First, the Ministry for Primary Industries has confirmed that attempting to surf on the carcass of a shark is not a crime:

The Ministry for Primary Industries says it has found no breach of the Animal Welfare Act after complaints over a shark `surfing’ incident.

A spokesperson for MPI said the matter would not be investigated any further.

“We’ve determined that there has been no breach of the Animal Welfare Act as the shark had been dead for around 30 hours before video footage was recorded.”

Three men from the Bay of Plenty caused outrage when footage emerged of one man “surfing” behind a boat on the carcass of the thresher shark which was being towed by its tail.

Bay of Plenty Times, via the NZ Herald.

This is ridiculous on every possible level.  First, if you read the full story, you will see that two fishermen accidentally killed a shark, then decided to tow the carcass back out to sea to dump it.  And, because they’re fun loving, wacky, kiwi blokes they decided to…surf it…out…to sea.  I’m not entirely sure how anyone could come up with that.  Second, the whole Herald story is about how surfing a deceased shark is not a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

Here’s a hint, guys: The Animal Welfare Act 1999 applies to living animals.

And, third, slipped in there without fanfare is the renaming of the Ministry responsible for animal welfare.  The Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, merged with Fisheries etc is now the Ministry for Primary Industries.  Would it be possible to make the ridiculous conflict of interest at the heart of New Zealand’s animal welfare regime more obvious?  The Ministry responsible for promoting primary industries (like, say, industrial farming) is responsible for prosecuting breaches of animal welfare (like, say, much industrial farming).

Wired magazine presents even more shark-related madness though: “Scientists” (hint: they’re not scientists) have mounted a laser on a shark:

Relax, Dr Evil. Your inspired request for “sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached” has finally been fulfilled in the real world.

Marine biologist-cum-TV personality Luke Tipple attached a 50-milliwatt green laser to a lemon shark off the coast of the Bahamas in late April. The escapade was sponsored by Wicked Lasers, a consumer-focused laser manufacturer based in Hong Kong that produces some of the most brilliant — and potentially dangerous — handheld lasers in the world.

“This was definitely a world first,” Tipple told Wired. “Initially, I told them no. I thought it was a frivolous stunt. But then I considered that it would give us an opportunity to test our clips and attachments, and whatever is attached to that clip, I really don’t care. It was a low-powered laser that couldn’t be dangerous to anyone, and there’s actually useful application of having a laser attached to the animal.”

Tipple said the experiment was instructive in a number of ways. For starters, he was able to further test his clamping apparatus, which is typically used for traditional data-aquistion equipment.

Wired.

That’s right.  Clamping a laser to a shark was great scientific research.  Because it helped test the clamp.  Well, that addresses all my animal welfare concerns right there.

A pod of Southern Resident Orca

Recently, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) brought a civil action to have five Orca, named Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka and Ulises, kept in captivity at Sea World in San Diego, California recognised as ‘slaves’ and hence protected by the thirteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For this action to succeed, the court would have to recognise the Orca as legal persons and accept that the thirteenth amendment should apply to them. Sea World has called it “baseless and in many ways offensive” and a “publicity stunt”.

Of course this approach, while garnering a good deal of publicity (even the NZ Herald published an (very basic) article), was doomed to failure. U.S. law professor, David Favre, suggested in a letter to the Associated Press that it is highly unlikely that the substantive matters of the case would even be argued as the plaintiffs will be interpreted as lacking standing. Even if this hurdle were overcome, the judges were very unlikely to consider that the original intention of the drafters of the Constitution can encompass non-humans.

Concern has been expressed by many animal advocates that this sort of publicity stunt runs the very real risk of undermining decades of careful argumentation around the recognition of the legal personality of non-human animals. Pursuing a cause of action that is virtually guaranteed to fail may establish a negative precedent which undermines future attempts to build an animal rights jurisprudence. The Non-Human Rights Project have summed up these concerns particularly well in ‘Ten Tillikum Takeaways‘.

Pioneering animal lawyer, Steven Wise, who has brought a separate action to PETA’s on different, more considered, grounds has reservations about the PETA approach. He has said it is “ill-conceived, impossible to win, and capable of damaging future animal rights legal law cases”, going further to suggest that PETA is plowing ahead because “it wants the case ‘to go down in history as the first time that a U.S. court considers constitutional rights for animals.’ Winning is beside the point.”

On January 26, over the objections of PETA and SeaWorld, Southern California District Court Judge Jeffrey T. Miller granted the request of Wise’s organisation, the Rights Project, to act as an Amicus Curiae (Latin: ‘friend of the court’) in a previously filed case where the plaintiffs are “Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka and Ulises, five orcas.” And while the center’s amicus curiae motion and Wise’s individual affidavit were accepted by the court, neither the defendants nor the group representing the plaintiffs wanted him involved.

Wise also highlights an interesting (at least for lawyers) jurisdictional issue. As the five orcas were forcibly removed from the coastal waters of Iceland and British Columbia, he argues that those are still their legal homes. He goes further to argue that those nation’s laws must determine whether or not the orcas have the capacity to sue and are “incompetent persons”. For Corky, that means the law of British Columbia. For Tilikum, Katina, Kasatka and Ulises, it’s the law of Iceland. This, he says, would have to precede “the issue of whether the orcas are slaves within the meaning of the 13th Amendment”.

