Hannah Elvery

This morning was brightened up with a colourful, fantastic action by Young Friends of the Earth Europe.

They've spent months collecting almost 2000 messages on little squares of fabric from people in 30 countries.  After many arduous hours stitching them together into banners and ribbons the outcome was incredible. 

"Act now!  Wrap it up!  Act now!" was the message of the day, with a 2 meter globe being wrapped in a ribbon containing messages of hope and action, to inspire delegates and urge them to 'wrap up' the negotiations.

• See more photos of the event

The individual messages were fantastic, covering everything from more wind power to demands for climate justice and more.  Quite a number in languages I didn't recognise either, which is always good to see (the dominance of the english language in the climate negotiations is appalling).

The great atmosphere and colours of the action meant that not only the ministers who had agreed to come showed up, but also someone from the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a Commissioner from.. well, not really sure where along with crowds of people peering through the windows at us.

The Ministers that came - from Norway, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Germany - were presented with a framed fabric message, and, there even appeared to be genuine excitement from some.

A good job at any rate.  The Young FoE Europe crew are fantastic and a force to be reckoned with.  I'm looking forward to seeing what they're involved in next - although there may not be much more opportunity for action before this climate meeting ends, there are rumours of interesting plans for 2009. If you want to keep an eye on them, or get involved, check out their blog here - http://countdowntopoznhagen..wordpress.com/

On a more serious note though, the negotiations are supposed to end today, and so far there isn't much to be hopeful about. The statements from Ministers started today, which really highlights what is important to different countries and gives an idea of what will come out of this. I spent so much of the day frowning I think I've given myself permanent creases between my eyebrows - and we still have a day of statements to go!

Nevertheless, I'll keep you posted (and try to keep a degree of hope - a necessity if you're going to be involved in this process).

hannah

As it gets closer to the end of two long weeks, many people I've been talking to are just ready to go home.  I'm sure part of it is due to the overcast, rather miserable weather but it's also because the texts that are set to come out of these negotiations are looking far too inadequate.

Yesterday, important wording around the recognition of Indigenous Peoples' and forest peoples' rights was removed from a text on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation(REDD) - a mechanism which I suppose was designed to protect forests, but in its current form can undermine land rights, encourage the conversion of forests to plantations, and reduce the value of forests to their carbon content... among other things.

We remain hopeful that we can get this wording back into the Draft Text, however it was a big blow to Indigenous Representatives here.  Actually, that's an understatement.  There was outrage, tears and anger, particularly at the four countries who opposed the text - Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand.  Not surprisingly, these are the same (only) four countries that voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.

Response came in the form of an impromptu protest, and campaigners raising it with several delegates from Indonesia, Australia, the US and more.  What impact this will have though is uncertain. With Indigenous Peoples having no official voice in the UNFCCC process, it may require a lot more yelling to get their rights recognised not just in the REDD but in all mechanisms which affect rights to land, food and livelihoods.

Yours in solidarity, hope and a hint of depression,

hannah

Photo: Daygots from the Oneida Indian Nation, New York, chanting "No Rights, No REDD".

While the negotiations continued today, many frustrated with the lack of progress inside took to the streets for the International Day of Action on Climate Change.  With plenty of clowns, props and colourful actors it was a good way to let go and have a bit of fun outside the square buildings and fluorescent lights of the negotiating halls.

Being from 'Down under', the best entertainment for me today was watching a conversation between another young woman from Australia, who's here with Australian Youth Delegation, and a fake Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia.  Kevin Rudd was elected late last year, on promises of a change in climate policy, among other things.  He promptly ratified the Kyoto Protocol and then.... well, not much really.  Obviously this is important to me as a citizen of Australia, but the Rudd government's lack of movement also has an impact on the international negotiations.

Australia could have a positive influence in the negotiations.  To start with, Rudd could set strong emissions reductions targets for Australia - at least 40 percent by 2020, not the measly 5-15 percent that is floating around the pages of Australian newspapers. 

Rudd also needs to clearly state that these targets are not dependent on the actions of other countries, and that developing countries should not have binding emission reduction targets.  This would place at least some pressure on other wealthy nations to do the same, and maybe even lead to something coming out of these talks in Poznan.

At the moment, sadly, it looks like this is about as likely the FoE US woman sitting opposite me jumping up on the table and yelling "I love George Bush" (what I'm saying is that it's bordering on impossible, but there's still a chance, especially considering her level of sleep deprivation over the last week, and tendency to make outrageous comments).

Back to the conversation between the young woman and 'Kev' - with all of her questions, such as why he hasn't set a target, and Kev's lack of response, I had to poke him a few times to make sure he wasn't actually the real Kevin Rudd.

I just realised that I got a bit carried away (build up of frustration and caffeine), and haven't written at all about the International Day of Action.  However, a picture says a thousand words, so if you want to know about the actions in Poznan check out Friend of the Earth International's flickr page... http://www.flickr.com/photos/foei/

I hope you had your own fun-packed day of action on climate change.  If not, it's never too late to take action... so how about tomorrow?

hannah

Photo: Poznan, 6 December:  Polar bears with Susann Scherbarth from Friends of the Earth Europe, demanding action during the Poznan climate negotiations

Day four and energy is picking up, despite the cold and dark, and the multitude of viruses that seem to be hitting the participants.  Perhaps it is the lack of natural light...  But inside the negotiating halls delegates and observers are pushing on whether they have tissues clamped to their noses or not.

Over the last few days, there have been working groups on shared vision, as part of a process called the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action.  I was interested in seeing the relationships between parties' positions, particularly as the Group of 77 plus China - a grouping of 132 countries which works as a block at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - have recently developed a strong position on climate and finance technology.  They seem to have quite a united front within the shared vision discussions. 

The process of re-discussing a shared vision however, seems to have a major flaw, as pointed out by a delegate from the Philippines at an event late Tuesday night. A shared vision already exists within the convention!  

Could it be that developed (or Annex 1) countries, are trying to use these discussions to reclassify states as Annex 1 or Non-Annex 1, and therefore push developing countries into accepting mandatory, legally binding emissions reductions targets?  This would be quite convenient, allowing developed countries to escape some of their commitments - most of which have gone entirely unfulfilled - and make countries that don't have a historical responsibility for emissions to accept compulsory emissions targets anyway.

I'm not saying that it's not important to have a shared vision.  Of course this is necessary in order for countries to work together, but isn't the shared vision rather obvious?  I always thought that we wanted to stop dangerous climate change - that is keeping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 350 parts per million CO2 equivalent.

For rich, developed countries this means drastically reducing their own emissions (accepting binding emissions targets), and supporting less financially and technologically capable countries to do the same, without forcing them to reach certain targets. 

The overarching global goal or vision, if it needs to be talked about again doesn't need nine hours of workshops plus more hours in smaller contact groups (more informal spaces where the real details of the negotiations are nutted out).

When it looks like many parties won't even reach their emissions reductions targets or finance and technology transfer promises, isn't it a bit premature to start talking about commitments from developing countries?

It seems that many developing countries are onto this tactic, however, and they won't stand for it.  The shared vision workshops may be over now, but there are still plenty of opportunities for 'developed' countries either to evade or actually live up to their commitments to emissions reductions... we'll keep you posted.

hannah