Nepali participants meeting at ICC, Forest users group boycotted the meeting after raising their voice on denial

Community forest groups demand access to climate negotiations, but lose out as fight between ministries heats up

Members of a federation of community forests from Nepal accused the government of Nepal of being biased towards them by refusing to accept their representative as a party delegate at UN climate talks.

Members of domestic and international NGOs were accepted as delegates, in addition to government officials. They are here in South Africa with delegates from 195 countries at the 17th annual UN climate summit.

“When we asked the government to give status of party to some of our members they denied. But we found out here (in Durban) that they have brought the people from NGOs and INGOs as the party delegates. It’s not fair, “said Dil Raj Khanal, who represents the Federation of Community Forest Users Nepal (FECOFUN) and is also the legal expert on natural resources.

“Everybody talks about communities by mouth but at the inner heart there is no respect for the communities,” added Khanal.

However, Batu Krishna Uprety who is the head of Climate Change Management Division at the Ministry of Environment who leads the UN climate negotiations said that they didn’t received any request from FECOFUN. “We haven’t received your request,” he replied to the query of community forest users’ representatives.

The community forest members said that the Ministry of Environment had advised them to make their request to the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC) as the forest ministry is the line ministry for the community forests group. But when the forest ministry sent the letter onward, it was rejected by the environment ministry.

“Everyone  is selling our name but when it comes to do some favor for us then everybody starts sweating,” said Ganesh Karki, General Secretary of FECOFUN. “We have especially realized this with the Ministry of Environment, so we boycott this meeting.”

The rift between the Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment is widening due to climate change in the country. The Ministry of Environment is the focal ministry to deal with climate change, something with which the Ministry of Forests has not been happy from the beginning. The forest ministry is one of the biggest and most powerful ministries in the country, far more powerful than the relatively new Ministry of Environment.

To complicate matters, the major forest initiative on climate change under the UN — known as Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) — is looked over by the forest ministry. On the other hand, the focal point for the whole UN climate treaty, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is under the  oversight of  the environment ministry.

The forest ministry seems like it’s not happy with the limited role given to the UNFCCC processes.

These ministerial disputes have affected even the personal relationships of the officials from both ministries. In many forums they keep on criticizing each others’ work. It has become clear that they are actinag as rivals when it comes to the issue of climate change.

The rift between the ministries increased dramatically due to a cabinet meeting at Mount Everest base camp in 2009,  as ministers even stopped talking to each other. The main reason behind the fallout was the leadership of the erstwhile forest minister Deepak Bohara in organizing the cabinet meeting at the base camp of Mount Everest prior to the UN  climate change meeting in Copenhagen. The forest ministry’s lead at that time had irked environment ministry officials.

FECOFUN is a federation of more than 15,000 community forest user groups in Nepal and is one of the key players in the forestry sector. The fight between the two ministries could be one reason for the denial to include FECOFUN representatives in the government delegation.

“We don’t get any information on what’s going on inside the negotiation from the government. If our representative was included in the government then we would have been updated about the process and that could have been very useful to disseminate information about the real negotiations to our members across the country,” said Bhim Prakash Khadka, Vice-Chairman of FECOFUN, who is also here in Durban.

It is estimated that the COP 17, taking place here from November 28^th to December 9^th, will emit approximately 76.919 tons of CO2 equivalent to the atmosphere, according to the Department of Environmental Affairs of South Africa. This calculation is based on the estimated 25,000 delegates , NGO members and other visitors attending the COP.

International flights will have the largest impact on the overall carbon footprint. Other items took into account are: accommodation, electricity and water expenditures, food and information packs.

However, delegates and visitors will be able to reduce their carbon emissions through a voluntary offset mechanism called CEBA (Community Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Initiative), by buying carbon credits at www.durbanceba.org . Each credit costs 100 Rands (approximately USD12).

The funds will be used to support more than 42 initiatives hold by the eThtekwini Municipality, to which the city of Durban belongs. One of these projects is the Buffersdraai Landfill Reforestation Plan. It involves the community by providing them with skills to collect seeds from local tree species, grow them, and then resell them to the government. “Tree-preneurs” get from 5 to 10 Rands for each small tree, depending on its size, in credits to buy food, school stuff or building materials.

“My life improved after I joined this plantation program in 2008”, said Ziningi, mother of five children, who lives in the surroundings of Durban. “At the beginning, people didn’t believe they could get paid on that, but I began planting trees and that helped me not only to buy food, but also bricks for my house, and to pay for my driver’s license,” said Ziningi. Now she drives the bus that gets people to the tree nursery of the program, and she is a coach for other participants of the project.

Tree seedlings take several months to grow, and each producer can grow as many trees as he or she (most of them are women) has room at home. The goal of the program is to reforest land destroyed or converted to sugar cane plantations. The new forest is aimed at mitigating climate change in the city and providing job opportunities.