One of the great obstacles to justice in the treatment of animals (in fact, anything that is not human) is the legal doctrine of standing. Simply put, ‘standing’ means recognition in law of a person or thing as having a right to bring, or be the object of, legal action. Human beings have standing, corporations have standing, non-human animals do not. With the exception of protected native animals, they are protected only by welfare laws which purport only to prevent undue cruelty in the treatment of any animal. The right to capture and kill is unquestioned. The only requirement is that the killing and treatment of an animal while it is alive does not cause ‘unreasonable’ or ‘unnecessary’ pain.

But there are some animals, sometimes referred to as ‘charismatic megafauna’, with whom we feel a bond of commonality. This may be because of similarity to us (Great Apes), admiration and recognition of intelligence (cetaceans, i.e. whale and dolphins), or even iconic status (native animals). These animals often enjoy special protections under law preventing them from being caught or killed without permission from the state. But this is because they are, depending on the jurisdiction, the property of the state or the state has the monopoly on regulation of how they will be treated.

Now it is being widely argued that whales and dolphins should have legal rights. Although, it would be perhaps more correct to say that they will be recognised as having legal ‘personhood’. I am wary of the language of rights in this context because of its liberal-democratic connotations. It is all too easy for reductio ad absurdum arguments to be made deriding strawman arguments such as the idea of horses having the right to vote or dogs owning property. For instance, University of Chicago law professor, Richard A. Epstein, posited in a 1999 New York Times editorial that if we follow this reasoning bacteria may have rights. He concluded that “there would be nothing left of human society if we treated animals not as property but as independent holders of rights”. Although it is hard to take such a melodramatic claim seriously, it is a surprisingly common refrain among those who would rather not consider the issue.

But the matter needn’t be so complex. I favour the elegance of this formulation by Professor Gary Francione: “The only right an animal needs is the right not to be property”.

Philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer, who co-founded the Great Ape Project with Italian philosopher Paola Cavalieri in 1993, calls only for limited rights akin to those afforded humans, such as freedom from torture, not rights to things like medical care or education.

The Helsinki Group was formed out of the Cetacean Rights: Fostering Moral and Legal Change
Conference’ held in Helsinki, Finland in May 2010. The group has drafted this Declaration taking a more detailed approach to categorising the rights of whales and dolphins:

Declaration on the Rights of Cetaceans: Whales and Dolphins

Based on the principle of the equal treatment of all persons;
Recognizing that scientific research gives us deeper insights into the complexities of cetacean minds, societies and cultures;

Noting that the progressive development of international law manifests an entitlement to life by cetaceans;
We affirm that all cetaceans as persons have the right to life, liberty and wellbeing.

We conclude that:

1. Every individual cetacean has the right to life.

2. No cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude; be subject to cruel treatment; or be removed from their natural environment.

3. All cetaceans have the right to freedom of movement and residence within their natural environment.

4. No cetacean is the property of any State, corporation, human group or individual.

5. Cetaceans have the right to the protection of their natural environment.

6. Cetaceans have the right not to be subject to the disruption of their cultures.

7. The rights, freedoms and norms set forth in this Declaration should be protected under international and domestic law.

8. Cetaceans are entitled to an international order in which these rights, freedoms and norms can be fully realized.

9. No State, corporation, human group or individual should engage in any activity that undermines these rights, freedoms and norms.

10. Nothing in this Declaration shall prevent a State from enacting stricter provisions for the protection of cetacean rights.

Various rationales are raised for extending legal personality to marine mammals. The Helsinki Group takes evidence of the marine mammals’ intelligence, self-awareness and complex behaviour as the basis for this.

Another promising example of the type of standing arguments being formulated in the United States is that of the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) in a suit brought in the Western Washington District Court on the 17th of November 2011. The ALDF make a reasonably sophisticated argument for recognition of ‘Existence Value‘ with an intellectual move that situates the discussion in partially-anthropocentric terms by advancing the desire of humans to preserve a resource and to the injury they would suffer if that resource were compromised. For an excellent discussion of existence value, see Richard Revesz’s, Retaking Rationality.  This makes clear the distinction of existence value from intrinsic value which recognises the value of nature independent of its utility to humans.

The ALDF’s contention in this case is that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has acted illegally in excluding Lolita, a solitary orca who has been confined to a tiny concrete tank at the Miami Seaquarium for more than 40 years, from the US Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA provides members of the wild Southern Resident Orca population and other endangered animals with a host of protections, including protection against being harmed or harassed. Yet, despite being a member of the Southern Residents, Lolita has been denied all of these protections without any explanation by NMFS. The plaintiffs argue that NMFS’ regulatory exclusion from ESA listing of captive Southern Resident Orca is illegal. The case will be decided soon.

