DPI/NGO Annual Conference

AM & PM Meetings

DPI/NGO CONFERENCE AGREES TO 12-MONTH ‘FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION’,

PROPOSING GRASS-ROOTS SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE THREAT

 

Warning that climate change was “one of the most serious threats humanity and our environment have ever faced”, representatives of more than 500 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) meeting at United Nations Headquarters in New York agreed today on a 12-month Framework for Action proposing grass-roots solutions to tackle the effects of global warming before they became irreversible.

More than 1,700 activists, community leaders and environmental experts pledged to unite behind a common vision –- even if they disagreed on tactics -– to develop and implement plans for adaptation and mitigation, taking into account the full range of consequences, wrapping up the annual three-day DPI/NGO Conference, organized by the Department of Public Information (DPI) in cooperation with associated NGOs, which this year focused on “Climate Change:  How it Affects us All”.

Stressing that “we share one planet and its environment, as well as a responsibility to protect the future”, the participants affirmed that climate change was largely a man-made phenomenon, which, without collective global action, could have catastrophic effects on the Earth’s biodiversity, infrastructure and ecosystems, including significantly reduced availability of food, water, energy and transport, as well as irreversible harm to the lifestyles of indigenous peoples, massive population migrations and the possible destruction of entire cultures and small island nations.

During the next year, the representatives pledged to, among other things, act as vocal, active partners for change with the United Nations, Governments and other NGOs, while also developing, implementing and publicizing individual and collaborative action plans for personal, economic and political change.  For the sake of future generations, they strongly recommended that Governments, industry leaders, the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as the whole of civil society, partner behind and implement “concrete solutions…and to promote capacity-building to monitor compliance and report effective practices”.

They strongly recommended that Governments and civil society fostered an ethical, moral foundation for ongoing sustainable development; that academic institutions and media organizations more effectively address climate change issues, focussing especially on youth; and that Government authorities considered penalties for excessive consumption and pollution as a way to boost financing for climate change improvements, as well as financial incentives to foster climate-friendly technologies towards the eventual phase-out of fossil fuels and nuclear-based technologies.

Finally, in order to implement the Framework -- recognizing that views on challenges and opportunities would evolve as the process continued -- the participants requested, that the Framework discussion culminate in an Internet-based progress report to be submitted to the Secretary-General in one year, and that a long-term dialogue for future action be fostered thereafter.  They also requested that the Framework bring together NGOs that might not typically collaborate to address issues closely connected to climate change, such as gender equality, biodiversity and nuclear proliferation, among others. 

A highlight of the meeting was a closing statement by Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the team of top international experts tasked by the United Nations with assessing the science of modern climate fluctuations.  In the first of three landmark reports released this year –- the fourth and final report is expected by the end of 2007 –- the experts delivered a sobering assessment of the future of the planet, concluding for the first time that global warming was real and that human activity was “very likely” causing most of the increase in temperatures since 1950.

“We are no longer dealing with theories or scientific models,” Mr. Pachauri said, presenting some of the major findings of the three working group reports of the Panel.  There was now solid scientific evidence in the form of observations and data, on the basis of which it had been possible to come up with firm conclusion.  Of the 12 warmest years of recorded temperatures in history, 11 had taken place in the last 12 years, so clearly the planet was on an accelerated warming path.

There were also changes taking place in precipitation patterns, manifested by extreme precipitation events, which were now occurring across the globe, and likely to continue.  For example, there were floods in the United Kingdom this year, which perhaps had not occurred for 100 or so years.  In Greece, there were forest fires in the south and floods in the north.  There had been floods in Switzerland and India, and there were many other examples.  Another change had been sea level rise.  The projections for this century were 18 to 59 centimetres.  Even if the figure ended up halfway there, that would be a very serious situation for small island States. 

