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to meet their emission targets, mainly from the energy sector.

Funding under CDM for the forestry sector is restricted to afforestation (growing new forests on lands that previously do not contain forest) and reforestation (establishment of forest plantation in areas that were formerly forested), but it excludes existing forests.

The excitement over the proposed Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) mechanism was almost tangible as fixing the forest-climate relationship rose in prominence at the recently concluded meeting in Poznan in December.

Some 80 proposals from governments, environmental groups and donor agencies were submitted to delegates for consideration as 192 nations that are signatories of the UNFCCC met at the historical city of Poland.

Generally, REDD is viewed as a ‘win-win’ option for the long embattled tropical rainforests facing logging that accounts for one-fifth of the global carbon emission and the diminishing ability of degraded forests to soak up carbon. The latest Earth Policy Institute study showed that each year, deforestation in the tropical region released 2.2bil tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming.

REDD holds the potential to be the most promising and attractive forest conservation scheme yet — stabilising the climate at a low cost and securing the other ecosystem services that healthy forests provide.

Even though the mechanism is still in its design stage, the flurry of so-called REDD testing activities on the ground presented at the sideline of the meeting suggests that market-based, carbon offset mechanism will emerge as the preferred financing model.

In fact, the government of Norway has pledged US$500mil (RM1.7bil) per year towards REDD activities as a promising start to develop a market that will generate the necessary funds.

Carbon market myth But as usual, the devil is in the detail.

The overwhelming reliance on funding from carbon trading and the contentious inclusion of plantation forest as part of the scheme worries certain quarters.

Indigenous peoples are raising the alarm that any proposal that increases the value of forests may trigger a rapid increase in land rights’ abuses by the state and corporations at the expense of their customary rights.

Voices of dissent were heard since Bali and the opposition to REDD grew stronger in Poznan.

Friends of the Earth International points out that if REDD is funded through carbon offsetting, it will undermine current and future emission reductions agreed to by industrialised countries.

“While numerous governments have proposed the use of carbon markets to finance REDD, this needs to be reconsidered. It would create the climate regime’s biggest loophole by allowing rich countries to buy their way out of emission reductions, risking humanity’s ability to tackle climate change,” it said, suggesting alternative funding sources like taxing fossil fuel use and diverting fossil fuel energy subsidies in industrialised countries.

It also said halting deforestation should be more than just a carbon counting exercise. Governments, it argued, should challenge the underlying causes of deforestation directly, addressing demand-side drivers in importing countries and resolving governance, poverty and land tenure issues in forested countries.

Financing, it added, should be invested in national programmes and infrastructure that directly support alternative rights-based forms of forest conservation, sustainable management, natural regeneration and ecosystem restoration, such as community-based forest governance.

An environmental federation of two million members is campaigning for forests to be kept out of carbon markets, that plantations are entirely excluded and land rights are enforced as the basis of any forest policy.

Sandy Gauntlett, a Maori indigenous rights activist from New Zealand said: “The definition of forests under REDD is utterly ridiculous. It leaves wide open the ability of countries to destroy their natural forests and replace them with industrial tree plantations, which destroys wildlife habitat and displaces indigenous and forest dependent communities.

Conservationists said large-scale monoculture tree plantations cause drastic changes in local and regional hydrological cycles, the deterioration of rivers and streams, air and water pollution due to the use of pesticides and other agrochemicals and a critical loss of biodiversity. Plantations also store only 20 per cent of the carbon that intact natural forests do.

Despite assurances from promoters of REDD such as the World Bank, the United Nations Environmental Programme and scientific organisations like the Centre for International Forestry Research that anyone can participate in REDD projects on an equal footing, critics are saying that the assurance is at best naive and at worst flawed.

Indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities may find it hard to benefit from REDD even if they wish to participate simply because in countries where customary land rights are not recognised, those without clear land tenure are unlikely to even qualify as participants.