Wise’s interdisciplinary Nonhuman Rights Project has about 50 people in the US formed into six working groups to examine relevant state laws and legal precedents with a view to advocating for legal personhood for animals. They are researching, for example, how proponents of gay marriage chose jurisdictions in which to litigate and how certain high courts deal with non-autonomous humans like the comatose, mentally handicapped, embryos, and fetuses. The aim is to identify the most promising causes of action and the viable states and jurisdictions in which to file suit.

A kind of legal middle position is advanced by David Favre, who stops short of the goal of full legal personhood for animals. He advocates for increasing their legal recognition incrementally to perhaps include the kind of guardianship protections afforded children, the senile and the insane. He also proposes a very interesting halfway house, which he calls ‘living property‘, between full recognition of rights and the status of animals as property. This is the argument  that the status of animals be split into legal and equitable estates. This way, the legal ownership of animals could remain with their human owners but the animal would retain equitable interests that could be protected by trustees who would therefore be able to advocate for the interests of animals and even hold property (e.g. money for maintenance and veterinary care) on their behalf.

With such a broad scope of ethical and legal approaches to legal personhood for non-humans, it will be a very interesting next few decades for animal rights advocacy. I fear though, that it may be too late for New Zealand’s very rare Maui’s Dolphin which faces imminent extinction due to trawling and fishing with set-nets. If this happens, New Zealand will be only the second country in the world to cause a cetacean to go extinct because of human action. The first was China where pollution and overfishing in the Yangtze River drove the Baiji freshwater dolphin to extinction in 2007.

The below post was originally posted on the Adopt a Negotiator Project.  It is therefore intended for overseas readers.

—

Caged Layer Hens

According to RNZSPCA national accreditation and marketing manager Juliette Banks: “Consumers are becoming far more conscious of where and how their food is produced and they don’t want cages.”
Yet New Zealand farmers are going ahead with installing the ‘colony cages’ approved in the new Layer Hen Code of Welfare. The thing is, the capital investment in changing out one type of cage for a marginally larger one is far greater than converting to a barn set up where the animals are still kept indoors in crowded conditions but are at least not in cages.

Barn Layer Hens

Banks continues: “With a steady annual increase in the free-range egg market it is clear consumers will not accept caged eggs in the future. For the industry to spend millions converting a system that consumers will reject seems pointless.”

Indeed it does. Until we consider that caged hen operations are very large businesses with capital investment that often runs into the millions. Why would these operators be prepared to continue with a more expensive system? Because it provides a very effective barrier to entry for possible competitors. The welfare of the thousands of hens in their care is neither here nor there for these producers. The decision is purely economic. It makes the claim of Egg Producers Federation chairman, Michael Guthrie, that they want to ‘ensure eggs remained affordable during tough economic times’ ring rather hollow.

The below post was originally posted on the Adopt a Negotiator Project.  It is therefore intended for overseas readers.

—

When you picture New Zealand, the odds are good that you picture an untouched waterfall, straight out of Lord of the Rings. I have camped at the base of the waterfall you’re probably thinking of.

That’s not a real picture of New Zealand. Native bush and national parks make up a small part of the country – and the government has hinted at mining within our national parks. Over a third of the country’s population lives in Auckland, a suburban sprawl with about half the public transport of a small European town.

New Zealand’s environmental policy is a contradiction, and its international stance is the same. The government recognises a “clean and green” brand as the core of our tourism – but much of our GDP comes from intensive dairy farming, which infects our rivers with runoff and accounts for around half the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Generally, New Zealand professes to take a “centrist” and “cooperative” stance in negotiations. Underlying this, however, is a very self-interested negotiating strategy.

In the Kyoto Protocol track, New Zealand stresses transparency and balance. As a member of the Umbrella Group, a loose affiliation that aims to promote cost effectiveness and flexibility within the Kyoto Protocol system, New Zealand is willing to consider a second Kyoto commitment period subject to several conditions.

New Zealand seeks a successor agreement by 2020. It hopes to negotiate a mandate to agree, either at Durban or more probably a subsequent COP.

In climate financing, New Zealand stresses the importance of governments leveraging private finance to secure or exceed the US$100 billion 2020 target.

Agriculture and forestry are both crucial issues for New Zealand.

When it comes to practically implementing technology transfer and providing adaptation and mitigating funding, New Zealand focuses on the Pacific. Unusually, some 70% of funding provided by New Zealand each year is used for adaptation projects, with the balance devoted to mitigation. For more states, the opposite is the case.

Overall, New Zealand presents two quite different faces in the negotiations. Unlike other States in the Umbrella Group, which overtly attack the core of the Kyoto Protocol and openly assert a “hard-ball” strategy with developing States, New Zealand plays a subtle game. It takes contradictory positions and stalls talks, but maintains a commitment to the outcome it jeopardises.

It’s going to be an interesting ten days. Our delegation, the New Zealand Youth Delegation, meets the negotiators daily. We can sometimes ask to meet a specialist in a certain topic, but we never know which of the negotiating team we’ll get to talk to. Three of us will be blogging here on Adopt a Negotiator: Jonathan Williams, Rachel Dobric, and me. All our posts will be in the New Zealand category.

