inside:

a multi-stakeholdermagazine on

climate changeand sustainable

development

COP 17 | DAY 118 december 2011

Asia's dominance at COP17 and its stance on climate change

Carbon tax on aviation and shipping fuels: a possible fi nancial source for

mitigating climate change

www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach

OUTREACH IS PUBLISHED BY: OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM

Co-Editors Georgie Macdonald Stakeholder Forum

Sabrina Chesterman Independent Climate Consultant

Sub-Editor Kirsty Schneeberger Stakeholder Forum

Design and Layout Jodie Davies-Coleman Independent Consultant

Online Design and Layout Tom Harrisson Stakeholder Forum

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Outreach is a multi-stakeholder publication on climate change and sustainable development. Outreach is the longest continually produced stakeholder magazine in the sustainable development arena and has been produced at international meetings on the environment, including the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and at COP15 and COP16. Published as a daily edition, in both print and web form, Outreach provides a vehicle for critical analysis on key thematic topics in the sustainability arena as well as a voice of regional and local governments, women, indigenous peoples, trade unions, industry, youth and NGOs. To fully ensure a multi-stakeholder perspective, we aim to engage a wide range of stakeholders for article contributions and project funding.

If you are interested in contributing to Outreach, please contact the team (gmacdonald@stakeholderforum.org or Sabrina@sabrinachesterman.com)

You can also follow us on Twitter: @OutreachCOP17

About Stakeholder ForumStakeholder Forum is an international organisation working to advance sustainable development and promote democracy at a global level. Our work aims to enhance open, accountable and participatory international decision-making on sustainable development through enhancing the involvement of stakeholders in intergovernmental processes. For more information, visit: www.stakeholderforum.org

1 A time of Change – Asia’s dominance at COP 17

2 Responsible for the Past; Responsible for the Future – Asian countries’ climate positions

3 Choosing the Pathway to Sustainability?

4 CLP: Challenges and realities in the wake of a global deal

6 Climate Finance: One Source Won’t Fit All

8 Grassroots women at COP 17

9 ITUC questions UN's decision to hold COP 18 in Qatar

9 Profi le: Mary Robinson

10 Impact of climate change on children

contents.

Richard Black BBC News

Jazmin Burgess UNICEF UK

David Lansley World Vision

John Liu Environmental Education Media Project (EEMP)

Dr. Jeanne Ng CLP Holdings

Philip Pearson

Mary Robinson Mary Robinson Foundation Climate Justice

Felix von Geyer Concordia University, Montreal

Sally Wilkinson GenderCC

41

COP 17 | DAY 11 1

I’m painting with a big brush here. All kinds of deals are possible, with many nuances. Some would be fig-leaves; and ministers are rarely keen to leave any set of talks wearing at least one of those. The big picture is whether any agreement will encompass new commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, set a process leading towards a new legally binding instrument, sort out at least some of the remaining finance and adaptation agenda, and contain some mechanism for tightening existing emission targets to close the gap; in other words, give a fighting chance of implementing the convention fully.

Currently, it’s difficult to read the Chinese signals and, in a negotiation that has many hours to run, that’s entirely normal.

On the one hand, economic growth, and on the other, growing evidence of climate impacts on the country, and a growing sense of the responsibilities stemming from its new global leadership status. With every year that passes, that status grows. It is making more and more investments in Africa, investments that can only pay dividends if Africa’s social and ecological integrity are preserved, which means climate mitigation and adaptation. So what, precisely, is in China’s national interest?

A different but equally important set of questions surrounds the Indian position. As a strong leader of the developing world in many arenas such as trade, do its interests now lie in promoting a strong deal (which need not mean carbon cuts for its own citizens until the 2030s, given its low per-capita emissions) and thereby standing alongside the vast majority of its developing world fellows? Or sticking to the official line that only the West should be legally bound by anything - and thereby risking glacier melt, rising seas and a sharp decline in crop yields; not to mention the wrath of many African and Pacific nations?

The answers matter in these negotiations; but matter far more in the world outside. Simply, without China (and in the longer term, India) being prepared for restraint, there’s little hope of constraining the global average temperature rise within 3 degrees, let alone 2 degrees. Add in all the other smaller but fast-developing Asian nations (Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines) and you begin to see that at the mitigation end of the big picture, if not the adaptation end, Asia is where it matters most.

