What would it take for you to leave your comfortable car at home and jump on a bicycle to get to work, school, or even to go shopping? As cities focus more and more on clean energy, residents of Copenhagen – a developed city – have adopted cycling as the preferred mode of transport. Rosalia Omungo reports on the Copenhagen cycling experience.

Nearly 35 people were reported dead in Kenya in the first few weeks of January, following heavy rains. The Meteorological Department says the rains will subside by the end of the month, but the destruction in their wake is linked to years of environmental degradation. Rosalia Omungo reports on the reality beyond the Copenhagen summit.

Después de los pobres resultados que dejó la cumbre del clima en Copenhague (Dinamarca), empezaron a llegar a la Convención de Cambio Climático de Naciones Unidas (UNFCCC) los compromisos de reducción de emisiones de los distintos países. Al 31 de enero, la fecha propuesta por Ybo de Boer, secretario de Naciones Unidas para el Cambio Climático, para recibir los distintos propósito nacionales, los resultados siguen siendo escasos.

Uno de los principales logros que se suponía había resultado de Copenhague, era el consenso de que el aumento en la temperatura no podía pasar de los 2 grados centígrados. Sin embargo, tal y como están las cosas esa meta no se va a cumplir.

Según un análisis del World Resources Institute, reunidas las propuestas presentadas por los países desarrollados al 31 de enero, las emisiones se reducirán entre 12 y 19 por ciento, teniendo en cuenta los niveles de 1990. Las recomendaciones de los científicos indican que deben ser entre el 25 y el 40 por ciento.

Eso quiere decir que con las propuestas presentadas hasta el día de hoy, la temperatura seguirá aumentando por encima de los 3 grados centígrados, lo que implicará graves consecuencias para el planeta.

Este resultado se suma a la decepción mundial que se sintió tras la cumbre en Copenhague. Y no era para menos, cuando lo mínimo que se esperaba de la 15 Conferencia de las Partes sobre Cambio Climático de las Naciones Unidas (COP15), era la firma unánime de un primer acuerdo político, con compromisos iniciales de reducción de emisiones. Pero nisiquiera esto no se dio,  porque no todos los países firmaron el documento final.

Con una meta de aumento máximo en la temperatura de dos grados centígrados (los representantes de algunas islas y los países africanos pedían que el límite se pusiera en 1,5 grados), la ausencia de fondos concretos para adaptación a largo plazo y la falta de compromisos reales en mitigación, varios países se negaron a firmar. Entre ellos, los representantes del Alba (Venezuela, Dominica, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia y Ecuador), Sudán e islas como Tuvalu, esta última en inminente riesgo de desaparecer por el aumento en los niveles del mar.

¿Acaso habría que culparlos entonces de la falta de un acuerdo? No. Aunque representantes norteamericanos han intentado culparlos (principalmente al Alba) del fracaso, no es ahí a donde deben apuntar los dedos, sino a Estados Unidos y a China, principalmente.

Mucho se habló de esta cumbre que movilizó a millones de personas en todo el mundo y reunió a más de 1.500 periodistas en la capital danesa. Mucho se habló también de la presencia del presidente Barack Obama en las negociaciones. Pero fue más el ruido de los helicópteros y sirenas a su llegada a Copenhague el viernes 18 de diciembre, que el eco de sus palabras para que se lograra un pacto legalmente vinculante.

A las necesidades del planeta les ganaron los intereses económicos de Estados Unidos que no quiso comprometerse con una reducción de emisiones mayor del 4 por ciento por debajo de los niveles emitidos en 1990, cuando lo recomendado por los científicos es del 50 por ciento.

Además, el presidente Barack Obama, sobre cuyos hombros se pusieron las esperanzas del mundo, no pudo ofrecer nada más que 3.600 millones de dólares para financiar la adaptación y la mitigación de los países en desarrollo hasta el 2012. Para un fondo inicial de 30.000 millones de dólares que se acordó para el periodo 2010-2012, la Unión Europea aportará 10.600 millones de dólares y Japón 11.000 millones.

Cabe resaltar que hoy, a dos meses de la cumbre, no se sabe exactamente de dónde sacará cada país el monto prometido para alcanzar los 30.000 millones, cuándo los dará ni a dónde se destinarán. El futuro de este primer fondo de ayudas está incierto.

