Simon Molesworth COP 17

 'If you're an economist, a scientist, someone with a bachelor or arts, an engineer, a lawyer, any of these people that emerge ought to be able to understand that graduating with a degree requires them to be socially responsible.' - Simon being interviewed by Climate Change TV at COP17. 

http://www.rtcc.org/climate-change-tv/unfccc-videos/simon-r-molesworth-qc-adjunct-professor-la-trobe-university/

So as to round off my blogs from COP17, I shall simply quote Minister Combet’s Sunday morning media release regarding his perspective of the outcomes of the COP. As soon as I can, I shall independently analyse the summary that follows and provide my commentary

BREAKTHROUGH AT DURBAN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Greg Combet has welcomed the outcome of the Durban climate change conference which has made a significant breakthrough in tackling global warming.

The historic Durban agreement opens the way to bring all of the world's major greenhouse gas emitters - including the United States and important developing economies like China, India and Brazil - into a new international legal framework for reducing carbon pollution.

In addition, the 194 countries represented at the United Nations conference adopted a package of measures which will consolidate and build on the extensive actions already under way around the world to reduce emissions.

These Durban outcomes are good news for the environment.

They set the world on a path of long-term action to tackle climate change through a regime with wide global coverage and strong environmental effectiveness.

They will complement Australia's carbon price mechanism by boosting confidence in global mitigation efforts, providing a sound basis for investment in clean energy and stimulating growth in carbon markets.   

The Australian Government went to Durban with three key objectives: building on emissions reduction pledges made at last year's UN conference in Cancun; taking the next steps towards a legal framework to cover all major emitters; and promoting market mechanisms to cut emissions in the lowest cost.

Durban has delivered on each of these objectives.

Firstly, it has built on the decisions made in Cancun where 90 countries representing 80 per cent of global emissions made pledges to reduce carbon pollution by 2020 as part of a goal of keeping average temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

In Durban, countries ensured further progress on this agenda by agreeing to:

• Improved transparency and better monitoring, reporting and verification of countries' emissions reduction actions;

• Governance arrangements which will establish a new Green Climate Fund to help developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to climate change;

• Progress the REDD+ mechanism which will reward developing countries for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation;

• Develop new market mechanisms to drive opportunities for low cost greenhouse gas abatement;

• An Adaptation Committee to help developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change;

• Rules for a new Technology mechanism to speed up transfer of low pollution technologies to developing countries.

These initiatives will add momentum to the extensive climate change action already under way around the world and provide a strong foundation for reducing emissions through to 2020. The transparency measures are especially welcome because they will ensure countries deliver on their emissions reduction pledges.

The second achievement at Durban was the adoption of a mandate for parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to negotiate a new legal agreement by 2015. The new agreement would take effect from 2020.

A central element of this mandate is that the new agreement will establish for the first time a common legal framework applying to both developed and developing countries.

This is an important first step towards a comprehensive agreement covering all major economies.

If the agreement is concluded it will see developing countries take on obligations, allowing the world to move on from the Kyoto Protocol's unsustainable divide between developed and developing countries and ensuring all nations do their fair share to cut global emissions.

The US, which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and China have agreed to be part of the new legal architecture. These two countries account for 37 per cent of global emissions, so their decision to join a new international legal framework is a breakthrough. They are also Australia's major trading partners.

The timetable for concluding this agreement will allow parties to take account of the latest science in the next IPCC report in 2014 and the UNFCCC's 2013-15 review of the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees.

As a bridge to 2020, a number of developed countries intend to make new emissions reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol when its current commitment period ends in 2012.

The Australian Government went to Durban saying it would only enter a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol if all major emitters were covered by a new legal framework.

We argued that a broader global solution was needed. The world has now adopted a mandate for achieving this solution.

Australia's third objective of promoting carbon markets was also progressed at Durban.

The Durban decisions will encourage expansion of carbon markets which cut emissions at the lowest cost.

Kyoto Protocol rules will continue to provide for market mechanisms like the Clean Development Mechanism. The Clean Development Mechanism generates carbon credits which Australian businesses will be able to access under the Clean Energy Act's carbon price mechanism.

Australia reached agreement at Durban with the European Union and New Zealand to examine opportunities to link Australia's carbon price mechanism with their emissions trading schemes.

Mr Combet met colleagues from China, Korea and California, where emissions trading schemes are being established, and agreed to share information and exchange expertise.

He also discussed cooperation with Japan and Indonesia on developing carbon markets our region.

Promoting carbon markets and international linking of these markets will benefit Australia's economy by allowing pollution to be reduced at the lowest cost wherever it can be achieved around the world.

Climate change is a global environmental challenge which can only be solved with global action.

The outcomes of the Durban conference will continue driving this action and the Australian Government will continue playing a leading and responsible role in these efforts.

As I flew out of South Africa late last night I came across a report of these words spoken by youth representatives to the plenary. I thought I would quote them so as to help immortalise them in to the history of UN climate change debates:
 “I speak for more than half the world's population.  We are the silent majority. You've given us a seat in this hall, but our interests are not on the table.  What does it take to get a stake in this game? Lobbyists?  Corporate influence?  Money? You have been negotiating all of my life. In that time, you’ve failed to meet pledges, you've missed targets, and you've broken promises.  But you’ve heard this all before. We’re in Africa, home to communities on the frontline of climate change. The world’s poorest countries need funding for adaptation NOW. The Horn of Africa, and those nearby in KwaMashu needed it yesterday.