The rise of Asia on the world stage is creating problems for civil society groups that have traditionally sought to influence the UN climate process. How do you lobby in China, let alone protest? Why are Indian NGOs so unwilling to criticise their government? In the Gulf States, collectively another power player, things are arguably even more difficult. It’s a cultural change that makes life difficult for journalists as well. I’ve never yet managed to get a leak from a Chinese source. And that makes it more difficult for us to inform people who might be interested.

But these are changes we are going to have to get used to, because the current century is set to be an Asian-led one on many issues, including climate change. ■

A time of Change – Asia’s dominance at COP 17

With China shaping up to be the world’s

leading 21st Century economy, it is no

surprise to find the Asian giant at the

centre of attempts to plot a route out of

the tangled tactical web that is COP17.

It’s probably no exaggeration to say that

if China decides to make a deal, a deal

will be made; and the reverse is also true.

Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News

pic: Jon Ng

DAY 11 | COP 172Responsible for the Past; Responsible for the Future – Asian countries’ climate positionsFelix von Geyer Concordia University, Montreal

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Felix von Geyer is a freelance sustainability journalist and lectures Energy Policy at Concordia University, Montreal.

South Korea’s Environment Minister Yoo Young Sook elegantly stated that while South Korea is in many ways considered as a developed country in terms of climate change, this is not by virtue of historical responsibility for emissions. However, Minister Sook accepts South Korea’s responsibility for the future, after all it is estimated that 90% of emissions growth to 2050 will come from developing countries. To this end, Russia seeks flexibility for entry into the Kyoto Protocol’s Annex 1 country listings: Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea could all easily qualify.

Yet there is a diversity of positions among Asia’s varied economies. Pakistan emphasises adaptation, having costed their needs. India also is looking at adaptation and the funding would likely come from the Green Climate Fund pledged under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord.

How the fund will be managed has been a matter of contention for the Durban talks. While China wants a signal from the USA that it is willing to negotiate on a post-2012 deal, the US would prefer a GCF that is run from the World Bank. Developing countries would prefer the Fund’s committee structure to be directed by the Convention of the Parties and its funds governed by the COP or in India’s case, at least guided by the COP.

The difference is more than semantic. The US wants greater commitments from developing Asian countries and refuses to send the signal that China’s 40-45% emissions intensity reduction over 2005 levels by 2020 is sufficient. Developing countries all over the world have missed closing the carbon leakage debate by refusing to adopt sector-based targets by capping the carbon content of fuel against

its energy content.

Instead, positions diverge with rainforest nations like Indonesia and Papua New Guinea seeking to reduce their emissions profile through avoided deforestation, an approach that would achieve the bulk of Brazil’s own 2020 target of 36-39% emissions reductions. Similarly developed countries such as Australia expect to offset much of their carbon emissions through avoided deforestation.

Energy importer Japan’s position is equally curious. It will remain a Kyoto party but will not commit to a second Kyoto period. It wishes to continue to use the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism whose operations it wants to improve. Japan claims to have a clean coal technology that reduces emissions from coal-fired generation by approximately half. Under the CDM, it can only export this to India and China where coal-fired emissions comprise over 50%.

While Japan looks to increase its renewable energy portfolio including its vast geothermal potential from 5% of total energy supply to 20% over the next decade or so, it will also look to create a bilateral offset credit mechanism to offset its emissions as “supplementary to the CDM”, according to Japanese Ambassador Horrie.

For any of these positions to become a reality however, the respective signals that opposing parties must give each other are both a commitment of responsibility for their past as well as a commitment of responsibility for their future.■

Producing a comprehensive climate

agreement at Durban was always far

beyond the horizon with developed

countries like the United States,

Canada, Japan and Russia insisting

on major developing country

emitters from Asia to take binding

commitments. Since the climate

talks started in earnest, the world

is a far different place than in

1992 and any post-2012 agreement

needs to reflect this reality. pic: adoptanegotiator

COP 17 | DAY 11 3

Over time, human beings have created the built environment comprising farms, cities, science and industry, laws and government. Human ingenuity has led to massively increased agricultural yields and the burgeoning human population. Advances in medicine have prolonged life. Complex understanding of physics have allowed us to explore the depths of the oceans and the space surrounding the planet. Many people have begun to believe that we can technologically determine outcomes and are not subject to natural laws. However, as fascinating as our scientific, cultural and artistic accomplishments are they have not occurred in isolation.

