Article by Guest Contributor: Adalberto Maluf

The fourth meeting of the BASIC country ministers (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) on climate change took place in Rio de Janeiro on the 25th and 26th of July 2010 to further discuss their common positions regarding the Copenhagen Accord.

The BASIC countries were part of the final agreement reached in Copenhagen, although, officially, they left the conference “frustrated” with the final results. The joint statement after these two days of meeting in Rio “reiterated the importance of the two pronged approach – Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Parties” as crucial for an “equitable and balanced outcome in Cancun”.

The joint statement also shares concerns about those sensitive issues for the developing countries regarding differential (historical) responsibility between developing and developed countries, which is related to “equitable burden sharing” of past emissions within an context of sustainable development and also “demands the implementation of ambitious financing, technological support and capacity building.”

Despite the fact that the official joint statement didn’t differ much from what these countries have formally agreed in Copenhagen, there were some advances in Rio which can’t be underestimated. Overcoming Brazilian initial opposition, they all agree to develop a common methodology to assess their total emissions. The group, led by China’s chief climate negotiator, also agreed to have a “panel of experts” which would be responsible to establish a common baseline that could be equally measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV methodology). Brazil opposed it but didn’t block the initiative.

It could be the starting point for the development of a common methodology to assess and measure the real implications of their pledges for the economic and social development of these key countries. It’s a direct response of the Chinese government to the agreement made in the last hours of the Copenhagen conference between President Obama and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, with the intermediation of India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Lula da Silva.

There is a common feeling inside the BASIC countries that the Kyoto protocol won’t prevail in the near future, which could mean that they would have to change their positions for future negotiations. India insisted that it is rather clear that the Kyoto protocol is no longer a feasible route. With that in mind, they should all work together towards a single, inclusive climate change agreement.

The BASIC countries are still awaiting further developments around the world before moving forward with their pledges, however, there was a common understanding that developing countries with advanced economies, like Brazil and China, would have to abandon their rhetorical demand and start discussing ways to push concrete proposals in the table. The decision on a common methodology for MRV could be the beginning of that change.

Authors: Sabrina Chesterman & Nyla Sarwar.

As the climate talks gain pace in Bonn, progress is being made on a new text, designed to resurrect chances of a global agreement in Cancun in December. Many, including outgoing UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer, are still hesitant about Cancun being able to achieve a deal, which was originally supposed to have been reached at Copenhagen last December. One of the Mexican negotiators, Luis Alfonso de Albo, has used the coverage at Bonn to try and instill confidence in what may be achieved there, stating a climate deal is still ‘positive’.

The Bonn meetings have brought together key negotiating groups, including;

(I)              AWG-KP – to focus on further commitments by Annex I parties, based on text prepared by the Chair

(II)            AWG-LCA – to focus on preparation of an outcome to be presented to at COP 16, based on a new text by the Chair

(III)           Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) – which will consider issues including national communications and reporting, the financial mechanism and capacity building.

(IV)          Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) – which will consider methodological issues, technology transfer and the Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.

The Bonn discussions have entered their second week with many fundamental questions still remaining regarding the legality of the proposed agreement, emission levels and temperature goals.  The big white elephant in Hotel Maritim where the discussions are being held, lingering from Copenhagen, centres on the scale of commitments by developed and developing countries. The new text aims to ameliorate the huge bridge that exist between these groups and integrate the Copenhagen Accord with the 2009 versions of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP texts.

In regards to finance, the new text states that that all finance will be new, additional, adequate and predictable. Whilst developed countries have committed to a goal of mobilising USD$100bn/pa by 2020, there is still uncertainty about which countries will contribute towards this and how much. Discussions regarding the generation of private funds have seen suggestions of a potential international cap-and-trade system with auctioned permits. There have also been references to the creation of a Finance Board within the UNFCCC to manage the operators of the agency’s financial mechanisms (i.e the GEF and the Climate Fund), including the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund (CGCF). Disillusionment regarding funding is also created due to the texts reference to the Copenhagen Adaptation Framework (CAF), implemented through international collaboration. The CAF aims to undertake 11 activities (e.g. planning, vulnerability assessments, strengthening institutional capacities, building resilience, disaster risk reduction etc.) all of which require extensive funding.  Worryingly the text remains sparse on new market mechanisms, likely to be critical to galvanise funding, especially from private and public sector partnerships.  In addition, as the EU Commissioner for Climate Change, Connie Hedegaard, made clear last week discussing the monetary agreements in lieu of the destabilised Euro does not come at an easy time, especially with money having to be drawn from the public purse.  Therefore funding remains a sensitive yet pivotal topic, especially if alliances are to be bridged between different negotiating groups.

