COP 15 Daily Summary

The third day of the conference started with an eventful COP meeting (a more detailed description in the Top News Item section) and was followed by the more relaxed second and third meetings of the CMP which discussed issues of Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanisms (see JI/CDM section bellow) and the Adaptation Fund (see Adaptation section).

TOP NEWS ITEM

After discussing dates and venues for future COP sessions (COP 17 will be South Africa, and the COP18 host will come from the Asia group) and Malta’s proposal of joining Annex1, the second plenary COP meeting considered proposals from Parties, under article 17 of the Convention, namely Tuvalu’s proposal to have a new legally-binding protocol alongside the existing Kyoto Protocol. The Parties were split in their responses – while vulnerable countries, including the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and poor African nations supported the proposal for a new protocol, in addition calling on the COP to reach a legally binding agreement, citing their very existence as their reason; richer developing countries – headed by China, India and Saudi Arabia, but also including South Africa, Kuwait, Venezuela and more – opposed the proposal, claiming that there is no need for a new protocol, which will only cause even more delays as it will mean embarking on a new round of negotiation. Western countries were conspicuously absent from the debate.

The parties were so split, that no resolution could be reached, wherefore Connie Hedegaard who chaired the session as president of the COP15, declared the creation of a contact group – a formal process in which parties can openly discuss an issue unresolved by the plenary. Saudi Arabia objected to this (citing its confidence in the president’s abilities to deal with these discussions herself), whereby Barbados countered that while they are also confident in the president’s abilities, she is also far too busy to deal with these extra discussions.

This started a new fervent discussion, in which the parties were split exactly as before – those in support of Tuvalu’s original proposal demanded a contact group, which would keep the discussion transparent and abiding by Convention protocol, whereas those opposing were in favour of keeping further discussions informal, stating that a contact group will only delay procedures and pointing to a history of informal discussions within the UN process.

As no consensus was reached, Hedegaard wanted to have a consultation on whether to have a contact group or not. Tuvalu called it as it was – ridiculous (having consultations on consultations) – and after more comments from other delegates said that they cannot accept the chair’s ruling on the matter, and that if it is not resolved, they would call for a suspension of the COP. At this point the session was suspended, with intention to have private consultations with the parties and reaching a resolve by the afternoon session. This did not happen, but the whole event rallied the vulnerable nations together, and throughout the day the various NGOs present showed their support of Tuvalu and their demands in various demonstrations and stunts.

ADAPTATION

The CMP discussion on the Adaptation Fund (AF) was on the agenda on the third day of the COP15. Due to the suspension of the morning session of COP only the report of the Adaptation Fund Board was presented. The review of the AF will take place tomorrow morning (Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009).

AF received around USD18.7 million through monetization of certified emission reductions in the last year and adopted Operational Policies and Guidelines for Parties to Access the Resources from the Adaptation Fund. The Adaptation Fund Board estimates that it will receive up to USD500 million by 2012 both from monetization of certified emission reductions and from voluntary donations from the Annex 1 countries to the Kyoto Protocol. The developing counties praised the work of the Adaptation Fund and called upon the developed countries to increase their voluntary financial contributions. All noted that the projected USD 500 million by 2010 will not suffice the adaptation needs of the developing counties. India recognized the importance of mitigation for an increase in AF resources. With deeper emission cuts the demand for certified emission reduction will increase, increasing their price and bringing more resources into the fund.

On the topic of increasing funds for developing States for adaptation and mitigation, the US Special Envoy for Climate Change and the Head of US delegation Todd Stern said that US will contribute its fair share to the USD 10 billion fund for developing countries proposed at the Commonwealth Meeting of the Heads of the States. He said that these financial resources coming from the public fund must be available only to the least developed countries and not to all developing countries, pointing out China. He firmly rejected the notion that US holds a climate/adaptation debt and mentioned that the “Copenhagen agreement” is an development agreement, that will help the developing countries to develop. He said that US wants to be part of the adaptation process for its historical role in emissions, however it is not responsible for climate change. However, the special envoy did not mention any exact amounts of financial assistance US will give either within the USD 10 billion or in any other capacity.