Simultaneously we have driven numerous species to extinction, created vast swathes of deserts in many parts of the world, ensured that billions of people are hungry and separated from the global economy, whilst at the same time that for a very few, fabulous wealth has become the norm. We have built a human construct that inevitably leads to biodiversity loss, desertification, poverty and disparity. In short, when we study how human beings have interacted with the Earth’s natural systems we find that in general we have interrupted the long-term evolutionary trends - and disrupted the processes - that are necessary for life. Interestingly and importantly, the outcomes we are currently experiencing have been caused by human

decisions and choices; but it is not inevitable that we must interrupt evolutionary trends. The outcomes are dependent on our understanding and our actions. If we make different choices and act differently we will get very different results. In analyzing the natural systems on which we depend we can see that biodiversity, biomass and accumulated organic matter are requirements for life and living sustainably. Yet these natural systems have been degraded, and due to ignorance and greed humans have built the global economy and society on the assumption that the products and services that we produce and consume are more valuable than these natural systems.

If we are able to understand that natural ecosystem functioning is vastly more valuable than the production and consumption of goods and services and reflect this in our society and economy, we can completely change the trajectory that we have put ourselves on. It is possible to sequester carbon, naturally regulate the water cycle, the weather and the climate, to increase fertility and productivity assuring food security. It is even possible to end poverty and reduce the huge historical disparity between the wealthy and the poor. However, we don’t put much effort into this because we have defined our success as the accumulation of wealth.

Over recent years many scientists have been considering the issue of human self-interest, and John Nash and Elinor Ostrum have both been awarded the Nobel Prize for showing that if humans pursue individual interest to the point where it damages the collective interest, it is no longer in the individual’s interest. This means that individual and collective interest can be seen to be the same. From this perspective it is possible to imagine that human beings must evolve beyond the selfish motivations that have for so long driven us to create war, slavery and colonisation, which has driven numerous species of life to extinction, created huge deserts, allowed some to become fabulously wealthy while billions live in poverty.

What nature shows is that there is a pathway that leads to sustainability. The real question is whether we can evolve beyond greed and supposed self-interest to realise our responsibility to each other and to the Earth. If we cannot achieve this, then the future is in doubt. But if we can achieve this vision then future generations will look back at this time and celebrate the lives of the people who changed the course of human history and ensured that humanity would survive.■

Critically assessing the Earth’s

natural ecosystems helps to explain

why we are experiencing financial

upheaval, biodiversity loss,

desertification, climate change,

migration, poverty and disparity.

The worldwide discussion on climate

change and sustainable development

has strayed far from natural ecology

and now heads towards politics and

markets. This shift fails to inspire

confidence because of a continuation

of the business as usual scenario.

Allowing nature to participate in

the discussion illuminates a clearer

pathway to sustainability; and this

requires looking at our problems from

an ecological perspective.

Choosing the Pathway to Sustainability?John LiuSenior Research Fellow, IUCNDirector, Environmental Education Media Project (EEMP)

DAY 11 | COP 174

At COP 17, and other subsequent meetings, officials need to recognise that climate change is not an isolated issue – stresses to the climate are impacting livelihoods, food and water security, and the global economic structure. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contniues to caution, delays in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions are likely to lead to more severe and frequent extreme weather and climate events in the future. This increases adaptation as an urgent priority, perhaps even higher than mitigation for some countries.

While no international treaty is expected from COP 17, there are confidence-building measures that governments could commit to so that the private sector has the certainty required to make the US$ 2-3 trillion investment needed every year to support climate change and universal access objectives.

With the electricity sector accounting for over 40% of global CO2 emissions—the largest source of carbon emissions—enabling the sector to invest and deploy less-carbon-intensive infrastructure would catalyse efforts to stabilise temperature rise at 2ºC. Policymakers need to recognise that the sector is extremely capital intensive and involves a complex array of interlinked components—power plants, transmission, distribution systems, and end-user equipment—and that any policy measures designed to encourage the sector to move towards less-carbon intensive infrastructure must take into account energy security, affordability, environmental impacts, and the resilience of existing energy infrastructure.

Similar to policy makers, as an investor-operator of power assets in the Asia-Pacific region, CLP has to weigh up a number of factors when making investment and operating decisions. Available technology, electricity costs to customers, supply reliability, fuel-supply security and diversity, government policies, the need for economic returns to capital providers, and the community’s acceptance of a generating technology decades down the road are just some examples.