Some aspects of the text being prepared at Bonn remain unchanged from the text prepared at Copenhagen. An example includes the issues surrounding REDD and REDD+, which was hailed as one of Copenhagen’s successes. In addition, the text regarding technology transfer remains unchanged from last year, and this section is considered to deliver a major outcome. The text suggests that establishment of a Climate Technology Centre and Network – the mechanism to support and organise the transfer of technology, encourage collaborative innovation, and skills development for developing countries. It is expected to be funded by the overarching funding mechanism and could begin as early as January 2011. Leading on from technology transfer, discussions so far at Bonn regarding capacity building have been largely inconclusive with additional brackets added to the text, and wide disagreement concerning its funding, delivery mechanism and reporting. With key uncertainties remaining, negotiators at Bonn have a lot of talking to do this week if success is to be achieved in any of these areas and a clear path to Cancun is to be laid.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings continued in Bonn, Germany from 9 – 11 April 2010. This marked the eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 11) as well as the ninth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 9).

The meetings were focused on the organization of each of the working groups in the coming year. The main goal was to prepare for a successful conclusion of the groups’ work during the upcoming Conference of Parties (COP) 16 in Cancun later this year.

During the three day meeting there was much reflection on the COP 15 negotiations which took place in Copenhagen last December. Criticisms of COP15 have been extreme in the past months. At the Bonn meeting, 10 April, Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, condemned what he called “continued attempts by some developed countries to impose a deeply flawed Copenhagen Accord as the basis for future negotiations.”

In order to combat the failures Solon has identified in the process, Bolivia will host the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth on 19-22 April 2010. More than 15,000 people and 70 governments are expected to attend. The object of the Summit is to bring “civil society back into the process of climate change negotiations.”

In the wake of COP 15 there has been a call from many developing nations towards more industrialized ones for increased trust. To this point, at a press conference, Solon called for a return to the full UNFCCC process, and to strengthen what had been agreed in COP15. He stated that “the central aim of any climate summit is not to save itself and accept any outcome, but to come to an agreement that will save humanity.”

In the wake of criticism and the launch of the World Peoples’ Summit, the USA has begun to slice millions of climate change support dollars from Bolivia. These cuts in funds were not stated as being directly related to the Summit launch. However, funds are also being cut from Ecuador, which is the first nation to recognize the legal rights of Mother Earth. Commenting on the cuts in funding from the USA and Denmark, Solon commented: “what kind of negotiation is it where you lose money if you disagree?”

Only time will tell if the actions like the World Peoples’ Summit on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth will affect the goals and tone of COP 16.

Climatico has just released its latest report entitled, “Copenhagen De-briefing: An Analysis of COP15 for Long-term Cooperation”

This report analyses key issues under discussion in Copenhagen including: finance, technology transfer, REDD+, CDM and JI, as well as the ongoing conflicts between Annex I and Non Annex I countries. The Copenhagen Accord is also discussed along with its potential effect on future negotiations.

Download the report

With the dust barely settled from the Copenhagen talks, critics within Canada have been scathing of its approach to the talks. They note Canada’s failure to take any leadership, its humiliation at the hands of the Yes Men (although there, Canada is hardly alone) in recent times, as well as the recipient of a fossil award, for lack of leadership as an industrialized country. When leaders came out of Copenhagen with an underwhelming accord, many in Canada were quick to point the finger at their own government’s failure.

Continue reading…

Guest Author: Bettina Wittneben

The Copenhagen Accord is a beautifully written document and full of good intentions. I encourage everyone to read it. It can be found on the UNFCCC website, is quite short and touches on many of the contentious issues in climate change policy. Unfortunately, it is almost entirely lacking of any consequence or even content. Today, this document is literally empty: it contains two tables that are intentionally blank. Let’s have a closer look.

The WHAT

This is the first UN document that mentions the 2 degree target. This aim of keeping the temperature rise below 2 degrees from pre-industrial times has been championed by the EU and others for a while but was never formally adopted. Over the past year, however, voices have become stronger that temperature rise should really be kept below 1.5 degrees rather than 2 degrees to save human lives and many species from extinction. This challenge of the initial magic 2 degrees target might actually have made it acceptable for mainstream politics to acknowledge a 2 degree target rather than going with the more stringent 1.5 degree target. How we can prevent temperatures from rising above 2 degrees globally and what that means in terms of limiting greenhouse gas emissions today remains unresolved. It is a comfortable goal for policy makers, because it remains fairly vague. That is, of course, not according to the IPCC report which prescribes a radical reduction of emissions urgently to stay below 2 degrees. But who will be held liable when temperatures surge beyond 2 degrees? Will the signatories to the Copenhagen Accord be dragged in front of an environmental court? Right now, we are already at a one degree temperature increase. It is almost a farce that the agreement states to review a 1.5 degree goal in 2015. By then, given that we are not lowering emissions, it is difficult to imagine that we would be able to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees.