This project began in 2008 as part of the “Greening Durban Program,” to offset the 2010 soccer World Cup’s  carbon footprint.  Until today, the Municipalityhas  invested 13 million rand.

Other projects focus on adaptation to climate change, such as the Durban Central Beach Front Dune Rehabilitation. “The objective is to protect dunes and sand in the coastal zone”, explained Sean O’ Donoghue, climate protection manager at eThekwini Municipality. Dunes are important to manage wind-blown sand, and to protect the beaches and the infrastructure of this very touristic city. The municipality invested 6 million Rands to launch it.

Tired of suffering in silence, rural women from across southern Africa, and many from further away, gathered outside the Inkosi Albert Luthuli Convention Centre in Durban on Friday to make their voices heard during the COP17 climate change conference.

Shouting slogans, ululating and singing protest songs, they held a rally before marching through the streets around the centre, watched closely by police.

Nora Mlondoboza (51) from Mopani, near Tzaneen in Limpopo, explained: “We are here to make our voices heard by those people who are sitting there deciding our fate, deciding how we are going to live, how our future is going to be. We want them to take decisions that are going to benefit all of us, not them only.

“Getting together as women, we are sharing the similar experiences and challenges we face – all over Africa. Even in India women are experiencing the same problems we are having. As rural women, we have nothing. We cannot speak alone – if we are united, those people who are seated there, they are going to listen.”

With water shortages on the rise across the globe, people in dry areas suffer most. And women with families to feed feel it most. Margerieta Pieterse (46), from Rawsonville in the Western Cape, said: “We didn’t get rain in the winter. Rain only came in September, and vegetables grew ripe too quickly. It was very strange.

“Water is our biggest problem. We were given land to grow food by the municipality, but that land is far from our houses and it’s very dry, it needs a lot of water. And we have to pay for that water – they put in a meter to see how much we use. We have a right to use water – we grow vegetables not just for ourselves but to feed our whole community. We sell it cheaply because so many people are unemployed. Even if a man has a job, he earns almost nothing.

“We can’t afford healthy food so our kids get sick. Sometimes we don’t have clean water for days at a time. The soil is polluted with chemicals and so is the food that grows from that soil. If you eat it, the chemicals get into your body. That’s why we see so many different illnesses today.

“Government really needs to do something about it…”

By limiting our meat eating, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energy and water consumption. This is the main goal of the Vegetarian Movement (Vegan), one of the thousands of non-governmental organizations attending the 17^th UN Climate Change Conference (COP 17) , which is entering its second week.

COP 17 is taking place from 28^th November to 9^th December, bringing together delegates from 195 countries inside the International Conventions Center (ICC), as well as representatives of civil society movements that raise their voices in alternative forums outside the walls of the ICC.

Livestock generates 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions – more than the world transportation sector- according to reports by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This multilateral organization was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to assess the science on climate change and its environmental and socio-economic impacts.

According to research published by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a meat diet requires 17 times as much land, 14 as much water and 10 times as much energy than a vegetarian one. “Replacing livestock products not only can achieve quick reductions in atmospheric GHGs, but can also reverse the ongoing world food and water scarcity,” says a report from the Worldwatch Institute.

By stopping (or reducing) meat production, we can preserve 70 per cent clean water, and save up to 70 per cent of the Amazon rainforest from clearance for animal grazing, according to the Center for the International Forests Research. Besides that, it could free up to 3.5 million hectares of land annually, and consume 2/3 less fossil fuel than those used for meat production, and reduce pollution from untreated animal waste.

Talking about climate finances — a major sticking point in the ongoing climate talks — scientists in the Netherlands found that of the estimated USD 40 trillion needed to stop global warming, almost 80% of this amount would be saved with a vegan diet. That’s a saving of USD 32 trillion for the simple step of turning away from the meat to a plant-based diet.

There is something we can do to mitigate climate change, and we can do it now, activists say.

He travelled together with his brother in-law about a thousand kilometers from the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park to let his voice be heard at the COP17 meeting in Durban. Talking in his native Khoikhoi language, Toppie says “I get really heartbroken if I see the rain like this (looking up in the sky), there is no rain in Gemsbok Park. I don’t know how we are going to survive. There is no grass anymore and I am a hunter I only survive from hunting, if the wild animals don’t graze enough, they die, what will happen to my children in future if the rain stops?”.

 With the support from York University, Toppie and his brother in-law were able to pay for their traveling expenses. When I asked him about the relationship he has with York University he said that he does not have any relationship with them but that they had helped them to share their concerns at the negotiations. His father is a traditional leader of the Khomani San community who Toppie said has tried his best to communicate with the Government but without success.

