Category Archives: Posts from Anne Petermann

by | 2010-12-09 · 10:40

Anne Petermann, Executive Director of Global Justice Ecology Project on Democracy Now!- Is REDD the New Green? Indigenous Groups Resist Market-Based Forestry Scheme to Offset Emissions

Cross-posted from Democracy Now!

A controversial proposal to protect forests worldwide is on the table at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Cancún. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), would include forests in the emerging carbon markets, allowing governments and corporations to purchase permits to protect forests as a way to offset the carbon released into the atmosphere through its industrial pollution. Though often reported as a means to stop deforestation, there is widespread opposition to REDD from environmental and indigenous groups. We speak to Anne Petermann of the Global Justice Ecology Project.

Comments Off on Anne Petermann, Executive Director of Global Justice Ecology Project on Democracy Now!- Is REDD the New Green? Indigenous Groups Resist Market-Based Forestry Scheme to Offset Emissions

Filed under Biodiversity, Carbon Trading, Climate Justice, Independent Media, Media, Posts from Anne Petermann, REDD

Tagged as

by | 2010-12-03 · 19:28

Photo Essay: Second Indigenous Peoples Protest at Climate Summit

The following photos were taken in the late afternoon of Thursday, December 3rd, outside of the Moon Palace, where countries from around the world are negotiating its fate.  This protest was organized by the International Forum on Indigenous Issues.   Indigenous peoples, whose rights have been historically ignored by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, held a protest to demand the inclusion of their rights in any climate agreement.

Indigenous Peoples have been some of the traditional caretakers of the forests and it is on Indigenous lands where most of the Earth’s intact ecosystems can be found.  These lands are now under threat because of the determination of Industrialized countries to create market-based climate schemes.  Because they are based on the market, these schemes threaten to worsen the problem of global land grabs and displace Indigenous communities from their traditional lands.

This protest followed another protest earlier in the day organized by Indigenous Environmental Network, that targeted Canada’s tarsands gigaproject.  To view that photo essay, click here

All photos below by Anne Petermann/ Global Justice Ecology Project – Global Forest Coalition.

The protest turned into a media feeding frenzy.

Comments Off on Photo Essay: Second Indigenous Peoples Protest at Climate Summit

Filed under Posts from Anne Petermann

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 2010-11-30 · 16:24

Welcome to Cancun: Police State Anyone?

By Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project

On November 25th in Denmark, Stine and Tannie, friends of GJEP Co-Director/ Strategist Orin Langelle and myself, were sentenced to four months of probation for violating Denmark’s anti-terrorism laws. Their crime: organizing for climate justice under the auspices of the international Climate Justice Action alliance.

They were arrested and convicted for being effective spokespeople and organizers.  For being strong women who stood up against the threats of state repression on behalf of the billions of voiceless people shut out of the UN Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen.  The people already suffering the impacts of the climate crisis—floods, droughts, the very ground beneath some communities melting away before their very eyes.

I had first met Stine in Copenhagen in September 2008 at the meeting where Climate Justice Action was founded.  More than 120 activists from around the world had come together to lay the groundwork for massive protests at the Copenhagen climate talks in December 2009. Orin and I got to know her better at subsequent CJA meetings in Poznan, Poland, Belem, Brazil and again in Copenhagen in March 2009.  Then, on December 3rd, when Orin and I emerged exhausted and bleary from our international flight to Copenhagen for the climate talks, Stine and Tannie met us with hugs at the airport, video camera in hand, and kindly led our exhausted selves from the airport to our hotel.  We spent the next several days in public spaces finalizing plans for the Reclaim Power action and playing “spot the undercover cop,” which most times was not difficult as they were straining so hard to hear us that they nearly fell off their chairs.