But as 2012 dawns, our Green Climate Fund remains empty.  The International Energy Agency (IEA) tells us that we have 5 years until the window to avoid irreversible climate change closes.  The science tells us that we have 5 years, MAXIMUM. You’re saying: give us 10.  The most stark betrayal of your generation's responsibility to ours is that you call this AMBITION.

Where is the courage in this room? Now is not the time for incremental action. In the long-run, these will be seen as the defining moments of an era in which narrow self-interest prevailed over science, reason, and common compassion.
Mandela said "it always seems impossible, until it's done".

So, distinguished delegates and governments around the world - get it done.”   
Final representations and meetings

Although I could say that every day has been extraordinary, exciting and stimulating, my last days were almost overwhelming. Having drafted the Victoria Declaration on the Implications for Cultural Sustainability of Climate Change for INTO back in October for the World Congress and having had it subsequently endorsed by representatives of organisations with combined memberships now exceeding eight million people, I knew that the concepts within it were resonating with more and more people. Over the course of the last two weeks over 400 people left their business cards with us at the INTO booth requesting that we follow them up and assist them to assist us in having the views espoused in the Victoria Declaration taken forward. It has been repeatedly said that for too long the social and cultural ramifications of climate change have been ignored. All who have focussed on the proposition have agreed that parties to the UNFCCC are duty to bound by Article 6 to tell the full story – to unambiguously describe the ramifications of climate change for the cultures of the world.

Yesterday I was approached by the representatives of a holy man from India, His Holiness Shri Shri Soham Baba (Babaji) who requested a meeting. I subsequently met the Babaji who explained that he was the master to tens of millions of faithful and that he had embarked upon a life’s path to encourage his followers and world leaders to tackle climate change for global survival of nature. He read the Victoria Declaration then blessed it with a kiss and offered his commitment to see that the sentiments expressed within it are fulfilled. I was then informed that the Babaji had been asked to lead a major religious festival in India in 2013 at which between 60 to 80 million people are expected to attend (it is understood to be likely to be the largest such gathering ever seen globally). The Babaji indicated that he would like to invite my and INTO’s participation as he proposes to call for utter commitment to protect the environment from climate change. An extraordinary proposition; and one that would be beyond parallel in a country facing such environmental challenges as India.

UN Climate Change television – www.rtcc.org/

Before leaving the COP17 premises on my last day, I was asked to give an interview to the official UN Climate Change television wearing my La Trobe University hat as an Adjunct Professor with our Institute for Social & Environmental Sustainability. With a viewing audience of many millions, I was interviewed for some 15 minutes regarding our Institute.

They were particularly interested in the “whole of university” approach to sustainability adopted by University. I was asked to compare this approach to other universities. They asked about the influence on research, whether social benefit should be an objective of tertiary research, whether such a focus produces more ethical and competent professional graduates. I was proud to highlight our Institute’s Sustainability Report and the Green Gown Award the University received in 2010, a first for Australia. They were keen to hear how the University implements its principles in to practice at its campuses and whether it encourages a more responsible attitude amongst the student community and staff body.

This is the last scheduled day of negotiations, yet is absolutely clear that no one will be going home early – in fact, it is understood that the President of the COP has requested the high level representatives of all nations to extend their stay and agree to work throughout the night and in to Saturday so that a more concrete outcome can be achieved. (It is clear from a simple observation of the Australian negotiating team that they are showing signs of exhaustion, with some indicating that the overnight talks extended for some of them to 3am or 4am in the morning).

Since Tuesday afternoon, through Wednesday and to Thursday evening, the world’s environment ministers from over 190 nations addressed the plenary. In contrast to COP15 at Copenhagen where the largest gathering of world leaders ever seen gathered to deliver their respective national addresses (I seem to recall it was 198 leaders), at COP17 only about three dozen presidents and prime ministers spoke, every other country being represented by a minister or ambassador. Today it is scheduled for each of the Intergovernmental Organisations (like the OECD and the African Development Bank) and representatives of a selection of Non-Governmental Organisations (like the World Council of Churches and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability) to address the plenary. However while the addresses are taking place in the plenary, the hardest work is occurring behind the scenes as the ministers, including our Australian Minister Greg Combet, negotiate on literally with their sleeves rolled up trying to broker deals on a multiplicity of issue fronts.

Throughout the exhibition halls this morning we were greeted with reminders of the words of the great Nelson Mandela; “It always seems impossible until it’s done”.

Overnight, a small group of Ministers and negotiators met until 4am to try to move towards a consensus on big picture issues (I believe that Greg Combet was one of them). One negotiator reported that the mood was optimistic but there were no breakthroughs.

The European Union, Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and AOSIS (the Association of Small Island States) issued a common statement in support of an ambitious outcome. The word “ambition” seems to have become a term of art at COP17, although it was admittedly present, but not so stressed at earlier COPs. The collaboration between nations is encouraging – especially when it includes both developed and developing countries – with the push for an ambitious outcome even though details are few and it remains to be seen how this will play out in the final text. The EU has consistently appeared to me to be taking a lead amongst the developed nations, especially with the influence of Germany and the Scandinavian countries.

