Press Conference by Bolivia’s Representative on Cancún Climate Change Agreement

The agreement that emerged from Cancún would not strengthen the Kyoto Protocol, but rather, it would replace it with a much weaker accord at a time when there was need for greater commitment from developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Bolivia’s Ambassador said today.

Speaking at a Headquarters press conference, Pablo Solón said that what had been agreed in Cancún did not guarantee stabilization of the temperature at a limit that protected human life and nature.  Although the accord states that the limit would be 2 degrees Celsius, the reality, however, the pledge by developed countries, upon closer inspection, translated into an increase in the temperature of around 4 degrees Celsius during this century.  That was unacceptable to Bolivia because 300,000 died around the world, owing to natural disasters linked to climate change, and that figure would only increase as a result of Cancún. 

Additionally, between 20 and 30 per cent of the biodiversity would disappear with an increase of the temperature from 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, he said.  That, in turn, would increase global food insecurity, and the 1 billion people presently without sustainable access to food would increase.  Additionally, the glaciers would disappear with a four-degree Celsius increase.

Another important factor underpinning Bolivia’s position at Cancún, he told correspondents, was the lack of resources to support the various mechanisms that had been established, such as the “green fund” and those related to the transfer of technology and adaptation.  While the Cancún agreement undertook to jointly mobilize $100 billion by 2020, he questioned the use of the term “mobilize” instead of “provide” and wondered what mechanism the developed countries would use to mobilize that amount of resources.  Clearly, developed countries were meant to be part of that effort.  In reality, he feared the $100 billion would not be forthcoming from developed countries.

Bolivia believed climate change was a more important issue than defence, security or wars and, as such, it was unacceptable that the military budgets of developed countries — some $1.5 trillion — were 15 times greater than the $100 billion sought under the Cancún agreement for climate change, he said.

“And those $1.5 trillion for security, defence and wars don’t come from market mechanisms, they don’t come from private investment, they don’t come from loans.  They come from the public budget of developed countries,” he said, adding that climate change should be accorded the same treatment as defence and security.

Another issue “imposed” on the meeting was that the World Bank would manage the new “green fund”, he said, adding that, from Bolivia’s point of view, the World Bank was an entity controlled by developed countries and, therefore, did not take into account in many cases the sovereignty rights of developing countries, as over the years, it had applied conditionalities.

With regard to technology transfer, there was now a new mechanism in place, but the key issue of intellectual property rights had not been addressed at all, although it had been discussed for over a year, he said.  For all of those reasons, including a questionable scheme to raise resources for the “green fund”, Bolivia could not subscribe to the Cancún accord.  On a procedural issue, his country also disagreed with the manner in which agreement had been reached, as delegations had not been given the chance to discuss or negotiate it, or make any kind of amendment to it.

Responding to a correspondent’s question, Mr. Solón said Bolivia had put together a team of legal experts to analyse all strategies with a view to prepare the legal steps necessary to bring the Cancún agreement to the International Court of Justice.  An announcement would be forthcoming soon, once the team had finalized its work.  Bolivia was aiming to develop a strategy that would have legal, negotiation and “social movement” components to it.

He added that those three tracks, particularly the third one, would be key in the case the country took to The Hague because it believed the only way there could be a good agreement in Durban to correct what had happened in Cancún was if civil society around the world put enough pressure on Governments to change the position that had prevailed in Cancún — a position that “put business around climate change and not human life around climate change”. 

To another question regarding why Bolivia was the only country to stand up in opposition to the Cancún agreement, and thus, isolate itself from the rest of the world on the question of climate change, he said Bolivia did not feel isolated because evidence from various civil society organizations from around the world was supportive of his country’s position.   Bolivia was not afraid to stand alone when it saw that what was on the table was the endangerment of the future of many human lives because of a “very bad agreement”, he charged. 

He denied assertions that opposition in Cancún would have made agreement impossible.  At the same time, Bolivia was against all vetoes, “especially the vetoes in the Security Council”.  What Bolivia sought was the right to discuss and negotiate a text, “and nobody has the right to put a text in front of a country and say, ‘take it’, and say, ‘Yes’ or ‘Yes’.  That is not acceptable”.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record