Author: Dafydd Elis

Steven Chu in Copenhagen (Image by: Andy Revkin)

The US’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced a new stream of funding for low-energy technologies here in Copenhagen yesterday.

The money is being offered as the result of discussions at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) at L’Aquila, Italy, earlier this year.

The money is for five years, and will be distributed over four different programmes. One will focus on solar-powered lighting using LEDs; another will provide practical and economic support to low-income countries to deploy renewable energy technologies. The other two programmes focus on improving energy efficiency in developed countries’ products and on providing information about clean technology potential globally.

Of these, the bulk of the funding will go to the renewable energy funding – $250m of the $350m announced. In fact, much of this money is not new. $200m of it had already been pledged by the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland.

While this funding might go a little way to filling a near-term gap in financing for technology transfer and development, the short five-year duration of the programme announced and the relatively small sums involved ($70m a year between more than seven major economies) is small fry even compared to the $10billion per year committed by the EU to adaptation funding last week.

More fundamentally, a long-term and economically sizable mechanism for supporting technology transfer will need to be developed as part of a post-Kyoto agreement. This has been under discussion over the last two years as part of the Bali agreement, and featured in the draft negotiation text issued last week.

Exactly how this will look once this week’s negotiations are done remains to be seen.

Author: Natalie Antonowicz

CCS Plant in Germany (Image by: Vattenfall)

Saudi Arabia, and other oil exporters such as Norway have been negotiating for the inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a means by which developed countries can offset their emissions through the Clean Development Mechanism.

Carbon capture and storage refers to the method by which carbon emissions are collected at the point of emission – or ‘at the pipe’ – and sequestered underground or in the seabed. CCS may be used for industrial processes such as power generation and the extraction and refinement of fossil fuels. This is not a means of reducing the total amount of emissions generated, but a means of preventing emissions from entering the atmosphere.

Norway’s Deputy Oil Minister Liv Monica Stubholt has been urging states to support her country, Saudi Arabia, and OPEC in pressing for CCS to be included in the CDM. The International Emissions Trading Association supports the states, and feels that CCS’ exclusion from the CDM is the result of “seemingly subjective and politicised reasons, rather than those drawn from any objective analysis”.

Despite the efforts of Norway and Saudi Arabia, it is almost impossible that the Copenhagen Conference will result in an amendment to the CDM which would allow CCS projects to qualify for emissions reduction under the mechanism.

During the Copenhagen Conference, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advances (SBSTA), which is one of two permanent bodies to the Conference of Parties (COP) formally pushed its decision regarding whether CCS will be incorporated into the CDM until either the 2010 conference in Mexico, or the 2011 conference in South Africa.

The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advances is not seriously considering Saudi Arabia and Norway’s proposals due to concern registered by other states and stakeholders. The body’s  recent report cites concerns about “the long-term liability for the storage site, including liability for any seepage”.

Although incorporating CCS into the CDM was among the major negotiating goals of Middle Eastern and North Sea states, the SBSTA’s deferral of the issue suggests that it is not under serious consideration by the major organs of the COP. Additionally, the issue has been proposed at previous Conferences, such as COP14 in Poznan, Poland, where it was not considered by the Body.

Debate among environmentalists about CCS also hinders the chances of success for Saudi Arabia and Norway’s proposal. Many stakeholders argue that it is less expensive to develop renewable energy technologies than it is to develop CCS technologies. Additionally, CCS has not yet been deployed on a commercial scale, and remains a largely experimental technology.

Opposition to the inclusion of CCS into the CDM by states such as Brazil have not wavered during last week’s negotiations. Brazil has argued that delegating funding to CCS projects may reduce available monies for that state’s efforts at renewable energy deployment and forest protection. Brazil’s rainforests serve as a major carbon sink for the world’s emissions.

