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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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 19th 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.
Guest Author: Bettina Wittneben, University of Oxford
Hopenhagen (Image by:/kallu)
I have to admit, seeing President Barack Obama finally walk up to the podium did make my heart beat just a little bit faster. After so much hype about his arrival - the potential visit in the first week, then a firm commitment to support the process personally in the second week and, yesterday, some rumours that he may not come after all - it was exciting to finally see him there. Agile, hopping onto the stage, adjusting the microphone, obviously fully comfortable in his role of addressing the world on the most important issue of our time. It is all too easy to rekindle your hopes when you see President Obama speak.
His tone of voice was serious yet hopeful. He spoke of climate change being science, not fiction (a comment most likely addressed to his home audience), of not wasting any more time by talking, and of taking action now. Of choosing the future over the past. He eloquently reiterated the US position:
This triple aim of mitigation, transparency and financing could be the backbone of a new treaty, says Obama, one that has gone further than any treaty before.
President Obama’s speech was very moving, motivating and makes one think: hey, why have they not all gone for this great deal that seems so honest and makes so much sense. Well, let’s look behind the words and see what is left when we boil down Obama’s speech to what the US is bringing to the table and what they are demanding of others.
Stop talking, start acting - It must be a slap in the face of the countries that have been serious about reducing emissions since signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. The US has spent the majority of the past 17 years either openly blocking progress or complicating talks to absurdity. Surely not Obama’s personal fault, but he is speaking for his country in this forum. Nevertheless, it is a positive note and gives hope for the US finally coming around to accepting climate change as a global challenge.
Choosing the future over the past - This is a direct confrontation with countries like Brazil (whose President gave a passionate speech just minutes earlier) who argue that industrialized countries have been polluting the atmosphere for the past century and cannot tell newly industrialized countries to halt climate change. It depends on your definition of equity. It depends on whether you look at emissions as a flow or a stock. Looking at emission flows, we know that countries such as China and India will be emitting much more in the future; looking at emission stocks, we know that most of the dreadful stuff in the atmosphere is due to industrialized countries having burned fossil fuels to fire up their economies in the past. President Obama wants us to look at climate change as a challenge for the future, not a bundle of opportunist behaviour of the past.
Mitigation - It is indeed very comforting to hear the US speak of mitigation. After all these years of the Bush doctrine, that is very refreshing. However, the numbers Obama is bringing to the table are very low. In his speech, he neglected to mention that the 17% reduction refers to the baseline year of 2005, a year of strong economic growth and high emissions in the US. Usually, negotiators refer to the baseline year of 1990, which is the one used in the Kyoto Protocol. When calculating the proposed US emission cut on a baseline year of 1990, we get a mere 4% of emission reduction. This is well below the proposed EU target of 20-30% and even below the US target that Clinton’s administration signed in Kyoto in 1997. I looked it up - it was 7% then. When Obama says ‘all major economies’ he means China. China has proposed taking on a target, albeit an emission intensity target, which takes the edge off the argument that the US has used for years to justify its refusal to act on climate change. It is questionable, whether Obama’s meagre emission reduction target can be called ‘decisive action’ and hence complies with his own first major aim.
Transparency - Now that China has come forward with a target, the US has a new complaint: are they really going to do it and how do we know? Both the Convention and the Protocol require industrialized countries to report their emissions according to agreed-upon methodologies. These emission inventories are checked by UN staff.
Developing countries have been cut some slack and can report their emissions in any way they want and at any time they want. They do receive guidance from the UN but are not checked rigorously. Having said that, some industrialized countries have in the past failed to report adequately and timely. Given these previously agreed upon rules, countries such as China could take on targets but would not be monitored. The US, as an industrialized country and a member of the OECD, is under much more stringent requirements to report emissions. So, Obama’s requirement number two is firmly aimed at newly industrializing countries. It is a demand, not an offer.
