At the beginning of October, the media heralded the signing of a draft agreement to remove 4 dams from the Klamath River. Though widely celebrated as a landmark agreement, it seems our friends at Klamath Riverkeeper still have something to say about it. Peep their Press Release below.

Klamath Riverkeeper Press Release | For Immediate Release

Contact: Erica Terence, Klamath Riverkeeper, office: (530) 627-3311, cell: (530)340-5415, erica at klamathriver.org

September 30, 2009

FINAL DAM REMOVAL AGREEMENT MAY BE OUT BUT DAMS ARE STILL IN
Grassroots group to continue watch-dogging dam removal process until Klamath flows free

Orleans, CA–After years of working toward Klamath dam removal, Klamath Riverkeeper and other grassroots river advocates are reacting to the final dam removal agreement package released today with mixed emotions and a strategy to match.

“We support local stakeholders’ efforts to craft an agreement that works for everyone but it remains to be seen whether this agreement will hold water,” added Terence. She noted that while many of Klamath Riverkeeper’s concerns about the viability and environmental impacts of the draft dam removal agreement have been largely addressed in the final version, some have not.

In August, Klamath Riverkeeper released a 9-point list of concerns about the 2008 draft deal the Klamath-based non-profit wanted to see addressed before lending its support to the final dam removal agreement.

“Language in the final Hydropower Agreement has improved on many points of concern to us, but we’re also analyzing some new language in the agreement,” said Terence. Klamath Riverkeeper is particularly concerned about a new clause that would give California, Oregon, the federal government and PacifiCorp the power to amend the agreement without the consent of other parties under some circumstances.

Terence emphasized that “it’s crucial that tribes and commercial fishermen are included in decision-making related to this settlement.”

Klamath Riverkeeper also remains concerned with the dam agreement’s compliance with the Clean Water Act and is scrutinizing the agreement to ensure that it upholds water quality requirements laid out in the Klamath TMDL, a Clean Water Act pollution clean-up plan currently being finalized on the mainstem Klamath. Another question left by the agreement is who will pay to clean up poor water quality around Keno Dam, Terence said.

“If our concerns are answered, the Klamath settlement could give us a better shot at getting four dams out by 2020 than any other venue. However, there are other ways to get the dams out including legal and legislative tools, and Klamath Riverkeeper will pursue them aggressively if parties to this settlement don’t follow through with their commitments or the process becomes bogged down dealing with loopholes and delays,” said Terence.

She noted that Klamath Riverkeeper will also be working to ensure those measures are implemented and to improve water quality conditions below the dams during the interim period before dam removal is to occur in 2020.

Klamath Riverkeeper has not been a party to the dam removal settlement agreement, electing instead to work towards dam removal by aiming strategic lawsuits and direct action against PacifiCorp and regulatory agencies. Klamath Riverkeeper’s legal work has resulted in the US EPA listing the Klamath River and PacifiCorp’s reservoirs for toxic algae, a listing which made PacifiCorp’s bid for the 401 clean water permit necessary to relicense the dams less realistic and steered the corporation toward a negotiated settlement.

The long-awaited set of final agreements combines a previously negotiated Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement with a finalized Hydropower Agreement between PacifiCorp, California, Oregon, Klamath Basin tribes, and the federal government.

More information on the Klamath dams can be found on Klamath Riverkeeper’s website, including a timeline of Klamath dam removal-related events and Klamath dam removal factsheetst .
KRK’s preliminary analysis of the final dam removal agreement package:

Positive changes in the latest Hydro Agreement:

* Immunity for PacifiCorp has been limited to dam removal, and no longer covers environmental damage such as toxic algae caused by past operations of the dams.
* Many of the backdoors out of the earlier agreement in principle have been closed off, so that dams are more likely to come out in 2020.
* The agreement leaves the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and other environmental protections intact and fully enforceable.
* The agreement provides for other renewable energy sources to replace the small amount of hydroelectricity produced by the Klamath dams.
* The agreement makes the federal government the most likely dam removal agent and directs the feds to come up with a detailed dam removal plan by 2012 based on pre-existing studies and other appropriate data, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission record and Energy Policy Act administrative law proceedings.
* The agreement acknowledges issues on the Trinity River in an effort to better protect the interests of the Hoopa Tribe.
* The agreement states that alternate California funding mechanisms will be explored, and that no party will be obligated to support an entire California bond package, or any projects other than Klamath dam removal.