¿Y después del 2012? La incertidumbre es aún mayor. Solo se dejó establecido que se necesitan para adaptación y mitigación 100.000 millones de dólares por año para el 2020. Pero no hubo claridad acerca de quiénes aportarán para ello.

Barack Obama, en el afán por no salir de Copenhague con las manos vacías, negoció a puerta cerrada un convenio con los líderes de China, Brasil, India y Sudáfrica. Pasadas las 8:00 p.m. del viernes anunció ante un pequeño grupo de periodistas estadounidenses (no dio declaraciones a la prensa internacional) los resultados que obtuvo con estas fichas claves de la negociación, tomó su avión y salió de Dinamarca. Pocos minutos después, el presidente de Colombia, Álvaro Uribe, anunció que el país se unía a estas firmas, pese a que no había quedado satisfecho con el resultado, pues no se impusieron sanciones. El presidente Uribe de inmediato tomó su avión y se fue.

Pero hasta ese momento eran muchos los representantes de los países que ni siquiera habían visto el documento final. Por eso las negociaciones continuaron hasta casi las 5:00 p.m. del día siguiente, en medio de un ambiente de indignación por una cumbre a la que le faltó transparencia desde el comienzo.

China, por su parte, defendió hasta el final su frase bandera: “Nuestro espacio atmosférico ha sido tomado y lo queremos de vuelta”. Se refería a que los países industrializados han contaminado por años sin ningún control y ahora que países como el suyo se están desarrollando, quieren imponerles límites.

Pero así como otros utilizaron la tecnología que más les pareció conveniente, China exigía su derecho de hacer lo mismo, pues este país defendía tener igual derecho de utilizar el espacio atmosférico que otros ya utilizaron contaminándolo.

El asunto central del argumento chino era que las tecnologías limpias son más costosas y el gigante asiático depende de la energía producida con carbón, un gran contaminante. Por eso, hasta el final se negó a establecer metas de reducción de emisiones y a permitir que se impusieran mecanismos de verificación a sus esfuerzos por limitarlas.

Y aunque el mandatario chino Wen Jiabao, se comprometió al final de la COP15 a trabajar en la reducción gases, la falta de metas claras y de mecanismos de verificación, dejan en evidencia que ese discurso final no fue más que eso y que su país le dio prioridad a los negocios y no al planeta.

Sin embargo, un estudio reciente del Instituto Breakthrough indica que Asia, principalmente China, sobrepasa a Estados Unidos en la financiación de tecnologías limpias. Un artículo de Time Magazine asegura que mientras China destinó 34 por ciento de los recursos de estímulo para superar la recesión a tecnologías verdes, Estados Unidos solo dedicó el 12 por ciento.

Un texto sin compromisos

El texto aprobado por la mayoría (los opositores mantuvieron su posición hasta el final) dejó la puerta abierta a un objetivo a largo plazo de un aumento máximo de 2 grados en la temperatura mundial, que empezaría a adoptarse luego de 2016, cuando se revise el acuerdo. Se adoptó un recorte de 80 por ciento de emisiones para 2050. Los países industrializados que hacen parte del Protocolo de Kioto discutirán luego las medidas para concretar dichas reducciones.

A diferencia del protocolo de Kioto que no establecía responsabilidades a los países en desarrollo, el nuevo trato les da responsabilidades sobre la reducción de emisiones, pero el porcentaje quedó por concretar.

Al no haberse logrado la unanimidad, el documento no se registrará dentro del Convenio Marco de las Naciones Unidas. Es solo un acuerdo político de mayorías abierto para quien quiera firmarlo.

¿Y qué pasó con la urgencia de reducir las emisiones de gases y de ayudar a los países pobres a enfrentar el cambio climático? Eso habría que preguntárselo a los líderes que no aportaron lo suficiente en Copenhague para salvar al planeta.

El papel de Colombia

En medio de unas negociaciones paralizadas durante casi toda la cumbre, debido a las quejas por la falta de transparencia y a la negativa de los países ricos de negociar sobre lo pactado en Kioto, la delegación colombiana intentó defender, entre otras cosas, su posición sobre los mecanismos de pago por protección de los bosques.

Colombia propuso que se le permitiera a los países decidir el sistema más conveniente para cada uno: metas nacionales de no deforestación o subnacionales (por pequeños proyectos) y que hubiera flexibilidad en los mecanismos de financiación para que quien quisiera pudiera ingresar al mercado de carbono. Esta última propuesta quedó incluida en el documento final, aunque el tema de bosques no quedó del todo estructurado.