Ultimately, despite its rejection as an instrument of the Clean Development Mechanism, carbon capture and storage is gaining global popularity. The European Union plans to invest EUR 1 billion into six demonstration projects, and the United States Department of Energy has pledged almost USD 1 billion for three demonstration projects. Private firms have also been investing in CCS. This indicates that as more stakeholders become involved in the issue, the incorporation of CCS into the CDM may indeed be strongly considered at future COPs, however, it is virtually impossible that Saudi Arabia and Norway’s efforts will lead to any serious consideration of the issue at COP15, due to opposition by states and civil society, and a lack of consideration by international bodies. According to Mari Luomi of the Finish Institute of International Affairs, the proposal “is not likely to move anywhere” at COP15.

Guest Author: Bettina Wittneben, University of Oxford

Queue of COP15 participants waiting to register outside the Bella Center (Image by: Ruth Brandt)

The United Nations Climate Secretariat has acted on its threat – access to the Copenhagen climate summit will be restricted starting tomorrow. Observer organizations, such as my own, the University of Oxford, will be restricted in terms of how many participants can be allowed into the conference centre for the rest of the week. Forty thousand officially registered participants are being limited to a group of fifteen thousand participants who will actually be allowed access to the site of the historic climate negotiations. That means that many of the observer organizations can only bring in less than half of their delegates. The rest are to enjoy the day in Copenhagen city.

The UNFCCC secretariat has always prided itself in providing for a very public and transparent process. Many of the negotiations can be followed online in real time and all official documents are accessible to the public. The UN climate secretariat has over the years made an effort to save documents on accessible CDs, distribute brochures explaining the process and its mechanisms. This is the first time that observer organizations are told to stay outside of the process, at least partially, at a time when climate change is topping the agenda of so many diverse organizations across the globe.

The reasons are understandable. A conference centre can only hold so many bodies before provisions for personal health and security cannot be granted any longer. Nevertheless, this innovative move sends a clear, yet perhaps unintended message: Some people are in and some are left out.

Who is in, then? Of course, country delegations. After all, they are the ones negotiating any Copenhagen outcome. Or are they? It is up to each country to bring the people it deems important to have at a climate summit.

Extremely poor countries receive UN support to bring at least one delegate. Does that mean all country delegates are at the negotiating table? Absolutely not. Brazil, for example, brings several hundreds of delegates, many of whom are NGO or industry representatives. All acting in the interest of Brazil, certainly, but many in this group would not dare to ask for a seat at the negotiations. I talked to representatives from the Brazilian sugar cane biofuel industry who came as part of the Brazilian delegation – they thought COP was like an early Christmas treat for them! So many potential customers in one building!

Country delegations can also include advisors who do not even carry a passport to the respective country. As long as the government approves, they are in. Also, the governments in Copenhagen are not always democratically elected carrying the views and interests of the majority of their country’s people at heart. Governments more interested in backing a military regime or the ones run by corporate interests are more than welcome to attend the summit. Even countries who have over the past 17 years made no effort to ratify even the UN Convention on climate change will be attending the summit – such as the Vatican as the country of the Holy Sea.

Who else is in? Intergovernmental organizations, such as the World Bank, and finally the registered observer organizations that now have been given restricted access. For the latter, the UN secretariat leaves it up to the focal point, the person in direct contact with the UN, to decide who can get in and who is left out. Now these organizations face difficult decisions. Do they allow the seasoned climate negotiation observer into the sacred halls of the conference, or the innovative newcomer with fresh ideas? Does the person on payroll get selected first or the one who put in the most personal effort to travel to Copenhagen?

Isn’t this matter a simile for our real struggles in climate change? On our planet in 2050, wrenched by the unpredictable climate change impacts that we can still prevent now, there will be people who are in and those who lose out. Like with the climate summit, it helps to have good contacts in government. That will help grant access to cherished resources, such as fresh water, or shelter from floods and storms. Like with the climate summit, it will be those in power who can decide who stays dry, fed, healthy and secure.

This year for the first time, issues of climate justice are being championed on the centre stage at the climate summit. Countries such as Tuvalu, the Maldives and Bangladesh are fed up of simply being set aside as the moral voice of the summit. They are angry and many people are angry with them.

These countries are still at the summit, but will they also gain access to Planet Earth in a few decades?