Stine, being Danish, was one of the foremost spokespeople for Climate Justice Action.  Over the months leading up to the Copenhagen Climate COP, she explained the logic of the “Reclaim Power” action that was to take place on December 16th—the day the high level Ministers arrived.  At this action, observers, delegates and Indigenous Peoples marched out of the failing climate talks at the Bella Center in protest not only of their ineffectiveness, but of their outright corruption by industry and the market.  At the same time that the halls of the Bella Center echoed with the booming voices of those reclaiming their power on the inside, Stine and Tannie were leading a contingent of demonstrators on the outside who were marching toward the Bella Center with the intent of meeting those marching out at the security fence that divided the sanctioned or “accredited” participants from those who were not.  The concept of the action was that those disaffected participants from the inside would meet the excluded from the outside and hold a “Peoples’ Assembly” at the fence where participants could discuss real solutions to the climate crisis and strategize ways to make real change.   Security, however, had other ideas and forcibly stopped both contingents before they met at the fence—using truncheons, pepper spray and whatever other “less lethal” weapons they happened to have on hand.

At that moment, the UNFCCC exposed its true self.  It had for years become increasingly undemocratic and repressive and now it was showing the world through this over zealous heavy-handed response to the simple demand of people to meet and talk.  Exposing the UNFCCC was one of the intentions of the action.  We knew the UNFCCC would show its true colors if confronted with people powerfully demanding justice and free speech.

Though she led the march on the outside, Stine was, in fact, accredited by Global Justice Ecology Project and had participated on the inside of the COP—in particular the day before the march out where she spoke at a Climate Justice Action and Climate Justice Now! joint press conference that GJEP had helped arrange.

We knew the “Reclaim Power” action would be a success when Stine walked into the packed press conference room and the cameras began flashing.

But for the action, Stine chose to be part of the group marching to the Bella Center from the outside.  She and Tannie stood on the sound truck and spoke to the crowd about the importance of the action and of standing up for climate justice in the face of oppressive climate negotiations where business and the markets reigned supreme.  When they approached the fence surrounding the Bella Center, they were violently yanked off of the truck by Danish security and arrested under terrorism charges for the heresy of insisting that people have a say in the increasingly urgent issue of the climate crisis.

The timing of the sentencing—nearly a full year after the so-called “crime” was committed, was undoubtedly to warn any ne’er-do-wells at the 2010 Cancun Climate Conference of the consequences of messing with the UN.  The UNFCCC does not want the image of being seen as a target for major protests by “civil society” groups and people around the world who are fed up with their inaction.

I first saw them demonstrate this uneasiness at the Climate Conference (COP-14) in December 2008.  During this climate conference, Climate Justice Now!—the alliance of organizations representing social movements, small farmers, fisherfolk and others on the front lines of the climate crisis—held a press conference.  At this press conference it was announced that Climate Justice Now! was joining together with Climate Justice Action to mobilize protests around the world on the opening day of the Copenhagen Climate conference (COP-15) the next year.  Coincidentally, this COP was timed to open on November 30, 2009—the ten-year anniversary of the “Battle of Seattle” where the meetings of the World Trade Organization were shut down by massive street protests.  This was where “Teamsters and Turtles” united to demonstrate the power that could be wielded when movements united to confront their common root causes—in that case, the WTO—the vilified symbol of corporate globalization, or neoliberalism.  CJN announced at the press conference in Poznan that we would be using that auspicious anniversary to organize protests around the world that would expose the similarities between the World Trade Organization and the UNFCCC—which had become the “World Carbon Trade Organization.”

The very next day, the UNFCCC Secretariat announced a change in plans.  COP-15 in Copenhagen would begin exactly one week later—on December 7th.

We had shown them our intentions and they had backed down.

The build up for the actions in Copenhagen created a rowdy spirit of resistance during the negotiations.  The African delegations walked out of the plenary chanting, “Two degrees is suicide!” when developed countries stated they would be unable to agree to any action that would limit overall global warming to less than two degrees.  Indigenous activists marched against the lack of respect given to the rights of Indigenous Peoples—especially with regard to the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) scheme.  The Youth contingent protested almost daily.  When Obama waltzed into the talks to announce his secretly negotiated “Copenhagen Accord,” even the press booed.  The Secretariat could see the writing on the wall when they would have to face off against Latin America’s brand of resistance the next year at COP-16, which was scheduled for Mexico City.