Por la posición de los subnacionales, Greenpeace y otras ONG acusaron a Colombia de obstaculizar el éxito de las negociaciones, pues consideraron que así no se garantizaba la reducción de la deforestación. Este tema se definirá en próximas reuniones.

Por otro lado, Colombia intentó promover el hecho de ser un país con energías limpias, con la intención de recibir más dinero por ello. “La convención está montada sobre incentivos perversos y el que más emite recibe más recursos”, explicó Andrea Albán, miembro del equipo negociador de Colombia.

Los países reciben muchos recursos para hacer mitigación si son grandes emisores, pero no si la nación no presenta una gran amenaza. Pero, “tener una matriz energética limpia cuesta mucha plata”, indicó la negociadora. “Colombia está haciendo mucho esfuerzo con eso, pero Brasil, por ejemplo, que es un gran contaminante, recibe millones más en recursos para mitigación, señaló.

Colombia sólo genera 0,3 por ciento de las emisiones mundiales y funciona en un 70 por ciento con hidroeléctricas, consideradas limpias frente a las termoeléctricas.

Otra de las banderas de Colombia fue abogar por su vulnerabilidad, con el fin de recibir más recursos para la adaptación. El equipo colombiano insistió en que no se puede determinar la vulnerabilidad dándole prioridad solo a los niveles de pobreza, pues el país es vulnerable también por el aumento en el nivel del mar que afectará sus zonas costeras y por la acidificación de los océanos, que está ya afectando la pesca.

Por otro lado, los nevados que se derriten y los páramos amenazados por el calor y por el ascenso de los cultivos producto del calentamiento, también hacen de Colombia un país vulnerable, pues el 80 por ciento del agua que se consume viene de las montañas. En próximas negociaciones se verá el eco que tuvieron estos llamados.

Lunares negros de la participación colombiana

Las negociaciones fueron difíciles como nunca antes, reconoció el ministro de Medio Ambiente, Carlos Costa. Sin embargo, el equipo de negociadores de Colombia trabajó largas jornadas, defendió sus propuestas y ganó adeptos (Filipinas, por ejemplo, se sumó a la iniciativa de subnacionales en bosques), pese a los ataques que recibió de distintas organizaciones. Pero fueron una lástima las oportunidades perdidas por el país tanto en el evento alterno de Colombia como en el Forest Day (Día del Bosque).

En el evento alterno que pretendía mostrar algunos proyectos limpios del país, como Transmilenio, y las iniciativas de sostenibilidad de Fedepalma y Procuenca, participaron funcionarios con un escaso nivel de inglés, que hicieron inentendibles las presentaciones.

Por otro lado, durante el Forest Day, mientras una de las negociadoras hablaba de la importancia de combatir el narcotráfico para reducir la deforestación, en el stand de Colombia dos funcionarios de cancillería, poco interesados en dar información al público y sin conocimiento de los horarios y lugar de la charla colombiana, eran la cara del país en un evento de un solo día, que pudo haber servido para mejorar la imagen nacional y fortalecer las posiciones de Colombia ante los asistentes.

¿Por qué perder semejantes oportunidades de mostrar los esfuerzos nacionales? Habría que preguntárselo a los responsables de la diplomacia colombiana.

Hacia adelante

Ahora el turno le toca a México, donde se llevará a cabo la siguiente cumbre (COP16) a final de este año. Pero para llegar ahí mejor preparados que a Copenhague los negociadores harán varias reuniones previas. La primera se llevó a cabo el 24 de enero, en Nueva Deli, entre los países claves (Basic countries): Brasil, China, India y Sudáfrica, con el fin de definir una estrategia conjunta para las próximas negociaciones.

“El reto que enfrentan es demostrar que pueden obtener un progreso sustancial internacional para combatir el cambio climático”, manifestó al respecto Greenpeace. Estas cuatro naciones reúnen al 41 por ciento de la población mundial y el 30 por ciento de las emisiones globales de gases de efecto invernadero.

Enre junio y julio está planeada otra reunión preparatoria para la COP16.

‘If you take 3 billion dollars out of the 10 that is being offered here, what will be left for the rest of the world?’  Michuki posed

The amount is considered low given that Kenya would be drawing it from the 10 billion meant for the continent.

