The climate talks in Tainjin, China hits and impasse and appear to be a bad omen for COP16 in Cancun later this year. Nevertheless, there are lesson to be learned and perhaps some progressed booked, particularly by developing countries who refused to cave-in to Western pressure.

What was learned:

1. Developing countries, particularly African countries but also Small Island states, seem to have understood more clearly that it is in their long-term advantage to stick together and to negotiate as a block in, for example, the G77.

2. The so-called Copenhagen Accord was clearly rejected by the overwhelming majority of states in COP16. For all intensive purposes it seems dead.

3. REDD was seriously challenged (despite some developing countries being drawn to it by short term concerns of receiving payouts from richer states) as part of the problem rather than the solution. Several states pointed out that it does not really even address climate change, but rather contributes to it by allowing the biggest polluters to buy the right to pollute from other states. This creates a race to the bottom in which the rich buy up the environment from the poorer, instead of preserving our forests and encouraging emissions cuts REDD uses dollars to buy the continued destruction of our atmosphere.

4. The Global Environment Facility (GEF), which is the means of financing mitigation and adaptation that is set out in the UNFCCC was considered by many states as more appropriate then REDD and CDM projects. Some focus shifted back to ensuring that the GEF is adequately financed, which would make REDD and CDM irrelevant and could replace them. What is the biggest difference the GEF and REDD, CDMs and other forms of carbon trading? GEF is governments by all states, the others are operated at the mercy of themarket, which means rich states hold the significantly upper hand.

If these trends continue we might actually make some progress in Cancun in a constructive direction, even if no agreements are actually achieved.

Nord-Sud XXI - Written Contribution to Outcome Document Social Forum - 1 – 3 October 2010 Nord-Sud XXI would like to make the following points concerning the relationship between human rights and climate change that we hope will be considered for inclusion in the final outcome document: 1. A human rights approach must be applied to action on climate change. a. It should use human rights obligations with States to draw their attention to the need to act to protect individuals’ and peoples’ basic human rights. b. It requires that we involve all stakeholders in decision making, especially those most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. c. It requires that States and other actors be held accountable for their actions that cause climate change and its adverse impacts. 2. Action on climate change should be based on cooperation between States to achieve respect for human rights. a. The duty of States to cooperation with each other to achieve respect for human rights is based in articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations, although it is also found in human rights instruments such as article 2(1) of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 3. Our global environment must not be treated as a commodity. a. We do not need to rely on a market-based approach to protect our environment, we can rely on law. In fact, market-based initiatives like REDD have weakened the impact of laws and even trampled the legal rights of indigenous peoples. We do not rely on the market to prevent murders, we rely on laws. We must rely on laws to protect our environment. b. Treating the global environment as a commodity makes its susceptible to expropriation by the rich at the expense of the poor. c. A human rights approach to climate change requires that action to mitigate and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change focus on the human being and Mother Earth, not on the mere short-term interests of economic gain. 4. Our global environment must be valued because it is the common heritage of all humankind, past, present and future. a. Mother Earth should have rights that all people are required to respect. b. These rights of Mother Earth should be recognized as a basis of State and individual responsibility that can be implemented through an International Tribunal for the Protection of the Environment and Mother Earth. For further information contact +41-79-304-4654.