NGOs remain focused on an outcome that gives the world at least a fighting chance to avoid 2 degree warming above pre-industrial levels – although it is constantly stressed, especially by the Least Developed Nations and AOSIS that we actually need to stay 1.5 degrees. None of the options we currently see on the table will give us that certainty. The future of the Kyoto Protocol and a path to a future treaty that includes the US and the large emerging economies are critically important but we must not lose sight of the importance of a plan to address mitigation now. In my briefing yesterday from the Australian Minister, it is apparent that Australia is taking the stance that the next critical step is to focus on a new agreement from 2015, rather than clinging to the vestiges of the Kyoto Protocol which is now only binding countries emitting about 18% of global carbon emissions. However, as the myriad of strong green voices indicate, the Earth’s atmosphere has no “wiggle room”  and so there is a critical need to address the gigatonne gap even while a Fair, Ambitious and Binding deal alludes the global community.

If the Kyoto Protocol is to have any continuing environmental integrity, any second commitment period must be supported by the major emitters from both the developing and developed world. Without that outcome being possible, with so many major nations walking away from it, the focus must be on an alternative binding agreement – not from 2020, but far sooner, such as 2015. Gaps in time and loopholes in adherence are all feared. The African Group and Tuvalu have a proposal to close loopholes, but such brave cries from the heart (being from countries most likely to be affected) remain on the negotiating table awaiting major support. While governance issues need to be sorted out it looks like the Green Climate Fund will be launched but without any reference to funding sources – Australia has confirmed its commitment to honour its contributions to the Fund – although the absence of defined commitments from many other sources is being described as “an empty piggy bank” which might be a hollow victory. Some, including the Australian negotiators, are working hard to reverse course on long term finance in the final hours here.  

Tensions are palpable in the air in the UN negotiations now that the last two days are upon us all. Leaflets circulating from various green lobby groups are calling for a COP “hero” to emerge, with the plea that if one of the major nations were to break ranks and take a real lead, it might be just enough to encourage others to follow. There is frequent mention that China is showing every sign of being prepared to be more accommodating and that it might be, as the largest emitter of carbon within the developing world (or non-Annex One nations), the nation to take the lead.  

One of the most moving aspects of this COP, indeed it was a feature which I believe I noted in one of my blogs last year from COP16 at Cancun, is the determined strength of young people. Just about every country has a significant “voice” being heard from an organisation of young people demanding more effective action against climate change. In Australia’s case it is the Australian Youth Climate Coalition – www.aycc.org.au – which has a 13 member strong delegation at Durban. At every Australian government briefing, which occurs daily at about 1.45pm, at least half a dozen or more of these AYCC delegates attend in their bright blue tee shirts emblazoned with their slogans and invariably ask the most searching or pointed questions of our Australian Ambassador for Climate Change. I might sound a touch old when I observe that these dedicated young people are showing that they are the life blood of the future, demanding that there be true adherence to the principles of intergenerational equity.

Yesterday when the Canadian Environment Minister arrived on stage to address the major COP plenary (remember that Canada remains the most criticised of all nations participating at COP17), six Canadian youth delegates stood and turned their back on their Minister. The Minister pressed on ignoring the demonstration. In one of the fliers that later circulated it was said: “Canada’s stance, defending the interests in the tar sands, makes action from Canadian youth necessary and urgent. There is no other option – all other avenues for meaningful dialogue have been exhausted. ……the Minister has never claimed he’s here to defend future generations. Youth are here to make their voices heard, and only through collective action can real change be made”.  
Then today, it was turn of a young American woman, Abigail Borah, to make a dramatic entry in to the plenary. Abigail, a member of the SustainUS youth delegation, was ejected from the climate talks today for highlighting the failure of the US Congress to act on climate. Abigail from New Jersey delivered a passionate speech to international ministers and high-level negotiators in the full plenary. She called for an urgent path towards a fair and binding climate treaty and criticised Congress for blocking progress. Borah, said of the negotiators, “they cannot speak on behalf of the United States of America”. In one of those truly moving moments, before she was ejected from giant plenary hall, her delivery was followed by thunderous applause from what seemed to be the entire plenary comprising the ambassadors, ministers and negotiators of just about every other nation.

Immediately afterwards, Chief US negotiator, Todd Stern, called a press conference to try to explain the US position. Meanwhile in the US in a letter to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry Senator and 14 colleagues called for an “ambitious outcome” from Durban.  He said, “With the impacts of climate change occurring more quickly than previously predicted, we are committed to doing our part to transition to a clean energy economy that decreases carbon pollution, creates jobs, and builds resilience in vulnerable communities both at home and abroad.”

While on duty at the INTO COP17 exhibition booth today we received the unexpected visit of the climate sceptic Lord Monckton. He stopped because he read in the banner of the booth “National Trust” and immediately made an erroneous assumption with the words: “Thank God, I’ve found a booth that isn’t banging away about climate justice!”.  Somewhat taken aback a colleague pointed to the opening words of the Victoria Declaration: “The failure to communicate the threat of climate change in terms which describe the dire implications for cultural identity, diversity and sustainability and consequential social degradation fundamentally weakens the prospects for global reform to combat climate change”. Monckton immediately retorted: “you can’t say that: what evidence do you have that there is occurring climate change, apart from natural phenomenon that has been occurring over millions of years”.   With that, I entered the fray where many before me have gone. An hour and 20 minutes later, after a vigorous exchange of views we parted.