Climate justice is not only an issue across countries but also within countries. An increasing number of people will be living in fuel poverty in many Western countries. People may need to turn down the heat because a warm home cannot be afforded any longer when fuel prices increase. Living space is reduced when houses are flooded that are not insured. Small businesses cannot afford climate change adaptation measures.

Will keeping (part of) civil society out of the confines of the negotiations be successful? Grassroots organizations hammering out a Peoples’ Declaration on Climate Change at the alternative Klimaforum in Copenhagen may decide to ignore the UN’s cutting back of civil society participation and take matters into their own hands. Only broad participation across and within countries will allow for a just and effective climate treaty to emerge.

Author: Nyla Sarwar

"Big Heads" seek financing for climate change (Image by: Oxfam)

An ambitious and positive draft text presented at the UN climate summit has failed to impress developing countries, who argue that more finance is needed to support their low carbon development and adaptation in some of the most vulnerable nations.

The so-called “long-term action plan text” believed to be much more positive that the “Danish text” leaked earlier in the week, sets GHG reduction targets for developed countries of around 25-45% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. These targets are expected to be extremely ambitious, and will require the sequestration of already emitted atmospheric carbon, potentially limiting worldwide temperature increases to 1.5C – 2C. The text is now up for negotiation, and demands much stronger commitments from the developed counties, compared to figures already laid out on the table.

UK PM Gordon Brown has been actively engaged in the negotiations to encourage the EU to confirm its more ambitious commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 30% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. It is expected that this will require the UK to contribute 40% emissions reductions by 2020, instead of the 34% share previously committed.

Gordon Brown has also been pivotal in negotiations among EU leaders to provide immediate finance for developing countries to adapt to climate change. Announcing that the EU would commit 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn, $10bn) for adaptation in developing countries over the next three years, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt reaffirmed Europe’s commitment to moving the Copenhagen negotiations closer to a global deal.

The UK’s promise, at £500m ($800m; 553m euros) a year, was the highest. Reports from Brussels suggest the German contribution will be 480m euros per year from 2010 to 2012. Earlier, Mr Brown and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy told a joint news conference their two nations would contribute at least £1.5bn (1.7bn euros; $2.4bn) spread over the three years.

The money pledged is for a “fast start” fund to help the world’s poorest nations tackle rising sea levels, deforestation, water shortages and other consequences of climate change between 2010 and 2012, and reduce their own emissions.

The promised EU contribution will make up a sizeable portion of a proposed global figure of $10bn (7bn euros) annually.

Financial discussions in Brussels saw EU leaders during the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to consider a global tax on financial transactions to reduce the risks of a further financial crisis and raise funding for tackling climate change.

“The European Council encourages the IMF to consider the full range of options including insurance fees, resolution funds, contingent capital arrangements and a global financial transaction levy in its review,” the summit’s final statement said.

Whilst the text confirms the consensus between nations that halting forest protection is crucial, the details of measures to reduce deforestation are still al long way off. Developing countries are still demanding more funding from developed countries, and the details of a long term and fundamental financial package still remains hugely uncertain. The new text also requires developing countries to cut their carbon emissions by 15-30% by 2020 compared to BAU, and developing countries retired from the plenary requesting further time to digest the potential consequences of such commitments.

Additionally, reports suggest that the EU and US have finally agreed to a twin track deal which ensures that the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that forces rich countries to cut emissions – continues at least until a new legal treaty is signed.

“This is very, very complicated. It’s tough because the world is trying to peak emissions. There is a long way to go. We are anxious and conscious of the scale of the challenge that remains,” said the UK climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband.

The text will be negotiated in more detail next week, with details of a finance package and forest protection measures expected to dominate discussions. Developing countries will be calling for tougher commitments, and as Nasa scientist Jim Hansen recently commented – the climate agenda is not amenable to half measures. “It would be like saying, I’ll agree to cut 40% of slavery.”

Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Deforestation and uncontrolled grazing leads to erosion (Image by: treesftf)

As negotiations continue, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and Enhanced Carbon Stocks (REDD+) is viewed as one of the only mechanisms expected to be agreed upon during the ongoing climate change talks in Copenhagen.  But an excellent point is being made – a successful REDD+ program requires a strong global CO2 target.  Without a global objective, any framework agreed for REDD+ will continue to allow deforestation without a clear finish line in view.  So, before we can even approach the complexity of the REDD+ mechanism itself, we require: a CO2 limitation target, a full understanding of the carbon stocks and governance structures for forests, and a sense of the financial commitments available, among other things.  The debate around REDD+ has been focused on issues of methodology, local communities, and indigenous people, as well as finance mechanisms.

That is a lot to settle in the one remaining week of COP15!

Running up to Copenhagen, REDD+ was often lauded as a sort of silver bullet towards addressing large-scale CO2 output reductions.  Draft REDD+ text coming into Copenhagen included a global objective for halving deforestation by 2020 and totally halting net forest loss by 2030.  The UNFCCC had assumed that forests account for about 20 % of global CO2 output, but Dutch researchers recently reported that the maximum level is likely closer to 12 % (Van der Werf, et al., 2009.

Surprisingly, discussions of REDD+ do not appear to have been damaged too much by this report.   “Even with lower emissions, avoiding deforestation remains the cheapest and quickest way to realize huge reductions,” says Herbert Christ from the Congo Basin Forest partnership (CBFP), a platform of ten Congo Basin countries.

Sure, a global REDD+ objective can help the world stay at or below 2C warming, but this does not come free of charge.  It is vital that developed countries commit to the level of funding consistent with realizing the goals of a REDD+ plan.  All this week, the potential socio-economic outcomes of REDD+ have been discussed at multiple side-events to the official negotiations.  It is stressed that REDD+ can simultaneously reduce emissions and alleviate poverty through rewarding local communities for forest conservation efforts.  But realizing side benefits depends heavily on significant and reliable streams of funding.  And well, once funds are secured, how they are distributed and monitored is a major concern.

All aspects of the Copenhagen negotiation package require funding, e.g. technology transfer, adaptation, mitigation; thus, it is hard to imagine that REDD+ will come off fully-funded with ease.  The “Copenhagen Launch Fund” was announced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the summit of Commonwealth Leaders last week in Trinidad & Tobago.  But the proposed 10 billion USD funding (meant to come from donations by the UK and other developed nations) to help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change is not enough, says Solomon Islands Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Colin Beck.

Throughout the week , this has been the ardent position of the developing nations.  Thus, when adaptation funding offered is barely ten-percent of what developing nations require (110 billion USD), how can REDD+ expect to be fully financed (by the 11 donor countries) in a totally separate pool of money?

However, there has been impressive movement by some developed nations on setting the framework of REDD+ and the associated Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).  Thursday, France clashed with other EU states in advocating strong baselines under this system for all nations.  French climate ambassador, Brice Lalonde, called accounting methods proposed by EU nations most dependent on forestry “sloppy, and even fraudulent.”  He went on to state that “the EU cannot embrace fraudulent methods and then turn around and ask developed countries to accept something that they are not willing to impose on themselves.” Lalonde.  Coming up to Copenhagen, France worked with REDD+ countries (especially those of South America) to establish viable methods for that program as well (click here to read more).

There were a number of side events concerning REDD+ throughout this first week of COP15.  Many of these events highlighted REDD+ pilot projects in some of the 37 nations covered under the plan.  Naturally, the implementation of a final REDD+ system will be complex due to differences in country and local-level needs in forest conservation.  But the general idea to which many negotiators are distilling REDD+ to over the last days is a system whereby developing countries are rewarded with carbon credits for sustaining their forests.  The same concerns were voiced by nation after nation.  Primarily, concerns fall under two themes: 1) protection of indigenous peoples’ rights; and 2) distribution of funds from federal government to localities.

Throughout the week, Guyana stressed the need to implement standardized Readiness Preparedness Proposal (RPP) procedures for countries covered by REDD+.  There is an evident capacity gap in the understanding the extent of deforestation in many countries, especially when left to self-report.  There is temptation to overlook some illegal logging, and without GIS technology, it is difficult to be accurate; chances of non-additionality and leakage are extended as well.  To this point, Guyana has also discussed a National Inventory Process that would be supported and standardized under REDD+.

