Yearly Archives: 2010

by | 2010-10-25 · 12:02

Photos and Analysis: Biodiversity Convention Hijacked by Corporate Influence

by Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project and North American Focal Point, Global Forest Coalition.

Business and Biodiversity: Together at Last. Photo: Petermann/ GJEP-GFC

“Nature is not just about fluffy animals or brightly colored frogs–it’s central to the health of businesses that need to incorporate environmental impacts into their risk management.”   —Richard Burrett, co-chair of the UN Environment Programme’s Finance Initiative

“We cannot have the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity without the full engagement of the business community,” –Ahmed Djoghlaf, CBD executive secretary

Lack of Progress at COP-10 Stifling

Taxidermy: An innovative strategy for preserving biodiversity presented at COP-10. Photo: Petermann/ GJEP-GFC

By the evening of Friday, October 22nd, participants at the COP-10 negotiations in Nagoya, Japan were clearly exhausted and frustrated–especially the NGO representatives, many of whom emerged from their “contact groups” shaking their heads in disbelief or disgust.  “Contact groups” are small working groups organized to tackle the specific language of various pieces of the negotiations.  They can be mind numbing exercizes in futility.  Helena Paul, of EcoNexus was following the contact group on biofuels and biodiversity.  She abandoned it by around 9pm explaining, “they can’t even get past the title of the paper.  The pro-biofuels folks want it to be under the heading of ‘agricultural biodiversity’ and not ‘Biofuels and Biodiversity.’  It’s totally unacceptable.  Calling it Agricultural Biodiversity would mean forests would be completely cut out of the biofuels text.”

Removing forests from the agreement around biofuels would indeed be ludicrous.  Biofuels and their cousin bioenergy form two of the world’s greatest threats to forests, which are falling at an accelerating rate to clear land for biofuel crops, or to feed wood-burning electricity plants. But the trend of business steering the negotiations at COP-10 with an aim toward maintaining business as usual is one that was very clearly predicted long ago.

Nagoya = Copenhagen

UN delegates guzzle free booze in preparation for biodiversity negotiations. Photo: Petermann/ GJEP-GFC

Back in August The Guardian UK wrote, “[COP-10 is] on course to make the farcical climate talks in Copenhagen look like a roaring success.  The big international meeting in October which is meant to protect the world’s biodiversity is destined to be an even greater failure than last year’s attempt to protect the world’s atmosphere.  Already the UN has conceded that the targets for safeguarding wild species and wild places in 2010 have been missed: comprehensively and tragically…It appears to have had no appreciable effect on the rate of loss of animals, plants and wild places.

“In a few weeks, the same countries [as in Copenhagen] will meet in Nagoya, Japan and make a similarly meaningless set of promises.  Rather than taking immediate action to address their failures, they will concentrate on producing a revised target for 2020 and a ‘vision’ for 2050, as well as creating further delays by expressing the need for better biodiversity indicators.  In many cases, there’s little need for more research.  It’s not biodiversity indicators that are in short supply; but any kind of indicator that the member states are willing to act…the international agreements struck so far have failed miserably in halting the world’s biodiversity crisis.  All the international meetings have done is to diffuse responsibility for the crisis, allowing member states to hide behind each other’s failures.  They create a false impression of action, insulating governments from public pressure.”

Jessica Dempsey, of the CBD Alliance, explained in the October edition of “Square Brackets” that the failures of the CBD to reach its goals are being used to promote the same market-based approach as the climate convention, “As we ingloriously celebrate the International Year of Biodiversity, civil society is hearing carfully negotiated intergovernmental reasoning and rationales for the failed 2010 target.  Much emphasis is being placed [by the CBD] on the lack of understanding about why biodiversity matters.  If only we had focused more on the ‘critical role of nature and its ecosystem services in supporting human well-being’.  If only we could demonstrate, once and for all, that biodiversity and nature are ‘the Treasury of all human beings, especially the poor.’

“The crux of the problem is often stated as follows: no one cares about biodiversity; no one knows what it is, or why it matters.  This kind of thinking has spurred a massive re-framing of biodiversity in terms of ecosystem services, [and on] how biodiversity contributes to human well-being.  This re-framing is part of a widespread movement to value biodiversity, but these are not your grandmother’s values.

“As the Executive Director of the CBD, Ahmed Djoghlaf, stated in a meeting with civil society just prior to the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-9) in Bonn (May 2008), ‘The largest corporation in the world is not Walmart.  The largest corporation in the world is nature.'”

The Corporate Influence in Nagoya

Origami animals: another form of biodiversity promoted at COP-10. Photo: Petermann/ GJEP-GFC

David Kubiak, writing for Truthout way back in February, wrote an extensive piece called “Big Bodies vs the Biosphere” that detailed the corporate takeover of the biodiversity convention.

“Like the Copenhagen-jubilant corporate climate lobby before them, the big corporate bodies that dominate the drug, energy, agro-business and natural resource extraction arenas are aggressively organizing to keep any Nagoya agreement toothless…The planet’s Big corporate bodies clearly recognize the bottom line implications of COP10 and have rushed in to dominate its organization, framing and regulatory intent.

“Nippon Keidanren (Japan Federation of Economic Organizations) represents 1,295 companies, 129 industrial associations and 47 regional economic organizations (including scores of big foreign players like Pfizer, Exxon Mobil and Goldman Sachs). Its self-described mission is “to accelerate growth of Japan’s and world economy and to strengthen the corporations…Keidanren co-hosted the … Kobe Biodiversity Dialogue … ‘to promote information exchange, dialogue, and collaboration among various stakeholders.’ I attended hopefully along with 300 other citizens, but quickly became concerned that biodiversity in the stakeholder population seemed to be crashing, too. While there were three or four NGO types wandering about and a fair number of bowing bureaucrats, the podium and panels seemed totally overrun with greenwashed corporate suits. Elegant and articulate spokesmen from Keidanren, Toyota, Sumitomo, Hitachi Chemical and Asahi Breweries all congratulated themselves silly and were only outshone by the heroic ecological achievements of Royal Dutch Shell.