The debate between us left me reflecting on the ramifications of people like Monckton espousing the views they do with the confidence of an absolute belief in their interpretation of “facts” as they see it, driven by some sort of righteous indignation that others might question the accuracy of their statements. Our debate ranged far and wide as I queried his assertions and explored the intellectual process of choice – decisions on appropriate action – in the context of a lack of scientific unanimity. Faced with an assertion from Monckton that over the last 15 years global temperatures are cooling and that there absolutely no evidence that any anthropogenic influence on climate, I explored the concept of “evidence” explaining my own approaches as a Queen’s Counsel when inevitably faced with conflicting expert evidence in most cases in my career. We debated concepts of “balance of probability”, “beyond reasonable doubt” and the “precautionary principle”. Although I have frequently read about Monckton’s dogmatic views, today I was, to be frank, quite staggered at the extent of Monckton’s blinkered approach on all issues and when I say “all issues”, I mean it.

With our debate ranging over numerous disciplines in each of which Monckton spoke as though he was a highly qualified expert, I was compelled to inquire about his own training and qualifications. After a lengthy answer, I ascertained that he was an architect by training, which again caused me to muse about the veracity of his views expressed in a “do not challenge me” manner about many fields of science including meteorology, geological, chemistry, oceanography, biology and then in history, economics, sociology and political science. His manner of debate was that of a bully who ploughs on speaking over his opponent until he chooses to latch on to a word that triggers another diversionary tangent in the discussion. Being somewhat experienced as a QC in dealing with experts wishing to give a pre-set answer, I kept returning to key concepts and propositions as I was intrigued to understand more fully the intellectual processes which underpins Monckton’s confidence.

He was adamant that all reputable scientists who have allowed their work to be peer reviewed were in agreement with his views on the fallaciousness of anthropogenic climate change. Pointing out that statistically that assertion is clearly wrong given the very significant majority of climate scientists globally who maintain conclusions diametrically contrary to his, Monckton demanded I produce evidence of the truth of that observation again stressing that unanimously reputable scientists agreed with him. I replied that he was obviously allowing a value judgment on the scientific community to distort his analysis of evidence – he was pursuing a filtering process: in short, that any scientist who held a view contrary to his was not a “reputable” scientist and/or was not a scientist prepared to have their work peer reviewed. Thereby distorting the field of scientists considered, he arrives at the point whereby “all” reputable scientists agree with his views, simply because all others are discounted and thereby excluded from the field of those worthy of being considered.

He repeatedly asserted that all his assessments were based on empiric evidence whilst all those who asserted anthropogenic climate change erroneously relied upon modelling. He asserted good science must always be based on empiric evidence. I pointed out that in an ordered society the making decisions for the future, which quite obviously has not yet occurred, is frequently prospective based on estimates, modelling, analysis of “what might be” and so consequently empiric evidence as to what will occur is logically not available. Therefore, I said, there must necessarily be elements of prospective analysis in most intellectual processes focussed on the future. Simply if we wait until it happens, until we have the evidence, it may all be too late. Monckton asserted I was thereby simply avoiding empiric evidence.

Asking him to analyse the exercise of judgment on the hypothetical basis that scientific opinion was not unanimous, I then explained the application of the precautionary principle in the absence of scientific certainty. I suggested that logically and responsibly, in such circumstances the precautionary principle demanded taking cautionary measures in response to climate change (suggesting he accepts for the sake of the argument the existence of climate change), Monckton repeatedly avoided my frequent return to the logicality of the precautionary principle, saying that he utterly rejected that intervention in any form by government has ever in history succeeded. In effect, he was stating that a consequence of an application of the precautionary principle as I described it might require government intervention.

Monckton repeatedly stressed that there had never been, globally, an example of successful government intervention. I responded pointing out that in my opinion economic history was littered with examples where government intervention had proved its worth. I cited the post-war (2nd WW) economic reconstruction policies of the Australian Governments who funded the Snowy Mountain Hydro Scheme as a means of successfully kick-starting the Australian economy by building the nation’s then largest infrastructure project while simultaneously bringing to Australia 100,000s of migrants on assisted passage to stimulate economic health in a myriad of trickle-down capacities. While admitting he has not studied the SMHS, he ventured the opinion that most probably Australia would have been better off by the private sector being left alone in a free market and that the Governments most probably wasted their money. He said I could not say the SMHS benefited Australia in the absence of empiric evidence of what would have been the alternative scenario had the Scheme not been built.  

Forcing Monckton’s attention back to the precautionary principle, I reflected on the legal structure of ordered societies being predicated on an acceptance that laws guard against the unacceptable happening, even if there is no absolute certainty that the unacceptable will happen. I took the simple example of road traffic laws which regulate the passage of traffic with traffic signals and regulate the speed of vehicles by enforcing speed limits, saying that in the absence of knowing whether more accidents will or will not actually occur, we choose by the exercise of the precautionary principle to take a cautious approach and regulate traffic as described. To my surprise, Monckton asserted that it would be far better if there were no traffic lights anywhere and that drivers should be allowed to exercise their own judgment as to what speed is best. He actually asserted that there were empiric studies that showed unregulated traffic was far safer resulting in fewer accidents. I responded incredulously, pointing out that in Victoria, statistical studies have proved a progressive decline in road deaths over the last couple of decades which has been directly attributed to more rigorously enforced and tougher road traffic laws. Monckton had the audacity to reject my conclusion that there must be a nexus between lesser road deaths in Victoria and tougher traffic laws, making an aside that Australians were notoriously some of the worst drivers in the world and that the lesser road deaths might be attributable to any number of factors.   

