The negotiation of climate change is no longer an environmental negotiation, it is now being turned into an economic negotiation that wants to establish, by international agreement, new technological paradigms and new competitive conditions.

Despite the explicit opposition to include agriculture in the negotiations on climate issues, the newly published draft, of October 5, written under the co-chairmanship of the UN Climate Change Conference – UNCCC-, includes it and down to the plot level. The proposal is dated October 5, but became known only now, a few days before it is discussed in Bonn, Germany, in a series of meetings beginning on October 12, 2015 and that in several sessions, will cook this proposal until November 20. The result will be officially presented to the Assembly in the sessions beginning on November 23 in Paris, France.

The whole proposal is favourable to large multinationals, because it restricts the space for national development policies and would control, under the pretext of climate change, the market participation of countries and producer prices for international agricultural trade. Hopefully Latin American countries will oppose it as a block, because it affects all of them in its regional trade and foreign trade. Even those countries that have signed agreements with Washington that restrict their space for economic policies, may, in this space outside the FTAs, defend a policy space for food sovereignty.

The draft proposal also affects many other countries in Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Middle East, which are also major agricultural producers, that trade agricultural products regionally or are major importers. For Russia, which, after Atlanticist economic reprisals, realized that she must develop her autonomy and economic independence, it should be very important to defend an independent political space to develop her food sovereignty.

The address where the mentioned document can be read, (which, as is usual in these traps, is only in English), is: https://unfccc.int/2860.php

The document identified as "Non paper Draft Agreement" is the draft text to the COP 21 in Paris and contains:

1. Draft Paris Agreement (Section A) and

2. A draft decision to COP-21 (section B)

I recommend reading each article of the draft agreement with the relevant provisions in the draft decision to COP-21.

Any rapid analysis will note that it is intended to set limitations for the agricultural sector, through mitigation criteria, in land use. That is clear from paragraph 5 of Article 3 of the draft Agreement and Section III of the draft decision of COP-21, in particular paragraphs 24, 30, 31 and 3. What it says there would make Agriculture the only sector mentioned in the text that must assume obligations. The draft text avoids any reference to considering not affecting food production or trade, as proclaimed by the 1992 Framework Convention, art. 2.

It is also of the greatest importance to note that in the proposed decision, section III, seeks to control agricultural policies with emissions accounting systems. This is aggravated by the totally unacceptable idea that decisions will be made by majority vote, as established in art. 1 sentence 1 of the draft Agreement and Article 64 of the draft decision.

The whole project approach is based on the deception that seeks to point to agricultural production as responsible for emissions. This is a fabrication that has never been proven, but it has the support of the European Union, the United States and... Mexico. The cause for the attitude of Mexico we prefer to ignore, but that of Washington and Brussels seeks not only to make money from market manipulation, but also to have pretexts that justify at least two things that are currently widely criticized:

a) agricultural subsidies that distort and destroy the economies of poor countries where agriculture is important.

b) new technical barriers to trade in agricultural goods.

Another serious point is that the adoption proposal contained in Article 4, which is the response of those countries that do not revolve around Washington and Brussels, is presented as contrary to mitigation. While the draft decision, Article 30 (e), looks at the transfer of results and emissions trading (the modern indulgences trade) as the solution.

The necessary objective of the draft decision mentioned is to repeal the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, to impose new rules, transferring the cost of reform to emerging and developing countries that are not a constituent part of the polluter economic system run by Washington and Brussels.

The proposal deserves to be rejected and its approval prevented. The Group of 77 (G-77) should be the star in this rejection, but from previous experience we know that some of its members obey instructions from Brussels, which, in turn, reflects the real authors of the proposal. Hopefully, the so-called Developing Country Like Minded Group will prevail and succeed in preventing its approval (LMDC: Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Argentina, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Pakistan, Vietnam and the 5 of ALBA).

Global pollution through toxic emissions and waste is a proven fact that must be faced with urgency, where emphasis should be put on eliminating its production. However, the emphasis is on the effects of CO₂ production, which is not toxic, and is inseparable from the production of oxygen, and is just 3% of the atmosphere and the threat it represents is still a matter of debate among scientists. What must be prevented in Bonn and Paris is that concern for the environment is once again manipulated to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poorest.

Geneva, 14/10/2015