The most vulnerable sectors of society would be the worst sufferers of the impacts of climate change, he said.  The warmth of the last half century was unusual, at least in the previous 1,300 years.  Most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures was “very likely” or at least 90 per cent certainly, due to greenhouse gas concentrations, which were the result of human activity.  That conclusion in the Panel’s third report was substantially different from that of the second report, which said the warming was “likely”, or with two-thirds certainty, due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change impacts were taking place at different levels of severity and frequency in different parts of the world, he said.  According to some, the danger threshold had already been crossed.  Perhaps the benchmark on what was dangerous should be based on the most affected.  He appealed to the international community to highlight those regions where the impacts would be most severe, and draw the line there.  Climate change was not an emotional or environmental issue; it had very serious economic consequences. 

The world needed to start preparing to adapt, and start reducing emissions, or there would be “extremely serious” complications.  To stabilize the situation, global emissions could be allowed to increase up to 2015, but beyond that they must start declining.  So, the world had to prepare aggressively and ambitiously, and with vision.  He said that the declaration just adopted by the Conference was an inspiring document and, even if 75 per cent was implemented, a large part of the problem would be effectively addressed.

Hailing the Conference as a “remarkable event”, Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, Kiyotaka Akasaka said that 1,726 civil society representatives from 62 countries had participated in the three-day event, including 33 representatives from Africa, 160 from Asia and the Pacific, 16 from Eastern Europe, 45 from Latin America, 24 from the Middle East and Arab nations, 959 from Northern America and the Caribbean, and 309 from Western Europe.  That number represented a 12 per cent increase over last year’s Conference.  He hoped each participant had gained something important.  The responsibility for changing habits and practices “resides in each and every one of us”. 

In closing remarks, Richard Jordan, Chair, sixtieth Annual Conference, thanked all participants, as well as the Department of Public Information, and said that it was the end of the Conference, but hopefully not of the process of combating climate change.  The final speaker of the day, Robert Smith, award-winning author and journalist, read a poem reflecting on the events of the past three days.

Before the Conference wrapped up, four students from the United Nations International School -- Iven Serezhim, Philip Kevin Machoka, Rachel Wong, and Elke Esmeradla Dikoume -- presented summaries of the seven roundtable discussions that had taken place during the session on the following topics, the last two of which were held earlier today:  “Indigenous Peoples, Cultural and Traditional Knowledge”; “Water, Security and Climate Change”; “Coping with Climate Change:  Best Land Use Practises”; “The Economics and Politics of Energy and Climate Change”; “Streamlining the System” and “Sustainable Development, Accountability and Ethical Standards”.

Panel on ‘Sustainable Development, Accountability and Ethical Standards’

Moderating this morning’s panel was Bessan Vikou, a correspondent with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)-Afrique.  He was joined by:  Michele Wyman, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI); Olya Melen, head of Legal Unit, Environment-People-Law (EPL); Tariq Banuri, Director of Future Sustainability Programme, Stockholm Environment Institute; and Firmino Mucavele, Chief Executive, Secretariat of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

Mr. MUCAVELE presented NEPAD’S approach to the challenges of climate change.  Part of NEPAD’s philosophy and strategy was to accelerate economic growth and promote social development, he said.  He reminded participants that the New Partnership was an integrated programme of the African Union developed in partnership with African countries, with the objective of promoting sustainable development in Africa.  It had four dimensions:  economic development; human development; social development; and institutional development.  Environmental issues were considered to be cross-sectional concerns of sustainable development.

Turning to climate change, he said that efforts in the area of mitigation involved actions that limited greenhouse gas emissions, which were critical to reducing the extent and scope of climate change.  NEPAD’s approach included a reduction of dependency on fossil fuels; the introduction of cleaner fuels, such as natural gas and bio-fuels when and where feasible; the promotion of increased use of renewable energy; promotion of energy efficiency; development of efficient public transport schemes; improvement of technology for household lighting and cooking; forest regeneration; and community participation. 

He noted, however, that Africa’s participation to greenhouse gas emissions was negligible; most of that came from developed countries, which must meet their targets to curb the emissions.  Nevertheless, “We in Africa are suffering the effects of climate change, even though we are not the major polluter of this plant,” he said.  Problems had emerged in areas of agriculture and food security.  Talking about climate change in Africa was synonymous with talking about livelihoods and food insecurity.  So, adaptation was considered as a complement to all measures.