The European Union delegation at its press conference agreed with the US that the public funds for adaptation from the developed countries should be given only to the LDC. With this regard, the EU will encourage private investment for additional funds.

REDD+

As negotiations continue, REDD+ is being viewed by many as one of the only subjects that will be agreed upon during the talks in Copenhagen. The implementation of the system will be complex due to differences in country and local-level needs in forest conservation, but the underlying goal of creating a system whereby developing countries are rewarded with carbon credits for sustaining their forests still stands.

There were a number of side events at COP15 concerning REDD+ throughout the third day.  Representatives of Nepal discussed development of social and environmental standards for national REDD+ programmes, and specifically plans to enhance the contribution of national REDD+ programmes to rights, poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation were laid out.  Papua New Guinea put forth a proposal for a partnership for capacity development for national GHG inventories in non-annex 1 countries for REDD+.  Yet, in each session main concerns were voiced by – and concerning – indigenous peoples.  Generally the concern is that powerful interests may position themselves as the legitimate stewards of the land in order to capture REDD revenue streams, causing indigenous groups to lose access to their forest-based livelihoods.  This concern becomes even more complex when one considers differing land ownership rights throughout the world.

Though many countries seem convinced that they will benefit from the REDD+ programme, national carbon credits and the monetary value can be redistributed in a manner that works best for localities.  For some forested nations, REDD seems like an answer to a major stumbling block in development.  For countries like Indonesia with a reputation to be one of the world’s worst polluters, REDD+ may give it a chance to maintain forests and to gain financial traction for other sustainable development measures.  But many stakeholders contest such a position, stating that financial transfers under REDD+ may cause corruption and greater losses for vulnerable nations.

The next days will bring clarity as to the balance between development and climate strategy with regards to a final REDD+ mechanism.

JI/CDM

Under the Kyoto Protocol, issues relating to the CDM were discussed during the afternoon of the third day. African and Latin American developing countries as well as Gulf countries flagged the unequal geographical repartition of CDM projects (70% of them are developed in China and India, with less than 2% in Africa) and called for a fairer share. Many African countries, Gulf countries, China and the EU stated their support for the eligibility of Carbon Capture and Storage projects under the CDM, while concerns about this technology’s environmental integrity were raised by Zambia, Ecuador, Korea and Tuvalu.

Also during the day, non-state entities have begun releasing information pertaining to their position on the issue.

Non-governmental organizations are critical of the CDM. They view it as a way for countries in the North to avoid reducing their domestic emissions. Organizations such as Friends of the Earth argue that projects undertaken through the CDM often have negative environmental consequences, instead of actually reducing emissions.

Industry actors such as RWE, Europe’s largest corporate emitter of carbon dioxide are calling for a strengthening of the CDM. The German firm wants the UN to reduce its long approval and monitoring process for CDM projects, as well as a broadening of the mechanism’s scope, to also include smaller projects. RWE agrees with the World Bank’s position that the mechanism be subject to a more predictable regulatory framework with a more streamlined decision making process.

FINANCE

No substantial progress has been achieved under the Subsidiary Body for Implementation today, since G77 called to postpone the contact group meeting because of internal coordination issues.

However, Britain, Australia, Norway and Mexico released a paper detailing suggestions on how climate change finance should be raised, disbursed and governed. Though not an official negotiating paper, this document shows an emerging consensus between the four countries about a possible structure for governance and sources of funding, issues that are currently causing much friction within the UN process. It states that “financing will need to be scaled up significantly and urgently, starting fast and rising over time,” though not setting a firm figure for total funds.

MITIGATION

Under the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice, the issue of HFCs, in particular the treatment of new hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 facilities for the purpose of CDM projects, has been postponed to the SBSTA meeting next June. A COP 15 agreement should therefore not contain any substance on HFCs.

Other Daily Updates

• Day 1: 7 Dec 2009
• Day 2: 8 Dec 2009
• Day 4: 10 Dec 2009
• Day 5: 11 Dec 2009
• Day 6-7: 12-13 Dec 2009
• Day 8: 14 Dec 2009
• Day 9: 15 Dec 2009
• Day 10: 16 Dec 2009
• Day 11: 17 Dec 2009

Slideshow

Video Highlights

Print PDF