Other gems from Monckton which emerged in our debate included the following.
*    There is no evidence that any Pacific Island will ever be submerged by rising sea levels. He said that in fact they will progressively rise as being based on coral atolls, coral is growing and will progressively raise the islands!  
*    With respect to the usage of coal and petroleum oil, there will never be a shortage as there is a millennia or more of current supply and that geological processes are continually creating new coal which most probably is keeping up with human utilisation of the resource.
*    Expenditure of any public funds on renewable energy was an outrage, driven purely by a manipulative process driven by self-interest and that any expenditure of such funding was a total waste as there is no point or merit in supporting such inefficient and ineffective energy production which can never be base load, so coal and gas must continue. The provision of subsidies and grants was a modern outrage and if withdrawn all such renewable projects would collapse proving the unsustainable reality of the industry,
*    In response to my retort that there were many feasible base load renewable energy options, geothermal energy being a prime example, Monckton scoffed saying there was no empiric evidence that such geothermal projects will ever operate without massive subsidies and that in any event “Professor Tim Flannery had caused hundreds of millions of dollars to be sunk in to such a project in Outback Australia, that simply blew up proving the futility of the whole exercise. It’s an outrage!” Given my intimate knowledge of the geothermal energy industry in Australia, having served as chairman of Greenearth Energy Limited for three years, I was flabbergasted by this misrepresentation, not for the least reason that he associated Tim Flannery with the unnamed Australian project that blew up. I indicated to Monckton that it was apparent he was extraordinarily ill informed about renewable energy projects, especially the prospects of geothermal energy.    
*    There is no evidence of sea levels rising, in fact there was a frequently made misinterpretation of the common phenomena of land sinking around the world, such as through hydroscopic withdrawal of underground water along the British coast.
*    There is no evidence of increased desertification globally, in fact for many decades there has been a progressive shrinking of the world’s deserts, such as is the case of the Sahara, with huge areas now becoming green with significant regrowth of vegetation occurring all around the African deserts.    

Time and space does not allow me to continue with a fuller outline of my “discussion” with Monckton. Indeed, in my opinion, there is no merit in doing so, given that it is more of the same, as there is all too much reporting of Monckton’s outlandish views. Sadly the traction that Monckton has gained in the public eye due to the sycophantic approach of much of the media in the UK, Australia and the USA that irresponsibly feeds on the controversy of the man’s stance, has had an obfuscating influence on the public understanding of the reality of climate change and its impacts.   

This evening I was the keynote speaker at a COP17 Side Event – a seminar – entitled “Cultural Heritage in Jeopardy – Social Sustainability at Risk”. The event was convened in the rather atmospheric Greenpeace Solar Tent constructed on Durban’s North Beach foreshore, located near a giant symbolic artificial Baobab tree – the logo of COP17. The Greenpeace Tent is a giant marquee powered by both solar and wind energy and served as an exhibition place and a venue for public for a associated with the COP.

An edited version of my PowerPoint presentation is attached (with the 16 photo slides removed), as are some photos from the Side Event itself.

Please view the presentation here

The active involvement of indigenous people in the COP processes has become one of the key “conscience” foci of the UN climate change debates. It cannot be disputed that almost invariably indigenous people who wish to maintain their cultures, often with a desire to remain connected to the places from whence they originate, are some of the most vulnerable of all people to the likely ravages of climate change. Frequently indigenous people who are maintaining their traditional cultures reside in the developing nations, and in particular in the LDC, “Least Developed Countries” as formally described in the UN Convention discussions.  Even within the Developed Annex One Countries, indigenous peoples tend to be the most economically disadvantaged. Being amongst the most economically disadvantaged in either the Developed Countries or Developing Countries, indigenous people will suffer.

There are numerous Side Events each day at COP17 that focus on the plight of indigenous people, many of which are attended by persons in traditional costume to highlight their presence. There have been numerous instances in recent years of specific gatherings, UN meetings and declarations focussed on the implications of climate change for indigenous people, the most significant being the Anchorage Declaration on Climate Change issued by the World Convention of the Indigenous People’s Forum in 2009 in Anchorage, Alaska.

In a presentation of the Nepali Indigenous Peoples’ perspective on Climate Change and REDD/REDD+, it was observed that there are “about 300 Indigenous People (IPs) with their own special and distinct identity, culture, life styles, language, practice and norms and values who live in this world”. They said that indigenous communities emit least carbon dioxide than other communities. Due to carbon dioxide neutral livelihood practice, IPs have less contribution to climate change. Though their sustainable ways of life with less carbon emission has not been recognised at national and international level, forests, water resources and mines are the means of livelihood for IPs. They state that these communities have been managing and protecting natural resources in a sustainable manner through their unique knowledge, skills and traditional techniques. They also observe that they have continuously been protecting highly endangered creatures and plants.   