“During the final wrap-up panel, I asked about their views on the vastly expanded sanctuaries and protected zones now being proposed to concretely preserve biodiversity. The moderator grabbed the mike, ‘Well, that’s a very interesting issue to be sure, but not exactly what we’re here to consider today. Next question …’

“The NGO scarcity [at the Kobe Biodiversity conference] was not unintentional. One staffer confessed that many in the organizing committee believed that most NGOs only introduce ‘cacophony’ into the proceedings. ‘Their demands for attention to the specific species or issues they represent get too competitive and centrifugal … They don’t systemically address the big picture we must deal with or even collaborate very well. Let them have their own alternative conference. That’s what they seem to like to do.’

“So in the COP-10 organizers’ ideal world we would see 7,000 technocrats, bureaucrats and corporate flacks deciding how we shall characterize, evaluate and ‘most productively manage’ the entirety of life on the planet for the next twenty years with as little input as possible from civil society, indigenous consciousness, or groups who led the biodiversity fight before anyone knew the word. What could possibly go wrong?”

While written well ahead of the Nagoya conference, these two pieces have very accurately predicted what we’ve seen thus far at COP-10, as explained by Faris Ahmed of USC Canada in “Undercover COP,” the Civil Society website on the negotiations maintained by the CBD Alliance (www.undercoverCOP.org)

Report on the Negotiations After Week One

Poster at the CBD COP-10 exhibition illustrates some of the new forms of biodiversity planned for the future. Photo: Petermann/ GJEP-GFC

“As the first week of the CBD winds down, the mood in civil society is one of alarm.  This morning someone said ‘this could be the Copenhagen of Biodiversity’.  We’re witnessing that the CBD is being rapidly infected with the same ailments that afflict the other UN instruments, particularly the UNFCCC (climate convention):  no political will, refusal to abide by legally binding principles, no commitment to financial responsibility (some call it ‘ecological debt’), dubious and unambitious targets, and excessive reliance on ‘markets’ to meet the challenges of biodiversity loss… the general sense is that the CBD has lost its way.  It looks tired – and as someone here said yesterday, ‘running just to stand still’.  At a time when the stakes couldn’t be higher.  75% of biodiversity lost, and 2% disappearing every year.

“Yet, some interests are prospecting the CBD for all it’s worth.  The CBD, some NGOs say, is open for business.  Is Mother Earth for sale?  And what happens the minute you put a price tag on Her, and all the life forms She sustains?

“While it’s imperative that business be part of the solution, some observers muse that corporate social responsibility isn’t the only thing that’s motivating business.  There are huge financial incentives available for corporate activities linked to biodiversity conservation through market mechanisms.  Many of these schemes are unclear and full of loopholes – such as the much vaunted but still not well understood REDD scheme [Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation].

“Some have dubbed these market schemes ‘perverse incentives’.   They can easily turn good intentions into bad outcomes, especially for local communities and ecosystems.  Also, the CBD is opening the door for dubious ‘techno-fixes’ to creep in, make a huge amount of money experimenting with unproven and often alarming climate and ‘geo-engineering schemes’.  Blowing bigger clouds, modifying the weather for the olympics, burying carbon in the sea, or burning woodlots as ‘biochar’ to restore carbon. ..

“Pssst, how about reducing our consumption?   No, that’s not really on the agenda.”

The marginalization of Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations and so-called ‘civil society’ groups in Nagoya has been a nagging but persistent theme throughout the past week.   Dempsey explains why this is dangerous.  “…civil society organizations have a key role to play in Nagoya.  Civil Society brings the expertise and coice of those who are not always [if ever–ed.] represented at intergovernmental conferences.  We help convey the stories about ecological devastation, corporate theft, wrong-headed governmental policies, and the spiraling decline of both cultural and biological diversity.”

Access and Benefit Sharing

An exhibit on the dangers of biodiversity at COP-10. Photo: Petermann/ GJEP-GFC

But besides the obvious corporate interest in debates over biofuels and forests, one of the most contentious debates during the biodiversity negotiations has been under the obscure title “Access and Benefit Sharing.”  A press release put out by the CBD Secretariat on September 14th explains a key goal of the Nagoya conference is to create “a new set of international rules that would provide transparent accesss to the biological resources of the world while ensuring that countries and communities get a fair share of any benefits that arise from their use–such as when companies develop commercial medicines from plants or other life-forms.”

According to Ahmed Djoghlaf, the VERY pro-business Executive Secretary of the CBD, “The three big outcomes of the COP-10 meeting in Nagoya would be a global agreement on a new strategy, the mobilisation of the finance needed to make it happen and a new legally-binding protocol on access and benefit sharing.  The decisions we take now will affect biodiversity for the coming mellennium,  We can’t have one outcome without the others.  The COP-10 meeting is all or nothing.”

David Kubiak explains that one of the basic contests of COP-10 “will be the battle over indigenous peoples’ and developing nations’ rights to a share in Big Pharma’s profits from their hijacked lore and traditions. This is framed equally as a plant diversity issue to keep them well within the CBD’s ambit, but the 40-50 tribes who will be showing up are most concerned with restitution and economic justice. They are facing off with big drug and bioengineering bodies…”

Steve Leahy of IPS, further explains the ABS issue, “Many drugs, cosmetics and other valuable biochemicals used in the industrial world have been derived from plants and animals, very often from countries in the developing world. Everyone agrees countries and communities where these originated should be compensated. The devil is in the details, and those have been under negotiation for more than six years and remain contentious and complex.”

By the end of Friday, allies from NGOs that had been actively participating in the ABS negotiations were dubious that there would be any positive outcome.

Canada Determined to Screw Over Indigenous Peoples

Dinosaur made of garbage, an apt metaphor for the behavior of Canada and other obstructionist governments during COP-10. Photo: Petermann/ GJEP-GFC

In a new article titled, “Canada Seeks to Drop Native Peoples from New Biodiversity Pact,” Leahy explains that First Nations people and other delegates are putting the blame for lack of progress on ABS directly at the feet of the Canadian government.

“‘Canada is stalling progress here, weakening our rights and fighting against a legally-binding protocol on access and benefit sharing,’ said Armand MacKenzie, executive director of the Innu Council of Nitassinan, the indigenous inhabitants in northeastern Canada.