Though many countries seem convinced that they will benefit from the REDD+ program, indigenous voices continue to warn that money from national-level carbon credits might not make it to them.  In this view REDD+ is intertwined with human rights laws.  To this point there has been discussion of adopting “pro-poor policies,” that protect the most marginal of indigenous peoples.  Yet, that seems to be a cloaked way of calling for total national reform to protect indigenous people in 37 countries, some of which qualify as the most unstable in the world.  And well, some of those nations still hope to get credits for forest plantations that are not cut but used for generation of products, like palm oil.

So many loose ends seem apparent… So, the real question is—does REDD+ put the cart before the horse?  Are all the discussions tailoring details without a solid and viable holistic vision of REDD+?  Not to mention PINC?

For a more comprehensive overview of all proposals on REDD+ and PINC, see the Little REDD+ Book.

Author: Kelly M. McManus

REDD+ is considered as one of the more actionable items on the COP agenda, and it is predicted that a binding agreement on forests may be one of few substantive outcomes of the Copenhagen summit. However, REDD+ is widely criticized by most stakeholders, from broad calls for the three “E”s-equity, efficiency, and equality, concerns that have carried over from Poznan, to admonition of REDD+ as “carbon colonialism” by indigenous peoples who have seen their lands and livelihoods usurped in the name of the CDM.    Despite these criticisms, an acknowledgement of the critical need to halt deforestation, which garners support not only on the basis of emissions reductions, but also as a strategy for protecting biodiversity and providing essential ecosystem services, drives the REDD+ process along.

But can REDD+ deliver on its essential task of reducing emissions? New research suggests that deforestation probably accounts for around 12% of global carbon emissions, both because deforestation rates have decreased in real terms and other sources of carbon emissions have increased in proportion to deforestation emissions (Van der Werf, et al., 2009).   The significant challenges of implementing REDD+ mean that actual emissions reductions from deforestation will be somewhat less than this. Substantial issues have been raised in determining appropriate baseline levels of deforestation, developing methods to prevent “leakage“-i.e. deforestation displaced from forests under REDD+ governance to those which are not , and ensuring that compensation is only given to projects that are truly additional, that is, forests that would be deforested without the injection of REDD+ monies.   None of these are simple questions, and what is appropriate in one nation or for one driver of forest conversion, may be disastrous in another.

Furthermore, long-term ecological modeling studies in the Amazon suggest that under conditions of drought and higher average temperatures, forest dieback may switch the forest from being a carbon sink to a carbon source (Cox et al., 2004).

The uncertainties on REDD+ extend beyond emissions reductions.  REDD+ represents the largest potential financial investment into mitigating deforestation that has ever been undertaken.  This investment will be delivered to developing nations for avoided deforestation (RED), forest degradation (REDD), maintenance of existing forest stocks (PINC), and/or enhancement of standing forest carbon stocks (REDD+), or some combination of these options, depending upon which proposal is ultimately adopted.  If REDD+ (or RED or REDD) prioritizes carbon storage above all other currently non-market forest services (e.g. biodiversity, hydrological and nutrient cycling), it will create trade-offs between these services that may prove to be ecologically-and economically, if the critical role of water and nutrient cycling are to agriculture and human systems-unsound.    

To counter these very real challenges, we have added ‘D’s and ‘+’s and ‘PINC’s and a plethora of caveats to what started as a relatively simple economic, though potentially dangerous, economic tool. We have created a REDD giant.

Given the high stakes and high uncertainty associated with REDD+, it is necessary that we critically evaluate the potential  that the current market-based proposed REDD+ mechanism may ultimately cost too much, do too little, and have adverse impacts on biological and social systems.