About three weeks ago African indigenous people representing herders gathered at a pre-COP conference in N’Djamena in Chad in order agree on their position with respect to climate change. These IPs deliberations were set out in a document brought to COP17: the N’Djamena Declaration on Adaptation to Climate Change, Indigenous Pastoralism, Traditional Knowledge and Meteorology in Africa of 9 November 2011. In this Declaration’s explanatory material it was noted that pastoralism evolved in Africa specifically as an adaptive response to climate and environmental conditions which limited the expansion of agriculture. Pastoralism has co-evolved as diverse cultural and economic systems within ecological niches around Africa. The result has been millennia of managing sheep, camels and cattle in different ecosystems and landscapes throughout long cycles of climatic changes. Pastoralism has always been premised on the need to maintain biodiversity as the underpinning of human and livestock well-being.

The concluding declaration of the N’Djamena Conference observed that: “Climate change in combination with other drivers of declining biodiversity has reduced the effectiveness of pastoral societies to maintain both social harmony and biological resilience. At the same time, the reduction in agricultural capacity will likely lead to increased reliance on pastoralism and agro-pastoralism for African food security”.   

Today I attended the launch of important research from the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism which took place in the EC Pavilion . The report, in the form of a book, “Poles Apart. The international reporting of climate scepticism” was edited by James Painter, the Head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme at the Reuters Institute at Oxford, a former senior journalist with the BBC World Service.

The presentation of the Report involved five of the contributing researchers/writers, including Dr Painter, under the auspices of the British Council, the European Climate Foundation and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.     

Quoting from material released regarding the report, “Poles Apart” is a wide-ranging comparative study on the prevalence    of climate scepticism, in its various forms, in the media around the world. If focuses on newspapers in Brazil, China, France, India, the UK and in the USA, but includes an overview of research on the media of other countries. Interestingly, the discussion at the launch seminar on a number of occasions mentioned how extreme the position had become within the Australian press, with it being noticed that there was a growing bias towards climate scepticism but with a heightened level of hostility and intolerance towards climate scientists who stressed the reality of climate change.

Dr Painter and his research team present a wealth of new data drawn from around 3,000 recent articles on climate change from two newspapers in each of the six countries primarily studied. The report concludes that climate scepticism is largely an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, found most frequently in the US and British newspapers, and explores the reasons why this is so. The study also examines whether climate sceptics are more likely to appear in right-leaning than left-leaning newspapers, and in which parts of a newspaper their voices are most heard. Poles Apart includes a detailed survey of several hundred articles in ten British national newspapers to see where climate scepticism is most to be found, and which individual sceptics and organisations are most quoted.

For those of us who are convinced by the science of climate change that it is a dire reality, the analysis of biased journalism in Poles Apart is sobering to say the least, in fact it is quite depressing. I am aware that there has been a similar study recently released in Australia which examines the reporting of climate change in Australia, with a particular focus on the News Limited and Fairfax papers. Without yet having the chance to review the Australian study in depth, sadly the James Painter observations closely reflect the Australian situation. The challenges faced by those wishing to convey to the public at large the serious need for urgent action in the face of accelerating climate change are bad enough, without the apparent growing obstruction from biased journalism. 

Many nations participating in COP17 use the opportunity to show case their green credentials by maintaining an exhibition booth. Other nations have also grouped together to be part of a collective presentation in major exhibition pavilions – for instance, the African nations have the African Pavilion and the European Commission have an EC Pavilion. These pavilions offer exhibition space for each of the participating nations within their group. They also host Side Event seminars and conferences throughout a fortnight long programme of presentations. I have found attending these Side Events is one of the most instructive means of gaining insights in to the current state of technological innovation, political positioning and/or sociological research – such as the current status of sustainability research – of the host country or host group.

It is very evident that there is stiff competition amongst participating nations at COP17 to demonstrate how “green” are their policies or how responsible they are in comparison with others. So green products are presented/exhibited with much effort being put in to the marketing opportunities which are on offer. Many nations are keen to demonstrate that they are exemplars for adopting mitigation measures and adaptive reforms. The USA and China are particularly keen to demonstrate their credentials, each having their own pavilions and running a full programme of events. Given that the USA and China are continually at the centre of the most heated debates regarding the implementation of the UNFCCC and in particular what arrangements are necessary to give some continuity to the Cancun Agreements in the context of the likely cessation of the Kyoto Protocol without a second commitment period, the marketing of each nation in their respective pavilions is obviously seen as being strategic.  

Yesterday I received a visit at the INTO exhibition booth from members of the Chinese Government delegation, amongst which was Professor Jiahua Pan, Director General of the Institute for Urban & Environmental Studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. They were delighted to discover that I was a professor with our La Trobe Institute and after informing me of their day-long conference scheduled for today “Green Development in China”, they invited me to be a guest presenter during the afternoon focus on “Low Carbon City in China: Exploration and Innovation”. They said they would be honoured for a professor from an Australian University to present an Australian perspective.

Joining a panel of five, three of whom were Chinese professors, I delivered a 20 minute oral presentation briefly outlining the key elements of sustainability in urban design: focusing on the areas of energy conservation and generation, waste management, water management, transport policies, building design and the essential need to consider the sociological needs of humans. I stressed that for designers of low carbon cities to be successful they much ensure that the citizens for whom the cities are designed to live, work and recreate, are treated as willing participants capable of embracing green initiatives so as to engender pride of place and commitment. I talked about facilitating recreational activity, the creation of individual “space” being as important as public space, and the adoption of communal involvement techniques in greening opportunities: such as roof top gardens, urban food production, and the use of waste, including harvesting water for reuse opportunities – all designed to engender a belief in the objectives of a green city, not through compunction but through involvement.