Financing - Hilary Clinton already announced the large number of $100bn by 2020 yesterday. It turns out that this is not something the US administration will provide, but something that the US proposes to be part of as a global effort, both from governments and industry. It is supposed to be raised through public and private partnerships. It is a relief to see that President Obama was able to underscore that with a promise of a more concrete $10bn by 2012, similar to the EU amount, to support adaptation efforts by the most vulnerable in a fast start programme. But here is the hook - it is conditional to signing an agreement that the US deems ‘decisive’. Basically, it is a bribe for the least developed countries and other vulnerable states to pressure China to bow to US demands.
Mitigation, transparency and financing - Even with all its faults, the Kyoto Protocol already contains these three elements. Why not just ratify that and build on it to make it a better treaty in its second commitment period?
Overall then, Obama brings very little to the negotiation table: a mere 4% cut in emissions and some money if conditions are met. The only reason one can be excited about this is that, for once, they are not entirely blocking the process from the start. Asking China to open its books to UN evaluators is the gamble that Obama is willing to take to save the planet. If climate change is such a real concern to the country, why is the US not moving ahead with more ambitious plans to be part of the solution?
Author: Kelly McManus
REDD+ Wildfire (Image by: B.G. Johnson)
Throughout COP15, forests have proven to be the one issue that all negotiating blocs can (at least generally) agree upon. As we arrive at the end of the this historic meeting, a global deal on climate stands on shaky grounds but REDD+ remains stable, shaping up to be quite possibly, the single success story of the COP.
We may argue that REDD+ without broader emissions targets will fail to create net emissions reductions, and that further warming is a major threat to forests regardless. These are valid points that must be addressed. But nevertheless, late last night a REDD+ text was agreed to by negotiators to hopefully be signed today by the heads of state. As one of the delegates of the contact party on REDD+ said of coming out of the session last night, “Compared to everything else, the REDD text is on schedule. Last night the contact groups reported back and you could almost detect the classroom envy as we were the goody two-shoes who handed in the assignment on time. There was a sense of history that this is finally when REDD became real.”
Why has REDD+ succeeded where everything else has failed? Perhaps it has to do with the incentives, local to global, to maintain forests. Perhaps it is the “+”-the fact that, beyond functioning as carbon sinks and stores, forests provide essential co-benefits including biodiversity, regional water cycling, cultural identity, and local livelihoods. A carbon-centric view of forests might deem REDD+ in the absence of broader targets a failure, but it is only in taking a larger, holistic view of forests that REDD+ could have made it this far. REDD+ has gotten the incentives right for the countries who needed to agree to it, and thus stands poised to become the largest coordinated effort to stop deforestation the world has seen.
The outcome of the rest of the day is, of course, of critical importance to the fate of the forests and the fate of, well, our world. It is perhaps too soon to celebrate this small victory, and the larger and more ominous context of a failed global treaty in which this small victory may occur must not be disregarded. Efficient, equitable, and fair implementation will be challenging, and long term finance must be secured. But I’d like to think that forests everywhere just breathed out a long, oxygen-filled, sigh of relief.
Author: Sabrina Chesterman
Hillary Clinton announces US support for a large Climate Change Fund (Image by: Andy Revkin)
As the high level plenary rolls on, countries are disaggregated in their commitments, divided in their sovereign requirements and the bottom line remains, the COP still is no closer to a firm climate agreement.
An agreement needs to be founded in confidence and credibility, a momentous task considering over 100 different states need to be aligned. Developing countries are fiercely protecting their national sovereignty, developed nations cannot agree on exact funding packages, tensions heighten and frustrations build as each world leader steps to the stage to present their national case and advocate for a solution to climate change, which all agree must be done at Copenhagen.
Gordon Brown called it the task of statesmanship for politics to overcome the obstacles. As the hours tick away, and statesman, presidents and prime minister advocate for an equitable outcome, do we start losing hope that endless talks and speeches prepared and written, perhaps weeks before Copenhagen and tweaked before delivery is not the most constructive use of time? One hopes as statesmen advocate their key messages on the plenary stage, senior negotiators are putting the texts into a workable and politically acceptable agreement behind closes doors.