“They drove pass him on the road, they never have time to listen to him, but today we are here to talk to them face to face” he says. But further discussion revealed that based on the language barriers at the meetings and the protocols aligned Toppie would have very little chance to tell his story at the COP17 meetings. He also is scheduled to leave before the high level segments start on Tuesday.  World leaders arrive on Monday for the high level talks.

With tears in his eyes while pushing his hand against his chest Toppie tells me his deepest thoughts about his failed trip. “I want to talk about what I deeply feel. I have 4 children, three boys and one daughter, when we voted for these leaders in this South Africa we wanted them to take care of us, now that we are struggling to survive they can’t talk to us, nobody is there to listen to the poor people”. 

 Toppies’ journey raises the question of who is talking for the poor in the negotiations and at these UN events. So far normal persons like Toppie see very little coming out of these meetings to reassure them that the decisions needed will be taken to address climate change. As he returns to the harsh conditions of the Kalahari desert, he turns to his faith for encouragement.

“I pray to God things will change, his mercy on us will make things better, “ he said.

I was born and raised in Colombia, a tropical country in South America. We are rich in forests, biodiversity and water sources. That makes us a key pillar in stopping global warming: we both host large tenures of carbon-capturing trees and our emissions are pretty low (0.31  per cent of the global total). We are part of the Kyoto protocol and here in Durban we support a second term of commitments

In Durban I share a room with Jeff Lowenstein, a U.S colleague from Chicago. He comes from the opposite corner of the world when it comes to emissions. The US is the second largest emitter, after China and the main polluter of CO2 per capita (17,7 tones per person each year while the rest of the world, excluding China, South Africa and the EU, emit less than 3.4 tons per year). The U.S. never signed up to the Kyoto Protocol and it appears to be pushing for it to die quietly in Durban.

Jeff and I sharing the same room tells its own story. We are a pretty accurate reflection of our countries, at least when it comes to consumption patterns. A quick luggage archeology reveals a little of our respective countries’ stances.

Here is a list of some of the stuff we both brought:

Jeff

2 Laptop computers (Dell and Mac Book Pro 15’’)

3 extension leads

20 AA Duracell batteries

2 plug converters (+ 2 energy transformers)

6 notepads

11 pens

500 personal business cards, approx.

50 vitamin pills (he takes 4 each day)

0 refillable water container

3 hardcover books (Earth by Bill Mc Kibben, Science As A Contact Sport by Stephen Shneider, Storms Of My Grandchildren by James Hansen)

Total checked-in luggage weight: 21 kilos

Lorenzo

1 Toshiba laptop 10´´

1 extension lead

4 Energizer rechargeable batteries

1 energy plug converter

2 reporter’s notepads

2 pens

0 personal business cards

6 anti-flu pills (just in case)

1 refillable plastic water bottle

1 paperback book (Heat by Georges Monbiot)

Total checked-in luggage weight: 14 kilos

This list might amount to little more than a funny anecdote. But for me it was revealing:  human-sized evidence that any action to tackle climate change has to tackle individual attitudes and behavior. But I certainly can’t stand in judgement. In fact with just one flight, I might have contributed more to global warming than Jeff, despite his superior consumption . When I printed out (yes, I printed it out despite all those  trees chopped down) my Delta ticket from Bogota, at the bottom of the itinerary read: ‘The estimated CO2 amount for this flight is 2020 kg. Jeff’s flight from Chicago, while also contributing to CO2 emissions, was probably closer to around 1650 kg.

2020 – the kg my flight to the COP17 emitted – is also the year when developed countries are willing to postpone any decision or binding commitment on emissions reduction. Some fear that might be too late, and that includes my good friend Jeff.

This particular lesson came as I was packing to attending the United Nations Framework on Climate Change Conference.

“You look like you’re planning to move there,” she said.

I had to admit that she had a point. The metal seams on my black carry-on suitcase looked strained beyond their capacity and about to burst at any second, and I had yet to put in my blazer, shoes, black and white socks or pyjamas.

This said nothing of the work and personal laptops, 20 batteries for my flip camera, or three hardcover books about climate change that I was planning to stuff into my backpack.

I realized her wisdom after I arrived in Durban, got to my room at the hotel and met Lorenzo, my roommate from Colombia. Where I brought two laptops, he brought one. Where I brought enough clean clothes for two weeks, he brought a compact supply that required him to do some minor washing. His toiletries fit neatly into a black leather bag, while mine resembled a burgeoning pharmacy.

Lorenzo explained that Colombia is a country with exceedingly low emissions, while I hail from the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter…..could it be that the differences in what we brought pointed to some differences in consumption?

“It says something,” he said after asking my permission to write about the quantity of goods I had brought.

Yet Lorenzo’s total footprint for his conference attendance may well ultimately exceed mine. That’s because of an area of climate change that thus far has bedeviled even the most creative and innovative of environmentalists: airplane’s enormous consumption of fossil fuels.

