UNDRIP Report - English FINAL - International Forum on Globalization

change and by which they are mitigating climate
change, but this has not been part of the equation. “In
fact,” she said, “the knowledge of indigenous
peoples in terms of adapting and mitigating in their
practice as well as in their own technologies are
really crucial and should be recognized. But that is
not yet the case.” To conclude, she asked how we
would at least bring in these kinds of issues.
David Waskow of Oxfam America responded to the
comments that had followed his presentation. About
the tax issue, Waskow said that one of the
advantages that we actually see in the auctioning
proposal, the auctioning off of emission allowances
at the international level, is that “those allowances
are ones that are identified for Annex-1 countries,
developed countries. Auctioning them would
essentially require polluters in those countries, who
want to be able to emit at the level that those
allowances would allow them, to come and pay for
those allowances,” he explained. Waskow argued
that, yes, it is a form of polluter-pays, and from their
perspective, that is one of its greatest advantages.
“Doing a tax system would perhaps have some
benefits that you don’t get out of that scenario, but
we do think that it is in line with the responsibility of
those who have polluted and are polluting, to
provide redress,” he said.
In response to the question on overlaps, Waskow
said that he thinks there are three kinds of overlap
that we need to be thinking about. One is money, the
second is institutions, and the third is on-the-ground
approaches. In terms of money, one thing that
Waskow thinks we need to have in mind is that there
are now several different objectives identified for
substantial streams of money: “adaptation, REDD,
and clean energy tech, to simplify. It is very plausible
to imagine a situation where there is a zero sum
game, and those begin to compete for available
revenues,” Waskow said. “And I think we need to be
very aware of this dynamic and to, as much as
possible, synergize the demands for funds.”
The question of institutions is one that Waskow
believes is going to be increasingly important. “There
is the Adaptation Fund, and the Adaptation Fund
Board, there are proposals for some kind of clean
energy fund, and there are no doubt going to be
institutional proposals on the REDD front,” he said.
“So the question is: What you do with all of the
different proposals? Do you have separate
institutions for each of these areas? Do you have
some overarching institution? I think that it is tricky
because adaptation is something that requires a lot of
nuance in terms of looking at local situations on the
ground and being able to figure out what is
necessary.” Waskow explained that having a board
of folks who think about that discrete set of issues is
fairly important, but at the same time, there may be
some arguments for having some kind of
overarching system, so that we do not begin having
competing poles and other dynamics that are
unhelpful. “I do not have an answer to that, but I do
think that we need to begin to think these dilemmas
through,” he added.
Waskow then went on to explain that we should also
be thinking about ways in which we can synergize
among adaptation, clean energy and REDD on the
ground. He stressed that we should be thinking
about how to tie these strands together in terms of
what work actually happens on the ground.
In replying to the questions and comments about
technology transfer, Waskow said that a missing part
of the puzzle in a lot of respects has been adaptation
technology. “In thinking about it from an intellectual
property perspective,” he said, “I think it is really a
big missing question. Intellectual property barriers
have been a huge issue, and I think that we need to
keep this in mind as part of what we need to
address.”
Regarding traditional technologies, Waskow thinks
that it is an absolutely critical component and is one
of the missing pieces in terms of even how the
Adaptation Fund has been thinking things through.
“I think we should be thinking through how to
stimulate that as much as possible,” he added.
Jake Schmidt of the NRDC said that in regards to
what is being discussed at international negotiations,
there are three key pots of money. He listed these as
the deforestation, the adaptation, and the technology
incentives pots. Schmidt said that he sees a lot of
synergies across these three areas, and believes that
you can “mix and match them in some places. But,”
he warned, “I think it is also probably in all of our
interests to keep them separate... Because, let’s not
kid ourselves, we who are sitting around the room
are not the ones who are trying to raid those pots. We
are the friends, for the most part. The industry and
the oil and coal guys see that little pot of adaptation
58