Their response was to move the talks to Cancun, ironically the place where the WTO had met fierce resistance in 2003 and where Lee Kyung Hae, a South Korean farmer, committed suicide by plunging a knife into his heart atop the barricade protecting the WTO from the people.  His act of martyrdom helped kill the talks that year, which fell apart largely over agriculture.

Cancun, overall, is much more defensible than Mexico City and the location chosen by the Secretariat for COP-16 has multiple benefits.  First it is very small, allowing them to reduce the number of observers by around 40% and the number of press by over half.  Second, it is on the beach south of the hotel zone in Cancun, and has a four kilometer radius perimeter.  It will be heavily patrolled and almost impossible to approach without official sanction—aka the UNFCCC accreditation badge.

Before we even got onto the plane to head to Cancun, we were told by allies on the ground that the city is already under siege with military force visible everywhere.

Once more we threatened the UNFCCC with our collective power, and again they chose to hunker down behind fences and military.

Civil society participation at this COP has become almost impossible.  The Secretariat has organized the logistics so that the important delegates are all staying on site at the Moon Palace—site of the negotiations.  The rest of the activities take place at the Cancun Messe, a 20 minute bus ride farther away—when there is no traffic.

In order for the rest of us to access the Moon Palace without taking a $300P taxi is to take the shuttle bus which bypasses the Moon Palace and takes its cargo further south to the Cancun Messe.  From there, one must catch Bus #9 (Number nine, Number nine, Number nine…) back to the Moon Palace.  On the day that I am writing this (from the bus), I have been on the bus for almost two hours and we are not even to the Cancun Messe yet.

AND we have been warned by some of the country delegates that Observers may lose their access to the buses from the Cancun Messe at any time if we misbehave.  They could just shut down bus access for non-Parties (that is NGOs, Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations, social movements, media…people, that is, as opposed to governments).

Business and the market control the UNFCCC and now they have shown their true colors.  We have exposed them.  Now it is time for us to take the power to act against climate change back into our own hands.  They cannot do it.  They will not allow us to participate.  We must find other means.

There is no other choice.

Comments Off on Welcome to Cancun: Police State Anyone?

Filed under Posts from Anne Petermann, UNFCCC

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 | 2010-09-29 · 11:44

An Evening with Evo

By Anne Petermann, Executive Director, Global Justice Ecology Project

On Thursday, September 23rd, Global Justice Ecology Project co-Director/ Strategist Orin Langelle and I traveled to Manhattan for a meeting with Evo Morales Ayma, the Indigenous President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and Pablo Salón, Bolivia’s Ambassador to the UN to discuss the preparations for the upcoming UN Climate Conference in Cancún. Invited to the event were a small number of people representing NGOs, Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations and social movements including Indigenous Environmental Network, La Via Campesina, Grassroots International, the National Family Farm Coalition, and Institute for Policy Studies, among others.

After gathering at the Bolivian Mission on 2nd Avenue, our group of 30 or so negotiated the maze of police barricades and uniformed officers to arrive at the Church Center for the United Nations, directly across the street from the massive UN building.

We waited for an hour or so in the “Boss Room” of the Church Center until news came that President Morales was speaking to the UN General Assembly at that very moment, and would arrive at our meeting as soon as he was finished.  The techies in the room did their best to transmit the live broadcast of Evo’s speech through the LCD projector but managed to finally get it working just in time to hear the applause as Morales exited the stage.