In the continual roll call of world leaders at the high level plenary, a few developing countries have established their arguments with eloquence and established a useful commentary. It is clear there is a mutual understanding of the common but differentiated responsibility with regards to existing emissions. Some leaders have not distinguished along the Annex I (developed) and Annex II (developing) country basis, as is done under the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, as Hilary Clinton referred to, ‘major economies’ need to commit to funding and emissions cuts to their greatest extent.
As contract groups convene behind closed doors, developing countries remain firm in the support for Kyoto. As Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, rightly pointed out in his press conference, why wouldn’t developing countries advocate for a continuation of Kyoto, it’s the only framework that currently exists which compels developed countries who have ratified the protocol, to make emissions cuts?
Hilary Clinton affirmed the United States was prepared to join others to help raise 100 billion dollars a year by 2020. However, the reluctance of China to make firm statements this afternoon has made the chances of a unanimous pact appear unlikely. President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo, highlighted the fundamental need for China to engage in final decisions. He used their example of innovation, in allowing millions of Chinese people to shift from a poverty status. Jagdeo challenged China as an indispensible actor to make sure Copenhagen doesn’t become the gravest failure of democratic statesmanship.
The week has been hampered by discussions focusing on procedure rather than substance and leaders know decisions made in the next 24 hours will mean they will be blessed or blamed for generations to come.
COP 15 Commentary by Guest Author: Bettina Wittneben
Activists in Copenhagen fight for climate justice (Image by: ronniehall)
Bob Dylan’s 1963 classic about floods and rising oceans is taking on new meaning in Copenhagen. The song has become a bit of a theme song for climate action. For the first time in its seventeen-year history, the United Nations climate summit is being bombarded with massive protests inside and outside the conference centre.
Inside the conference centre, representatives from poor countries and small island states have managed to halt the negotiations to bring attention to their needs. These groups of countries have in the past been treated with much care and given special allowances by the UN, but really, they were merely seen as the moral voice at the negotiations, the victims and the ones who will lose out. Tuvalu has always had the power to make negotiators face the detrimental impact of their decisions, for example, when their delegate pointed out that the two degree target proposed by the EU will mean Tuvalu will disappear. This sort of statement caused a sober response and a solemn pause in the negotiations - for about five minutes. In Copenhagen, these countries are refusing to remain in the victim’s role. They are not willing to be treated as children alongside a much more important adult game. They are standing up and speaking out.
This sense of renewed courage is also vivid in some of the main environmental nongovernmental groups. It is unusual to see so many protests staged inside the summit. Indigenous peoples are being encouraged to speak out, climate change victims put on the megaphone. Protesters have even been able to climb up on centre stage of the negotiations voicing their concern. They have matured from the main group organizing the famous NGO party at half time of the negotiations to taking a stance even if it is uncomfortable.
Outside, the cold temperatures have not been able to freeze activists’ anger and frustrations at the slow pace of international climate action. There are solid calls for payment of the ecological debt, setting ambitious, science-based emissions reduction targets and abolishing false climate solutions such as offsetting, nuclear power or clean coal. The number of arrests must be in the thousands by now but activists still managed to approach the conference centre in great numbers in an attempt to take over the talks.
Civil society has now been effectively barred from observing the climate talks. The Danish police are stepping up the defences of the climate bureaucracy. They have already brought out the pepper spray, police dogs and batons. There are still the water cannon that are rumoured to have been purchased before the summit. A meeting of over one hundred heads of state in the coming days will require high levels of security, at least for the ones on the inside.
Will these two sets of climate protest merge? Today they almost did. The crowds inside and outside the summit wanted to unite but were held back by police. Some of the delegates inside the summit have defected to the alternative summit outside because they are frustrated by the negotiations. Perhaps pushing NGOs outside of the confines of the summit will expose them to the more radical thoughts at Klimaforum.
Which one of the two protest movements will create enough momentum to change our collective path into climate chaos? Will the heads of state come out strong in support of climate change mitigation and adaptation? Will the alternative platform gain so much strength that its solutions will ripple through grassroots movements across the globe?
The good news is that there is momentum - perhaps for the first time since climate action was called for at the UN over twenty years ago. Climate change melancholy is over. It is time to roll up the sleeves and get a-workin’.