Devonport, Auckland

—

Originally posted by me on Adopt a Negotiator.  All photographs and intellectual property in this post solely mine unless otherwise stated.

I happened across this on Facebook. The image makes a good point about the shifting historical conceptions of what are considered inherently dangerous breeds of dog. In the early twentieth century, Bloodhounds were considered to be a menace. There is one common denominator here.

The last day of COP17, Friday 9 December 2011, stretched well on into the night – and then into the Saturday, and then into the Saturday night.  It finally finished a little after 0600 on the morning of Sunday 11 December 2011.  Fellow youth delegate Rachel Dobric and I live-blogged the extended last Friday of the conference.  The below is part two of that liveblog, reposted with Rachel’s permission, unedited.  Part one is here.

—

Negotiations are running well over time here in Durban.  We will keep you up to date as best we can.  For more frequent updates, please follow us on Twitter.  The rumour here is that negotiations may continue to tomorrow (which will be the third day of Friday 9 December 2011, as far as COP17 is concerned) – but apparently the ICC is booked until Wednesday.  Rumours and speculation abound.

Latest is first.  If you don’t like what you read, email, tweet, or otherwise contact your MP.

0600, ICC: It’s over.  There is a deal.  It’s not a great one by any means, but it is.  The conference has ended – 30 hours late.

—

0240, ICC, upstairs: COP-17 President has asked plenary to adjourn for ten minutes.  She’s recommended that the countries yet to be satisfied with the text ‘huddle’ to discuss it in greater depth.

Yes, ‘huddle’. Ten minutes of huddling.

—

0225, ICC, upstairs: Time for a small mental health break, perhaps. It seems the NGO-types are into second phase sleeping. (That is to say that after their first round of naps and coffee and revitalisation, they’re back in the rut of being tired.)

Though, I’m pretty sure that a lot of the people sleeping out here are negotiators.

—

0200: The Phillipines just said:

The youth in this conference have been instrumental in pushing us to do our work … with a lever long enough, you can move the world!

In the same speech, he referred to helping Africa and the “I <3 KP” t-shirts.  We can’t really hope to influence the talks, but at least we have influenced some of the delegates.  Also a reminder that “we are all one world” and a call for equity.

—

0144, ICC, inside: President reminds delegates that this is informal plenary, with formal plenary to follow.  Debate developing between developing states.  Several suggestions here that G77+China are breaking up over climate policy.  Interesting times here on our third day of Friday.

—

0118, ICC, inside: EU calls for a binding agreement by 2018, to a resounding response: “International problems require international legislation.”   Columbia too demands a stronger text.  Switzerland too: “We can reach an agreement in line with our abilities and our responsibilities … we would like to see something tangible.” India echoes Venezuela’s refusal to be intimidated. Further:

The centrepiece of the climate change debate is and has to be equity. And the equity of burden sharing cannot be shifted cannot be shifted.

—

1259, Sunday, ICC, upstairs: The informal plenary session of the COP and CMP started at 1259.  Opening remarks underway now.  Around me, observers and reporters have fallen asleep, dropping their heads onto their laptops.  Behind me, Greenpeace has just finished a tactical meeting over (non-vegan, non-shared) curry.  I’m tired and hungry and just downed a double-espresso.

Around the water-cooler, the word seems to be that a failure is better than a deal at this point.  The texts on the table are in a bad state.  We have a five or eight year second commitment period under Kyoto, with a gap thrown in, and nice shiny new loopholes.  Paired with it is a new mandate for the LCA track, which aims for a legal framework to be implemented by 2020.  The 2015 deal sought by CAN is out the window.  The 2012 deal proposed by AOSIS is a memory.  Even a legally binding agreement by 2020 is blocked by some developed states – despite recognition that we must drastically and quickly cut emissions to reach our mitigation goal of only two degrees of warming.

—

1145, ICC, upstairs: Small victories, but huge losses. Yes, Venezuela spoke. And inspired us all with her courage. She was standing on her chair. And banging the desk with her country’s nameplate.

The Chair was speechless, for all of a moment. But the LCA has gone through to the COP.

This is hardly right.

—

1139, ICC, upstairs: Venezuela has taken everyone’s attention. The Chair had tried to close the session and move on to the COP, but Venezuela spoke over him and wouldn’t let him finish without her final word.

I asked for the floor…a long time ago. I will ask you to please ignore me after I have finished my statement.

She insists her delegation had received threats in the corridors from other negotiators if they refused to accept this weak text – threats that they wouldn’t allow a CP2 through if Venezuela blocked the LCA.

There are giggles from the NGOs watching the Chair’s face on the LCD screens behind me. Giggles because he’s utterly speechless.

Oh! And there have been more announcements about South African Airways’ extra scheduled flights. Because, you know, that’s super important.

—

1132, ICC, upstairs: Kiwi Hot Topic blogger Cindy Baxter has just saved me by giving me pizza. Many, many thanks from my stomach to you, Cindy.

Tweets are getting less relevant and less frequent. NGO people are clearly falling asleep.