Despite the absence of a global framework on

climate change, leading companies are striving to

do what they can to support the global low-carbon

agenda. Energy efficiency measures, carbon reduction

targets, and the MRV of environmental performance have been integrated into

the operations of many responsible businesses. While these steps have contributed

to mitigating climate change, the world has reached a

point where certainty at the international policy level is required to unlock the massive amounts of funds

needed to turn a low-carbon, resource-efficient vision

into reality.

Challenges and realities in the wake of a global dealDr. Jeanne NgDirector - Group Environmental Affairs, CLP Holdings

COP 17 | DAY 11 5Additionally, we face a unique challenge of meeting the rising demand for energy, without a corresponding rise in CO2 emissions in a region where coal remains the fuel of choice for electricity generation. The range and weight of these factors is such that investment decisions cannot be taken solely with reference to the associated CO2 emissions implications.

The upward trajectory that we have witnessed in the renewable energy sector would only be sustained if there are solid policies at the international level to underpin national-level policies. As such, we would like to urge officials at COP 17 - and beyond - to lay

the foundation for a global climate change framework that would lead to groundbreaking, rather than slow and incremental, climate mitigation actions and spur the urgent development and implementation of adaptation plans and actions. Establishing more robust investment-grade NAMAs and NAPAs would help encourage the flow of much needed public and private finance.

Specifically, we need clarity on the post-Kyoto Protocol regime. While the future of the Kyoto Protocol is in doubt, the CDM has played a role in driving clean energy investments and it should be preserved until a post-Kyoto regime that includes participation from developed and developing countries and provides certainty on long-term carbon policies is established. Such a regime will help establish a stable carbon price that will kick start much needed investments in clean energy and lead to the adjustment of the true cost of goods and services to the environment.

Officials also need to build upon the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreements and strengthen the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which was established to address the mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. They need to determine the objective, scope and scale of the GCF, the role of the private sector in the GCF, and determine how funds will be raised and administered once the GCF is in place.

As a confidence-building measure, governments need to act on funding and implementing initiatives under the “fast start” finance programme, which is due to expire at the end of 2012 and is intended to jump start the GCF.

Last but not least, at COP 17, governments need to establish a timetable for an eventual international agreement. The International Energy Agency recently warned that the world must take action to reduce emissions by 2017 if we are to prevent catastrophic global warming. It is encouraging that 60% of countries have submitted their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions plans to the United Nations, but more work needs to be done to bring the remaining 40% onboard so that a global agreement could be in sight.

We will welcome a substantive, clear and meaningful outcome at Durban which establishes a global architecture to tackle climate change. However, a poor agreement is worse than no agreement. Participants at COP 17 will need to have the courage and discipline to recognise that a large-scale all encompassing multilateral approach may not be the best route to address this daunting challenge within an increasingly pressing timeframe. ■

While the future of the Kyoto Protocol is in doubt, the CDM has played a role in driving clean energy investments and it should be preserved until a post-Kyoto regime that includes participation from developed and developing countries and provides certainty on long-term carbon policies is established.

DAY 11 | COP 176

Different this time

Why can’t we rely on rich country governments to provide the necessary funds? One reason is the nature of the problem itself. As American political scientists Robert Keohane and Karl Raustiala have noted: ‘Since maintenance of a stable climate is a public good, both theory and history suggest it will be undersupplied.’ So even if countries commit to provide funding, it may not eventuate.

Failure to deliver on funding pledges is not new, but it is a particularly acute problem at the moment. The marked deterioration in the budgetary position of many developed countries has increased the risk that promised finance will be slow to appear, or may not be delivered at all.

Estimates by the OECD of the general government financial position for the 15 largest Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries show only three are in surplus; five countries have deficits over 6% of GDP. Two of the most financially stressed countries in Europe, Ireland and Iceland, have made big cuts in their net official development assistance (ODA) compared to pre-financial crisis levels. So it is going to be hard for a range of developed countries to find substantial extra finance from their budgets beyond the Fast Start period.

