Toward the end of the UN climate change summit that took place last December in Copenhagen, Bolivian President Evo Morales announced that his country will hold an alternative people's summit. The summit, which runs this week, came as a response to the weak outcome in Copenhagen: an accord with no legal basis. The Copenhagen Accord, as it is called, received the endorsement of most of the international community, but was strongly rejected by a handful countries, in particular Cuba, Bolivia, Peru, and Venezuela. The reason for those countries' rejection is that the accord--as it stands now--will clearly not save the planet from the catastrophic impact of climate change. Even the countries who have endorsed the accord, including the United States which led the drafting of the document, agree on this point. Nevertheless, endorsing countries believe it necessary to build on what the accord has achieved, develop it further, and transform it into something more meaningful. These countries include the Maldives, which was a leading voice in calling for strong climate action, and the first country in the world committing to become carbon neutral in ten years. The Maldives argues that if we reject the Copenhagen Accord and go back to point zero, we will not have enough time to reach an agreement that can avoid climate catastrophes which could lead to the complete disappearance of some societies, like the Maldives. So it's better to get the strongest commitment we can with an upgraded accord this year, which may be far from ideal, but would ensure the survival of many communities around the world. On the other hand, countries like Bolivia do not see the Copenhagen Accord as a step forward to ensuring the survival of communities and ecosystems on the planet. For countries such as Bolivia countries, action on climate change is not only about survival, but also about justice. They want industrialized countries--who are responsible for most of the world's carbon emissions--to carry a larger part of the "burden" in the fight against climate change. They are calling for a climate justice tribunal to hold rich industrialized countries accountable, and demand they pay their carbon debt. Both of these opinions are valid, depending on how you view the global political situation. We can compare it to a building that is falling with people inside it. The Maldives believes it's too late to prevent the building from falling (i.e. it's impossible to convince developed countries fast enough to avert the projected effects of global warming), and that the priority should be to get as many people out of the building as possible. Bolivia, on the other hand, still believes the building can be saved, and that a completely new agreement that commits developed countries to stronger action must be reached. Of course, either side could be right, depending on the architect examining the building. Both opinions are present in Bolivia, although the climate justice supporters are dominant. Nevertheless, the Bolivian summit will not be a success unless both groups find the space to communicate. If one group dominates the discussion, it will only widen the gap between the two groups. Bearing in mind that a deal at UN climate change negotiations requires consensus from all the countries involved, such gaps will hinder the achievement of any solution. This means if the building falls, everyone will still be inside. This is a challenge, especially for civil society, whose position would be weakened by a lack of agreement in Bolivia, where they will be closer than ever to several country delegates. The meeting in Bolivia provides a unique opportunity for a stronger civil society-government alliance, which can make a big difference in UN negotiations. During the Kyoto negotiations a similar alliance was established, known as the Green Group. This Green Group is the main reason why countries reached agreement on the Kyoto Protocol. It included representatives from developed and developing countries, with varying opinions. The Kyoto Protocol certainly fell short of the goals many wanted to achieve back then, but forming an alliance of countries of various stances still proved to be more effective. Three meetings remain in the lead up to the next UN climate summit in Mexico this December. We will surely need every second of this time to finalize an agreement in Mexico. The summit in Bolivia and other similar initiatives--happening now on an almost monthly basis--can either help or hinder in reaching a strong agreement. Wael Hmaidan is the Executive Director of IndyACT - The League of Independent Activists in Beirut, Lebanon.