“Some countries have good land tenure systems, like those Papua New Guinea and Brazil, but countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and those in the Congo Basin are facing unresolved land conflicts as national law does not recognise indigenous peoples’ rights,” said Nils Hermann of Rainforest Foundation Norway, noting that until and unless those rights are explicitly recognised in the REDD mechanism, indigenous peoples will be further margnisalised.

CIFOR’s Frances Seymour acknowledged that linking forests with the climate change agenda involved risks and uncertainty, but said that the risk of inaction is even greater.

The World Bank, which was criticised for its exclusion of indigenous participation in its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility said the bank is developing guidelines on consultation and outreach with forest-dependent communities, which will be decided at the individual country level.

“I know you’ll only be convinced when you see it. I can’t predict how or if all the countries will be successful (with REDD),” said its head of sustainable development Benoit Bosquet. The bank has so far selected 25 countries to participate in FCPF that was launched at Bali, became operational in June and carried out trials in Indonesia, a country with an appalling record of forestry governance.

The Global Forest Coalition, an informal alliance of southern and northern NGOs and indigenous peoples’ organisations expressed its disappointment with the failure of governments convening at Poznan to reject carbon market as a possible funding option.

Chairman of the coalition, Dr Migeul Lovera warned that the outcome of the negotiation on REDD could lead to large scale deforestation in favour of monoculture plantation, which would have a devastating impact on the climate, biodiversity and the 60 million indigenous people and 1.6 billion others who depend on forests for their survival.

The relatively large meeting room was packed to its capacity. Latecomers had to content with just sitting on the carpeted floor, or standing.

It was to be the first event on the sidelines of the recently concluded climate talks in Poland that dealt with the negative effects of the proposed forestry solution to climate change called the Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).

Speaking in Spanish and aided by an interpreter, Victor Hugo Vela told the crowd of the problems faced by the Chiquotano tribe in Bolivia with the controversial Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project.

Into its 11th year, the project is one of the earliest carbon sequestration schemes initiated by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) together with the government of Bolivia. It is projected to avoid emissions of 25 to 36 million tonnes of carbon dioxide during its 30 year period.

The buyers of the carbon credits are three United States energy companies — American Electric Power, PacifiCorp and BP Amoco. It is the largest project of its kind in the world and serves as a showcase for an innovative and cost-effective approach to abating greenhouse gas emissions.

Vela, however, said local communities were not allowed to practice their traditional way of life within the 1.5 million hectare tropical forest in the Santa Cruz province, northeast of Bolivia.

Vela was responding to TNC’s official defence that the project had benefitted indigenous people, including securing land titles for them.

“There are many problems with the project. We still have yet to see a cent though on paper we are supposed to get 20 per cent of the fund administered by TNC,” revealed the head of the Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organisations of Bolivia.

But more importantly, Vela said the 14,500 indigenous peoples that were affected were not consulted when the deal was signed with the previous government.

“We only found out two months ago about the contract and we tried to renegotiate the term but now we just want it to be cancelled. Our new president Evo Morales is of the opinion that there exists a historical ecological debt owed by developed countries that cannot be calculated by NGOs based on the carbon value in our forests,” he said to applause from the floor.

The controversial project is just one of many experiences shared by rural communities around the world that are facing increasing pressure created by the burgeoning carbon market in the 12-day meeting.

Skeptical but cautiously accommodating over the inclusion of forests as a mitigating tool for climate change, indigenous communities were dealt a serious blow when their rights as forest-dependent people were not upheld at the annual climate talks. Their request for an expert group to represent their views in the meeting was ignored.

On the penultimate day of the summit, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand objected to the inclusion of recognition for indigenous rights in the official text of the REDD mechanism although most governments agreed that it is vital to avoid the anticipated problem of land-grab. These are the same countries that did not rectify the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007.

The decision sparked off an immediate protest denouncing REDD amid chants of ‘No Rights, No REDD’.