Japan wants the text to go through.

The Chair has admitted there’s “a great deal of disappointment in this text“, and yet has forwarded it to the COP. They’re already at the stage where they’re starting to make logistical announcements. They’re letting delegates know when their planes will be going tomorrow.

Who needs ambition when you have South African Airways?

—

2309, ICC, upstairs: Malawi will support the text, simply to see it go through. Malaysia and Thailand declare the text unfair. Malaysia: “We cannot accept the notion that this is a balanced text!” They both refuse to support it.

The USA is speaking now.  Todd Stern (lead negotiator) is congratulating the negotiators on their success, and suggesting that the text go through.  He acknowledges that it’s been “a difficult negotiation“, but considers the United States as making just as much of a compromise in agreeing to this text as the other Parties involved.

…I’d dispute that.

—

2303, ICC, upstairs: It seems that the EU is willing to let the LCA text go through to the COP for approval, despite its absolute disappointment in the weakness of the text.  If only they’d had such high standards for the KP negotiations and could have supported a five- instead of an eight-year second commitment period.

In the meantime, developing countries feel their voices simply haven’t been heard.  Some are calling for the talks to be suspended until next year, when they feel more work could result in a better outcome.

Papua New Guinea feels the text should be adopted – but only so long as it’s noted that the text is ‘unbalanced and incomplete‘.

It’s a sad reality that such important things are decided on behalf of the world with such compromise, simply because people are tired and want to go home. Someone in YOUNGO has even noticed that one of the Malaysian delegates is sitting with his suitcase, clearly itching to get to the airport.

—

2250, ICC, upstairs: Nicaragua, Bolivia and Venezuela have all claimed they are ‘not being represented appropriately’. Each has explained why they cannot support the LCA text in its current form. Nicaragua is frustrated that funding sources aren’t outlined, and has stated that if this was a student’s assignment, they’d receive a poor mark for such terrible oversight:

We have to highlight that this is a fund with… no funds. There are no sources of financing.

Venezuela spoke, impassioned, about the flooding its nation is experiencing as a result of climate change. It noted, furious, that any reference to the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ that define Parties’ work under the (FCCC) Convention has been removed.

Bolivia’s insistence that it would rather postpone an agreement than agree to the text in its current form is noble and commendable in the fight for climate justice. But one can’t disagree that after Cancun, this feels a lot like Groundhog Day.

—

2155, ICC, upstairs: KP was not a happy experience. Parties eventually gave up and allowed the text to be gaveled through.

LCA plenary now well underway. The LCA text is a mess: the Chair admits that entire parts are missing. One paragraph has even been repeated. The reference to 1.5 degrees C somehow disappeared. Parties unhappy with the content of the text, saying it’s lacking anything substantial at all.

The Chair is suggesting that Parties compromise, insisting that it’s better to agree on a weak text than it is to agree on none, and that there’s no time left to strive for anything stronger.

It’s depressing how disorganised this conference is: Saudi Arabia is insisting that they’re finding it difficult to take a position as they only saw the full LCA text for the first time this morning. Bangladesh is so desperate for a deal that they’ve thanked the Chair for his ‘gift‘, even though they note many areas where they have ‘reservations‘…

It’s the Chair’s 22nd year of involvement with this process, and he won’t be returning to the negotiations. Thanking him and acknowledging his efforts is justified, perhaps, but it seems to be taking up more time and more of the delegates’ focus than the actual text at hand.

It’s started pouring with rain. It’s loud and cold enough to be distracting people from their work up here at the computers.

—

2022, ICC, upstairs: Another ten minute break.  The EU appears to be struggling to find a common position on the Kyoto Protocol.  I haven’t seen the current text yet, but the biggest issue left seems to be the length of the second commitment period – five years or eight?  We, like AOSIS and most of YOUNGO, support five.  However, Russia just made an implicit threat that the text was “a delicate balance”, perhaps suggesting that moving back to a five year commitment period would unbalance things, causing Russia to withdraw its support.

—

1951, ICC, upstairs: Adrian Macey now allowing a short break for parties to lobby on length of second commitment period and LULUCF issues.  Resuming in 15 minutes.

—

1945, ICC, upstairs: The plenary session of the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) is underway downstairs now.  Four of us remain in the building: Two in the plenary, two upstairs running Twitter and the blog, while uploading Youtube videos and photos.  There appears to a be a lot of uncertainty even still.  Several parties are proposing changes to the document.  When the plenary started, other parties appeared not to have a copy of the latest text.

You can watch the plenary live here.

Some notes pulled from our Twitter feed:

• Bolivia says “no clarity on QELROS.” Calls for “mandates” not “invites” parties. Objects that some parties not presented QELROS.
• Bolivia: “We have read the text, and we have some observations and proposals.” At least 24-40% too big a range. No clear answer.
• Macey: “Clearly, we can’t enter a drafting exercise.” Only edits capable of full consensus to be proposed orally. Looks like a way to go.
• Papua New Guinea: “We’re still struggling to keep up.” The text is definitely still changing fast. Doesn’t look final – nor close.
• New Zealand speaking in support of European Union proposal in AWG-KP seeking “similar treatment” for fast-growing forests.
• Sudden move in AWG-KP from five year period to eight year period? Grenada: “We’d rather like to leave it as it is.” [5 year]

The apparent move from a five year second commitment period to an 8-year commitment period appears to be the one big change.  This looks to be a long way from a resolution.