These are not easy questions, and the political momentum behind REDD+, after literally years of negotiations and consensus-building, makes it unlikely that delegates will want to reopen this Pandora’s box.  But if they were to just take a quick peek inside, they might be well advised to consider one aspect of deforestation that is becoming increasingly more clear-the increasing proportion of deforestation that is caused by export-driven commodity markets, namely cattle ranching, soya production, and oil palm plantations.  If the problem with deforestation were narrowed to simply commercial markets for these commodities (albeit admittedly leaving the smaller but important problem of poverty-based deforestation for another, perhaps aid-based, mechanism) deforestation could conceivably be addressed through a trade-based, demand-side solution, akin to the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (EU FLEGT) Program.  Perhaps the market that needs to be regulated is not the one that does not yet exist for forest carbon, but the very well established markets for global “deforestation” commodities.   The thought of changing course so late in the game may seem the type of thing to send a delegation into a frenzy, but fear not, we merely need to add on a consonant. Ladies and gentlemen, meet REDD+T.

Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Betio village, Kiribati. 10 February 2005. ©Greenpeace / Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert

The Kiribati delegation made a powerful public presentation of the extreme risks faces by their atoll nation in the near future by climate change effects.  Climatico analyst Jennifer Helgeson had the opportunity to have a discussion with Kiribati’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Immigration, Tessie Eria Lambourne, as well as legal Solicitor-General, David Lambourne.

The presentation preceding this conversation combined scientific discussions alongside cultural themes and socio-economic projections to put what Mr. Lambourne notes as a “human face” on climate change.  This human face includes issues such as quickly disappearing corals, loss of infrastructure, lack of potable drinking water, and extensive health issues.

Sea level rise is so serious for this nation that it is described as “inundation risk” by the risk management specialists brought in by the Kiribati government to assess the nation’s environmental situation.  These specialists have described two options for changes to Kiribati in the coming century:  1) Temporary inundation; or 2) Permanent inundation, with many changes already triggered and slowly evolving.  In the most modest model proposals (following IPCC projections), there is major coastal loss to the nation by 2030 and by 2050 there is a proliferation of swampy area throughout the mid-lands of the country. Finally, by 2100, there will be major permanent inundation of areas throughout the islands.

Such a situation would necessitate major evacuation of Kiribati’s citizens to other nations.  But, Ms. Lambourne makes it clear that if evacuation and relocation becomes realistic, the people of Kiribati will not go as environmental refugees: “We are a proud people.  We want to offer skilled individuals to other nations; we have no interest in our people living off of welfare.”  In this spirit, the government is committed to merit-based relocations (e.g. agreements to train Kiribati women as nurses in order to fill employment gaps in developed countries).  The programs already in development with Australia and New Zealand ensure long-term Kiribati communities in those nations.  Mr. Lambourne explains that historically other Pacific Island nations have had migration due to socio-economic factors.  So, they have seed communities of their indigenous people in places like New Zealand and Australia.  We need to develop those kinds of seed communities to absorb Kiribati people if climate change forces it to be so.”

When asked why he and his wife are so knowledgeable on climate change, Mr. Lambourne states that all the heads of state know about climate change because it is pervasive in all issues faced by Kiribati.  Kiribati has ordered village by village risk assessments and the reported outlook is grim.  The only airway to the country is likely to be totally inundated by 2030.  There is a key data gap in how coral will react over time; the excellent records kept since the 1990s does not allow for accurate projections.  The most densely populated island of the atoll is Tarawa (45,000 people) and poverty as well as health issues will only be exacerbated by climate change.   The one fresh water lens for the community’s drinking water has also begun to see minor salination.  Ms. Lambourne shakes her head and asks rhetorically: “do you know how expensive it is to maintain a desalinization plant?”

Kiribati is asking the world for help, but at the same time, Ms. Lambourne is quick to point out that they are taking hold of their own fate.  The Clean Development Mechanism hasn’t really made it into Kiribati because of the costs involved in setting-up the process.  “Who would do a single project in Kiribati when economies of scale let them do thousands cheaply in China?” asks Mr. Lambourne.  “We don’t have the technology to promise specific targets but we are working hard to get towards the use of more sustainable fuel types and seriously reducing the atoll’s carbon footprint.”