The  proposal put forward by Zenawi calls for a three year, 30 billion dollar  fund starting in 2010. This means 10 billion dollars  per year initially, to finance all developing countries in dealing with climate change.The effects include rising sea levels, droughts, floods and changing rainfall patterns. 

Kenya’s geothermal steam reserves are among the resources earmarked for exploitation under its Climate Change Response Strategy. These are estimated at 7000 megawatts, and are expected to reduce the country’s dependency on fossil fuels. Environment Minister Michuki said that wind energy initiatives in particular must be scaled up, noting that Kenya needs to borrow a leaf from the Danish government’s commitment to wind power.

According to the minister, the proposed 3 billion dollar fund is expected to grow to 20 billion US dollars by 2030. The launch of the Kenya Climate Change Response Strategy coincided with an assurance from the US government that it will help raise 100 billion dollars to assist developing countries in coping with climate change.

Michuki says that Kenya aims to become a green energy economy by 2020, as part of the ‘Vision 2030′ strategy. Kenya Vision 2030 is an economic  development plan by the  Kenyan Government to develop several different economic zones in various parts of the country. The plan aims to produce annual economic growth rates of 10%.

Michuki said that private investors will be invited on board. ’These projects are expected to provide an additional 1230 MW and 1500 MW by 2012 and 2014.

The response strategy’s mitigation and adaptation components cover key areas including health, agriculture and wildlife conservation.

Climate change has impacted greatly on wildlife and humanity. Kenya has had its fair share of calamities, from extreme prolonged droughts which occasioned crop failure, hunger and even death in extreme cases, to recent flooding from El Nino rains. How seriously the Kenyan government is taking climate change is perhaps indicated by the large number of Kenyan delegates at the Copenhagen negotiations, where a deal that would see vulnerable communities get help to cope with the vagaries of climate change is expected to be signed.

‘This is an ambitious and comprehensive programme.  It will not only address the adverse impacts of climate change on Kenya, but will also contribute significantly to taming global warming’, said Michuki.

Wildlife and Forestry Minister Dr. Noah Wekesa underscored the need to conserve Kenya’s water towers which are currently under threat of extinction due to massive encroachment by settlers. A case in point is the Mau Forest Complex: this initially spanned an area of about 400,000 hectares, but about 100,000 hectares have been excised  for agriculture use. Dr. Wekesa said that engaging in partnerships with the private sector and even international organizations will help increase Kenya’s forest cover, which is currently below 2 percent.

‘The issue of concessioning is at the forefront. We are asking foreigners to come so we can give them huge tracks of land to plant trees.’

Issues to be addressed in the strategy include reafforestation, arresting land degradation, the protection of wildlife, flora and fauna, and how to help people mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Wetangula noted that Africa is endowed with tropical rain forests. He urged for a deal to be reached in Copenhagen that will save its resources and its people.

‘I have every hope that the voice of Africa, the needs of Africa,  the continent that pollutes least but suffers most will be listened to; the continent that has been at the very centre and in the firing line of all the problems of climate change is going to be given a clear hearing and above all be at the center of solutions that are being set out to cater for climate change.’

The two week conference comes to a close on Friday.

The fate of climate negotiations in Copenhagen hangs in the balance after African nations suspended talks today. Even though the talks later resumed, the African Group and G77 plus China accused the Danish host government of trying to sideline talks on setting more emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol. The Africa Group is rooting for a two track system, in which the Kyoto Protocol is continued in conjunction with other long term agreements.

Meanwhile, it is still unclear who is in the official Philippine delegation. Some experts were already in Copenhagen when they learned that they had been excluded. Without accreditation, they could not enter conference venue the Bella Centre for several days. Some Filipinos are literally out in the cold, lining up with other would-be delegates at the centre’s gates in freezing temperatures.  Heavy snow is expected in Copenhagen this week.

While the final list of delegates, including those accompanying Arroyo as she touches down here on Wednesday, is still a mystery, it is already widely known who has been omitted.

Aside from Muller, other key persons removed from the Philippine delegation included Joyceline Goco of the Inter-agency Committee on Climate Change at the Environmental Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and Dr. Rodel Lasco, an internationally-renowned forestry expert and member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Representatives from a number of civil society groups were also removed.