1855, ICC: Stocktaking now over.  Plenaries for the two working groups soon to commence downstairs.  All the NGOs around are searching for copies of the “Durban outcome” discussed.  Once again, the atmosphere is confused and uncertain.

—

1852, ICC: Informal stocktaking plenary underway.  President urges negotiators to not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.  Seeks a “compromise package for a very strong Durban outcome“.

We must, here in Durban, let the world know, that we here are the generation that adopted the Kyoto Protocol.  We adopted the Bali Roadmap.  … This multilateral system is fragile, and it will not survive another shock.

—

1800, ICC, downstairs: David and Rachel bumped into Renee and Roger from the New Zealand delegation. It turns out they’ve been following us on Twitter. Had some productive discussion about the role of NZYD and of the other NGOs here at COP. We focused particularly on how hard it is for us to respond to the negotiations when we can’t be inside the closed rooms where the ‘real‘ things happen. They really stressed how hard they’ve been working, and how much effort the delegation has made to engage with us. Renee noted that the Minister has been facilitating debates, not participating in them, and told us that they’d been trying to push for a more ambitious text.  We appreciate the time they took to speak with us.

We shared a common desire with the negotiators for a decent outcome from Durban, but with so many negotiators already heading home for the night, it’s hard to know how much faith there is (especially from the non-governmental side) that we’ll actually come out of here with a good deal. Or, for that matter, with any deal at all.

—

1530, ICC, downstairs / the streets of Durban: No informal stocktaking plenary is actually taking place, that we know of. David and Rachel picked up copies of the latest LCA text, and have gone with Vernon Rive (NZ journalist) and Katie from Sierra Student Coalition to escape from the conference centre for a very late lunch of typical Durban curry.

—

1445, Yellow Wood Room, ICC: YOUNGO is holding a press conference calling for greater and more urgent action from the Parties. Our delegate Tom Williams is facilitating. Interesting questions and discussion from the floor.  Video coming soon.

—

1412, ICC, upstairs, inside: Word is that the President is holding an informal stocktaking plenary at 1500.  Things may become clearer then.

—

1405, ICC, upstairs, inside: YOUNGO is holding a press conference at 1430.  NZYD delegate Tom Williams will be facilitating.

In other news, the LCA draft text on capacity building mentions youth…once:

1249, ICC, upstairs: Apparently the Indaba could extend to 5pm. The conference centre is booked out until Wednesday – some of us could be in for the long haul. There are delegates, though, who have already had to leave.

Reports have come out from last night. The BBC spotted David, Rachel and Jonathan working late.

Nothing much going on. Delegates wandering without much sense of purpose – just waiting for some progress, or some news.

—

1234, ICC, upstairs: We’ve been back at the ICC for a couple of hours now. We slept late, but the conference didn’t resume until 10am or so anyway. No one is really sure when the plenary will resume. Ministers have been meeting for the past few hours to discuss the state of play and to try to come to agreement, but they may go on for hours yet.

We’re sitting with Grapetiser and coffee, and with highlighters and the latest KP and LCA texts. There’s little happening that’s riveting. Many of us are wearing shirts that AVAAZ handed out last night, boldly pleading ‘Don’t Kill Africa – Climate Deal Now’.

Whispers around the conference centre tell us that New Zealand played a significant role last night in shaping the text to a point of ridicule. Apparently pushing Antipodean interests, our negotiators have helped to produce a text which is weak and lacks ambition – and it’s no secret.

There’s talk of organising a youth press conference, and some of our team are involved.

—

An initial culture of cow flesh. Yum. (Photo: Dr Mark Post, Maastricht University)

In a move that may overcome the cruelty problem of raising and killing animals for meat, Dr Mark Post of Maastricht University and Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands has pioneered the technique of growing meat independently of an animal by the cultivation of stem cells.

The pieces of muscle are made by extracting stem cells from cow muscle tissue and growing them in containers in a laboratory. The cells are grown in a culture medium containing foetal calf serum, which contains the nutrients the cells need to grow. The nutrients in the meat itself need to come from another source, Post will use algae to produce the amino acids, sugars and fats necessary to produce a nutritious flesh. The strips of muscle are cultivated between pieces of Velcro and flex and contract as they develop. To improve the texture of the tissue and make more protein in the cells the samples are periodically shocked with an electric current.