I am repeatedly reminded how challenging it is to make correct decisions regarding sustainable environmental management. Sadly, such decision-making can have life and death consequences, especially when dealing with survival issues regarding food production for sustenance. In the context of our growing understanding of the implications of climate change, repeated examples of declining agrarian economies are emerging, largely impacting on indigenous communities in the most impoverished Developing Nations.

Here at COP17 many “Side Events” (essentially seminars organised by observer organisations) and exhibition booths are focused on efforts to develop sustainable agriculture in a climate changed world. Today at COP17, while positioned in the main exhibition hall at the INTO exhibition booth, in the space of a mere two hours in three conversations I was reminded in no uncertain terms of the difficult challenges and choices in the agricultural field. Reflect on the following and consider the dilemma. agriculture

The first conversations were with two individuals involved with the environmental management of invasive weed species. One person was from “Back to Earth” the focus of which was on indigenous plant landscaping and alien plant control; while the other person was from “Stop the Spread” whose objective was to stop the spread of invasive species in South Africa. Reviewing Stop the Spread’s material I noted their assessment that by reducing or eliminating invasive species Africans would be able to save water, protect biodiversity, protect food supply and thereby help communities. Both advised me that one of the greatest curses in South Africa is the Australian gum tree – the eucalyptus specie.  

A very short while later I found myself conversing with two South African members of parliament who were describing the attributes and challenges of the African countryside/bush. In particular they emphasised the eucalyptus eradication programmes which had in recent years led to the removal of tens of millions of Australian gum trees. I reflected on the likelihood that these gum trees were most likely introduced to South Africa in the belief that they would be a boon to local agroforestry, providing a fast growing hardwood to boost the economy of the region.

A short time later I was viewing publications being distributed by World Vision and in particular was interested to see the promotion of a project in partnership with Australia’s Charles Darwin University which concluded that there is a huge potential for Australian acacias to transform agricultural systems and child nutrition in Niger and more widely in semi-arid Africa. It is explained in the project literature that there is an urgent need to increase the nutritional value of local foods in Niger and other Sub-Saharan countries. There is an urgent need for crops that are better adapted to local conditions in Niger and other semi-arid regions, where climate change is likely to exacerbate stress on the agricultural system.

Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world. 70% of the population is rural and virtually all of this population is dependent upon either farming or pastoralism for their livelihoods. Along with other Sahelian and semi-arid countries, Niger faces growing food insecurity due to a combination of rapid population growth, resource degradation and climate change. At present, staple crops are failing two years in three due to increasingly erratic rainfall patterns and dwindling soil fertility. For poor Nigeriens, crop failure not only represents a loss of livelihoods but also has severe consequences for household nutrition.  

The World Vision endorsed project study concluded that Australian acacias create multiple benefits for the agricultural system: they are drought-tolerant; reduce soil erosion and increase fertility; produce leaf material for mulching as well as wood when pruned; produce livestock feed and nectar for bee fodder. Further, it is observed that acacia seeds are highly nutritious (high in protein and carbohydrates) and safe for human consumption. The concluding observation is that there may be significant opportunities to access international climate change adaption funding, given the need to target vulnerable populations and seed to diversity agricultural systems toward drought-tolerant plants in semi-arid areas, where rainfall is becoming increasingly infrequent and unpredictable.

I suspect no one would deny the good sense, indeed humanitarian need, of urgently helping the people of Niger, in the climate change scenario described above, by supporting the Australian acacia project – despite being cognizant of the downside of uncontrolled consequences of not dissimilar projects in the past, as exemplified by the Australian eucalypt in South Africa.

Canada has emerged as the pariah of the first week of COP17 with it being revealed that the nation is going to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. With no punches being pulled, commentary criticising Canada’s stance has appeared in media releases and statements from dozens of organisations attending the climate change talks in Durban. It has been said that Canada’s attitude can only be seen as an unacceptable breach of trust in the global climate talks, where the vast majority of the world recognises the urgent need for meaningful action on climate change including a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

With its gigantic tar sands oil projects in Alberta, Canada has been accused of acting on behalf of polluters not people. It is alleged that climate and energy policy is focused on rapidly expanding their tar sands production and simultaneously attempting to kill clean green energy policies abroad. In a twist that has greatly angered the European Union, the UK has announced that it will be a customer for Canadian tar sands oil thus allowing such “filthy” petroleum in to the EU, contrary to extant policy.

In a high profile message released in Durban yesterday, a number of the most senior and respected people in South Africa, together with a bevy of influential of SA organisations, called on Canada to act more responsibly. With the signatories led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the text of the message to Canada was as follows:
“Canada, you were once considered a leader on global issues like human rights and environmental protection. Today you’re home to polluting tar sands oil, speeding the dangerous effects of climate change. For us in Africa, climate change is a life and death issue. By dramatically increasing Canada’s global warming pollution, tar sands mining and drilling makes the problem worse, and exposes millions of Africans to more devastating drought and famine today and in the years to come. It’s time to draw the line. We call on Canada to change course and be a leader in clean energy and to support international action to reduce global warming pollution”.   

It is reported that activists demonstrated around the world against Canada’s push to have new markets open up for its tar sands oil – at the expense of the climate, it was alleged. Protestors demonstrated outside the Canadian Parliament, lighting up the Parliamentary lawn forecourt with LED lights spelling out the words “Climate Fail”. Concurrently, demonstrations against the Canadians took place in capitals around the world including Paris, Berlin, Oslo, Stockholm and London.