“A protocol on access and benefit sharing (ABS) without a guarantee of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities ‘would be totally void’, said Paulino Franco de Carvalho, head of the Brazilian delegation.

“Indigenous peoples say they are holders or caretakers of much of the world’s biodiversity and traditional knowledge, and omitting references to that reality is a non-starter for them and most countries.

“Canadian indigenous representatives have expressed their views to the Canadian delegation but the Canadian government position is that there can be no reference to the rights of indigenous people in the final ABS protocol, said Paul Joffe representing the Grand Council of the Crees, a large indigenous nation in central Canada.

‘The government never consulted with us. It came as a complete surprise,’ he said.

“Canada’s position reflects an ideology and is a political decision made by the current government in the capital of Ottawa, says Joffe. At previous international meetings, Canada has been widely if quietly called ‘obstructionist’. At the Copenhagen climate talks last December, international civil society gave Canada the “Colossal Fossil Award” for worst behaviour at those negotiations.”

How will governments and corporations continue to collude in Nagoya?  Will there be an ABS agreement?  While this is my last blog post from Nagoya, I encourage you to stay tuned over the coming week for more updates and analysis from our allies in Nagoya.

Comments Off on Photos and Analysis: Biodiversity Convention Hijacked by Corporate Influence

Filed under Climate Change

by | 2010-10-22 · 10:52

7 Generations Walk and Hunger Strike Against Nuclear Power Plant

Note: Japanese activists arrived at the UN CBD COP-10 meetings 45 days
after beginning their 800 kilometer walk–to protest the fact that the
Japanese government is allowing the construction of a new nuclear power
plant in one of the most pristine areas remaining in Japan–a place with
many endangered and endemic species.

It is not unprecedented for the host country for the UN Biodiversity
Convention to be simultaneously causing massive destruction of
biodiversity.  In 2008, the CBD COP-9 took place in Germany only days
after Germany struck a deal with Brazil to exchange nukes for agrofuels.
And Brazil hosted the COP-8 in 2006 at the same time that they were
allowing GE soy to expand uncontrollably into the Amazon forest.  Ain’t
irony great?

–Anne Petermann, for the GJEP Team

_____________________________________________

Source: 7 Generations Walk

Nagoya, Japan–Anti-nuclear activists from Japan began the 7 Generations
Walk on 25th August 2010, walking over 800km from Kaminoseki-cho in
Yamaguchi Prefecture to the UN Biodiversity COP-10 in Nagoya.  This is
their statement:

We have started a hunger strike in protest of the nuclear plant, for the
sea and for future generations.  Our leader, who is also a monk, has not
eaten or drank anything for 7 days as of today.

On the morning of 15th October, barges gathered off Kaminoseki-cho in
Yamaguchi Prefecture, the
planned site of the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant, to begin filling in
the sea. This place is a biodiversity hot spot, full of endangered
species. Also, it’s the gateway of the Seto Inland Sea. The effect of this
reclamation and the eventual nuclear power plant is immeasurable.

We started the walk to spread the message of co-existence and to think
about what we
want to hand on to future generations.

While we walked, we felt a connection with the land, ocean and sky and
realized that we are able to live only because of nature.

Take action:

Call, fax and email the following to protest the construction of this
nuclear power plant in the biodiverse and beautiful Seto inland sea of
Kaminoseki-cho.

Chogoku Electric Power company: +81-082-241-0211 ph  /  +81-082-523-6185 fax

email: go to https://www.energia.co.jp/cgi-bin/energia/contact/contact.cgi

Imori Industry: +81-820-22-1500 or +81-80-5612-6710 or +81-80-1939-4251

Yamaguchi Prefectural Governor: +81-83-933-2570 ph / +81-83-933-2599
email: mailto:a12900@pref.yamaguchi.lg.jp

Contact the Japanese Embassy in the US:

+1-202-238-6700 ph / +1-202-328-2187

(You can search the internet contact information for other Japanese
Embassies.)

For more information: http://7gwalk.org 7gwalk@gmail.com

Comments Off on 7 Generations Walk and Hunger Strike Against Nuclear Power Plant

Filed under Actions / Protest

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | · 05:23

COP 10: Analysis on The Hot Issues

Here at COP-10, the negotiations of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan, there have been several areas that have been strongly controversial.  Among these: geoengineering schemes, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the infiltration of business and the markets into the negotiations.  Today, instead of sharing my own ideas on these topics, I include writings by others.  Warning: some of the language may be wonky, read at your own risk.

–Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project and North American Focal Point, Global Forest Coalition

Source: CBD Alliance ECO newsletters: http://www.cbdalliance.org/cop-10/

Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of Indigenous Environmental Network explains the importance of Indigenous Peoples traditional knowledge in protection of biological diversity at an event featuring “13 Grandmothers” on October 19th in Nagoya, Japan. Photo: Petermann/GJEP-GFC

 

Indigenous Representatives Denounce Canada’s Obstructionist Position at COP10

Adapted from IIFB Press Statement

Canada stands alone in its shameful opposition to preambular text “Taking into account the significance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (UNDRIP) in the proposed ABS (Access and Benefit Sharing) Protocol. Reminding parties that it did not endorse the UNDRIP, Canada insisted that the reference to the UNDRIP be both bracketed and deleted.  Indigenous Peoples insist the ABS Protocol must take into account the significance of the UNDRIP.

Armand MacKenzie, Executive-Director of the Innu Council of Nitassinan (Innu Nation), stated that, “You cannot claim to be a champion of human rights on the one hand and at the same time oppose the most widely accepted international charter in relation to Indigenous Peoples’ rights. With such strong arm tactics undermining Indigenous Peoples’ human rights, it is no wonder Canada lost their bid for a seat on the UN Security Council.”

“Canada has contradicted its speech from the throne when it stated it would take steps to endorse the UNDRIP.  The apology from the Prime Minister of Canada for the Residential School system was a positive move towards reconciliation between Canada and Aboriginal Peoples. This obstructionist position is an enormous step backwards, is unacceptable and undermines all Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights” states Ellen Gabriel, president of Quebec Native Women.