Nord-Sud XXI Oral Statement Social Forum - 1 – 3 October 2010 Madame Chairperson-Rapporteur, Nord-Sud XXI once again appreciates the information presented by the speakers. We particularly recognize the eloquent soliloquy about the World Bank’s efforts and the statements of concern for the human dimension of climate change made by the ILO representative of Task Team on the Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Unfortunately, these eloquent words and undoubtedly sincere concerns are not a reflection of the realities. For example, how can the World Bank even consider the human dimension of climate change when it cannot—by the terms of its own binding rules and regulations—take into account human rights in its policies. Even its own internal review mechanism, the World Bank Panel, was intentionally denied the right to consider human rights in reviewing Bank action. Moreover, when the Panel has considered the limited range of indigenous peoples’ concerns in its reviews, some of its most important determination have been outrightly rejected by the World Bank’s own management, which has emphasized that the Panel only makes recommendations. In addition, Nord-Sud XXI has already drawn attention to the World Bank’s failure to address the relevance of human rights to climate change in the most recent World Development Report published earlier this year. This intentional decision to avoid mentioning human rights in relation to climate change is very regrettable. We in fact lobbied the Bank to include human rights, but were told that it was impossible to do so. It is therefore interesting to hear that the Bank is now reconsidering this deficiency. This is the first time it has come to our attention or the attention of any of the NGOs that work together in the NGO Human Rights Group in the UNFCCC process. We hope that we and other NGOs working on human rights in relation to climate change will this time be involved by the Bank in a timely manner. Nord-Sud XXI very much disagrees with the ‘business-almost-as-usual picture’ that commoditizes our global atmosphere. A human rights approach to climate change is not a market-based approach. A human rights approach to climate change is not based on making the environment a commodity. A human rights approach to climate change is based on the imperative of action that is focused on protecting individuals’ and peoples’ fundamental human rights. Although the overwhelming majority of civil society in the Global South are extremely sceptical that the World Bank can play a constructive role in international climate change action—especially a role that enhances human rights—I would like to ask Mr. Newfarmer to comment on a statement made by Ms Mary Tharin who regularly writes on South American politics. It is about the CDM. Ms Tharin writes: “While the World Bank pays constant lip service to the importance of sustainability and poverty alleviation in the Clean Development Mechanism, it continually fails to deliver positive results for either the environment or disadvantaged communities in the developing world. In reality, the global carbon market is proving to be simply another weapon used by multinational corporations to accelerate their incursion on the rights of indigenous peoples and small-scale landholders in Latin America.” Nord-Sud XXI welcomes the concerns expressed by the ILO. Indeed, the idea of “putting people first” is the very foundation of the human rights approach to climate change. In this respect we would like to ask the ILO representative the following question: How can the legal obligations of States that are part of international human rights law be used to encourage—perhaps even lobby or pressure—States to take science-based action that ensures respect for human rights in the climate change negotiations? And to all three panellists we would like to ask, does, in their respective views, the legal duty to cooperate to achieve respect for human rights that is found in articles 55 and 56 of the UN Charter require States to agree to take effective action on climate change in the international negotiating forums of the UNFCCC? Thank you, Madame Chairperson-Rapporteur, and, thank you once again to the panellists.