Exclusion of a hardliner

The most stunning omission was of Muller, who has more than 20 years of negotiating experience and has become famous in climate change circles for her hard-line stance towards rich countries, earning her the nickname “dragon woman” from grudgingly respectful Western peers.

Muller, a retired Philippine diplomat now based in Switzerland, has been one of the most vocal negotiators in calling for developed countries to fulfill their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol (1997) to fully fund emission reduction and climate adaptation efforts in poor countries.

Muller’s role in negotiating for the interests of the developing world ‘cannot be underestimated’, said Lim Li Lin, legal adviser to the Malaysia-based NGO Third World Network. ‘You really have few negotiators with the institutional memory and depth of understanding about the process, convention, and issues being discussed here. Clearly, [Mrs. Muller] was seen as a threat to the developed countries who have a lot at stake in these negotiations.’ Muller has since been “adopted” as an adviser by Sudan, enabling Muller to continue negotiating on behalf of the G77 bloc of 130 poor countries but without waving the Philippine flag.

Without an official explanation, conspiracy theories abound about Muller’s exclusion from her country’s delegation, including US pressure to have the “dragon woman” removed.

‘A lot of things have changed in the Philippine position since Hillary (Clinton) visited the country’, said Ma. Teresa Nera-Lauron of Ibon Foundation, one of several Filipino NGOs currently in Copenhagen to observe the talks. ‘We believe that [the President’s] visit here with other world leaders will only affirm the Philippines’ support of the US position in the climate talks.’

She was referring to the overnight visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Nov. 12-13 to visit victims of the recent cyclones and meet with Filipino youth.

Lauron said that the President’s arrival on Wednesday will be met with protests by Filipino civil society groups currently here in Copenhagen.

Muller herself has not commented on her exclusion but a close associate of hers told GMANews.TV: ‘We received information from a number of sources that it was [President Arroyo] herself who decided that Ditas [Muller] should not be in the Philippine delegation in Copenhagen.’

Presidential Adviser on Climate Change Heherson Alvarez rejects the notion, saying: ‘The President doesn’t know Mrs. Muller and the cutting process undertaken by the executive office was arbitrary. Presidents are not aware of the nitty-gritties’, said Alvarez. Alvarez said that the staff of the office of the Executive Secretary slashed the recommended list of delegates in order to keep the delegation “lean.”

‘In previous climate talks I have been the one preparing the list of negotiators… This time the President is the head of delegation – because of protocol I had to give way to her’, Alvarez said.

Alvarez has served as the Philippines’ chief negotiator to the yearly U.N. climate talks since his appointment in 2008.

Philippine position on carbon emissions

Philippine civil society groups have expressed concern that these recent developments, particularly the non-inclusion of Muller in the delegation, may signal a shift in the government’s previous position that developed countries need to make “deep and early cuts” in carbon emissions.

Last November during a cabinet meeting in Bohol Mrs. Arroyo said that the Cabinet must form a position that ‘does not insist on deep and early cuts but must be binding.’ Calling it useless to push for ambitious reductions in carbon emissions when rich countries such as the US and China are not willing to commit, the President said that ‘cuts and amounts should not be sticking points’ but that sacrifices must be made to get binding commitments.

In Copenhagen, however, Alvarez gave assurances that the Philippine government has not changed its stance: ‘Our position on deep and early cuts still stands and any suggestions to the contrary, that the Philippines is reneging or budging on this, are not true.’

With its small carbon footprint and meager political clout, the Philippines is not considered an influential country in climate change negotiations. However, the Philippine delegation has traditionally played a leadership role within the G77 bloc of 130 poor countries by taking on progressive positions championed by experienced Filipino negotiators like Muller and Tony La Viña of the Ateneo School of Government (who remains on the Philippine delegation).

In previous years, Muller has often stood up to remind intransigent countries such as the US about the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in the climate negotiations among signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Although rapidly growing China has overtaken the US as the world’s largest polluter, Muller points out that 80 per cent of the accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere came from the Industrial Revolution since the 19th century and not to activities in recent decades.

In terms of per capita emissions, even big developing countries such as China and India lag behind industrialized countries, in which each citizen produces huge amounts of carbon emissions compared to individuals in poorer countries.

On Monday, the talks were suspended for several hours when developing countries under the G77 bloc walked out to protest the refusal of developed countries to discuss new emission reduction targets under the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol. Negotiations only resumed when informal talks assured the boycotting countries that talks on emission reductions would go on.

