Civil Society Declaration on Technology and Precaution at COP15 in Copenhagen
Posted by Vito on December 6, 2009 |
Technology transfer is one of the four key topics being discussed under negotiations on Long-Term Cooperative Actions in Copenhagen (the others are mitigation, adaptation and financing). The inter-governmental negotiating text that is under discussion contemplates various measures for accelerating the diffusion of technologies. It will most likely create an ʻAction Planʼ as well as a ʻTechnology Bodyʼ and various technical panels or innovation centres that will prove influential in the coming years in deciding which technologies get financial and political backing. We need to make sure the right technologies get the support they need and the wrong ones are discarded. That wonʼt happen without a comprehensive social and environmental assessment process.
We, civil society groups and social movements from around the world, understand the urgent need for real and lasting solutions to climate change. We recognise the deadly consequences that we all face if these are not achieved. We must urgently strengthen our resilience to meet the climate change challenge while dramatically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Some corporations, individuals and even governments are fostering panic and helplessness to push for untested and unproven technologies, as ‘our only option’. However we do not wish to see a proliferation of unproven technologies without due consideration of their ecological and social consequences. Some technologies being promoted for their capacity to store carbon or to manipulate natural systems may have disastrous ecological or social consequences. Technologies that may be beneficial in certain contexts could be harmful in others.
In many cases, action to address climate change is within our reach already and does not involve complex new technologies but rather conscious decisions and public policies to reduce our ecological footprint. For example, many indigenous peoples and peasants have sound endogenous technologies that already help them cope with the impacts of climate change, and to overlook these existing practices in favour of new, proprietary technologies from elsewhere is senseless.
Technologies assessed as both environmentally and socially sound need to be exchanged. Intellectual property rules should not be allowed to stand in the way. But some technologies that are being promoted as ‘environmentally sound’ have foreseeable and serious negative social or environmental impacts. For example:
* Nuclear power carries known environmental and health dangers, as well as a strong potential for nuclear weapons proliferation.
* Crop and tree plantations for bioenergy and biofuels can lead to large-scale displacement of farmers and indigenous peoples, and destruction of existing carbon-dense ecosystems, thus accelerating climate change.
* Agricultural practices involving genetically modified crops and trees, use of agrochemicals and synthetic fertilisers, large-scale monocultures and industrial livestock-rearing, present dangers to climate, human health and biodiversity.
Intentional, large-scale, technological interventions in the oceans, atmosphere, and land (geoengineering) could further destabilise the climate system and have devastating consequences for countries far away from those who will make the decisions.
* Ocean fertilisation could disturb the food chain.and disrupt marine ecosystems.
* Injecting sulphates into the stratosphere could cause widespread drought in equatorial zones, causing crop failures and worsening hunger.
* Biochar is unproven for sequestering carbon or improving soils, yet strongly promoted by certain commercial interests.
In Copenhagen, a new international body responsible for climate-related technologies is likely to be created and new funds will be made available to it. But so far, the negotiating texts make no mention of the need for this new body to assess the socio-economic and environmental impacts of these technologies (which are frequently trans-boundary), or to consider the perspectives of populations likely to be affected, including women, indigenous peoples, peasants, fisher folk and others.
Precaution demands the careful assessment of technologies before, not after, governments and inter-governmental bodies start funding their development and aiding their deployment around the globe. There is already a precedent in international law: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, ratified by 157 countries, gives effect to this principle on genetically modified organisms. National and international programs of public consultation, with the participation of the people who are directly affected, are critical. People must have the ability to decide which technologies they want, and to reject technologies that are neither environmentally sound nor socially equitable.
We therefore demand that a clear and consistent approach be followed internationally for all new technologies on climate change: States at COP 15 must ensure that strict precautionary mechanisms for technology assessment are enacted and are made legally binding, so that the risks and likely impacts, and appropriateness, of these new technologies, can be properly and democratically evaluated before they are rolled out. Any new body dealing with technology assessment and transfer must have equitable gender and regional representation, in addition to facilitating the full consultation and participation of peasants, indigenous peoples and potentially affected local communities.