The problems for which this is a solution are summed up rather concisely in this abstract of a paper called ‘Advances, Challenges and Prospects for Cultivation of Tissue-Engineered Meat’ that Dr Post presented in February this year:

Traditional meat production through livestock is rapidly reaching its limits. Worldwide, meat consumption is projected to double in the coming 40 years (source WHO) and already we are using more than 50% – 70% of all the agricultural land for meat production. It has also become clear that livestock contributes appreciably to the emission of greenhouse gases such as methane and CO₂. Last, the public objection against cruelty to animals will eventually favor a market for cruelty free meat …

From all livestock, cows and pigs are the least efficient meat producers with a bioconversion rate of 15%. Through breeding and feeding, the bioconversion rate has reached its upper limit. This inefficiency provides us with a margin to improve meat production provided we move beyond the traditional boundaries of livestock.

This has been an expensive process, funded by an anonymous donor and reported by The Guardian as costing £200,000 (NZ$383,274 at the time of writing). It’s also worth looking at the Guardian link for a neat graphic of the production process.

This raises some interesting questions for vegans, vegetarians and animal rightists: Would we eat it? Is it ethical? Is it a viable solution to the environmental crisis engendered in large-scale industrial farming without requiring people to stop eating flesh?

The initial ethical concern would seem to be around the use of stem cells. But unlike the use of human stem cell therapies and experimentation which require the creation and destruction of human embryos, this process begins with cells taken from a cow or pig. Because the initial culture is on such a small scale – just a few cells are all that is needed – the animal needn’t necessarily be killed or even harmed by any more than a small biopsy cut.

The environmental upside is considerable. Cattle and pigs worldwide contribute as much as 18% of Green House Gases. ‘Livestock’ is also responsible for the bulk of the methane and nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere and these two gases are many times more potent than the benchmark CO₂ (25 and 298 times respectively). Biodiversity loss and extinctions are largely a function of conversion of land to the purpose of animal agriculture and the monocultural cultivation of crops which are perfectly viable for human consumption to feed those animals. Agricultural pasture makes up almost 40 percent of New Zealand’s total land area and occupies about four times the area of planted forestry and all other modified types of land cover combined; the odd terraced appearance of many of our rural hillsides is a result of the ongoing erosion of this fragile, deforested land, cleared for grazing pasture. It is certainly not helped by large, cloven-hooved animals clambering up steep hillsides. Another source of concern is the degradation of our waterways from agricultural fertilisers, stock manure and urine, and the effluent flushed into rivers and streams by processing plants.

Post has also said that he’d only chosen beef and pork to grow because they were the least efficient in terms of energy conversion. He also said that they could grow any meat that they could take a small sample of and actually suggested Panda meat as an example. But imagine if ‘gourmands’ who insist on eating endangered animals such as whales, patagonian toothfish, sea turtles, whatever could do so without the animal having to be hunted to extinction.

However, we still don’t know how energy-intensive the lab-based production technique will be on a commercial scale, nor what are the waste products and how they will be disposed of.

Not all the costs implicit in meat consumption will be reduced. Something I’ve noticed in my years of eating vegan is how little time I now spend by the refrigerators at the supermarket. This meat will still need to be refrigerated. In fact, 65% of the energy consumed by supermarkets in New Zealand is for refrigeration, almost all of that is for the refrigerated storage of meat and dairy products.

Having said all this, I still wouldn’t feel comfortable eating this manufactured meat. After all, we don’t actually need it to be healthy and meat still contains cholestorol and suspected carcinogens that have proven negative consequences for human health. I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts, please feel free to make a comment. Would you eat it?

The last day of COP17, Friday 9 December 2011, stretched well on into the night – and then into the Saturday, and then into the Saturday night.  It finally finished a little after 0600 on the morning of Sunday 11 December 2011.  Fellow youth delegate Rachel Dobric and I live-blogged the extended last Friday of the conference.  The below is part one of that liveblog, reposted with Rachel’s permission, unedited.

—

We are liveblogging the last day of COP17 from inside and outside the conference centre.  Check back regularly for updates.

Latest is first.  If you don’t like what you read, email, tweet, or otherwise contact your MP.

—

We’ve broken day two of the last day into a new post.  For further updates, go here.

—

Overnight: Security guards patrolled the corridors – encouraging people to leave and insisting they wanted the buildings empty. Rumours flew that they were trying to expel the NGOs, and that we wouldn’t be let in again if we left. Talks were suspended until midnight, and then until Saturday. Hoping we were right in believing our badges would be extended through the following day, NZYD headed home for some much needed rest. On the way, we crossed to Speakers’ Corner and the Occupy camp to get away from the confusion and sterility of the conference centre. There weren’t many people there; it was clear most had gone home, leaving only a faithful few to beat their drums and sing late into the night. It would’ve been peaceful under the trees if it weren’t for the speeding cars and the bright lights of the Hilton across the road.

Caffeine and conversation until the very wee hours. Then sleep.

—

2315, ICC hall, Baobab plenary/computer labs/occupied offices, inside: The Chair has taken the plenary through all agenda items relating to SBSTA quite quickly.  The meeting is adjourned until sometime in the morning.  Word is that the last texts were too pro-US.  YOUNGO people are wandering the halls taping signs saying “Where is my future? I’m sure you have it.” to things (mostly to themselves).  We have set up camp in an abandoned office.