Witnessing the way indigenous peoples’ rights are undermined by the very States who took the lead in formulating and adopting the UN Declaration on Human Rights, 60 years ago, is a tragic thing, said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

“These states are very keen to include REDD as part of the agreement on mitigation, which will be agreed in Copenhagen in 2009. However, they obstinately refuse to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples and other forest peoples, who are the ones who sacrificed life and limb to keep the world’s remaining tropical and sub-tropical rainforests.”

Tauli-Corpuz was advocating for indigenous communities to seize the opportunity to shape the design of the REDD mechanism from the onset and appealed to negotiators to respect UNDRIP.

For Mazoe Gondme, the season of Christmas is different these days.

When she was a young woman, she sowed maize before Christmas Day and waited for the rain to help her crop germinate.

As a married woman, who now shoulders the task of ensuring her family has sufficient food, the festive season no longer serves as Gondme’s guide.

Rainfall patterns in Riumphi, located in northern Malawi, have gone awry. This has led to crop failures in the last few years. Gondme has had to turn to irrigation to grow the staple grain.

But flooding her small plot of land is back-breaking and takes up a huge chunk of Gondme’s precious time.

Her predicament is not isolated. More and more farmers in developing countries are experiencing drought due to climate change.

Gondme was at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) summit in Poznan, where 192 nations spent two weeks negotiating a post-2012 plan to address global warming, and to appeal for funding to adapt to an increasingly arid environment.

Under the UNFCCC treaty, industrialised nations (called the Annex I countries), which are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, are obligated to reduce their emissions by 5 per cent from the 1990 levels between this year and 2012.

At the last meeting in Bali, parties to the Convention agreed to work towards a new accord in time for their meeting in Copenhagen, slated for the end of 2009. The meeting in Poznan is the half-way point in a two-year negotiation process.

But Gondme, 58, is among the many who are not getting the help, which had been promised by rich nations that are supposed to finance the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fund.

To obtain funding for adaptation projects, individual countries have to develop their National Adaptation Programme of Actions (NAPAs) — a process that many find to be time-consuming, overly bureaucratic, and a drain on the limited funding available.

This, according to poor nations, contradicts the principle that the fund support’s the implementation of “urgent and immediate” activities identified in the NAPA.

Much of the US$172 million of the LDC Fund launched in 2001 remains pledged in name only. To date, only one out of the 38 projects submitted thus far have been approved. To finance all the projects will cost about US$1.6 billion.

Bhutan, the country that secured the only approved project, said that only three of the nine priority areas identified as urgent and immediate in their NAPA are funded. Implementation started a few months ago but the funding is not enough for the country’s needs.

Critics have said the fund is woefully inadequate. Development NGO Oxfam International has estimated that US $5 billion is required per year to assist the increasing numbers of countries that are affected by the effects of climate change.

Countries are calling for a simplified mechanism to disperse the fund, and for direct access through a national body, but this is opposed by developed nations, which are citing fears of corruption.

Negotiators from the G77, and the Association of Small Island States and Least Developed Countries, reminded delegates from developed countries that money for adaptation is at the core of moral and ethical issues.

Bangladesh chief delegate Mohammad Reazuddin, frustrated by mere talk and the lack of action, said: “Why are we [even] discussing about effectiveness of adaptation projects when not a project has yet to be implemented? What can we do with people who lose their land due to sea level rise? We need to place people at the centre of the discussion.”

The director of the Department of Environment noted that money for adaptation should come from industrialised nations according to the polluters-pay principle through overseas development assistance, to which rich countries had pledged 0.7 per cent of their respective GDPs (gross domestic product) since the Rio Summit in 1992.

“That was a gentleman’s agreement but they failed to deliver,” Reazuddin said. “[Maybe] we need to go from voluntary to mandatory pay out. Adaptation cannot wait so we need auto-generation from the Adaptation Fund.”

Launched at Bali, the Adaptation Fund was made operational at the end of the Poznan meeting but countries could not reach an agreement on additional funding sources.