A second problem is the long term structural forces complicating the fiscal outlook. In the past it might have been expected that, after a couple of years, the economic pendulum would swing back towards reasonable economic growth, and the current budgetary pressures would ease considerably. But a return to growth is unlikely to solve the problem this time. The reason is debt. It is well known that the debt levels of some of the major western economies are high. Recent work by economists at the Bank for International Settlements put this into sharper perspective. They found that government debt over about 85% of GDP becomes a drain on economic growth. In 2010, 6 of the 15 largest DAC ODA donor countries were over the 85% threshold, as were another four European DAC members. On top of this, some major developed countries have extremely large unfunded pension and health care liabilities. The combination of high debt levels, large

Climate Finance: One Source Won’t Fit All

Money is central to meeting the climate challenge. The

centrepiece of global funding for climate change mitigation

and adaptation is the Green Climate Fund (GCF). It is

intended that, by 2020, the GCF will have the major share of the $US100 billion agreed to at COP16 last year. This may well not be enough, but

ensuring any money gets into the GCF’s coffers (or

even getting the GCF up and running) is a key issue at Durban. A realistic survey

of the global economy now and in coming years indicates

that sufficient and reliable climate funding will have to come from a mix of sources,

and that new sources outside traditional national budget

revenues will need to play a significant part.

David LansleyWorld Vision

COP 17 | DAY 11 7

“ “

The combination of high debt levels, large unfunded liabilities, and in some countries rapidly aging populations, will place considerable pressure on public finances for years to come.

unfunded liabilities, and in some countries rapidly aging populations, will place considerable pressure on public finances for years to come.

In short, then, national budgets cannot be counted on as a reliable source for the full amount of climate finance needed to avoid - and adapt to - dangerous climate change. We need to find new sources of finance that are capable of generating substantial revenue on a sustained basis, and are separate from the budgets of individual countries.

Fortunately, there are several good options. The two most commonly discussed are a tax on the fuel used by international shipping and aviation, commonly referred to as bunkers, and a tax on financial transactions. Unlike a financial transactions tax, bunkers are on the table at Durban.

Putting a carbon price on shipping bunkers is particularly attractive for a number of reasons. Research commissioned by Oxfam and the WWF concluded that a carbon price of $US25 a tonne would raise $US25 billion by 2020, or 25% of the $US100 billion. Not all the $25 billion would be available for the GCF, as developing countries would need to be compensated for higher import prices. But even 60% of $US25 billion is a significant contribution. A carbon price on bunkers has the added advantage of reducing the significant carbon emissions and other pollution from international transport, particularly shipping. The Oxfam/WWF research estimated that international shipping accounts for around 3% of global emissions, about the same as Germany. There is also the advantage that existing international institutions – the International Maritime Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Authority – are capable of monitoring and collecting the revenue. Revenue from bunkers meets the goal of being new and additional to ODA.

The way ahead

The clear implication is that funding to pay for global climate change mitigation and adaptation will need to be from a portfolio of sources. Research commissioned by World Vision Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, and the Climate Institute provides an example of what this might

look like in practice. Based on a 2020 contribution of 2.4% of the $100 billion goal ($US2.4 billion), Australia could meet its international climate finance obligation through some mix of:• a share of government revenue from carbon pricing ($US0.1 to 0.8 billion)• a currency transaction tax ($US1billion)• a carbon levy on shipping and aviation bunker fuels ($US0.2 to 0.5 billion)• direct budget contributions from reductions in fossil fuel levies ($US3 billion plus), a share of resources taxes, and a small share of the existing aid budget, reflecting the overlap between existing aid and climate adaptation programming. On top of this, there would be private sector contributions via capital flows and carbon market finance.

Because of the size of the task and the unusual fiscal position of many developed economies, adequate climate funding will need new sources of revenue.

Both a carbon price on bunkers and a tax on financial transactions (foreign exchange or more broadly defined) needs an international agreement to make them effective, and bunkers negotiations at Durban are moving slowly, not least because they have been linked with agriculture. But both the potential of some new sources to generate significant revenue, and the serious limits on developed countries to finance all the necessary climate funding internally, mean that innovative finance will inevitably play a significant role in the future. ■

pic: (above) Patrick Moore(bottom) Barnabas Crocker

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Lansley is a Senior Economist with World Vision Australia

DAY 11 | COP 178

The women’s singing was a rich and beautiful accompaniment to the dialogue and networking that was generated over the two days – and for those of us at the conference who weren't South Africans, it was a resounding introduction to the cultural heart of the country.

The conference was jointly organised by GenderCC, Women for Climate Justice and the Land Access Movement of South Africa (LAMOSA) and brought together women from all over South Africa, as well as countries including Nigeria, Cameroon, Mozambique, Kenya, Uruguay and Pakistan. It was a chance for women to share their challenges and experiences and voice their concerns on issues relating to climate change and capacity building.