NEPAD was also looking at reducing vulnerability to climate risks, he said.  Mitigation was not sufficient; however, adaptation was not an alternative to mitigation.  Adaptation to climate change should be based on a climate risk approach, an ongoing process starting with coping strategies.  Those consisted of climate adaptation and disaster reduction management to agriculture, where there were already problems.  However, that was not the only sector suffering from climate change; nearly every sector of Africa’s economy was sensitive to climate change, and adaptation was needed for all future conditions, such as rising sea levels and severe weather.  Access to high quality information was crucial, as was mainstreaming climate change adaptation into NEPAD’S development work. 

He stressed that adaptation to climate change must be part and parcel of national and regional development planning, and engage the full spectrum of Government.  To benefit developing countries, the process must begin quickly.  That required domestic political adjustments and institutional reforms, for which he called for substantial resources at regional, national and local levels.  The $12 billion put towards that effort so far was not sufficient.  In fact, it was only “a drop in the ocean”, he said.

Mr. BANURI, calling for a development round of climate negotiations, shifted the focus of the discussion onto development, in order to consider how development could be promoted within the climate change agenda.  The science was very simple –- the drivers of change, namely, population and economic growth led to carbon emissions.  More than a certain amount led to a concentration in the atmosphere.  An increased concentration of carbon led to temperature increases.  Many climate scientists believed that 2 degrees Celsius was the maximum safe threshold beyond which catastrophic changes could occur.  Policy worked in the other direction.  It started from the impacts and then asked what could be done about them. 

He said that the world’s people were currently emitting about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year.  To keep the temperature from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius for 100 years, the world could not afford more than an average of 20 billion tons of carbon emissions per year.  So already the world was double where it should be, and that figure needed to be brought down faster.  Taking 50 years to do that was dangerous.  Twelve so-called “tipping points” had been identified, meaning that, if one thing went wrong, that would lead to catastrophic changes.  Take for example the Greenland ice sheet.  If that disappeared, and that probability was very high with a temperature change of 2 degrees, then the monsoons might change, as would the European temperate climate and many other things, all piling up on each other.  By 2035, if the temperature increase continued, the Himalayan glaciers might disappear.  Those supported 1.2 billion people, who would then be faced with famine and mass dislocations and death.  So, tremendous dangers were looming, a number of them foreseen within this century. 

The world should be seen as a single country –- “Earthland” -- and its people as a single community, he suggested.  The population should be limited, as should gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, although “we are addicted to growth”.  A three- to four-fold increase in energy efficiency was projected, but it was still essential to “get the carbon out”.  There should also be a shift to renewable energy, as well as carbon capture and storage schemes.  That was the range of options.  As for the development problem, the question was how to have growth without “killing all of us”.  A development and climate agenda was needed for the South.  Policy needed to be rethought, as well as cost and financing.  Perhaps a 1 per cent tax on the richest per cent of the population could be considered for public sector financing of renewable energy in developing countries in the South.  No matter how it was done, “Let’s not make it a race between economic growth and climate change catastrophe”, he warned. 

Ms. MELEN focused her remarks on the enforcement and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in Ukraine, which had been one of the first countries to have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol, thus undertaking voluntarily obligations to limit its greenhouse gas emissions.  Now, Ukraine would have a unit of greenhouse gas emissions available for sale.  Its economy had been in decline since the 1990s, so it was interested in selling the emissions, which could yield more than $10 billion.  So, Ukraine was planning to trade with other countries.  It would then develop a green investment scheme, which would allow the allocation of such money for environmentally-friendly projects. 

She added that the scheme would be voluntary, it was not foreseen by the Kyoto Protocol, and it should satisfy potential buyers’ concerns that the proceeds would be channelled to programmes that yielded environmental benefits.  In fact, the trading could provide the country with an opportunity to raise significant funds to finance environmentally-friendly projects in such sectors as transportation and agriculture.  Thus, the scheme had benefits from both the environmental and economic perspectives.  Nevertheless, a number of criticisms had been lodged against the project, she acknowledged. 