Author: Maša Kovič
(Image by: Bigger Picture)
The G77+China group of states is the largest negotiating bloc at the COP15 in Copenhagen. It currently consists of 130 developing countries and was established in 1964 to promote the collective economic interests of the developing countries and increase their negotiating powers within the United Nations. The G77 countries and China as a group, call for a legally binding agreement, stabilization of temperature increases at 2°C, urgent and predictable financial resources for adaptation from the developed countries, and US joining the Kyoto Protocol. While the G77+China is the largest group of countries, it is also the most diverse group. This diversity has been the reason for several twists and misunderstandings within the group at the Copenhagen conference. The issue of financing for adaptation is in the center of these “disputes”.
The fact that all the countries of the G77 are developing countries nowadays seems to be the only common element of this group. Namely, it consists of the leased developed states, small island states, African states, countries members of the OPEC group and major developing economies. Their interests and especially needs for financial resources for adaptation vary immensely, with the OPEC countries even questioning the causes of global warming. During the past week several events have affected these interests and created a divide between the least developed states and the major developing economies of the G77+China group.
The first event was the leakage of the “Danish text”. The “Danish text” establishes a special category of the most vulnerable countries, which would receive the majority of financial assistance for adaptation, and places emission reduction targets on developing states, especially the major developing economies. The response to this text was not a strong position of the G77+China, but the filing of three separate proposals of draft texts. The first proposal was by the major developing economies (Brazil, China, India and South Africa - the BASIC group). The second and third proposal was from the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and from the African Group, claiming that the proposal by major developing economies inadequately addresses the needs of the least developed countries. According to their proposal, the least developed states have “special needs and priorities,” and their “special position has been agreed in the UNFCCC.” The proposal by the emerging developing economies however, denies any differentiation between the developing countries. Ambassador Lumumba Di-Aping, at the press conference tried to deny a split between the G77+China, focusing his comments on the lack of responsibility of the developed countries for their climate debt. However, the fact that several separate proposals were created speaks for itself: the G77+China have a difficulty bringing their interests together.
A further punch to the unity of the G77+China was the press conference of the Chief US negotiator Todd Stern. Stern committed that the US will provide a fair share of financial resources for adaptation actions. However, he emphasised that the US public funds for adaptation cannot be given to major emerging economies, such as China. These resources should be available only to the leased developed countries. This position was supported by the EU leaders. They committed to USD 3.6 billion a year up to 2012 for adaptation for the most vulnerable countries, especially on the African continent. While the Chinese lead negotiator Su Wei refused to comment the US position, Di-Aping found US as “lacking common sense” and EU leaders “acting as if they were climate sceptics.”
The need of the least developed countries for the major share of the financial resources for adaptation was confirmed on Saturday by the Bangladesh State Minister for Environment and Forest Hasan Mahmud. Mahmud called for the allocation of the financial resources for adaptation according to the percentage of the population affected by climate change in the developing countries, adding that 15% of them live in Bangladesh. This reflects the belief of several least developing countries within the G77+China group, that their more developed co-members should do more in the fight against climate change.
The denial of the separate category of least developed states by the major developing economies puts the unity of the G77+China in question. It also puts the adoption of the Copenhagen agreement in question, as the least developing countries are becoming more vocal about their demands. On the other hand the emerging economies are firm with their positions that without key financial resources for adaptation, the major developing economies will not commit to emission targets. Without their commitment to emission targets the developed countries will neither commit to emission reduction, nor to providing financial resources for developing countries for adaptation. The least developed countries are thus caught in the middle of the negotiations that more and more seem to reflect the question of what comes first - the egg or the hen. The outcome of this revolving circle after the first week of negotiations is more likely a failed agreement, which would not bring new financial assistance for the adaptation projects neither for the most vulnerable states, nor for the emerging economies.
The second week of negotiations will be a test of the real unity of the G77+China bloc. Can the developing countries oversee their differences and step together as a solid bloc in negotiations with the developed countries?
© 2010 Climaticoanalysis.org | All Rights Reserved