The women identified key areas for action, including education and awareness-raising, access to land and resources and transparency in decision-making. At the conclusion of the conference, participants endorsed a statement to be presented at COP 17 encapsulating their climate change demands.

Many of the South African women stayed on for the first week of COP 17 as part of GenderCC's delegation. These women immersed themselves in the world of the international climate change negotiations – experiencing UNFCCC processes first-hand and sharing their knowledge with a wider

If you had passed by a particular conference venue

in the north-western suburbs of Durban a couple of weeks

ago, you may have been struck by the sound of strong voices – women's voices – singing in unison and harmony. But this wasn't choir practice. This was the Grassroots Women's

Conference on Climate Change, taking place on 24th and 25th

November in Durban.

audience, including as part of the women and gender caucus.

Emily Tjale gave an intervention in the AWG-KP on behalf of GenderCC, urging governments to take the concerns of grassroots communities into account and to secure an ambitious global agreement.

Another of the delegation, Elizabeth Letlhaku, was a presenter at GenderCC's side event, where she talked about the Siphephile Waste Recycling Co-operative, which undertakes projects on recycling, waste management and urban agriculture. Elizabeth gave us an insight into the challenges faced by her co-op – in particular, the urgent need for financial assistance to help the co-op establish itself and keep projects afloat.

Many of the women also took part in events as part of the Rural Women’s Assembly, which overlapped with the first week of COP 17. Their involvement proved to be both capacity building in action and a strong example of how grassroots communities can benefit from participating at an international level.

Women from all over the world are already doing incredible things in their daily lives, and it is critical that their work is recognised and valued. We must support grassroots women and remove financial, cultural and political barriers to enable women to contribute as effectively as possible for the benefit of the climate and their communities.

In listening to the women’s stories throughout COP 17 and hearing the joy and energy in their song, there was no doubt about the transformative potential of these women to play a key role in climate change solutions – both within their communities and on the international stage. ■

Grassroots women at COP 17Sally WilkinsonGenderCC

FOR MORE INFORMATION

The statement from the Grassroots Women’s Conference on Climate Change is available for download at the GenderCC website: www.gendercc.net

COP 17 | DAY 11 9

profile. Mary Robinson

Nationality: Irish

Country of residence: Ireland

Current Position: President, Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice www.mrfcj.org

What prompted your early interest in the environment? My interest in the environment developed from a human rights perspective. During my visits to various developing countries over the years, especially in Africa, I saw again and again how people’s dignity and human rights were undermined - rights to water, food, healthcare, education and shelter. These experiences motivated me to take action. I also chaired the board of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) for four years, which gave me a good understanding of the issues around environment and development.

Favourite quote: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” (Gandhi)

How did you get to the role you are in today and what advice would you give aspiring climate champions? In my previous work with Realising Rights, the need to address the issue of climate change became increasingly clear. This led me to return to Ireland in 2010 and establish the Mary Robinson Foundation - Climate Justice.

I am very encouraged that young people understand the issues of climate change much more than the older generation. Youth have more access to information. They are able to link and connect together and hopefully campaign for urgent decisions

on climate.

What do you believe should be achieved at COP17? • A package that includes the second commitment period to Kyoto Protocol and a commitment to urgent work on a future legally binding agreement, coming into effect in 2015, not 2020• Progress on the Green Climate Fund and on the funding sources for $100bn per year by 2020 • A work programme on agriculture and food security•Strengthening of gender language and representation of women in all the key areas

What do you think the priorities for action should be emerging from COP 17? The main priorities are to secure financing for the Green Climate Fund, commence negotiations for a legally binding agreement under the LCA track; agree a work programme on agriculture; address the gender dimension of Rio+20 and access to sustainable energy for all.

What is your aim within your role for 2012? In 2012, the Foundation will continue the work of the Troika+ of women leaders, ensuring gender balance is achieved in relation to access to energy in the context of Rio + 20. It is also important to promote food security and energy security in the context of both Rio +20 and COP18 in 2012.■

The ITUC is calling on the UN to review its decision to host COP18 in Qatar. Migrant workers, who make up a 94% majority of the Qatari workforce, lack basic labour and human rights, are systematically exploited, often work in health threatening conditions, and may be expelled for forming a trade union. Qatar is also the world’s largest per capita emitter and has been a barrier in climate negotiations.