“The Canadian government has been undermining the human rights of the world`s Indigenous Peoples since 2006, both at home and internationally”, emphasized Paul Joffe, lawyer representing the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee). “Such conduct severely tarnishes Canada`s reputation globally and puts in serious doubt Canada’s stated intention to endorse the UNDRIP is in good faith.”

Background on Indigenous Issues at the UN CBD

Indigenous delegates from every region of the world have come to Nagoya to be heard at the COP10 negotiations. Indigenous Peoples continue to be among the most marginalized, discriminated and exploited peoples despite living in some of the worlds most biodiverse regions.

Indigenous delegates under the umbrella of the International Indigenous Forum for Biodiversity (IIFB) have been deliberating and working out strategies for negotiating at the COP 10 during the past three days of preparatory meetings.

The IIFB is a collection of representatives from indigenous communities and governments, indigenous non-governmental organizations, indigenous scholars and activists who organize around the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other important international environmental meetings to help coordinate indigenous strategies at these meetings, provide consultation to the government parties, and influence the interpretations of government obligations to recognize and respect indigenous rights to the knowledge and resources.

The IIFB was officially acknowledged to be a formal advisory body to the CBD in COP5 in Nairobi, a step that has enhanced the presence and voices of indigenous peoples in the CBD and related processes. Since this groundbreaking step at COP5, subsequent COPs of the CBD have seen active and effective work by Indigenous peoples and indigenous organizations, as have a range of sub-processes regarding the implementation of Article 8(j), Access and Benefit Sharing, and others. This participation of Indigenous Peoples in this international process is often not reflected at the national level.

In this time the status of Indigenous Peoples has been recognized with the passing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) by United Nations General Assembly in September 2007, the impact of this has yet to be fully realized within the context of the CBD. In addition, in some countries there are still many Indigenous Peoples who are still struggling for their rights, and demanding for their recognition as Indigenous Peoples.

This Declaration affirms the existence and establishment of the universal human rights standards for the protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Implementation of decisions under the Convention on Biological Diversity must be consistent with the rights enshrined in this Declaration.

For more information please see: http://iifb.indigenousportal.com

———————————

First Global Discussion on Geoengineering Kicks Off

Paragraph 8(w) may be only the beginning

by ETC Group

One of the hottest issues under Climate Change and Biodiversity [at COP-10] has proven to be paragraph 8 (w), which arrived … in bracketed form:

[(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, that no climate-related geoengineering activities take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts;]

COP10 is the first UN inter-governmental negotiating forum that is  openly debating the issue and that is prepared to take a decision on geoengineering as a whole. Not surprisingly, there are different opinions about what the term “geoengineering” entails. This debate exists outside the CBD as well. The issue of scope is central, but should not be difficult to resolve.

What is really at stake in this debate?

Whether or not the precautionary principle will be applied to high-risk and large-scale interventions in the climate system lies at the heart of the debate. Deletion of paragraph 8(w), as proposed by some delegations, would send the wrong signal to those states and private entities that want to engineer the climate by manipulating the very ecosystems the CBD was designed to protect.

Will this decision prevent research and discussion? Geoengineering proponents claim that the proposed wording of the moratorium could prevent people from talking about geoengineering, undertaking research and computer modeling. Such claims are ludicrous. The word “activities” may indeed be broad, but that is the same wording that was applied to ocean fertilization in 2008 and the two subsequent years saw vigorous debate in scientific, political and civil society circles, as well as continued lab research and modeling. The result: ocean fertilization is increasingly discredited as an effective response to climate change and the prospects for making money off ocean fertilization carbon credits is now rightly remote. This is good news for oceans and the people who depend upon them for their livelihoods.

Will this decision prevent companies from developing geoengineering schemes?

It will not prevent research, but it should prevent commercialization. If geoengineering is an “emergency response” then it cannot be handed over to private entities whose primary goal is to make money!

Nevertheless, all kinds of patents on these technologies have been awarded or are awaiting approval. The 2008 decision on ocean fertilization explicitly prohibited research that was “used for generating and selling carbon offsets or any other commercial purposes”. The same should be made clear in this decision about geoengineering as well.

Why are some countries opposing 8(w)?

Some countries are anxious to move forward with geoengineering – not only with research in computer modeling and laboratories, but in the real world. Thus far, only Russia has experimented with Solar Radiation Management techniques but a small group of geoengineers in Canada, the UK and the US (amongst others) is also anxious to move forward with such tests. They want to experiment with cloud whitening, altering the alkalinity of our oceans and more. We know that altering the sun’s radiation will affect precipitation patterns, potentially threatening the food supplies of up to 2 billion people. (1)

Such experiments cannot be allowed to proceed in the absence of inter-governmental consensus and oversight and a careful consideration of the intended and unintended impacts.  However, no such information or even a risk assessment to do so  exist now. Rushing ahead with climate engineering interventions could be disastrous.

What happens next if the moratorium is agreed to?

The debate will continue, with a much diminished risk of a unilateral intervention that could go badly wrong and with assurance that any attempt to engineer the climate would be quickly condemned by the international community. The moratorium will buy the world – both governments and civil society  – the time we need to debate whether or not this is the road we want to go down and how to put in place meaningful risk assessments and controls. The debate on geoengineering will not be over. It will be safer.

ETC Group’s new report: Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering was published this week and is available with other background documents on our website (www.etcgroup.org).

(1) See Alan Robock, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, Georgiy L. Stenchikov, “A Test for Geoengineering?” Science, 29 January 2010, Vol. 327. no. 5965, pp. 530-31 and ETC Group news release, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance,” 11 February 2010 available at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073.

——————————-

It’s About Life and Life is Not a Business

by Susan Walsh, USC – Canada and Bernrd Beermann

When members of the public in the UK were asked in a recent survey what the  word biodiversity meant, the most common answer was “some kind of washing  powder”. In response, Kate Rawles of the University of Cumbria states: “Modern societies … are dangerously close to completely losing touch with the value of other living things”.

The 193 Parties and hundreds of civil society organizations gathered at the 10th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity do know what biodiversity means. They understand only too well what is at stake if the dramatic erosion of our planet’s biological diversity is not stopped in its tracks, as well as the corresponding loss of resilience that could lead us all over the brink into a world where we are no longer welcome. Within the past century, for example, we have lost an estimated 75% of our plant genetic resources and, over the past decade alone, nearly 60 million hectares of primary forest. We are driving species to extinction at up to 1000 times the natural rate. How will the 1 billion people who depend on fish as their sole or main source of animal protein survive if 80% of examined world marine stocks are exploited or overexploited?