Maldives delegate Amjad Abdullah said that while some countries have fared better in facing climate change, it is a question of survival for the island states of the Indian Ocean: “Other countries have some parts that are vulnerable — in my country, everywhere is vulnerable.”

He said developing nations have the adaptive capacity and all they need is the fund. But, so far, most of the payment had gone to consultants from the West.

“They come for 10 days, spend few hours in my office and collect some reports,” said Abdullah. “Then we keep exchanging emails … this is the way we play the game. There is a commitment with this Convention. We are not asking for a donation.”

Philippine negotiator Bernadittas Muller echoed Abdullah’s sentiment. “Funding must be made flexible and not loaded with conditions,” she said. “It takes very little to start and that little is political will.” Muller added that Philippines had developed an early warning system of climate-link disasters based on local expertise, and it didn’t cost it much.

Extra ammunition to delegates from poor countries was provided by the US$ 4 trillion of bail-out packages stacked up to save the dire straits that the financial markets of the United States and several European countries find themselves in. It revealed the hypocrisy of Annex I nations for not living up to their funding promises in the negotiation halls as well as the many side events and press conferences through out the 12-day conference.

Delegates said the pledged amount of US$172 million is “a measly sum” and not even half of the Christmas bonus of the CEO of a bank that was recently bailed out in the United States.

Salameel Huq, who heads the Climate Change Group of the International Institute for Environment and Development said funding is not from ordinary taxpayers of developed countries but from the polluters in those countries — like the 2 per cent levy on transactions to offset investments under the UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism.

CDM enables polluting industries in Annex I countries to meet their emission reduction target by purchasing carbon credits from avoided releases in projects in developing countries.

Salameel pointed out that negotiators must mentally shift from simply negotiating for the present citizens to the future population. “Our constituency is our children and grandchildren,” he said, referring to the fact that the younger generations would be the hardest hit by climate change.

If rich nations have their way, the Kyoto Protocol will not be extended at Copenhagen when parties to the United Nations climate convention reconvene next year.

At least one member of an Annex-I country has openly stated her country’s position on the road to Copenhagen from Poznan, where 189 nations are negotiating several packages that will determine the outcome in Copenhagen.

The UK junior minister for climate change, Joan Ruddock said her government is working (towards Copenhagen) on the basis that there must be a new deal.

“At the moment, we’re not considering a second phase [to the Kyoto Protocol],” she told a group of Climate Change Media Partnership fellows this afternoon.

The confirmation confirms suspicions of developing nations negotiators who are frustrated by the lack of progress in the various negotiation forums at Poznan that it was a tactical delay to pave the way for a new global deal with contribution of emission reduction from emerging countries.

Non-Annex-I parties are disturbed by the overt approach of some developed countries from the start of the meeting here that are pushing hard for a global goal under the ‘Shared Vision’ theme being discussed.

The Protocol that was adopted in 1997 at Kyoto is a legally-binding agreement that requires 37 developed nations to lower their emissions by a collective 5 per cent between 2008 and 2012.

But before that commitment phase ends, there is a need to plan ahead of 2012 especially with emerging scientific evidence that the world is hurling towards catastrophic climate change and deep cuts are desperately needed.

Ruddock said she made no apology for the insistence of having rapidly developing countries like China to share the burden.

“We can’t have business as usual (attitudes) in emerging economies where their carbon dioxide emission is overtaking those in industrialised countries.”

“We can’t have a deal without growing big emitters playing some parts. It’s just not possible for China to stay out,” she said, adding that that would be vital to get United States onboard the new deal.

She also said that UK will commit to a 20 per cent reduction by 2020 and will only agree to a 30 per cent cut if there’s a new deal.

Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Datuk Douglas Uggah Embas was responding to a report released by environmental NGOs at the UN climate summit in Poland this week, which placed Malaysia in a dismal position for its record on climate change.
The Climate Change Performance Index, a report issued annually by GermanWatch and Climate Action Network Europe, ranked Malaysia in the bottom 10 of the list. It was in the company of big greenhouse gas polluters like the United States, Australia, Canada and Saudi Arabia.