Ms. WYMAN said that cities were driving a lot of the action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Mitigation and adaptation were critical; however, adaptation was the secondary priority.  Mitigation, first and foremost, particularly in cities in the United States and Europe, was crucial.  Clearly, however, there were barriers to that effort at the local level -- involving elected officials’ willingness to lead the community’s work -– but had the advantages of transparency, trust and public participation. 

She expressed concern at the failure to engage the general public on the issue, noting that more than 75 per cent of the energy consumed on the planet was consumed in urban areas.  Thus, the cities had the great access to effect change, directly and swiftly.  They needed help in evolving systems of accountability, through agreed international standards, which took into account local action.  As regulatory schemes were being negotiated, local action, however, was not accounted for and the voice of local governments was “not sitting at the table”. 

Yet, she continued, cities brought power to the table.  They were quantifying their emissions reductions through a measurable and equitable tool.  That was leap years ahead of other levels of governance.  In Delhi, Berlin, Cape Town, Chicago and New York, it was possible to measure their carbon emissions, as well as what they had reduced.  She did not think those figures were available at the national level.  From an ethical standards point of view, she advocated an agreed international scheme.  Without a common understanding and common language around the challenge, people would only be held in a kind of paralysis.

In the ensuing discussion, Mr. Mucavele addressed his replies to the many questions about NEPAD, reiterating that Africa was one of the continents suffering the most from the impacts of climate change, but polluting the least.  The first goal was to bring Africans together to address the challenge, to understand what was going on, to develop their own ideas and engage all the stakeholders.  Some 15 to 20 years ago, Africa was a continent of wars.  Today, those had been reduced, and it was understood now that peace and security were key to development.  Still, issues of the environment were not always the number one priority. 

Stressing that NEPAD’s focus was human development, he said its concept went beyond material thinking to a vision of the world that included traditional knowledge about the use of human and land resources.  Eighty per cent of Africans lived in rural areas and they already experienced climate change, as their productivity had been reduced.  They were already experiencing an increase in floods and drought, and disease.  So, while the world was discussing climate change, Africa was feeling its effects. 

To another series of questions, Mr. Banuri said his approach was to find a way to collectively ensure that the development process was not interrupted or sacrificed while trying to solve the climate problem. 

Among a further series of questions, a participant focused on the Himalayan melt, saying that China was continuing to earn income from mining contracts in the Himalayan regions.  She asked what countries downstream from China, or countries losing human beings because of acid rain, could do to protect themselves.

Addressing himself to why countries had not recognized the climate change problem earlier and solve it, Mr. Banuri admitted, “We didn’t know it existed”, adding that it was only in 1970s that someone had said it was going on.  In the 1980s, people became “a little bit concerned”.  The extreme predictions made then had now become the “normal” predictions.  In other words, the worst projections were now thought to almost definitely happen.  Unfortunately, the problem came at a time when other pressing problems still had to be solved, namely the development problem.  The development agenda had to stay very much at the forefront, so a very complicated solution to climate change was needed.  He advocated a public sector investment programme.  He was not for or against privatization, but a public sector programme would create a “spine” against which the private sector could coalesce.  Until Governments and the public sector committed themselves, the private sector would “not come in in a big way”. 

On China, he said that, for 60 years, the people of the developing world were told that development would take place, but they did not believe it.  For the first time, in the past five or six years because of China and India, they thought that maybe it was going to happen.  So, he was committed to the momentum of those big countries.  At the same time, he stressed the collective responsibility to advise the Chinese Government and its people on how to do it right, while not derailing a process that had a lot of potential. 