As the climate talks reach the high-level segment on Wednesday, with government ministers arriving and making hard decisions on the negotiations, rich and poor countries are still wrestling over major issues.

The sticking points include how much and how fast developed nations must cut emissions; what emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil must do to slow the growth of their own emissions; and how much money rich countries should channel to the poorest countries so they can shift to low-carbon economies and cope with the adverse impacts of climate change, such as destructive cyclones.

Developing countries are indignant over what they perceive as developed countries’ reluctance to set emission targets high enough to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Developed countries have insisted that emerging economies must also promise to set carbon reduction targets.

In previous interviews, Muller has described the insistence on reductions from big developing countries such as China, India and Brazil as an “inequitable demand that constrains the economic growth of newly-developing nations”.

She said developing countries are expecting “full, effective and sustained implementation of the convention and not change it, revise it, or have another agreement” in Copenhagen.

Delegation’s revolving doors

Muller’s exclusion from the Philippine delegation may now bring into question the Philippines’ relationship to the rest of G77, according to Lin of the Third World Network. ‘We really hope this does not signify a change in position for the Philippine government because it would be a real shame if the Philippines went from being a leader in the G77 to becoming a country that is creating problems within G77 and undermining the positions of developing countries’, she said.

The G77 bloc is already plagued by rumors of rifts between larger developing nations, the most vulnerable and least developed nations, and oil-producing countries.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has so far not agreed to provide Filipino journalists here with the most recent list of accredited and nominated members of the Philippine delegation…but reports of who’s in and who’s out conjure up the image of a revolving door.

As acting head of the delegation prior to the president’s arrival on Wednesday, Alvarez used his authority last December 10 to reinstate at least eight technical staff and civil society representatives who were previously removed from the delegation.

This included three technical staff members of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on Climate Change (or ‘OPACC’): Jasper Inventor of Greenpeace International, who for the past two years has been the Philippines’ key negotiator for developed countries’ new carbon reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol’s second phase; environmental attorney Ron Gutierrez of Upholding Life and Nature (or ‘ULAN’); and Nong Rangasa of the Albay provincial governor’s office.

Rangasa told GMANews.TV that before they were reinstated, ‘We had to remain on the sidelines because we were not recognized by our government. We were not on the list. Those who could not get reinstated to the list had to join other delegations of other countries and NGOs. So the Philippine representation here is now scattered.’ Albay province has become an international model in recent years for climate adaptation efforts at the local government level.

Nong Rangasa says that non-inclusion of other members of the delegation will hamper its effectiveness. ‘Now we are undermanned and therefore we can’t cover all the issues. We will have difficulty delivering on the interests of the country.’

Alvarez also said that the absence of these persons with specific expertise in the climate talks has forced current members of the delegation to take on extra tasks.

During the first three days of the conference in Copenhagen, only six persons were present as part of the Philippine delegation to the climate talks. These included two officials from the Departments of Agriculture and Foreign Affairs plus four others from non-government organizations and academe.

Since then, more members of the delegation have arrived in Copenhagen, including an undersecretary from the DENR and representatives from the Philippine offices of World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International.

– With Yasmin Arquiza in Copenhagen, and Howie Severino

In a press conference held just hours after he arrived in Copenhagen,  Stern said the US does not owe a climate debt or reparations. He announced that only ‘limited’ funding would be made available for fighting climate change impacts in developing countries and that too to only the poorest countries. He also added that developing countries must ‘committ to nationally appropriate mitigation actions in an international agreement’. No developing country will accept this.

Perhaps Mr Stern’s statement reflects a US efforts to stall negotiations long enough for world leaders to get desperate for an agreement …any agreement (did I hear the words ‘Danish draft’?)! That way, come the closing ceremony, it won’t look like they’ve failed. 

An Indian negotiator said today that he will block any draft agreement from going to world leaders which is not part of the formal UN negotiations. His exact words: ‘We’d rather go into overtime than sign an uncooked agreement.’

So where do the talks go from here? Heaven knows. The lines have been firmly drawn in the sand. Expect a lot of back-room negotiations and horse-trading before we see anything coming through.

Anxiety is growing at the Copenhagen climate talks as ambitious deal looks increasingly unlikely. Some analysts say pressure will now shift to the political leaders who have started arriving in the city to ’salvage’ the talks.