The Japanese Times’ special editions on COP 10 put it this way: “In Nagoya, the issue under discussion is not melting glaciers or brutally hot summers that extend long into autumn due to global warming, but life itself.”

The challenge is daunting. We face compounding environmental, food, fuel, economic, and climate crises that are converging into a perfect storm of biodiversity loss and social injustice. The conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits of biodiversity are fundamental to addressing these crises. Time and again, however, we see governments agreeing to business as usual, downplaying overconsumption, and searching for newer and better technological solutions with short-term, often counter-productive results. Governments can and must do better. We call on parties to strengthen the Convention’s core principles, particularly the ecosystem approach, the precautionary principle, participation, equity, justice, and an understanding that biodiversity cannot be separated from those humans with values that nurture, defend and sustainably use biodiversity.

We are particularly troubled by trends such as the growing popularity of market mechanisms that carve nature into pieces of valued and not so valued property and the growing influence of corporate actors who place profit ahead of the integrity of human community and the landscapes we inhabit. The convergence of the Rio Conventions must be preceded by clear evidence that the CBD’s values and principles will not be lost in the mix.

Unchecked, these trends could well undermine our largest ecosystem – the planet. The commodification of nature is at the heart of biodiversity loss and eroded resilience. The spirit of collaboration in Nagoya must reflect a willingness to respect nature’s gifts and complexities.

Civil society organizations here in Nagoya call on the delegates and their capitals to reconnect with Mother Nature and with the multiple values of other living things. If we are to avoid that perfect storm from blasting its way through our ever-fragile planet, we need to tap into that kinder, gentler human in us all.

Comments Off on COP 10: Analysis on The Hot Issues

Filed under Biodiversity, Greenwashing, Indigenous Peoples

Tagged as , , ,

by | 2010-10-21 · 10:10

Update on the Negotiations at COP-10: Will Biodiversity Survive the Process?

Note: A very important intervention by Anne Petermann follows her analysis in her latest dispatch from UN CBD in Japan.

–The GJEP Team

Anne Petermann today (21 October), speaks on behalf of Global Justice Ecology Project, in an intervention on Biofuels and Biodiversity at the UN CBD in Nagoya, Japan. Photo: Simone Lovera/GFC

–Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project Executive Director and North American Focal Point for the Global Forest Coalition.

Wednesday (yesterday) began the CBD COP-10 Working Group negotiations
directly related to the work of Global Justice Ecology Project.  The first
item on the agenda: Biodiversity and Climate Change, under which fell
topics including geoengineering–on which ETC Group is here leading a
valiant effort for a strong moratorium–and REDD, the Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and forest Degradation scheme.

While several countries spoke in favor of a moratorium on geoengineering,
REDD received extensive support.  With all of the propaganda here in
favor of REDD and other market-based conservation schemes, this outcome is
hardly surprising.

Out of the 6 hours of official negotiating time allotted yesterday, the
agenda item on climate change took approximately 4.5 hours, with countries
running on and on in their interventions and most positions firmly
entrenched.

After sitting in that oppressive lifeless artificial room for so long,
when the item finally concluded at 5:15pm, I fled to find some fresh air
and natural light.  The next item on the agenda was dry lands
biodiversity, and as the negotiations were scheduled to end at 6 pm I
concluded there was no way they would get to the next agenda item–forest
biodiversity–before the end of the day.

At 6:30 pm, however, Simone Lovera–our colleague from Global Forest
Coalition, arrived late to our scheduled side event on REDD and informed
me that not only had they started negotiations on forest biodiversity,
they had actually finished them in less than one hour, with no observer
organizations allowed to speak.

One hour?!  How to protect forest biodiversity is one of the key issues at
this COP.  With REDD coming down the pike, not to mention all the new and
emerging pressures on forests, the discussions around how to protect
forest biodiversity should have been a central focus of the negotiations.
Instead, they were swept under the rug.

And no observer organizations were allowed to speak.  “You can submit your
comments in writing…”  The excuse used to cut off the observers from
speaking was that the translators needed to leave.   I was advised by a
colleague to go back first thing in the morning and request permission
from the Chair of the Working Group to make an intervention before the new
agenda item was started, since there was no time the night before.  This I
did.  “No”—was the answer.  “Sorry, the item is closed.  We have to
stick to our schedule.  Submit your comments in writing.”

Right. Fine. Swell.

Today’s agenda was filled with agricultural biodiversity followed by
biofuels and biodiversity.  On the first item, there were numerous
comments from developing countries cautioning about the impacts of
industrial agriculture, including GMO crops, and especially “climate
ready” GMO crops–Monsanto’s latest scheme to monopolize the food supply,
using climate change as the opportunity.

Following that item came the next big contentious debate–this one on
biofuels–also known as agrofuels.

This item was pretty clearly divided between countries that intend to
benefit from biofuel production (led by Brazil, the global biofuel king)
and those countries whose lands and people are being negatively impacted
by the growing demand for land to grow biofuel crops.  This sector was led
by the African delegation.  In typical fashion, Canada, New Zealand, and
the EU made interventions that largely supported weakening the
precautionary text on the item, and emphasizing the “benefits to
biodiversity” from biofuels.  Short of the escape of GMOs or synthetic
organisms into the environment, which I suppose would technically add new
species into the ecosystem, it is unimaginable to me how biofuels could
increase biodiversity.

Just before the Working Group reconvened after lunch, I overheard one of
the participants say, “REDD is the ultimate intelligence test for
humanity.”

While the speaker meant this to mean that it is imperative to get forests
into the market as the best and only chance to save them and stop climate
change, I interpreted it quite differently.  It is an intelligence test
alright.  Will dominant culture change its ways in the face of full-scale
ecological crisis, or will it not?  If this COP meeting is any indication,
it ain’t lookin’ too good.

Einstein famously said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over
and expecting a different result.”  One could easily apply that logic to
REDD and the attempt to use the market to protect biodiversity.