Further figures are in relation to funding adaptation and mitigation measures in developing countries. The sum of $30bn is to be provided within the period from 2010 to 2012. This money is to be new and additional and to be provided by industrialized countries. This figure is similar to what has been promised by the EU and the US earlier in the negotiations.  More significantly, the agreement promises developing countries $100bn per year starting in 2020. This money, however, is to “come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.” After the financial crisis the imagination is left to run wild on what alternative sources of finance could be. This latter money is to be managed through a newly established Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. Note here that the Adaptation Fund of the Kyoto Protocol took more than a decade to set up, even though its financial implications are not as wide reaching as this new fund.

The reporting requirements of the Copenhagen Accord are not very different from what the Convention set out 17 years ago. The frequency of reporting has increased since then  (from ‘periodically’ to ‘every two years’) but the content of national reports by rapidly industrialized countries do not require more stringent attention as emphasised by the US and exact guidelines are to be decided on within the Conference of Parties process.

The Copenhagen Accord also appeals to the forces of the market. “We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions.”  It is a very hollow commitment to the belief that the market will lower costs of mitigation action. After a decade of experimenting with market mechanisms and debating their flaws, falling for fraudulent behaviour and being exposed to years of arbitrage, this sentence seems to be a weak declaration that market approaches to climate action can still be seen as useful.

Surprisingly, the Kyoto Protocol is mentioned in the agreement. “Annex I Parties that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol.” Does that mean that somehow, miraculously, the emission reductions promises delivered for information purposes only to the Copenhagen Accord next month will transform into a second commitment period? It is not clear.

The WHO

Here, the writers of the Copenhagen Accord take a rain check: watch this space after 31 January 2010. Until then, countries have time to enlist (literally, sign up to the currently empty list) and express their intentions. Industrialized countries need to state their emission reduction goal for 2020 and the baseyear they calculate that on. Developing countries need to state their mitigation actions, including a wish list of actions that need financing from the wealthier nations.

The SO WHAT

• Countries still need to sign on.
• Emission targets still need to be set.
• Mitigation actions in developing countries still need to be declared.
• The finances still need to be sorted out.
• The extent of the market mechanisms still needs to be determined.
• The reporting still needs to be improved.
• The planet still needs to be saved.

The Copenhagen Accord does not go beyond the Kyoto Protocol. More ambitious targets including a broader group of countries, more stringent rules on the market mechanisms and limits to using credits as alternatives to reductions could have all been negotiated under a second commitment period. Was it really necessary to start with a new agreement from scratch?

The Bottom Line

All seemed lost in Copenhagen when the Copenhagen Accord was agreed on as a last ditch effort to come up with something that had the word ‘Copenhagen’ in it. Since many of my American colleagues already call the Kyoto Protocol the Kyoto Accord, this name seems most agreeable to an American public. Whether this document can be called a treaty is another matter. The climate summit in Copenhagen has been marred by poor organization, posturing and arrogance as well as the usual political divisions and struggles. After two years of almost continuous negotiating since Bali, we would have been left with nothing were it not for the Copenhagen Accord. The world leaders have saved the day – just not the planet. One thing is clear: there is a whole lot more work to do. Luckily. The climate conference caravan can now move on. We already have dates for the next COPs – see you in 2010 in Mexico and 2011 in South Africa. In the meantime, climate change will take its toll and irreversible climate chaos is becoming inevitable.

Authors: Nyla Sarwar & Sabrina Chesterman

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during the final hours at COP15

As the climate demonstrators started to pack away their banners and the Christmas shoppers descended on a freezing Copenhagen (-7C), over 100 leaders and statesmen headed back to their various countries. Many are left to now ponder about what has actually been achieved, except a huge carbon footprint created by the tens of thousands of people who travelled to Denmark in the anticipation of being part of an expected key moment in history.

“The conference of the parties takes note of the Copenhagen Accord,” says a final decision on Saturday 19^th December 2009.

The Copenhagen Accord (see final text here) was negotiated on the basis of political superpowers asserting their national sovereignty and many have pointed the finger at China for being so dogged in their approach to the negotiations. The head of the Chinese delegation, Xie Zhenhua and Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiaboa, remained resolute in their refusal to discuss and put on the table figures for emissions cuts. Although Obama may hail the drafting of the Accord as a success over China, there are huge loopholes. Developing nation delegates, exhausted, frustrated and now worried, returning to countries on the front line of climate change with no clear guarantee or safeguard that climate change can be slowed or its worst effects abated.