The green groups published the findings on the sideline of the 14th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The report tracks the performance of 57 countries that together emit more than 90% of the world’s annual output of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas that is heating the planet.

Countries are compared based on their emission levels, emission trends and climate policies.

Uggah responded that its climate plan is taking time because a lot of different organizations and people are involved.

The ministry has invited people from government agencies, the private sector and civil society to provide their views and recommendations on the country’s climate plan, he said.

Technical working groups are deliberating on the fourth draft now and it will be tabled at the next Cabinet Committee on Climate Change, he said, but could not confirm when the policy would be finalized.

Critics contend that Malaysia is lagging behind in adopting renewable energy, and said its climate protection work will be undermined by its long-term energy plan, which favours fossil fuels.

In his address Friday to the assembly of 189 environment and energy ministers on the last day of the climate talks, Uggah urged rich countries to get serious about financing and transferring clean technology to ensure that the global fight against climate change will be successful.

“There have been many meetings on adaptation focusing on conceptual issues, ideas and needs assessment. However, on the ground there is little real work relating to adaptation,” he noted.

Uggah reiterated that any talks about targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be based on the principle of equity, where developed countries take the lead for their historical pollution. But in fact, rich countries are pressuring developing countries to make their own emission cuts.

So far, Uggah said, developing countries are unable to adapt to impacts of a changing climate as funding from developed nations are not forthcoming.

“We need the fund (so we can) switch from old, polluting system to climate-friendly technologies. Furthermore, this has been hampered by the unresolved issue of technology patents held by developed countries,” he added.

He also said Malaysia is keen on seeking mitigation incentives through forest conservation that is being discussed under the Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Degradation of Forest (REDD) mechanism.

He said it was appropriate that the role of forests as carbon sinks are being recognized by the Convention as Malaysia is one of those countries that had a significant forest cover.

Or will it be replaced by a new regime that compels the developing world to take on emission reduction targets earlier?

The former is generally what the developing countries hope to obtain. The latter is what some in the industrialized nations have appeared to be pushing hard for from the onset of the 14th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting which was due to end in the Polish city of Poznan on 12 December.

At the next climate talks 12 months hence in Copenhagen, a new set of reduction targets will have to be introduced to prevent global average temperatures rising by more than 2C over their pre-industrial levels.

If they do, scientists believe, the world will face the risk of irreversible and perhaps catastrophic climate change.

Despite the search for something called “a shared vision”, observers warn that a new treaty to replace Kyoto could trap developing countries into taking on an unfair share of the burden.

The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” calls for Annex I countries – the industrialised countries which have benefited from 150 years of carbon-propelled growth – to reduce their share of carbon emissions so that developing countries get some “environmental space” to catch up on development.

Based on greenhouse gas emission figures from the baseline year of 1990, emissions per capita from developed countries, home to two billion people, average 15 tonnes, while four billion people in developing countries emit five tonnes each.

Third World Network’s Meena Raman said the European Union and other Annex I countries had been advocating a long-term global target of 50% emissions reductions by 2050 from Day One of the gathering of 189 parties at Poznan.

This would mean a shortened development time frame for all who live in the developing world. The population of the global South is projected to double by 2050 with those in Annex I countries will stabilize by then.

Developing countries criticized what they called the over-emphasis and one-dimensional focus on establishing a global target at a time when the 37-nation Annex I group failed to meet their own targets and had not delivered on their financial and technology transfer promises.

Japan, another Annex I member, infuriated non-Annex I delegates when it pressed for differentiating the developing countries, notably China and India with their large populations and rapid industrialition.

Not long after delegates got down to business in Poznan, frustration was already clear among developing countries, especially members of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group.

Countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives with vulnerable low-lying coastlines are lamenting that not enough is being done to help them to adapt to rising sea levels which are displacing human settlements, destroying biodiversity and worsening poverty.