Panel Discussion on Streamlining the System

A morning panel on ways to pare down and strengthen the current global environmental architecture was moderated by Kiyotaka Akasaka, Under-Secretary-General, Department of Communications and Public Information (DPI).  He was joined by Maria Ivanova, Assistant Professor of Government and Environmental Policy, College of William and Mary; Alexey Kokorin, Head of the Russian Climate and Energy Programme of the World Wide Fund; Adnan Amin, Director, United Nations System Chief Executive Board for Coordination (CEB); and Paul Horwitz, Deputy Executive Secretary, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Ozone Secretariat.

Opening the discussion, Ms. IVANOVA said that conventional wisdom held that the international system set up to address environmental issues was designed to be ineffective –- that Governments had set the standard so that there would never be one single environmental agency strong enough to set effective policy, leaving implementation up to States to pick and choose.  Another notion was that the system was a victim of its own success, with countless treaties and declarations signed, and “action plans” aplenty.  The consequence of those views was that they engendered a big “shoulder shrug” and, worse, a reluctance to reform the system or general acceptance that the system was fragmented.  The system, therefore, remained fragmented.

But she believed that the system was so fragmented precisely because it had never had a strong international body at its core.  That body was not UNEP.  In the 1970s when UNEP’s structure was being considered, the thinking had been that environment would not be a “sector”.  So, the rationale was that the international community needed a small, flexible agile body that would be the environmental conscience of the United Nations.  In addition, when UNEP had been set up, the decision was made to fund it voluntarily, because, at the time, developing countries did not have the money to funnel into the cause, and many of those same countries believed that environment as a “northern issue”.

She said that the United States had actually been a leader in the field of environmental protection during the 1970s and had been a major supporter of UNEP’s establishment.  With that in mind, perhaps it was time to stop vilifying the United States and look for constructive ways to bring that country back on board.  It was also time to consider setting up a global anchor organization.  It didn’t need to be big, but it needed to be powerful.  “It needed to be an authority,” she said, with States giving it the proper mandate and financing.  It also needed to work for respect.  None of that could be done without civil society –- not as individual representatives, but as a global movement.  The system for global environmental governance needed serious reform, starting with honesty and vision.

Mr. KOKORIN said that changes in the Arctic not only affected people and species locally, they had global consequences.  Those consequences included permafrost melt, increased global warming, rising sea levels, altered oceanic patters, and, in the near future, perhaps higher levels of methane emissions.  If the Arctic region remained stable, many of the world’s climate change challenges could be kept in check.

It was time for the international community to back the elaboration and adoption of an Arctic environmental treaty to keep the region undisturbed, he continued.  It would not be easy, but it was absolutely necessary.  It seemed as if the Russian Federation considered the Arctic only when it came to oil and gas exploration and extraction.  So, the idea of a binding Arctic treaty was opposed by big Governments and big business.  The idea then was for non-governmental organizations to push Governments to address the issue and to bring it to the United Nations for fine tuning up and eventual adoption.

Mr. AMIN said that, if there was one challenge that touched every single member of the international community, it was the issue of climate change.  At the same time, while every individual and every State needed to find ways to tackle the issue, there was no substitute for global collective action.  That was where the United Nations –- an organization in which everyone had a stake –- could play a role.  Indeed, the United Nations had a long history of dealing with development issues, and it was now becoming clear that global warming had huge socio-economic development consequences.  It was important to take steps in the right direction, but it was also important to remember that a bucket was filled “cup by cup”. 

While he agreed with that it had been the United States, with its civil society galvanized by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring that had led the way, if it had not been for UNEP, the Ozone Treaty and the Climate Change Convention would not exist.  Still, he acknowledged that that era was over and UNEP and the global environmental regime needed to be redefined and strengthened to address the major challenge presented by global warming. 

He said that, in his capacity as the Executive Director, High-Level Panel on System-Wide Coherence, he could attest that the feeling of all the experts and Government representatives that made up that group had been that the environment was the key emerging issue of the twenty-first century.  At the same time, there was also the sense that nobody had a clear answer to it.  The Panel had made an assessment of the United Nations work in the area, focusing only on the three major environmental conventions and their secretariats and had discovered that managing those instruments required 230 meeting days.  When the 7 other global conventions were thrown into the mix, the Panel had to add another 400 meeting days.  That was accompanied by a huge amount of documentation, negotiations and travel.