Lorenzo told me that his flight took him from his native Colombia to Atlanta before flying to Johannesburg and then Durban.

I write this to raise one of the many questions that underpins these talks.

Even if the world’s nations come to an accord that pledges to reduce the world’s emissions are you or I willing to change our consumption?

When it comes to air travel, the answer is not optimistic.

Despite calls by the British activist and author George Monbiot’s for long-distance air travel to be drastically curtailed, if not completely eliminated, the massive consumption of fossil fuels for flights continues largely unabated.

In his book, Science is A Contact Sport, the late Stephen Schneider, recipient of the 2007 Collective Nobel Peace Prize and one of the key figures for decades in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, wrote that his students maintained that the contributions he made to the issue outweighed the negative value of his footprint through air travel.

Although I would apply the same reasoning to Lorenzo’s participation here, I’m not completely sure.

But one thing I do know.

The next time I travel anywhere, when it comes time to pack, I’m listening to my wife.

While lawyers, scientists, businessmen and politicians decide on the future of our planet behind closed doors at UN climate change talks (COP17), the ordinary people who their decisions affect most are almost entirely excluded. On Saturday, thousands took to the streets for the largest mass action of the two-week conference.

Chanting time-honored South African protest songs, the people of Durban joined workers and activists from all over the world to march against climate change, rising poverty and inequality, in the hope of pressuring delegates at the talks – as always, bogged down by diplomatic red tape and a lack of will – into finding real solutions. Below are some photos from Saturday’s march, and click here for more.

Their goal? To press home the urgency for a new climate change deal.

Among the key issues – the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international environmental treaty that sets limits on carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. The treaty ends next year, with no sign as yet that there will be a renewal or extension.

Recent figures show that carbon emissions in the atmosphere are worse than predicted. A UN report showed a six per cent increase in 2009 to 2010 levels. 2010 was said to be the hottest on record. Jamaica and the rest of the Caribbean have seen increasing hurricanes, storm surges and extended drought conditions, all a result of climate change.

The march symbolised unity in the call to governments around the world to take urgent action to prevent what are predicted to be catastrophic consequences due to climate change, including some islands sinking to a watery grave in a few decades. Watch here.

 “It is not the same as the World Cup that was in South Africa last year,” he began. “This is about the weather.”  

  He didn’t stop there though; he dropped the rolled up rug he was carrying and eagerly started a little lecture in which he gesticulated much of the time, explaining how the rains in Durban were falling harder than they used to.

  Themba isn’t one of your “experts, negotiators or delegates” at COP 17 currently taking place in the serene coastal city of Durban, South Africa. He is one of the many volunteers engaged to help with the arrangement of equipment at the grounds of the conference.  

  It seemed much more rewarding listening to Themba talk about climate change, than having one’s ear drum burst with the arcane detail hurled down at the press conferences.

   Vintage example: How would the ordinary reader in a remote village in Nigeria understand the following: “A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.”

  The above is a portion of the report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which also says that “changes in extremes can be linked to changes in the mean, variance or shape of probability distributions, or all of these. Some climate extremes (e.g., droughts) may be the result of an accumulation of weather or climate events that are not extreme when considered independently.”

Clearly, this issue needs to be better communicated.

  So on Thursday, the first ever Climate Change Communications Day took place in Durban. Journalists and other media practitioners took time out to brainstorm on how to deliver the message of climate change, in spite of boring jargons inherent in the material. Organised by Internews, the Earth Journalism network, and the International Institute for Environmental Development (IIED), the conference had the theme, Addressing climate change with innovation and information. It was a frank and robust discourse. The complimentary roles of the journalist, and the scientist were highlighted.

The point was made that the seriousness of the problem of climate change required less of the nerdy attitudes of some scientists that is already isolating the very people the message is meant for. To drive home this point was Randy Olson, author of Don’t Be Such A Scientist.

  After taking care of “such scientists,” the discourse moved on to focus on journalists themselves. Canvassed, were such points as telling a “sexy story” that would be interesting, yet drive home the point of climate change. An example was provided by Indian Journalist Joydeep Gupta of the Third Pole Project – who told a story about how the carbon emissions from putting a jeans trouser in the washing machine could be calculated. “I did it as a box story, but I was amazed at the response I got,” said Gupta.

  Yet, concerns were expressed that while such exotic little stories were important, there was the need to keep an eye on the big picture, such that the actions or inactions of decision makers would not go unreported.

  Moderated by Marina Joubert of Southern Science, South Africa, the opening plenary saw heated debate on the issue of objectivity. It was Gupta position that journalists must draw a line between journalism and activism. A Jewish Rabbi in the audience dismissed such aspirations towards objectivity, likening it to an arts reporter keeping a distance from the theatre because he wants to be objective. “To my mind, that is nonsense,” he said.