Kiribati is tackling the hard issues.  Mr. Lambourne admits that “relocation at all is not a comfortable topic, but we have to be realistic.”  He looks at me and jokes that, after all, our President is an economist; he is practical.”  Asked about how other Pacific Island nations feel about the merit-based migration program Kiribati is striving towards, the answer is that not all nations think it is the best way.  “Of course, it takes work on our part and on the part of our people.  But we are part of the AOSIS [Association of Small Island States], and we agree with the common message.  Each nation might choose to get there differently, but we agree.”

Complemented on the lovely Kiribati bird song shared during the initial presentation, Ms. Lambourne smiles and says that “the frigate bird is a prime example of national identity; that is why it is so hard to think about moving our people; the spiritual connection to the land is so intense.  The suggestion guides to adaptation all say that the easiest thing for individuals’ to do is to move away from coastal areas, but what happens when your entire nation is a coastal area?”

For more on Kiribati’s climate change plan for adaptation and potential evacuation, see: www.climate.gov.ki

Author: Paige Andrews

African nations protest leaked documents: "We will defend ourselves, we will not die in silence!" (Image by: Ruth Brandt )

Chaos has broken out in Copenhagen as delegates respond to leaked documents that reveal what is believed to be a draft of the agreement which will be signed next week by world leaders. This draft text strongly favors rich nations and threatens to sideline the UN’s future role in climate change negotiations.

The document is being referred to as the “Danish text” which has, until now, been secretly worked on by a group called the “circle of commitment”, although rumoured to include the United States, United Kingdom, and Denmark. This text was only revealed to a few countries since its finalization this week.

The leaked documents reveal that these leaders plan to sign an agreement that would essentially abandon the Kyoto protocol’s principle of placing the majority of responsibility of firm target agreements and financing in the hands of the rich nations who are the most responsible for CO2 emissions and would instead hold poor countries accountable to a range of actions in exchange for funding.

The text is understood to contain the following elements: it lessens the UN role in climate finance and handing it, instead, to the Global Environment Facility (GEF); it creates a new category of developing countries to be called “the most vulnerable”, thus dividing the developing block even further; and forcing developing countries to agree to emission cuts alongside developed countries yet would allow rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes of carbon per person in 2050 while limiting poor countries to 1.44 tonnes. While bad news for developing countries, the leaked text reveals that the agreement also seeks to hold temperature rises to the 2C target established by the IPCC and allocate $10billion per year for developing country adaptation during the period of 2012-2015.

The leaked document contains many blanks and areas to be filled in as the text is fleshed out. While considered a draft text, African nations are in an uproar and are now protesting inside the Bella Centre. Many developing countries are interpreting the leaked text as an attempt by rich countries to muscle through an agreement next week when Ministers and Heads of State arrive in Copenhagen without their knowledge, bypassing the UN process.

Fever is rising for Copenhagen, as delegates and key global players in the climate field descend on the Danish capital in readiness for the official opening of the 15th Conference of the Parties on Monday. Expectations have rollercoastered in the last few weeks, with negative sentiment peaking when it was plausible Obama would not attend and the key emitters, namely the USA, China and India were yet to stipulate plans regarding emissions reductions.

The recent email scandal from the Climate Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia and James Hansen, NASA’s head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, vehemently stressing the talks ‘must fail’ will add further dent to expectations.  However pledges for emissions cuts, announced by the USA and China and the anticipation that India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh will today announce cuts in carbon intensity by 24 percent in 2020, bring hope. The cumulative result of these pledges is a positive signal that the COP could deliver a tangible structure for an agreement by the closing on December 19th.

One of the most contentious issues likely to dominate the discussions is the standoff between developing and developed countries, referred to as Annex 1 under the existing Kyoto Agreement. The key emerging emitters from the developing world, China, India, Brazil and South Africa have remained firm that developed countries must provide finance and technology to help developing nations fight global warming. This was further reaffirmed this week in Copenhagen, when the key negotiators from these four countries indicated after a preparatory meeting that they would represent a “different position” compared to a separate outline for the global climate talks by Denmark.

After a recent meeting in Beijing it also emerged that this group at Copenhagen will formally ask “developed countries to assume responsibility for emissions reduction targets in the second commitment period (from 2013)”. As Kim Carstensen, head of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative, further advocated “the developed world needs to have deeper emissions cuts, more new money on the table and much more willingness to share the technologies for low carbon development”. Developed nations are however adamant that this group of big emerging economies must also commit to mandatory emissions cuts.