But, he said, the Panel also discovered that developing countries just did not have the capacity to internalize such complex processes and often felt they were the victims of negotiating regimes of which they were not part and did not understand.  That was an issue that needed to be dealt with.  The system had been configured in a way that did not take into account the lack of expertise, technology and capacity in areas like health and employment in developing countries.

“When do they have the luxury of dealing with environmental issues in their development plans,” he asked.  What was needed was serious leadership from developed countries in emissions reductions and in commitments to address mitigation and adaptation programmes in the developing world.  But none of that could succeed without partnership with the wider international community, especially civil society.

Mr. HORWITZ said that his presentation would perhaps counter some of the pessimism that the participants had heard during the Conference so far.  He focused on the largely successful implementation of the Montréal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of substances believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.  The Protocol included a Multilateral Fund for implementation that provided funds to help developing countries phase out the use of ozone-depleting substances, used in refrigeration, foam extrusion, industrial cleaning, fire safety and fumigation.  The Multilateral Fund had been the first financial mechanism to be created under an international treaty.

Using his daily routine as an example –- from hitting the snooze button on his alarm clock to taking a shower and heading off to work –- he detailed a surprising list of changes to the products and materials used daily that had been driven by the targets set by the Protocol.  He said that those changes had occurred so quickly and subtly that the only one we really recognized was that our deodorants were now roll-ons, instead of aerosol sprays.  He said that it had been an extraordinary effort, largely led by the United States and China, but he firmly believed that similar progress and successes could be achieved in the climate change regime.

Acknowledging that the general view was:  “ozone, easy, climate hard”, he said the Montreal Protocol proved that people made a difference.  Non-governmental organizations made a difference.  They catalyzed global public opinion and Government action.  Now that same theory should be applied to climate change.  At the same time, there needed to be an understanding that the United Nations requirement for absolute consensus on important issues was untenable, because imperfection and incoherence were almost inevitable.  It was a near political miracle when there was agreement in the United Nations system.  But, when there was agreement, it was always on a “fragment”, since it was almost impossible to get Governments to agree on “the whole”.

While it was true that it was sometimes necessary to take a quick win -– filling the bucket cup by cup -- more coherence could be brought to the system.  He called for the creation of an instrument that would allow negotiators to consider the possibility of bringing in issues that were being discussed outside the system.  The United Nations Environmental Management Group could develop a coherence assessment tool that could look at various negotiation processes and decide when to bring outside issues into intergovernmental forums.

Kicking off the interactive portion of the panel, Ms. IVANOVA said that it was not enough to address climate change cup by cup.  “This bucket is too big,” she said.  “We have to go ocean by ocean.”  She urged non-governmental organizations to focus on the big picture.  Mr. AMIN said that, while he agreed that there could be no change unless people dreamed about the way things could be, there were those “in the belly of the beast” that had to look at things at an operational level.  Concrete, innovative incremental steps were necessary to move forward.  Mr. HORWITZ added that the complexity of the issues “freeze the mind”.  It was necessary, therefore, to break off pieces of the problem and work towards solution “one cup at a time”.  Building “a culture of success” in the climate change area was absolutely critical, he said, calling for an end to the pessimism about what the international community had done so far and how it would move forward in the future.

Ms. IVONOVA said that she still believed that, while individuals and small efforts mattered, everyone needed to look at the big picture.  To the other panellists she stressed that people today were thinking in different dimensions.  They saw their neighbourhoods as more than the blocks they lived on.  They saw themselves as citizens of the world.  “They see the ocean,” she said, adding that when there was a crisis there was always an opening for large-scale change.  Mr. AMIN said that what was needed was engagement by everyday citizens to drive public opinion and push for change.  On bringing the United States on board, he noted that California, New York and other states were working hard to reduce their carbon emissions.  Still, perhaps the only way the United States could be swayed would be to stress finances.  Environmental protection made sense and it made money.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record