Questions remaining about the final dam removal agreement package:

* Whether and how the Clean Water Act’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality protections being established right now will be met under settlement.
* If interim water quality measures are voluntary, as the final Hydro Agreement says that they are, how can they be enforced? Those of us who live downstream are still paying the price for non-compliance.
* Who will pay to clean up the polluted reach of river below Keno dam? The agreement doesn’t assign financial responsibility for this task to anyone, while several parties expressly disown the cleanup. Restoring the Keno reach is a key step in bringing the river back to health.
* Oregon and California can still back out of the agreement.
* The feds, states and PacifiCorp are empowered to amend the agreement without other parties in some circumstances. Tribes and commercial fishermen should have votes in all decision-making.
* Drought-planning to ensure that fish and wildlife have enough water in extremely dry years is still incomplete.

More information on the Klamath dams, including a timeline of Klamath dam removal-related events and Klamath dam removal factsheetst .

Thanks Huffington Post for a visit to some of our favorite direct actions

An Indigenous People’s View of the controversial REDD program (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).

Indigenous Environmental Network Report Calls For The Rejection Of REDD In Climate Treaty

INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK

From the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – Bangkok Climate Change Talks 2009, Bangkok, Thailand

Contacts: Tom Goldtooth, + 1 218 760 0442; Andrew Miller: 087 0460335;

Report Calls for the Rejection of REDD in Climate Treaty Indigenous Environmental Network calls for solutions that reduce emissions, protect forests and respect rights

Bangkok – Carbon markets should be eliminated from any future plans to tackle global warming, says a leading group of Indigenous Peoples present in Bangkok at the latest round of UN climate negotiations.

In a report released today, the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) predicts dire consequences for Indigenous peoples, biodiversity and the climate alike if the new, post-2012 climate treaty being debated here allows tradable carbon credits to be produced from projects such as the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) and the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM).

IEN says REDD pilot projects, in which carbon in forests would be sold to industrialized societies as greenhouse gas pollution licenses, are already threatening to sever the connections between Indigenous peoples and the forests they protect.

According to the Food Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 60 million Indigenous Peoples depend on forests for their survival and most forests are found in Indigenous Peoples’ territories. “Indigenous Peoples have been the primary guardians of the forests for generations,” Carlos Picanerai, Secretary General of the indigenous organization, Coordination for Indigenous Peoples’ Self- Determination (CAPI), Paraguay. “Forests are not simply resources to be exploited, they are the sources of our lives and lifestyles.”

According to the report, REDD-type pilot projects have already violated Indigenous people’s rights and exacerbated eviction, fraud, conflict, corruption, coercion and militarization in countries such as Peru and Papua New Guinea.

“We already know that offset schemes like REDD won’t protect forests or the rights of Indigenous peoples,” said Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director of IEN. “If we are going to save the climate, we need to focus on real solutions that assure that forests will be left standing and people’s rights are respected.”

“This is the first time we have a large global delegation of over 100 Indigenous peoples that includes many from the Asian region participating in these UN climate meetings. We are standing strong, lobbying government delegates to adopt language that recognizes the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)with language promoting the provisions of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Without this, there will be no safeguards in the climate negotiations that would ensure that the rights of Indigenous Peoples are protected. However, even if this language was adopted, many developing countries where REDD and CDM projects could be implemented, don’t recognize the self-determination and rights of Indigenous peoples. National efforts to legislate and implement the provisions of UNDRIP could take years. In the meantime REDD would continue to be implemented,” Tom added.

The report say that carbon markets such as REDD and REDD-Plus are false solutions to climate change because they do not bring about the changes needed to keep fossil fuels in the ground. According to studies of climate scientist, James Hansen, “Industrializes countries could offset 24-69% of their emissions via the CDM and REDD….thus avoiding the necessary domestic cuts that are required to peak emissions around 2015.”

IEN and many other Indigenous groups are calling instead for fossil fuel emissions to be reduced, with an aggressive goal towards a zero carbon economy. “Global warming is largely due to the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels, yet for the indigenous communities within our network, it is a “business-as-usual” scenario with the expansion of oil drilling, building refineries, expansion of tar sands development and coal mining with coal energy generation in North America,” Goldtooth says.

Using the forests of the South as a trading commodity within REDD initiatives, gives a carbon credit, or a permit to the polluters of the North to perpetuate toxic pollution, genocide and violate of treaty rights in the homelands of our communities. These petroleum companies use these carbon offset systems as a greenwash,” Goldtooth added.

“As currently formulated, REDD will neither reduce emissions nor save forests,” said Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth. “Indigenous peoples are the most important voices in this process. We need to respect their wisdom and focus on solutions that will make a real difference in reducing forest emissions and saving the climate.”

Indigenous Environmental Network is an Indigenous organization works with Indigenous Peoples worldwide on environmental justice, energy and climate policy issues. To obtain the NO REDD Report and for more information, visit: www.ienearth.org

cross posted from Grist.

Today marked one of the final days of the Bangkok UN Climate Negotiations. With the end of this intersessional in sight, the International Youth Delegation (IYD) has officially declared “No Confidence” in the road to Copenhagen.