Arguing aside, the fact remains that the world must cut its emissions, by around 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 if any form of climate stabilization is to be achieved.  Nonetheless discussions are likely to stumble and potentially get deadlocked over the issue of historical responsibility. This issue of ‘burden sharing’ is hugely sensitive as it ultimately involves responsibility to give money, billions of dollars of it, needed for low carbon investment and in adaptation funding, especially in key areas vulnerable to the onslaught of climate change.

Developing countries will not vacillate over the need for comprehensive adaptation funding, and will not compromise on the need for this to be in addition to official development assistance (ODA). The EU’s negotiators recent written blunder, referring that they “cannot accept reference to ‘additional to’, and ‘separate from’ ODA targets” could gravely undermine discussions on this issue.

In addition to the issue of funding, developing countries will be pressing for a firm agreement on Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD), where large swathes of land covered by forests of high biodiversity have the potential to earn countries money by keeping forests standing. However, as with many negotiations at Copenhagen, issues need to be ironed out with regards to the details.  A major hurdle for REDD is corruption and mismanagement in the forestry industry in developing countries. For example this costs Indonesia, which has one of the highest deforestation rates, two billion US dollars a year, equivalent to its entire health budget as a Human Rights Watch report released on Tuesday indicated. Many feel the negotiations surrounding REDD are fundamental if Copenhagen is to achieve anything, and will be hoping there is not a ‘no deal’ on this.

I will be traveling to Copenhagen for the second week of deliberations to cover issues related to developing countries.

Following five weeks of intense negotiations between the Rudd government and the Opposition, the Australian Senate voted once more, by 41 to 33, against bills that would have established the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The Greens, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, and Family First Senator Steve Fielding joined the Opposition (Liberals + Nationals) in voting down the scheme (SMH 02/12/09).

 The Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry welcomed the rejection, while WWF and the Climate Institute, called for a double dissolution and joint sitting of Parliament to get the original bills through (SMH 04/12/09).

 Under Australia’s bicameral parliamentary system, both houses must reach majority agreement on proposed legislation before it can go forward into law. Following a vote against a bill it may, however, subsequently be revived or presented again. That is what happened this autumn following a first rejection of the CPRS by the Australian Senate in August (see my previous post). The legislation had been put on the table again by the government in November, passing without surprise the House of Representative on the 17^th.

 The Senate no vote came after an extraordinary few weeks of drama, in which the Opposition reached a deal to support the legislation with big changes, and then reneged after its change of leadership. Indeed, on Monday, former Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull (who was backing the passage of the Australian ETS) was challenged within its own party, and was ousted as Liberal party leader by right-wing climate skeptic Tony Abbott. The new Liberal leader, who has been portraying the scheme as Kevin Rudd’s “big new tax”, managed to convince most Liberal Senators who would have supported the CPRS to vote down the scheme (except for two who crossed to floor).

 Mr Abbott insists that he will have a credible climate change policy but is making it clear that his policy will not include an emissions trading scheme any time soon. In particular, he said it would be “folly” for Australia to establish an emissions trading scheme before the United States had settled on its model: “The right time for an emissions trading scheme is when the rest of the world is signed up for one.” (ABC 02/10/09). Abbott plans to fight a climate change election using land management and energy efficiency measures instead of an ETS, and would welcome a debate on nuclear power as an option.

 Despite the fact that Prime minister Rudd now has the option to call for a double dissolution election, which he would without a doubt win, he has played down prospects of pulling this trigger. The government has said that in the next Parliamentary sitting period commencing on 2 February 2010, it will introduce bills to establish the CPRS, inclusive of amendments incorporated following negotiations with the Opposition announced on 24 November 2009, to give Parliament a further opportunity to consider and pass legislation. Hopes to portray Australia as a world leader on the issue have now vanished, putting Kevin Rudd in an incomfortable position as a friend of the chair in Copenhagen next week.