Nord-Sud XXI Oral Statement Social Forum - 1 – 3 October 2010 Madame Chairperson-Rapporteur, As a preliminary statement we again hope that in addition to conveying the outcome document of the Social Forum to the March 2011 Regular Session of the Human Rights Council it will be brought to the attention of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs. Navi Pillay, with the request that she personally convey it to the delegates meeting in COP16 in Cancun, Mexico hopefully by accepting the invitation that we understand has been extended to her to address the COP. Once again, Nord-Sud XXI appreciates the interventions of the panellists who have provided us with valuable information in their presentations. We welcome the concern of several panellists with the human rights to food and to water. The examples of public action—and I emphasize public action—that they have given show that we address the adverse impacts of climate change without using market mechanisms. In fact, Nord-Sud XXI would argue that the only way to ensure a reaction to the adverse impacts of climate change that is consistent with the human rights approach is one focused on the outcome of ensuring people fair and equitable access to resources. In other words, the human rights approach demands that we address historical imbalances and not emphasize them to the detriment of some of the people who are already among the most vulnerable in the world and who can not adequately participate in market mechanisms. We also welcome UNDP’s efforts to disseminate knowledge on climate change and hope that states will be encouraged by the Social Forum to provide more resources through the Global Environmental Fund for dissemination of knowledge about climate change and especially the relevance of international human rights obligations. We would also like to ask how your dissemination efforts currently incorporate the human rights approach and how they might enhance their use of this approach? Also, in UNDP’s view, how is ‘sustainable development’ engaged by the human rights approach? In reaction to the very interesting presentation on REDD plus, Nord-Sud XXI would like to highlight several concerns that a large number of indigenous peoples have about REDD. Four of these are: 1. REDD makes the environment a commodity. No one objects to placing value on the environment, but many object to placing a monetary value on the environment when it allows the rich to buy up the environment from the poor. To date one of the greatest challenges to indigenous lands has been their being bought up by corporations who then benefit from REDD. Yes, sometimes indigenous people sell their land voluntarily to feed their families. Other times indigenous people are forcibly removed from their indigenous lands. 2. REDD in practice encourages States not to implement laws protecting the environment. A case in point is the REDD project recently launched in the Kampar peninsular in Sumatra, Indonesia. This project essentially replaces laws that would have accomplished the same results if they had been implemented, which they apparently were to a better degree until not so long before the allure of REDD was dangled before the government of Indonesia. Again, we don’t blame the recipients of REDD cash, but rather a system that encourages governments to trade their peoples’ futures and rights, for the short-term financing they need. No government, no people should be put in such a position, but they are because while polluters are willing to pay for the right to pollute at a hefty discount through REDD, insufficient resources are being devoted to funds for adaption to and mitigation of the adverse effects of climate change. The annual total of 100 billion US dollars envisioned by 2020 under the Copenhagen instrument, is de minimus when compared to the 400 to 600 billion US dollars that the World Bank estimates is needed annual and the 800 billion to one trillion US dollars that the South-Centre estimates is needed annually. 3. REDD has not been created and is not implemented with honest consultation with those who oppose it on a principled basis. A recent consultation on REDD held in Philadelphia in the United States, is a case in point, as it vetted and then excluded any indigenous peoples who opposed REDD. As we speak right now dozens of NGOs who oppose REDD are not able to be in Tainjin, China because the developed countries that have the resources to get them there have decided that they will not finance indigenous peoples who oppose REDD. At the same time they have agreed to finance indigenous peoples who support REDD on the theory, as one diplomat explained it to me in New York last week, that “we don’t need to speak with the doubters.” We suggest that failure to speak to the indigenous peoples and their allies who oppose REDD may ensure its failure. I would like to relate the words of an indigenous person, a Cherokee Indian, who recently stated at a meeting of NGO on the sidelines of the UNGA in NY that discussed action on climate change that “REDD is a market program that steals our heritage. It also corrupts … our people causing them to turn against each other. REDD is contrary to our basic values….” Finally, on REDD, 4. REDD will not save our forests. Even the most optimistic estimates about REDD suggest that it can only be applied to about half of the forests. We need to act to save all of our forests and to reverse the already damaging effects of deforestation. This requires the will to act to ensure the implementation of legal obligations related to protecting Mother Earth. Action based on short-term economic interests is not enough. Finally, Nord-Sud XXI appreciates the attention of panellists to the humanitarian consequences of climate change. Several speakers have emphasized our need to address the adverse impacts of climate change because if we do not then, as chief G77 negotiator Ambassador Lumumba Diaping stated in Copenhagen, “we will be effectively sending hundreds of millions of Africans to the furnaces to be killed by the rising temperatures” that are an adverse impact of climate change and evidence of our collective failure to act to protect these victims’ right to life. Thank you, Madame Chairperson-Rapporteur, and, thank you once again to the panellists.

Nord-Sud XXI Oral Statement Social Forum - 1 – 3 October 2010 Madame Chairperson-Rapporteur, Nord-Sud XXI appreciates the interventions of the panellists who have provided us much food for thought. We do hope, however, that panellists participating in the Social Forum will be able to remain with us for the dialogue as the interactive aspect of the dialogue is, in our view, its most valuable component. We were very interested by the presentation of Ms Saida Agrebi from Tunisia and would like to have sought her further insights about public action in response to climate change’s adverse impact on water. We would like to ask Ms Angie Dazé of CARE International about the empowerment projects and education she mentioned. How does she view the human rights approach to climate change both in theory and in practice as contributing to women’s empowerment or how does the human rights approach enhance women’s participation in government decision making processes concerning climate change? We would like to ask the representative of Refugees International how they are using human rights arguments with the government of Pakistan or with other governments to ensure action to adapt to or mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change? If they are using such arguments could she provide us examples of such arguments? To the same panellist we would like to ask if she believes that the recognition of climate change as a grounds for the international protection of persons affected by climate change induced natural disasters is valuable for addressing the needs of the victims of these natural disasters? Also, could she let us know when and where the UNHCR will be holding the meeting she mentioned about climate change and refugees. Thank you, Madame Chairperson-Rapporteur and thank you once again to the panellists.