Colombia’s indigenous peoples are working together to create an adaptation plan against climate change, which will bring together their own traditional knowledge with outside help from other agencies.

“It is better to die fighting in a war than to die from thirst”, says Walter Peña as he walks on the stones at the bottom of a dry stream after six rainless months in the department of Cauca, part of the Macizo Colombiano, a mountainous region in Colombia’s south-west.

Walter, a peasant from the region, has not seen a drought like this in almost 30 years. People who live some distance from the rivers usually transfer river water to their houses via small open water channels. But the recent drought has caused the channels to develop large cracks and the water doesn’t reach their houses any more.
 
The dry season also brings a wind blowing in every direction, drying every plant in its path. “This didn’t happen before. With this situation, there is no way to protect any plantation. This is all crazy, some water springs are gone,” adds Walter.

Unpredictable weather

Something similar is happening to the indigenous communities living in the area, home to seven ethnic groups. During the last 10 years José Domingo Caldón, a leader of the Kokonuco Indian community, has seen the dry and rainy seasons getting longer every year.
 
Before, he says, the indigenous authorities could predict winter and summer time, as well as the best time to cultivate, “They used to ask Nature’s permission”.
 
Now the weather changes from one day to the next and people can no longer predict what is going to happen tomorrow or when the best time will be to cultivate or harvest. The old authority figures are dying and taking their knowledge with them, and the young people are not maintaining it. As they integrate into Western society they leave behind their customs and stop believing in traditions and ancient wisdom
 
“Now people are cultivating anywhere and at any time. This is greatly affecting the socio-economic situation of the community as many crops have been damaged”, Jose Domingo laments. “It is the responsibility of humans for not respecting the environment”, he adds.
 
He knows his people cannot remain inactive in the face of this situation.

Joining forces

That is why his community and four other Indian communities (Poblazón, Quintana, Puracé, Paletará and Kokonuco) have joined forces. They are developing an adaptation plan to reduce their vulnerability to climate change.
 
Supporting them are two peasant associations, Asoproquintana and Asocampo, with the help of the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), alongside four agencies of the United Nations (UNDP, FAO, UNICEF and PAHO, the Panamerican Health Organization) and some local authorities.
 
It is the first time that four UN agencies have worked together on a joint climate change project, with the aim of using the results to develop a national climate change policy.
 
The plan includes water resources management, the conservation of the environment, and health protection, all within the framework of the Millennium Development Goals. The agencies have already identified several traditional practices that may be useful for adaptation programmes.

Traditional meetings create early warning systems

Manuel Mompotes, former Governor of the Puracé community and a local leader of the project, believes that one of the strengths of the indigenous peoples is their custom of meeting and discussing problems. Community meetings where leaders take collective decisions and exercise justice in the Indian way are for them a tradition.
 
“With this strength we can get the active participation of the communities, raise awareness and achieve goals in adaptation”, says Mompotes. And through these meetings, he says, the participants can also create early warning systems.

Trueque improves food security

UN officials say trueque (bartering) is another traditional activity which can help people adapt to climate change. Bartering events, which unite people from different ethnic groups and also peasants, take place every two months in different parts of the region. “It is the place to exchange information and to create links between people living in different climatic zones”, says Luis Sanchez, from the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organisation.
 
He points out that bartering also makes a contribution to food security because people exchange goods from different zones, helping to supplement diets.
 
The Kokonuco community, for example, has often moved in search of new settlements. When the community resettles, it brings seeds which it has learned to protect and to adapt in the right mixtures to new climates. Now the different families are spreading the seeds of best quality to ensure food security. “This is autonomous community knowledge and it is a strategy to face climate change”, José Domingo says.

Harmful traditions to be tackled

But not every traditional practice is beneficial for the environment.
 
Burning the ground during droughts to prepare the soil for planting is something indigenous people have done for years. But the practice is condemned by environmentalists because it destroys soil nutrients and is a threat to drainage basins so it becomes a threat to food security.
 
This practice is one reason why some ecologists think indigenous people pose as much of a threat to the environment as anyone else. What’s more, taking care of the environment may not be a priority for many people already dealing with conflict and natural disaster. 
 
“As part of the project we will analyse what are the traditions that must be strengthened and which ones should be reconsidered to better adapt to climate change”, says Luis Sanchez, the FAO representative.
 
It is a challenge the UN project must address if it is to succeed.