The agreement, drawn up by US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, lacks any legally binding commitments, or interim targets for developed or least developing countries, removed at the last minute to appease disgruntled negotiators.

Several texts had been presented to the delegations over the course of the 10-day conference in Copenhagen, including two surprise Danish texts, which were both angrily rejected by developing countries, which questioned the transparency of the proposal having worked on the same text over the last 2 years.

On Day 9, Hilary Clinton delivered a press conference to bolster hopes of a positive contribution from the US in ongoing negotiations. She announced that the US was in support of the $100bn/pa fast start fund for adaptation in developing countries, and the US’s contribution was later announced to be $3.6bn pa annum by 2020, to support the $10bn/pa from Europe and the $15bn/pa from Japan.

Day 10 began with optimism, as over 120 Heads of State gathered in one location, to discuss the threat of climate change, for the first time since the Second World War.

Obama’s 8am arrival on Air Force One, into Copenhagen fuelled hopes for a positive breakthrough in negotiations at the conference. As the world’s largest economy and second largest emitter, the US had (as always) a very powerful position in the negotiations. However, Obama failed to provide any further commitments in the chaotic final phase of negotiations, and knocked heads with the Chinese Premier Wen Jibao and Brazilian President Lula in intense meetings upon arrival. Saying he was “here not to talk but to act” he failed to provide any further commitments from the US and did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.

His disappointing, lackluster speech was frustrating for conference delegates and heavily criticized by many, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Despite ongoing tensions and disagreements behind the scenes, Obama made the announcement of a ‘deal’ before his departure at around 6pm on Friday for his Christmas holidays. He delivered a press conference to highlight the ‘agreement that had been reached’, which China and many other developing countries vehemently rejected in the plenary session later.

The Copenhagen Accord was reached from the depths of desperation on Saturday morning, stating that average global temperature increases should be limited to 2C, but no legally binding targets for emissions reduction were set to achieve this. This a major blow for many LDCs and small island states, who pushed for a global temperature increase to be limited to just 1.5C, which they believed to be crucial for their survival.

Developing nations, and notably Africa, have presented themselves as a key power force in an era of supposed global climate governance. The big emerging economies, India, China, Brazil and South Africa allied to prevent a developed country domination of the negotiations. Success was made in terms of the fast start finance of $30 billion/year from next year to 2012, and the long-term pledge of $100 billion/year to 2020. Although President Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, representing the African country block was criticised for accepting this deal, his ‘compromise’ on this issue ensured it was formalised in the Copenhagen Accord.  The efforts of Chavez and the block of Bolivia, Nicaragua, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, attempted a last minute block to the talks just as it seemed the Copenhagen Accord would be agreed upon.  Although with the help of UK Energy & Climate Change Minister, Ed Miliband this move was averted, many question the viability of Chavez and others in their fidelity to finding a common ground to climate changes, instead using their speeches in the High Level plenary to lament on the silent ‘ghost’ of capitalism driven by Obama, Nobel man of war, that was the root cause of climate change.

Attempts to kill the Kyoto Protocol also dominated the negotiations at Copenhagen, with LDCs furious at the suggestion of a new agreement, which opens up the possibility of them being required to measure and report their emissions (which only Annex I countries are required to do under the conventions of Kyoto). Several developed countries have begun to back the idea of creating a new treaty which would clean the slate and start again addressing emissions from both developed and developing countries. These divergent views led to wasted hours of precious negotiating time at the conference and significantly weakened the Copenhagen Accord, with many agenda items simply postponed for discussion at COP 16 in Mexico City next year.

Some organisations felt that the deal was a positive start, and a successful outcome that we can strengthen in future negotiations.

“This deal provides a solid foundation for international action, including emissions targets, a new financial mechanism and transparent reporting and review to assess countries’ performance,” said Jennifer Morgan, Director of WRI’s Climate and Energy Program.

“But more is needed to ensure a functioning legal instrument, and the ambition of the emission cuts still falls far short of what the science indicates. The agreement will need to be strengthened over time.”

The UN process was also disputed, with many arguing that it had become totally unworkable and impossible to forge consensus among disparate countries fighting over environmental guilt, future costs, and who should referee the results. It might therefore be more likely going forward that discussions about tackling climate change are raised at other forums – the G8, G20 – where approximately 30 countries are likely to represent over 90% of global emissions. This smaller group of nations will tackle a narrower agenda of issues, like technology sharing or the merging of carbon trading markets, without the chaos and posturing of the United Nations process. A version of this already exists in the 17-nation Major Economies Forum, which has been a model of decorum and progress compared with what the world saw unfold at the climate talks.