We’ve seen for centuries how the use of the market on natural resources
has impacted those resources.  We have the climate crisis, the
biodiversity crisis, the ocean crisis, the food crisis, the water
crisis…  Privatizing and marketing natural resources has driven Planet
Earth to the point where, to quote John Trudell, “civilized man may make
survival on Earth for civilized man impossible.”

Miracle of miracles, the Chair of the Working Group decided to allow some
observer organizations to make comments at the tail end of the biofuels
and biodiversity section.  What follows is the intervention that I made on
behalf of Global Justice Ecology Project.  It is a bit short because,
while “Parties” (i.e. countries) were allowed to go on endlessly, observer
organizations were strictly limited to one-minute interventions.  (The
marginalization of social justice and Indigenous Peoples Organizations at
these UN events is quite striking–the climate COPs are even worse.)

Intervention on Biofuels and Biodiversity:

Thank you Madam Chair.  I am speaking on behalf of Global Justice Ecology
Project.

Demand for trees for bioenergy is growing exponentially.  Second
generation biofuels will add to this problem.  Before emissions from
deforestation can be reduced or biodiversity protected, this rapidly
growing demand on forests must be stopped.  You cannot simultaneously
support REDD and promote biofuels and bioenergy.

The UN definition of forests must also be changed so that it is
science-based. As it is, it allows destruction of forests for conversion
into biofuel and bioenergy tree monocultures. Saying a tree monoculture is
a forest is like saying a cornfield is a native grassland. Even socially
and ecologically destructive genetically engineered trees are possible.

Demand for biofuels and bioenergy is also driving GMO tree development.
In the Southern U.S. alone, industry plans to plant half a billion GMO
eucalyptus trees every year just for bioenergy and biofuels.  These
plantations will replace some of the most biologically rich forests in the
world.  GMO eucalyptus should be considered an invasive alien species.
It’s ability to escape and colonize native ecosystems, destroying
biodiversity, is well documented.

In conclusion, demand for wood for fuel production is predicted to lead,
by 2050, to the almost total replacement of forests and grasslands with
biofuel and bioenergy monocultures.  This is an unparalleled threat to
biodiversity and to the land security of Indigenous and Local Communities.

There are no positive impacts on biodiversity from biofuels or bioenergy.
All references to positive impacts should be deleted.  This body must
protect biodiversity by enacting a moratorium on large-scale biofuel and
bioenergy development, and by prohibiting the use of GMO trees or
synthetic organisms in biofuel or bioenergy production.

Thank you.

Comments Off on Update on the Negotiations at COP-10: Will Biodiversity Survive the Process?

Filed under Posts from Anne Petermann

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 2010-10-20 · 10:24

Capitalism to Save Biodiversity?

–Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project Executive Director and North American Focal Point for the Global Forest Coalition.

Today’s blog post was inspired by two side events at COP-10 today.  The
first was entitled, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB):
Mainstreaming the economics of Nature.”  The lead presenter was Pavan
Sukhdev, Study leader — TEEB and Special Adviser and Head — Green
Economy Initiative UNEP

The second was called REDD: Who Benefits and Who Pays, and very critically
explained the social and ecological impacts of REDD.  The model of REDD,
as a scheme of payment for ecosystem services, is one of the main models
for TEEB.

There were some very fascinating statements made by the presenters at the
TEEB side event.  A selection of those include:

• TEEB is about economic solutions, not market solutions, but uses the
market as a tool. [!??!]

• Nature belongs to everyone and to no one, but must be “captured” to save
it.

• What nature provides is invisible: we must make nature’s values visible.

• Countries must inventory their “natural wealth” since “You cannot manage
what you do not measure.”

• 10-20% of a country’s GDP is in “ecosystem services.”

• “Most of the benefits [from TEEB] will flow to the rural poor.”

• “Ecosystem services are a lifeline for the poor.”

TEEB recommendation: Within the UNFCCC process, REDD+ should be
accelerated for implementations: pilot projects, and capacity building in
developing countries.    “We’re Working toward Cancun where there WILL be
a REDD+ agreement” [emphasis added–Note: REDD is still extremely
controversial and has not yet been agreed upon in the UN Climate
Convention]

“Cancun will be significant opportunity for TEEB and mainstreaming the
economics of nature.”

—–

These people are serious.  They want to develop a whole new “Green Economy.”

But while they natter on and on about how this will protect biodiversity,
they neither explain exactly how this is the case, nor how Indigenous
Peoples’ rights fit into the picture.  Indigenous Peoples’ lands, on the
other hand, are those lands globally that are richest in biodiversity.

But rather than ensuring Indigenous communities have control over their
lands so that they can continue to caretake the lands on which they
depend, the TEEB theory is that we have to put a dollar value on nature
and put it in the market, if we want it to be conserved.  And as Tom
Goldtooth, Executive Director of Indigenous Environmental Network points
out, assigning an economic value to something implies ownership, and
property is a concept that contradicts traditional Indigenous
cosmovisions.

There is also no consideration to the root causes of biodiversity loss.
We are somehow going to magically end biodiversity loss while doing
nothing to reduce consumption [the things we consume, by the way, start
out as natural resources, i.e. biodiversity].

So TEEB, therefore, can be seen as a red herring that is designed to
distract us from the real drivers of biodiversity loss. It waves magical
equations in our faces to lead us into the land of economic fairy tales.

So here’s how I see TEEB playing out:

Natural ecosystems will be assigned a dollar value.  The economic law of
supply and demand says that as more natural ecosystems are destroyed by
unsustainable global consumption (which is not being addressed by TEEB),
those ecosystems will go up in value.  Investors, being the profit-savvy
bunch they are, will figure this out pretty quickly.

Therefore, TEEB will cause the already frightening global land grab to
accelerate–perhaps even exponentially.  The Indigenous Peoples and the
world’s poor who live in these ecosystems often do not have clear title to
their lands.  TEEB will likely result in them being marginalized even
further, and even displaced from their lands.  And this displacement will
be justified by blaming these rural poor communities for biodiversity
loss.  The World Bank, for example, blames poverty for 40% of global
forest destruction.  How can you protect biodiversity unless you kick out
the humans?