Amjad Abdullah from Maldives said he was tired of attending the climate talks which were not being translated into action, so that he could assure his countrymen that help is at hand.

“I can’t keep telling them that I’m trying my best. I can no longer face them; this is my frustration,” he said, adding that adaptation must be treated as importantly as mitigation, particularly for countries like his which is literally sinking.

He said the Maldives had relocated people from places in danger of inundation and built seawalls like the one at its capital Male that was completed in 2000 at a cost of US$136 million.

The average cost of relocating a climate refugee family is about US$100,000. He foresaw a growing number of refugees if the target of limiting global average temperature increase to 2°C is inadequate.

Some of the latest scientific findings recommend a level of 1.5ºC, and suggest bringing down carbon concentrations to 350 parts per million from the present 380ppm.

A warming sea also means that the Maldives is in danger of losing its coral, the backbone of its marine tourism industry.

According to the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) latest update on global coral status, the world has lost 19% of its coral reefs.

If current trends in carbon emissions continue, the remaining reefs will disappear in the next 20 to 40 years, adversely affecting 500 million people who depend on the reefs for their livelihood.

Shirking responsibilities

Underlining what many see as the failure of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol so far, the coordinator of the G77 and China group, Bernaditas Muller, reminded Annex I Parties not to divert attention by harping on about the need for developing nations to take on emission cuts.

“We, the developing countries, do not have reduction commitments under the Convention. Helping us through adaptation (by providing funds and technology) is not charity, it’s a commitment,” she said.

She added that developing countries had been flexible with the Annex I group, as evidenced by the low Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction targets agreed as an exchange for assistance in enhancing developing nations’ mitigation capabilities.

While it had been written off as a place that could deliver major decisions, many are disappointed that a concrete agreement for the Adaptation Fund (launched at Bali) to be made operational as the key outcome from Poznan did not materialize.

Many like Bernaditas Muller and Meena Raman are not easily confused, and they accused detractors of attempting to kill the Convention and of forgetting its historical context.

Meena placed the blame squarely on Annex I negotiators for stalling progress in all the discussions, causing huge anxieties to negotiators and observers from the G77-China bloc, which represents 130 developing and least developed countries.

“It’s like a bargain that is being extracted when the bargain has not been delivered, and that is a real worry for many of us,” she said in reference to the perceived distorted emphasis and attention to a global goal over other more pressing matters.

“If the Copenhagen agreement is an unfair deal, it’s better not to have a deal. No deal is better than an unfair deal.

“Of course, a good deal would mean that Annex I puts on the table their emission cut figure now and we discuss it. Similarly, the same goes for the United States (when President-elect Barack Obama takes over and signs up to the treaty). There must be no conditions attached,” she said.

Waterbirds swooped down to catch their meals and there were even some swans basking in the sun on an otherwise chilly morning.

But local resident Jozef Drzazgowski has a different story to share: one that spells doom for the picturesque district of Przyjezierze.

Drzazgowski, chairman of the Lake District Association, has been fighting to stop further exploitation of coal, an industry that set foot in the Wielkopolska region of central Poland after World War II.

Drzazgowski blames the industry and its customers – the three nearby coal-fired power plants of 1,800MW each – for the receding lake water as well as the drop in the level of groundwater. He says what once used to be a huge linked body of water of 2,600ha in Konin county is now split into different sections.

“The water level has decreased by 1.5 meters since 2000. This lake was 350 ha in extent, but 50 ha is gone and it’s now divided into two parts with land in the middle,” he said, pointing to the protruding patch of rock not far from the shore.

“The industry accused tourism and climate change of causing the problem. But do the tourists take the water (away with them)? If it’s climate change-induced then it has to affect the other lakes as well but why is only the water level of this lake dropping?” he asked.

He said the problem is caused by the extraction of the lake water to cool the power plants’ turbines and is extremely worried that even the ancient groundwater is not spared.