To add your organisation’s signature, send email with subject line: Look Before You Leap to Francesca@etcgroup.org
This document is signed by (as of Dec 4, 2009):
Advocates of Science and Technology for the People (AGHAM), Philippines
African Biodiversity Network, Kenya
Agrega the World Rainforest Movement, Uruguay
Asian Women’s Indigenous Network, International
Asociacion ANDES, Peru
Biofuelwatch, UK
BUKO Agrar Koordination, Germany
Canadians for Action on Climate Change, Canada
Centre for Food Safety, USA
Centro Ecologico, Brazil
Friends of the Earth-El Salvador (CESTA), El Salvador
Coalition for Plant-Based Solutions to Feed All, Italy
Amigos de la Tierra Costa Rica (COECOCEIBA), Costa Rica
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach, USA
EcoNexus, UK
Eco Pax Mundi, International
Ecological Society of the Philippines, Philippines
Edmonds Institute, USA
ETC Group, International
Food First, USA
Food Secure Canada, Canada
Forum for Environment, Ethiopia
Friends of the Earth Timore-Leste (HABURAS FOUNDATION), East Timor
Friends of the Earth Australia , Australia
Friends of the Earth –USA, USA
Gaia Foundation, UK
Gender CC- Women for Climate Justice, Germany
Global Justice Ecology Project, USA
Grupo Semillas, Colombia
Indian Biodiversity Network, India
Indigenous Environmental Network, USA
Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Network (IPBN), International
International Centre for Technology Assessment, USA
International Indigenous Peoples’ Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative (IPCCA), International
Kritische Oekologie / ifak e.V., Germany
Mangrove Action Project, USA
National Farmers Union, Canada
NGO Working Group on the Asian Development Bank, International
People & Planet, UK
Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA), USA
Por la Asociacion Ambientalista GUERREROS VERDES A.C., Mexico
Red de Coordinación en Biodiversidad, Costa Rica
Red Ecologista Autónoma de la Cuenca de México, Mexico
Rede de Investigacion em Nanotechnologia, Sociedad e Meio Ambiente (RENANOSOMA), Brazil
Rettet den Regenwald e.V, Germany
Save Our Seed, Germany
SEARICE, Philippines
SmartMeme, USA
STOP GE Trees Campaign, USA
Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, USA
Tebtebba Foundation, International
Third World Network (TWN), Malaysia
Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña (UNES), El Salvador
USC Canada, Canada
Comments
2 Responses to “Civil Society Declaration on Technology and Precaution at COP15 in Copenhagen”
Leave a Reply
December 7th, 2009 @ 2:04 am
“Biochar is unproven for sequestering carbon or improving soils,” WHAT! part of 5000 years of terra preta dont you understand?
December 7th, 2009 @ 3:58 am
Dear Don, I believe there is am important distinction to make between (industrially produced) biochar and terra preta. And even more importantly, an idea which can be a good solution NEED NOT be so when scaled up industrially, especially if the jury is still out, so to speak, on its immediate benefits. Precaution is the keyword here. Let me quote from Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch: “A close look at the literature on biochar left me very concerned. The claims made by people in the International Biochar Initiative, the main biochar lobby group, are not well founded, they are lobbying hard for massive supports through carbon market credits at the international level and nationally. They have been lobbying UN delegates to endorse biochar in the next climate agreement. In the US, a biochar bill was introduced in Nevada just last week and they are keen on biochar carbon offsets funding in the climate bill, allowing the UNCERTAIN carbon sequestration benefit of biochar to be used, via the carbon market, to “offset” the very CERTAIN smokestack emissions, and attain US emissions cap on paper. All of these efforts are based on hype, not science. Both the United Nations Environment Programme and the Royal Society have urged caution, as have over 150 civil society organisations.” And that’s the whole point, reducing emissions and consumption, not trying to find a magic bullet, ought to be priority number one.