Under TEEB, the “captor” of an ecosystem will have the right to demand
compensation for leaving that biodiversity intact.  And if TEEB follows
the REDD model, the amount of money demanded for NOT destroying
biodiversity will have to be equal to the profit that COULD have been made
from doing so.  Where exactly will all of this money come from?  And what
if nobody pays?  Then the captor would be free to sell that ecosystem to
the highest bidder.  For logs, for pharmaceuticals, for monocultures, for
soy fields, whatever will make the biggest profit.

This is, after all, the essence of Capitalism and why it is so dangerous
and stupid to put nature into the market.  Capitalism is about maximizing
profits.  Investors will get their financial return one way or the other,
regardless of the consequences.  If there is any lesson that we can draw
from the financial crisis, that is it.

This quote by the head of TEEB gives an idea of the mentality of its
architects:

“Economics is merely weaponry.  The direction you choose to shoot is the
ethical question.”

Unfortunately, with regard to nature, there is no way to predict how that
weapon will be used.  The Precautionary Approach (enshrined in the CBD)
should mean we do not put nature in the sights of that weapon to start with…

Comments Off on Capitalism to Save Biodiversity?

Filed under Biodiversity, Posts from Anne Petermann

Tagged as , , ,

by | 2010-10-18 · 10:38

UN CBD COP 10: Business and Biodiversity, Hand in Hand

–Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project Executive Director and North American Focal Point for the Global Forest Coalition

Nagoya, Japan–Today was the opening day of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s tenth Conference of the Parties (COP-10).  2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity.  It is also the year by which the UN CBD had tasked itself with achieving a set of “Millenium Development Goal” (MDG) targets with regard to staving off biodiversity loss.

As you can probably imagine, these goals came nowhere close to reality.

At this CBD COP, however, the Parties are pledged to create a new 10 year strategic plan.  Over the course of the next two weeks, the details of this plan will be discussed word by painful word.

The Opening Ceremony of the COP-10 took place this morning.  Part pep rally, part hand wringing, the presentations by the Big Wigs went on ad nauseum.  They went on so long in fact, that the environmental groups present–which had spent a couple of days preparing a 3 minute opening statement to the COP–were not allowed to present it.  No time…

But after all this taking “a hard look at” itself, the CBD has decided NOT to look at the root causes of this failure, but rather to commit itself to buddying up with business in order to devise a win-win that will supposedly protect biodiversity while promoting the interests of industry.

The logic of this green capitalist model is fascinating.  I will share with you a few choice quotes from The Little Biodiversity Finance Book (available in great piles here at COP-10):

“The English playwright Oscar Wilde once commented that the cynic knows the price of everthing but the value of nothing.  Today’s cynics are those who claim biodiversity is priceless, yet are not prepared to pay for it…In the UN year of Biodiversity a quiet revolution is occurring.  Whilst the Millennium Development Goals for stemming biodiversity loss may be missed, the financial crisis is forcing a re-think of how products and services are valued. Investors are thinking, ‘if we got it so wrong with one property, what else out there is incorrectly valued?’  There is a growing realization that wealth creation cannot continue based on financial and social capital alone, but must recognize natural capital too–for without this, national accounts, business accounts and consumer accounts–long term, are ultimately built on sand.”

“[Biodiversity financing] is a natural follow on from REDD, which is essentially valuing one such service, namely the carbon cycle…Such a utilitarian view of biodiversity should not be allowed to erode the inestimable value biodiversity has for the human spirit but should secure it for future generations…This new economy could see the emergence of ‘biodiversity superpowers’ rich in natural capital and able to bargain their ecological muscle for aid or trade.”

Whew.  Where to start with logic like that…

Premise One: Biodiversity is priceless, therefore we should put a price on it.

Premise Two: If you disagree with this oxymoronic-logic, you are a “cynic.”

Premise Three: The lesson from the financial crisis is that “property” was valued incorrectly.  [Wow, that is definitely NOT the lesson I took away from the financial crisis…]

Premise Four: Ongoing wealth creation depends on “natural capital.” Well duh.  Isn’t that kind of the essence of “CAPITALism”–transforming natural “resources” into capital?  But what’s that got to do with protecting biodiversity?

Premise Five: A utilitarian view of nature is a good thing as long as we combine it with a reverential view.  [Again with the oxymoronics.]

Premise Six: Valuing biodiversity appropriately will create “biodiversity superpowers” who can hold their biodiversity hostage for aid or trade.  “Give us your money or the forest gets it.”  And this is a good thing?

Of course, this premise also ignores the reality of things like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which have forced so-called “developing” countries into debt for decades by conning them into huge development loans, then using those loans as leverage to force them to sell off their vast natural resources to the lowest bidder–part of the process called “structural adjustment”. Structural adjustment programs are part of what has made the comfortable overconsumptive lifestyles of those of us in the North possible.

But under the premise in this little book, all of a sudden, the rich countries will pay the poor countries in exchange for them protecting their natural wealth.  Hmmm, that sounds familiar.  Debt for nature swaps–oh yeah, that was a smashing success.

Look, let’s face reality, shall we?  One cannot continue to live under a global economy that demands endless growth and simultaneously protect biodiversity.  And one cannot employ the very same economic strategies that have devastated biodiversity to now protect that same biodiversity by merely tweaking them slightly.  Putting a dollar value on nature simply means the rich will be able to control that nature.

And since the author brings up REDD, yes, let’s look at REDD as an example of what to expect from putting a price on biodiversity. Because REDD puts a dollar value on standing forests, it has launched a major global land grab with investors, companies and others buying up forests in the hopes of future profits.  The peoples who live in those forests–and are largely responsible for the fact that they are still standing, I might add–are being displaced.  Kicked out. Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?

Then there was the World Forestry Congress in October 2009.  The World Bank came to this huge gathering of timber industry executives and Big Greens to tell them about all of the profits to be had from forests under REDD.  By the time they were done, the timber executives were practically drooling.  The World Bank explained there would be around $45 billion in profits to be had under REDD, and that REDD would be very “beneficial for forestry.”  Yes, that’s right, the scheme ostensibly designed to protect forests will mean billions in profits for the very industry that thrives on cutting them down.