Labour and human rights are fundamental to the development of independent, self-standing political and civil organisations. The basis of this development is denied to the vast majority of those who live and work in Qatar. Qatari citizens don’t drive taxis, wait on tables or install plumbing. Their economy is dependent on the manual labour of migrant workers hailing mostly from South Asia, the Philippines or more recently East Africa, who make up the majority of the workforce – 87% of the total population (the large percentage of migrants in the Gulf region).

A national Labour Code allows for only one trade union: the General Union of Workers of Qatar, made up of General

Committees or for workers in different trades or industries. Public sector workers as well as non-Qatari nationals are not allowed to organise. Permissible activities are regulated in law, and the Minister of Labour may dissolve any Committee that engages in political activity or distributes materials that insult the state or the government. Government controls the rules and procedures for bargaining, including restrictions on the content, scope, duration and interpretation of the agreements.

The right to strike is recognised, but it is very difficult to carry out a lawful strike. Civil servants and domestic workers are not allowed to strike, and no worker in a public utility, health or security service can strike if it harms the public or causes damage to property. Workers in petroleum- and gas-related industries, seaports and all forms of transportation fall under this category.

The ITUC would welcome the views of Outreach readers who may also share the same sense of concern on this fundamental issue for the UN. For more information please see the ITUC website. ■

ITUC questions UN's decision to hold COP 18 in Qatar

Philip Pearson

10

Outreach is made possible by the generous support of

DAY 10 | COP 17

Children are the least responsible for the causes of climate change and yet are the most vulnerable to its impacts. Climate change presents numerous challenges to child development: increased child malnutrition through changing agricultural yields; greater risk of disease and death through the higher frequency and intensity of natural hazards; and the disruption of education due to disasters and forced migration.

Action at COP on issues such as a long-term vision, the Green Climate Fund, adaptation and emissions reduction are vital for protecting children, and within this, children in Asia are an important part of the process.

UNICEF’s recent research into the impact of climate change on children in East Asia and Pacific has shown just this. Asia and the Pacific is the world’s most disaster-prone region, with 70% of the lives lost to disasters concentrated here. The study which looked in depth at how children were being affected by climate change in five Asian countries (Kiribati, Indonesia, Mongolia, Philippines and Vanuatu) highlighted that children in the region are facing very real challenges from climate change, which vary in nature between countries and regions.

The research highlighted that impacts of climate change in East Asia and Pacific for children vary hugely. In Kiribati, children said coastal erosion was worsening. In Mongolia, children noted harsher winters and declining water resources. In the Philippines, children spoke of more intense rainy periods and in Vanuatu, children reported increased water contamination from saltwater intrusion.

Our findings demonstrated that climate change is having a long-term impact on children in the region. Children in Indonesia, Mongolia and the Pacific have all reported

Governments are convened at COP 17 to

negotiate a new climate regime that

will hopefully protect today’s children

and future generations from increased

climate change and associated impacts.

to UNICEF that climate change has affected their families’ livelihoods and has caused their parents to take them out of school to help collect water and fuel and supplement household income. For example, in Mongolia, more than a third of children spend three to four hours a day collecting water, braving frozen rivers and wells in winter and hauling containers long distances. Many children miss school to accomplish this daily task. As water sources become scarcer across Mongolia, more time will be spent each day by children simply collecting the water families need.

Climate change in East Asia and Pacific is also an important equity issue for children. Findings from the studies indicate that children in poor households or with little access to basic social services are disproportionately more vulnerable because they already lack the resources and opportunities to cope with climate impacts.

Consequenty, there is an urgent need to take adaptation action to help children in Asia survive and thrive in spite of climate challenges. The specific vulnerabilities faced by children in each country will require specific ‘child centred’ adaptation responses. Such responses will need to consider the very different risks children face and ensure their interests can be considered in overall climate responses in the region.

This is exactly why progress at COP will be so vital to the climate impacts faced by children in the region. It is welcoming to see the vulnerabilities of children highlighted in the shared vision text of the LCA and progress on issues such as the Adaptation Committee will be essential for providing a concerted action to help children in regions such as East Asia and Pacific cope with the impacts of climate change. Moreover, establishment of the Green Climate Fund and the associated mobilising of $100 billion a year in long term additional finance will help build a necessary regime of climate finance that will provide the necessary resources to help children and other vulnerable groups survive and thrive in a changing climate.■

Impact of climate change on childrenJazmin BurgessClimate Change Policy and Research Offi cer, UNICEF UK

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Full research can be found here: http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/Publications/Children-and-Climate-Change/