The environmental lobby commentary has concluded that Canada is isolating itself even more in these COP17 talks as a country that not only is refusing to take meaningful action at home, but also one that has lost the trust and respect of the international community here in Durban and around the world.

The negotiating process on climate change revolves around the sessions of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP), which meets every year to review the implementation of the Convention. The COP adopts decisions and resolutions, published in reports of the COP. Successive decisions taken by the COP make up a detailed set of rules for practical and effective implementation of the Convention. The COP also serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP), which also adopts decisions and resolutions on the implementation of its provision.      


The critical focus at COP17 is whether there will be achieved a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. It is widely argued by Developing Nations that the UNFCCC Annex One Nations (essentially the Developed Nations) should commit to a second 5 year commitment period. The current commitment period - during which Annex One Nations committed to achieve certain carbon emission reduction targets - expires in 2012. There are a multiplicity of complications surrounding the extension of the Kyoto Protocol for a 2nd commitment period – which brought about the stand-off at Copenhagen, with its compromise but nevertheless important Accord, and then the non-binding Cancun Agreements in 2010.

In Cancun some of the essential elements of the Copenhagen Accord were informally incorporated in to the UNFCCC. These Cancun Agreements addressed issues involving mitigation targets which were pledged by all major national economies, including China and India. The Cancun agreements also included provisions to strengthen finance and transparency. Few are optimistic that Durban will achieve a binding outcome, despite the advances that did occur in Cancun where some of the largest emitting nations within the Developing World agreed to “enter the fold” – in particular China and India - by confirming that they intended to reach certain targets, but not in accordance with legally binding commitments under, say, a Kyoto Protocol with an expanded scope beyond Annex One nations.

Commentators here in Durban are repeatedly stating that Durban really represents a last chance for agreeing on global action before it is too late. The in-coming President of COP17/CMP7, the South African Minister for International Relations and Co-operation, Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, said in her welcoming remarks: “Durban is the end of the line for the postponement of key political issues and we seek to facilitate a balanced and credible outcome that is equitable, fair and inclusive. The Party-Driven-Principle has been emphasised on numerous occasions and we cannot be expected to drive the process as incoming COP President, and prescribe the outcome of the negotiations. We need the support of all countries and parties.  We will maintain the integrity of the multilateral process under the UNFCCC by ensuring the operationalizing of the Cancun Agreements as well as a commitment to deal with unfinished business from the Bali Roadmap and Action Plan.  Our wish is for COP17/CMP7 to become an inclusive and transparent platform for the world to take a significant step towards a future climate change regime. All the Parties need to work together to demonstrate that we are taking seriously our responsibility to do what we can to address this global threat”. 

I arrived yesterday morning in Durban, South Africa, the venue for COP17, the UN’s Climate Change conference. Durban, a city of 3.5 million and renown for its fine sunny weather and beautiful surf beaches along its Indian Ocean frontage, is the principal city of KwaZulu Natal Province. The weather seemed to be strangely foreboding as it was overcast, the misty air was almost smog-like and the humidity level was unpleasantly high. This foreboding proved accurate as the clouds gave forth torrential rain from the early evening, that built up strength throughout the night settling in to become a seriously impressive thunderstorm with spectacular lightening displays for hours on end.

As a fresh clear new day dawned at about 4.30am on Monday, lush vegetation in the hilly hinterland suburbs away from the CBD appeared verdant and vigorous with natural springs and runoff releasing water down every hill, cutting and roadside reserve. What was a fresh look in the suburbs became a scene of inner urban mess. News reports revealed that in low-lying areas where poor habitually live on the streets in rundown quarters, the lives of seven unfortunates had been claimed as they could not escape the ferocity of the storm. The detritus of inner urban decay was piled up everywhere while large numbers of obviously poorer Durban people picked their way through mud and flooded roadways – with drains blocked with rubbish – so as to open their market stalls and tawdry shops in what was once an affluent CBD graced with fine old heritage buildings.

Inner Durban has gone the way of cities such as Detroit, where the former commercial and professional quarters have been abandoned to poorer occupants, largely black African suffering very high unemployment. The CBD and the coastal esplanade shown every sign of urban decline, whereas the perimeter suburbs, 30 minutes or more drive from the old city centre, are now the locations of modern satellite commercial complexes.

One could not help but reflect that in a somewhat ironic, indeed symbolic fashion, the death of seven poor people on the streets of Durban due to an extreme climate event on the very day that the COP17 climate change talks began, was a stark reminder of the most likely implications of unmitigated Climate Change amongst the poorest communities the world over.

COP17 is a far smaller exercise than the previous two COPs, in Copenhagen in 2009 and in Cancun in 2010. Although the South African papers state the Conference will be the largest such event that South Africa has ever hosted, on a UN scale it is likely to be about a third of the then much anticipated COP15. In Durban they are expecting 20,000 COP visitors, with some 5,000 official government delegates. Although just on 200 nations will be represented, there is a lower expectation of high-level participation from heads of governments or government ministers, with a figure of just 100 or so being mentioned. There are over 1,400 NGOs represented. Another statistic, reminiscent of the last two COPs where security seemed to be a first-order concern, the local media report that police from all over South Africa have been brought to Durban to create a police presence of some 2,500 force in and around the Durban International Convention Centre venue.