In exactly the same way that putting a price on carbon has meant billions in profits for the world’s worst polluters.  And so, commodifying biodiversity will in turn mean vast profit-making for the worst destroyers of biodiversity.

That, my friends, is what COP-10 is all about.

Business and Biodiversity, hand in hand at last…

Comments Off on UN CBD COP 10: Business and Biodiversity, Hand in Hand

Filed under Posts from Anne Petermann

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 2010-10-17 · 09:23

UN Convention on Biological Diversity Meets in Japan to Decide How to Enhance Corporate Profits Through Marketing of Biodiversity

by Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project and North American Focal Point of Global Forest Coalition

Governments from all over the world are gathering in Nagoya, Japan for the next two weeks to discuss the creation of a new 10 year plan for “biodiversity conservation” at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s tenth bi-annual Conference of the Parties (COP-10) though the development of a “green economy.”

Activists, non-governmental organizations and Indigenous Peoples from around the globe are also participating in COP-10 to ensure that these strategies created to supposedly protect biodiversity focus on enhancing the rights of peoples with biodiversity-rich lands and do not impact negatively on biodiversity or these peoples by forcing them into the free market.

“There’s so much at stake here for the world’s small scale farmers, fishers and Indigenous Peoples.  They’re at the frontlines of preserving biodiversity and knowledge of that diversity,” said Chee Yoke Ling of Third World Network.

COP-10 is also drawing increased attention due to its attempt to collaborate with the UN Climate Convention on schemes such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).  REDD has been highly controversial because of its aim to put forests into the carbon market and to use forests to offset industrial emissions in the North.  Indigenous Peoples around the world have been highly critical of REDD due to the fact that it is already leading to massive land grabs by corporations who see the future economic return from controlling large areas of forests.  This has led to the displacement of the very communities that protected those forests.

COP-10 will also look at the impacts on forests from other climate mitigation strategies, such as biofuels and bioenergy.  The rapid advance of biofuels as a supposed solution to climate change, for example, has led to the widespread conversion of forests into biofuel crops–which has worsened climate change and caused huge losses of biodiversity.  The growing demand for wood to burn for electricity production is also driving destruction of native forests and is even being used as an excuse for the commercialization of fast-growing genetically engineered trees, all of which will also worsen climate change, not to mention devastate biodiversity.  Profit-making and protection of biodiversity are directly opposed and can never be reconciled.

Because of this focus on climate strategies, however, COP-10 is being considered a crucial step on the road to Cancun (where the UN Climate Conference will take place in December).

“New and Innovative?”

Another highly controversial piece of the negotiations in Nagoya will be the creation of “new and innovative” financial mechanisms for biodiversity protection.

In particular, the CBD is taking failed models created by the UN Climate Convention for use in biodiversity conservation.  One such model is the carbon market.  By putting a monetary value on biodiversity, as was done with carbon, the idea is there will be more incentive to protect it.   Carbon markets, however, have done nothing to curb carbon emissions, and are rampant with crime, corruption and incompetance.  Biodiversity is even harder to measure than carbon and creating a market in it will be utterly ineffective in protecting it.

The CBD Alliance points out, “the move toward market approaches is about privatizing and commodifying peoples’ commons and bypassing governance systems in the South, in order to achieve ‘northern style’ conservation.”  Northern style conservation refers to the NGO-Imperialist model of “protecting” land by kicking out the communities that live there.

The mechanisms for putting biodiversity into the markets include the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP), which is being overseen by Conservation International, and the Green Development Mechanism–modeled after the disastrous Clean Development Mechanism of the UN Climate Convention.  Both of these models will enhance the ability of corporations to destroy biodiversity by allowing them to purchase so-called “biodiversity offsets.”  The main goal of biodiversity offsets is to continue business as usual while pretending to be green, which is why BBOP members include Rio Tinto mining company, Shell and Chevron.

Biodiversity offsets justify, and will escalate, destruction of biodiversity.  Biodiversity offsets allow a company like International Paper to clearcut a native forest in one place as long as they ‘protect’ one somewhere else.  Biodiversity offsets result in a net loss of biodiversity.  The offset model–whether carbon or biodiversity–goes completely against science and common sense.

But then common sense has never been a real strong point of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity…

Note: Anne Petermann will be blogging from Nagoya throughout the first week of the COP-10 for the Climate Connections blog: http://climatevoices.wordpress.com

Comments Off on UN Convention on Biological Diversity Meets in Japan to Decide How to Enhance Corporate Profits Through Marketing of Biodiversity

Filed under Bioenergy / Agrofuels, Posts from Anne Petermann

Tagged as ,

by | 2010-10-15 · 18:00

Global Justice Ecology Project Daily Coverage of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity

Nagoya, Japan--Starting on October 18th, we will have continuous coverage from the CBD in Nagoya.  Global Justice Ecology Project’s Anne Petermann will be on site and will write daily for Climate Connections.

We will be covering all the relevant news coming from the CBD.  In fact we already have started this Thursday with: 

Top 10 for COP 10
http://climatevoices.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/top-10-for-cop-10/

UN to Confront Sci-Fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting: Civil Society Calls for Precaution
http://climatevoices.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/un-to-confront-sci-fi-climate-solutions-at-biodiversity-meeting-civil-society-calls-for-precaution/

The role of business and economies has been and will always be transforming “resources” (i.e. nature and people) into profits. Next week the UN Convention on Biological Diversity launches its 10th Conference of the Parties in Nagoya, Japan where the role of business in “conserving” biodiversity will be a central theme.  Petermann will be in reporting on this blog on the outcomes of this meeting throughout the week.

Two major outcomes being sought at the CBD’s COP-10:  1) the advancement of BBOP, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program, which seeks to allow corporations to continue to destroy biodiversity as long as they “offset it” by protecting some elsewhere; and 2) a “Green Development Mechanism” modeled after the disastrous Clean Development Mechanism of the UN Climate Conference.  This GDM will provide cover for the ongoing destruction of biodiversity under the auspices of “protecting” it.

Tune in next week for all the action… 

–The GJEP Team

Comments Off on Global Justice Ecology Project Daily Coverage of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity

Filed under Biodiversity

Tagged as