We would argue that the whole concept of consensus agreement, as enshrined in the convention, is totally flawed and close to impossible for a contentious and political agreement of this sort. Majority votes may sideline those most vulnerable, but might encourage more unity in negotiations. However, Copenhagen has already represented some of the divisions and back-stabbing that prevails with deep disputes occurring within groups like the G77, Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), and the African Group. The process is fundamentally driven by politics, not the science, to deliver short-term economic and political gains, rather than what the planet demands.

The torturous path to the Copenhagen Accord was dismissed by speaker after speaker from the developing world, denouncing the deal as a sham process fashioned behind closed doors by a club of rich countries and large emerging powers. The NY Times reported that the heated debate even saw the Sudanese delegate likening the effect of the accord on poor nations to the Holocaust.

It is unclear how many delegates will sign up to the Accord. The EU, AOSIS, Japan and the African Group all urged delegates to adopt the Accord, though the Latin American countries and Sudan are believed to be in angry opposition.

As the air hung thick in the Bella Centre, one NGO representative commented, just as we emerged from the plenary, “You’re in there with the presidents, I work with the poor. We all know who the real heroes of climate change are.”

Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, highlighted that the challenges now remain in attempts to ‘move towards something real, measurable and verifiable.’ Watch out Bonn and Mexico City, the circus is coming.

Author: Dafydd Elis

On Wednesday at COP15, a side event packed with high-profile representatives of intergovernmental agencies and national governments discussed the prospects for technology transfer over the coming decades.

The session was opened by the chair, UN-DESA‘s Sha Zukang. He outlined a vision for technology transfer in three parts.

The issues

First, he said, technology transfer arrangements should adhere to four principles: timeliness (we need to use technologies that are available now, and we must accelerate their diffusion); equity (technology can contribute to inequality if legal or economic barriers prevent it from being used by poor nations); transparency (opacity will only slow the process); and safety (all technologies entail risks and these will need to managed as we move ahead).

Second, he pointed to the Marshall Plan, the Green Revolution and the child immunisation programme as programmes that succeeded because they were underpinned by good strategies. He called for a similarly strategic, integrated, approach to technology transfer in order to achieve the same effect.

Third, he called for the technology transfer debate to be specific: focussing on the critical sectors of renewable energy, energy efficiency, forests and food & agriculture.

The approach

Jairam Ramesh, India’s Minister of Environment and Forests, then shared his thoughts on the important issues in the technology transfer debate. He argued that the architecture for technology transfer will need to include a diversity of approaches for different contexts. This could include both publicly financed initiatives, public-private initiatives or new frameworks. He also suggested that some kind of change would be required to Intellectual Property regimes, perhaps along the lines of the amendments made to the WTO’s TRIPS to allow the use of generic drugs for AIDS, malaria and TB. Finally, he underlined the importance of capacity building, and enhancing developing countries’ ability to absorb and use new climate technologies.

The organisations

The rest of the speakers at the event represented intergovernmental organisations – UNEP, UNDP, UNIDO, IRENA, GEF and WIPO. They outlined the work that the UN is doing in energy: a discussion that made it clear that across the UN agencies working in this area there is an awareness of the interaction between social and economic issues and the climate change agenda – particularly the ‘bottom billion’ who do not have any access to electricity. While there are tensions between the agenda of poverty alleviation and reducing emissions, a few of the commentators expressed optimism about the opportunities to combine strategies to provide access to energy and simultaneously move developing countries’ development to a low-carbon pathway.

The presentations from GEF and IRENA highlighted the action that is already under way to develop and implement technology transfer initiatives. The GEF’s work in developing the Poznań Strategic Program on Technology Transfer has already resulted in funding being made available to develop national Technology Needs Assessment for developing countries and a number of technology transfer initiatives. IRENA, a new organisation dedicated to renewable energy, will be working on providing support to developing countries as they seek to increase their share of energy delivered from renewable sources.

Side events at COP15 don’t directly contribute to the negotiation of a new treaty on climate change. But they often provide an opportunity to look beneath the language of negotiating texts and think about the challenges of turning the words on paper into action on the ground. Whatever agreement is eventually reached by national leaders through the UNFCCC, the challenge of implementation will be even greater than the challenge of reaching agreement in the first place.

Even while the climate deal is hanging in the balance, then, it’s good to know that the institutional architecture for technology transfer is already beginning to take shape.