It’s all getting a bit JG Ballard.  Rumours are flying around on Twitter.  People are sleeping in the halls of the ICC.  The Canadians have a designated sleep room occupied in the DEC.

We have no idea when this will finish.  Some delegates apparently have suggested adjourning to Rio+20 next year.  Others have suggested working through until Sunday, even (which perhaps makes more sense, as Rio+20 is a three-day conference!).

Interesting times.

—

2046, ICC hall, Baobab plenary, inside: The plenary is currently debating rules of procedure.  We have hunkered down in the corner with copies of the draft texts.

You can read a transcript of the Colossal Fossil here:

“New Zealand wins the 1st place Fossil. The New Zealand government got a Fossil this week for severely mixed messages about its Kyoto Protocol 2nd Commitment Period stance. This time, it made it clear, describing Kyoto as ‘actually an insult to New Zealand’. The only insult is to the citizens of New Zealand and the rest of the world, who will have to suffer the costs of climate change.”

2014; DEC hall, inside: We’re back in the conference centre after a quick dinner break (bunny chow down the road), heading into the ICC to see what’s happening.  The DEC is almost empty.  A few NGO campaigners are still in the cafeteria, plotting the long haul ahead tonight.  They’ve already started to take apart the entry hall and the expo area outside.

New Zealand won a Fossil of the Day today, for the Minister, Tim Groser MP, declaring that a second commitment period woud be an “insult“.

Canada, unsurprisingly, won the Colossal Fossil, but kindly passed the moral victory on to the USA.

Heading to the ICC now!

—

1740, DEC hall, inside: We’re preparing for the final Fossil of the Day ceremony now.  We’d just like to draw your attention to the great intervention that Anjali gave this morning on behalf of YOUNGO:

I speak for more than half the world’s population.

We are the silent majority. You’ve given us a seat in this hall, but our interests are not on the table.

What does it take to get a stake in this game? Lobbyists? Corporate influence? Money?

You have been negotiating all of my life. In that time, you’ve failed to meet pledges, you’ve missed targets, and you’ve broken promises.

Here’s a video, courtesy of Katie O’Brien from Sierra Student Coalition:

1728, DEC hall, inside: Videos from the last hour.

1720, DEC hall, inside: Just returned from the ICC.  Those protestors who chose to remain and be removed have mostly been escorted out.  UN Security were extremely reasonable.  There were no signs of violence until the very end.  Small groups of peaceful protestors chanted as blue-shirted security escorted them out.  One of our delegates overheard the head of security explaining that he did not wish to have them removed, because so many were so young, and also because their home countries might object.  The only scuffle I saw was brief, and at the very end, after the last few protestors chose to begin a sit in, when security shoved a photographer.

A large crowd had gathered in support.  They joined the chanting, and sung songs of support.

—

1634, DEC hall (coming down around us), inside: Video from the protest 1:

—

1623, DEC hall (being dismantled), inside: We just got back from the ICC.  For those who don’t know, COP17 is split into two main venues: the DEC hall, where most of the civil society booths and side events are; and the ICC, where the real negotiations are going on.  In the DEC, t-shirts and jeans have been the norm all week; in the ICC, suits and ties.

Currently, the main floor of the ICC is blocked off outside the plenary hall by a mass of chanting protestors.  Two lines of volunteers and UN security are keeping access open to the plenary session.  On one side of this corridor, the protestors are yelling and chanting, often through the “human microphone”.  On the other, the media (and bloggers) are amassed, filming the crowd.  It’s a little surreal.  A line of blue-shirted volunteers control access to the foyer of the plenary hall.

Inside the ICC, all social media are offline.  The internet appears to be working otherwise.  The rumour mill says that social media have been blocked on wifi.

Videos and photos coming soon.

Security has told the protestors that, if they move outside, they can keep their badges and continue to protest.

—

1500, DEC hall, inside: Just 12 hours left.  Maybe even 18,  The atmosphere here in the Convention Centre is grim.  In the DEC hall, where civil society has mostly been encamped, all the booths are coming down.  The businesses, universities, NGOs, and IGOs are packing up their things and going home.  It feels like civil society is leaving.

Our delegation has split into two.  The majority are off to join a variety of protest actions, making a last push for, in short, two very simple things: a plan for a solid, real, new treaty by 2015 and a second Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol.  There are countless other issues tied into those, but all ultimately come down to two last minute hands of poker.  We’re all in: If the cards go one way, global temperature rise may stay below two degrees this year.  If the other, we will have locked in a warming of at least two degrees, probably largely in our lifetimes, causing suffering and death on an incredible scale.

Two or three of us are staying in here. Until. It’s. Done.  We will be liveblogging on Twitter and continually updating this post as we learn more of what’s happening inside and outside the ICC/DEC convention centre.  Keep checking back.

If you don’t like what you’re reading on this blog or Twitter or in the international press, please: Contact Tim Groser MP.  Contact your local MP. Email them.  Message them on Facebook.  Tell them what you think on Twitter.  This negotiation isn’t over until it’s over, and there remains a very, very slim chance that New Zealand might soften its stance.  Let’s keep pushing and hope.