Locals, according to him, are drilling deeper to get water as they are afraid to use the increasingly stagnant lake water which they think is unsafe.

Located 142km away from Poznan – the Polish city that is playing host to the 14th United Nations meeting on climate change – the coalmines of Konin are the second largest in Poland.

Coal accounts for 93% of the country’s energy, more than double the world’s average, earning it the dubious title of the China of Europe. The power stations in Konin supply 15% of the national grid’s power.

So it is not surprising that the county attracted Greenpeace’s activists in the run-up to the global climate change talks.

Since November 12, the green group has set up its Climate Rescue Station, a four-storey tall planet Earth dome at the edge of the Jozwin open-cast pit.

Greenpeace’s solar energy-powered station is serving as a focal point for opposition to the expansion of coal mining in Poland, with its exhibition on the environmental and health impacts from burning coal.

An independent Dutch research institute, CE Delft, calculates that reliance on coal comes with a price tag of US$360 billion annually, based on the damage attributable to climate change, impacts on human health from air pollution, and fatalities due to major mining accidents.

One third of CO2 emissions, the major greenhouse gas that is warming the planet, come from the burning of coal for power generation.

Greenpeace also staged its usual stunt of scaling two chimneys at one of the power plants, where it unfurled a banner displaying its demand for Poland to ‘Quit Coal, Save the Climate’.

Five climbers spent 50 hours occupying the chimneys before finally rappelling to the ground on Thursday.

On Wednesday, the head of Greenpeace’s global climate campaign, Gavin Edwards, who was one of the five climbers, said he felt compelled to lead the demonstration 150m above ground on the Patnow power plant’s smokestack as it was a very important chance to send a message to negotiators at Poznan to get serious about preventing dangerous climate change.

“We want to see a strong signal from Poland that it is serious about moving away from coal. But instead the government is blocking a European Union-wide plan to cut emissions. Poland is trying to look for an exception for more coal-fired power plants, the opposite of what we need,” he said via a satellite phone link from the smokestack.

Poland intends to exploit its brown coal reserves and build more coal-fired power plants to meet its energy needs despite it being a member of the EU that is working on a climate and energy package supposed to commit the bloc to the peaking of global emissions by 2015. The EU is also committed to a reduction of emissions at the upper end of the 25-40% range (from 1990 levels) by 2020 identified as necessary by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

A member of the Climate Action Network, Greenpeace has also ensured that Poland is shamed for its continued addiction to coal by giving it the ‘Fossil of the Day” award, the first time it was presented to a host country, on the opening day of the two-week meeting.

However, the Konin coalmine spokesman Arkadiusz Michalski said it was Poland’s right to continue to depend on coal as the country had only begun industrializing some years ago and was playing catch-up with western Europe.

“It’s going to be like that for a long time. We’re not ready for renewable energy yet,” said Michalski, adding that coal mining is important for the development of the formerly agrarian and poor region.

He accused Greenpeace of capitalising on the climate meeting to target Poland which is producing the same amount, 16 million tonnes of coal a year, as Greece.

Third World Network’s Chee Yoke Ling reckons that the equity issue (the sharing of responsibilities and burdens) is something that the EU will have to sort out among its member states, which include the highly-industrialised countries of western Europe and the emerging markets of the former communist Eastern Europe.

“That’s the reason why Poland is resisting the package,” she said.

Meanwhile, water shortages in the lake district are hampering tourism and food production. A prolonged drought and falling groundwater reserves are making farming impossible. Fertile land is also lost to the expanding mining operations, and former pits will require 50 years of rehabilitation.

Farmers, said Drzazgowski, are at their wits’ end, and some choose to give up agriculture.

The head of the regional Department of Meteorology and Water, Janusz Wisniewski, said Konin was turning into an arid area as the water-stress situation worsened over the years.

“It was a fertile zone but its agriculture production has been severely affected by the water shortage, and that is certainly not due to climate change,” he said.