With youth delegates from over 30 countries engaging in the Bangkok process, the IYD cited pathetically weak targets from the North, alarm that a second commitment period in the Kyoto Protocol will not be secured, and a lack of guarantees for protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests, in its Declaration. The current text of the draft climate deal is so weak and so full of “false solutions” (measures like offsetting that actually make the problem worse) it is unacceptable.

Youth delegates representing each continent addressed the U.N. today, detailing the urgency of the crisis as it affects their communities currently, telling stories of their hope and organizing alongside their denunciation of the state of play in the UN Negotiations.

This week the Annex 1 (rich countries), attempted to kill the Kyoto Protocol (KP). We are nearing upon the end of the current KP term, and a lack of renewing it means that the world would lose the few legally binding international climate agreements it has (as insufficient as they are). The excuse is that the United States will not sign, and therefore the whole thing should be scrapped and an entirely new deal can be struck on its own. It is lunacy to think that this will yield a stronger outcome, and the G77 (the rest of the world) countries are furious. We have always known the US wont sign the KP; the world cannot continue to wait for the US to get on board. In Bali, the U.S. already committed to setting comparable targets to other Annex 1 countries, so the world could deal with the U.S. in the LCA (Long Term Cooperative Action).

This all amounts to a shell game: more dirty delaying tactics from self-interested countries who are content to strip away basic attempts at an international agreement (for example “compliance” – meaning that the U.S. would have international oversight of its targets, or “top-down target setting” – meaning the international community sets carbon targets together based on science, rather than each countries independently setting their targets based on what their fossil fuel extraction industries dictate).

Allowing the U.S. to drag the world out of existing legal obligations is disgraceful. These negotiations are going backwards.

Make no mistake: Our future is being held hostage to interests that have consistently thumbed their noses at the international community and their obligations to the rest of the world. This process has been polluted by self-interested corporations and nations looking to profit off of our crisis. They have been pushing false solutions that exacerbate rather than fix the problem. Not only are the targets set by rich countries weak, but they are deceptive. Rather than representing actual emissions reductions, they contain unacceptable proportions of offsets, which do not reduce emissions, and displace the burden back onto the developing countries of the world.

(more…)

Think Climate Finance is boring? Think again.

Cross posted from Grist.

Remember when the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund were constantly making global headlines for their fierce opposition from people’s movements around the world? Well, international Finance Institutions (including the World Bank) are rearing their ugly heads again – this time with the U.N. as their vehicle.

Today, more than 50 social movements, trade unions, environmental groups and NGOs from 17 countries issued a statement at the United Nations in Bangkok, where UNFCCC climate negotiations move into their fifth day.

The groups, which include several large international networks, said that rich countries should acknowledge their historical responsibility and the “ecological and climate debts” they owe to developing countries. “Deep, drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, through domestic measures is part of reparations,” the statement said. “They took much more than their fair share of atmospheric space, and in the process denied the people of developing countries – the people of the South – their rightful share. They must give it back.”

photo: Janet Redman

And they’re right. As colleagues here in Bangkok talk about their newly-homeless families from the floods earlier this week in the Philippines, it is undeniable that the economic prosperity of the North is the gift-that-keeps-on-giving to the South – this time around in the form of devastating climate change. Tom Pickens from Friends of the Earth described it like having a fancy four course meal in an expensive restaurant – and then forcing someone walking by on the street outside to pay.

Reparations for these debts, according to Fabrina Furtado from Jubilee South, also include the “complete restoration of territories and ecosystems, reconstruction of basic infrastructure, recovery of social rights, and the restoration of the well being of the peoples of the South.” Reparations must come from public sources.

The groups decried alleged attempts by Annex 1 (Northern) countries to “avoid taking full responsibility” for the consequences of their excessive emissions. In their statement, groups expressed strong opposition to giving any role in climate finance or climate programs to the World Bank, regional development banks and other international financial institutions – and emphasized the need for “a new global fund.”

These views are similar to those of the G77 plus China group, a bloc of more than 130 developing countries in the climate negotiations that considers the World Bank inappropriate for channeling developed countries’ financial obligations under the Convention – largely because of its undemocratic and unaccountable governance structure. The group’s critique of the World Bank and related financial institutions goes even further.

Elena Gerebizza of the Italian NGO Campaign for the Reform of the World Bank said, “The World Bank and other international financial institutions are in large part responsible for the current economic, financial and climate crises. We cannot expect them to play a positive role nor to contribute to real solutions.” “On the contrary,” she added, “these institutions have been pushing false solutions, such as the expansion of the carbon market, which increase financial instability and take away space for serious thinking about real solutions for the climate crisis.”

Whew. United States, ready to listen yet?