President Morales and his entourage finally arrived, greeting and shaking hands with new friends and old, along the walk to the front of the room.  Pablo Salón opened the meeting with an update on the status of the negotiations going on at the UN General Assembly across the street.  He was not optimistic in where they were headed, and instead emphasized the importance of the upcoming UN Climate meetings in Cancún for advancing the “Cochabamba Accord” and the “Rights of Mother Earth.”  Both of these emerged in April of this year as outcomes from the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth that took place in Cochabamba, Bolivia.  Morales organized the summit to bring together climate justice and Indigenous leaders from around the world to discuss a peoples’ alternative to Obama’s heavy handed and highly undemocratic “Copenhagen Accord” that had been “acknowledged” but not adopted at the Copenhagen Climate Summit last December.  Obama, Salón pointed out, had just that morning at the UN General Assembly pushed his Copenhagen Accord.

Ambassador Salón emphasized that, although language from the Cochabamba agreement had so far been included in the text of the negotiations at the interim climate meetings, it was going to take a major social mobilization before and during Cancún to ensure that the Cochabamba language makes its way into the final text.  This call to mobilize had been raised at the recent Social Forum of the Americas in Paraguay and was being taken up by social movements around Latin America.

Next on the agenda, Representatives from Mexican social movements discussed the plans already being organized for Cancún.  The crux of this long and detailed series of presentations was that, although there have been some differences between the Mexican social movements and organizations in terms of tactics and objectives, (differences which were being exploited by the government and the media), they were trying to put aside those differences to create one unified alternative space in Cancún–a space where social movements of all types could come together and share strategies and information with the aim to advance the struggle for climate justice.

Caravans of social movements to Cancún are being planned from points throughout the Americas.  On the 20th of November, a huge march will take place in Mexico City on the 100th Anniversary of the Mexican revolution.  And on the 7th of December, Via Campesina has called for “Thousands of Cancuns” to take place all over the world.

When President Morales finally spoke, he too emphasized the need to show a united front.  He insisted, “It’s up to us.  If we want the Cochabamba Accord, it will be up to the power of the people.”  He continued, explaining, “I don’t believe very much in governments, but we need an alliance of social movements and progressive governments to find solutions, otherwise the planet is going to cook.  We need a party in Cancun.  We must cool the earth down and heal the earth of her fever.”

When the topic moved on to discussing the advancement of REDD–the UN’s hotly contested scheme to supposedly reduce deforestation by including forests in the carbon market–Pablo Salón explained that REDD will be a major focus of the negotiations in Cancún.  He emphasized that the pro-REDD forces there are stacking the deck, hand picking who will be allowed to participate.  Meanwhile the Mexican government is doing its best to legitimize REDD.  “They are trying to manipulate the process to make it seem like Indigenous Peoples support REDD. REDD will be a crucial battle.  It must be clear that there is no agreement among Indigenous Peoples about REDD.”  He concluded by saying, “Using Indigenous Peoples to legitimize the buying and selling of nature is a big problem and we will do what we can to stop it.”

The consensus of the meeting was that the movements supporting the Cochabamba Accord and the Rights of Mother Earth need a unified message–one that is strongly opposed to carbon markets and against REDD.  But it was also agreed that it is not so much the Cochabamba Accord itself that must be supported, but its ideas and positions.

The final take away message of the meeting was that social movements must continue to organize and coordinate in preparation for Cancún, and that this must include a concerted effort to raise the issues in the media.  As Pablo Salón explained, “We need as much media coverage as possible.”

Those of us who attended are now tasked with taking these mandates to our allies and our constituencies in the countdown toward Cancún.  Global Justice Ecology Project is taking this up and will be focused on connecting mainstream and alternative media with the voices of people resisting the impacts of climate change and fossil fuels, and with the messages of social movements fighting for climate justice.  We will be doing our part to advance the principles of the Cochabamba Accord and the Rights of Mother Earth.

See you in the streets!

Photo: Evo Morales speaks at the Church Center of the United Nations while Cassandra Smithies translates.  Photo: Petermann/GJEP

Comments Off on An Evening with Evo

Filed under Climate Justice, Indigenous Peoples, Posts from Anne Petermann, REDD

Tagged as , ,