--> -->

Mamallapuram Equity Summit, Tag 2 – Urgency & Equity!

Im Laufe des zweiten Tages beim Equity Summit hier in Mamallapuram tauchen wir nun endlich in die „heißen“ Themen ein und identifizieren die Themen, zu denen es noch keinen Konsensus gibt. Dazu gehören beispielsweise Fragen wie:

– Muss ein faires Klimaabkommen lediglich das Recht auf Entwicklung respektieren (do no harm) oder muss es einen eigenen positiven Beitrag zu nachhaltiger Entwicklung leisten?

– Wie gelingt es, einen Globalen Deal so zu designen, dass das 2 Grad Ziel und die darin enthaltene Dringlichkeit nicht gegen das Recht auf Entwicklung ausgespielt werden?

– Welche Art von vertrauensschaffenden Maßnahmen zwischen Nord und Süd braucht es, um vom jetzigen unzureichenden Regime in ein umfassendes und faires zu gelangen? Welche Rechte und welche Pflichten sind darin enthalten und für wen?

– Wie kann man das Recht auf Entwicklung am besten garantieren und was sind Subsistenzemissionen?

Dazu hier kurz der Hinweis auf einen amüsanten Artikel in der heutigen Ausgabe der Times of India. Thema: Stromknappheit in Chennai und die häufigen Ausfälle, die auch täglich mehrmals die Konferenz für wenige Minuten lahmlegen. Titel des Artikels: „Village women won’t miss their favourite TV serials“. Ich zitiere aus dem Artikel selbst: „In villages bordering forests […], evenings and nights without power put residents at huge risk with wild animals prowling the area.“ Tatsächlich geht es hier aber um die Tatsache, dass die Stromausfälle die Bewässerung der Felder erschweren. Ein typischer Dorfhaushalt hier hat einen Fernseher („Our women were complaining about missing their favourite television serials“), einen Schleifstein (Mühle), einen Mixer, einen Ventilator und ein paar Glühbirnen. Stromverbrauch ist minimal. Doch wie sieht die Zukunft aus? Sind das 3 Fernseher, 4 Mixer, 10 Glühbirnen und ein Auto…?

Hierzu wurde heute diskutiert, dass arme Menschen zwar das Recht auf CO2-arme/freie Entwicklung haben, aber nicht die Pflicht, diesem Paradigma zu folgen. Entwicklung unterhalb einer bestimmten Armutsgrenze hat absolute Priorität vor jeglichen Klimaschutzmaßnahmen. In diesem Fall handelt es sich um „Subsistenzemissionen“, die nicht „besteuert“ werden dürfen. Sehr wohl aber haben die reichen Länder die Pflicht, CO2-arme/freie Entwicklungspfade im Süden zu fördern und ermöglichen.

Wer mehr über die Diskussionen des ersten Konferenztages wissen möchte, findet den täglichen Konferenzbericht (zum gestrigen: siehe unten) auf folgender Website: http://www.can-sa.net Dort werden auch die noch folgenden Berichte und weiteren Materialien zur Verfügung gestellt.

CAN Equity Summit Report No. 1
October 20, 2008
Published by Climate Action Network
Mamallapuram, Tamil Nadu, India
With the lighting of the traditional Indian oil lamp – a symbol of solidarity towards a common cause – by representatives of all continents, the CAN Equity Summit got underway.
Summit Coordinator, Sanjay Vashist welcomed the 155 participants from 48 countries to the coastal town of Mamallapuram in South India.
„This is an opportunity for civil society organisation members of CAN and non-members (some 20 NGOs) to meet and resolve climate issues leading to tensions between South and North, rich and poor countries, and CAN and other organisations,“ he said.
Holding the Summit in the South was also the basis to get more participation from Southern countries, he added.
CAN Board member Julie-Anne Richards of Oxfam Australia said the network now had more than 400 members in nearly every country in the world.
„I recognise that we are all here to avoid climate catastrophe by being better equipped to influence the climate negotiations and get a more positive climate deal.“
Tom Athanasiou of EcoEquity was a participant from the first CAN Climate Equity Summit held in Bali, Indonesia in 2001. He informed the audience that a lot had changed since then both politically and within the climate change movement.
„In 2001, a lot of debate was on per capita emission rights. This is no longer the main nexus of the equity debate,“ he said.
There also was a lot of discussion on the 2 degree Celsius and holding the line. „Now we are told we cannot hold the line,“ he added.
This Summit was to engage in a deeper strategic conversation. „The more you know about the climate crisis, the less you believe we are going to get our arms around it,“ he said.
This was a rare and special meeting and there was the need to address the question of „what is fair.“
Three facilitators from Reos Partners, a professional conference facilitation consultancy, then took over management of the event. Participants were informed the Summit would involve multiple level work ranging from plenary sessions, breakaway groups, small table discussions and personal conversations.
This led into the theme of the first day which was Understanding Equity. Participants were asked to deliberate on their understanding of climate equity at tables of five and in two-way dialogues. This was followed by small group discussions on the same question around the three-fold framework of ‘where do we agree‘, ‘where is it ok to disagree‘ and ‘where do we need to resolve tensions‘.
The second half of the day focused on plenary sessions. Speaking on the topic of Science, less than 2 degrees Celsius and Equity, Bill Hare of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Greenpeace International said that based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, it was very likely that climate change can slow the pace of progress towards sustainable development.
„It could (also) impede achievement of the Millennium Development Goals over the next half century,“ he added.
Imogen Ingram of Cook Islands said climate change posed major biodiversity and health risks for her country.
In the next plenary forum on Equity’s Role in Breaking the International Impasse, Antonio Hill of Oxfam International highlighted the principles most important to climate equity. With reference to justice, equity and fairness, he said they were „roughly the same thing.“
Speaking on Equity, Ethics and Survival, Fr. John Brinkman of the Maryknoll Commission on Ecology and Religion, said the map of the most vulnerable countries was a map of developing countries.
„While ecology does not function within economics, economics functions within ecology. Justice for humanity depends on justice for the earth,“ he added.
On the topic of Climate Change and Equity, Ambuj Sagar, Indian Institute of Technology said an equitable approach can break the logjam on the international climate change process.
In terms of the process he asked whether there is a need to „bring developing countries onboard to get a climate deal and make that deal fair“ or „put together a fair and just deal and developing countries will come on board.“
On energy needs for developing countries, he said that over half of the population in developing countries – about 2.5+ billion people – continue to rely on biomass as the primary fuel for cooking. This had serious impacts on their health.
Subsequently, participants were asked to go back to their small groups, review their previous positions and see if they had been modified as a result of the presentations.
Tuesday’s sessions will comprise two plenaries on ‘adaptation‘ and ‘effort sharing‘ followed by related working group discussions, which will then be reported back to the evening plenary.
NOTE: Presentations highlighted here will be posted on the CAN South Asia website. A detailed report on the Summit’s deliberations and outcomes will subsequently be compiled and circulated.

Dieser Artikel wurde unter Entwicklung, Klimabewegung, Klimawandel abgelegt.

Kommentieren