Some thoughts on the negotiations

The Copenhagen process had 2 main deficiencies, which conducted all the misunderstandings.
1. A conference of such a High level should be properly prepared. That means that a great amount of preliminary work should be done: to clearify the scientific basis of the question; to co-ordinate the project of the decision with all sides. I feel that such a work was not a success that time.
2. A conference of such a High level should work out mostly main strategic questions – the main mechanisms of maintaining our Planet clean and safe. All the other questions that are connected to this issue could be easily solved because of the worked out mechanism could give answers to any connected questions. As to COP 15 results I could find no key mechanisms – only decisions on private questions based on different approaches.

That is why it is more important now not to criticize the COP 15 Accord, but to make our “work on mistakes”, correct all the defects and make up for the deficiencies.

As I consider the issue, there are 2 simple approaches that flew away from the negotiator’s attention.
1. It is not fair to limit the greenhouse gas emission by choosing a percentage of reduction according to a base year. The base year emissions in different countries widely vary. Even if a certain country would choose a high percentage of gas reduction, it could happen that this certain country will have the right to emit more CO than another country, which even didn’t declare any gas reduction.
Why not use well known and widely spread in the world practice establishing emission allowances (quotas) that depend on the population and GDP (per capita emission, per GDP dollar emission). In that case all the countries would have equal rights. If a country would have less emissions, it could sale it on a “carbon market”. If a country exceeded the emission allowances (quotas), it should buy “carbon credits” on a “carbon market” or pay for it.
2. To preserve forests there is also a simple and well known approach. It is based on concepts of the “natural” rent and the assimilative potential of a territory. It is known about the amount that a certain forest area can absorb. A country with a certain forest area can have the corresponding additional “carbon credits”. If the forest is cut off, the country would have to pay in accordance to the reduced area. The tax fee in such a case could be much higher than “carbon credits” for the same area.

If such basic mechanism would appear, all the following from them questions could be easily decided. Especially questions concerning financing. Every country would know how much it could get and how much it could loose. There should be an accurate mechanism and accurate criteria of distributing the finances.

As for the decisions that were not legally obligatory (not only for COP 15 Accord, but for Kyoto protocol and IPCC as well).
The UN is the only international organization, which is aimed to make vital decisions for all the planet (Earth). If some countries would not join the mankind’s efforts to survive, how could we all live in one World? It would be impossible. From the other hand the UN should transcend its efforts to meet all the country’s demands.
And of course if everyone agrees that a certain list of countries can join some actions voluntarily – it’s OK too.

CommentsLikeUnlike 0 people liked this

The Copenhagen process had 2 main deficiencies, which conducted all the misunderstandings.
1. A conference of such a High level should be properly prepared. That means that a great amount of preliminary work should be done: to clearify the scientific basis of the question; to co-ordinate the project of the decision with all sides. I feel that such a work was not a success that time.
2. A conference of such a High level should work out mostly main strategic questions – the main mechanisms of maintaining our Planet clean and safe. All the other questions that are connected to this issue could be easily solved because of the worked out mechanism could give answers to any connected questions. As to COP 15 results I could find no key mechanisms – only decisions on private questions based on different approaches.

That is why it is more important now not to criticize the COP 15 Accord, but to make our “work on mistakes”, correct all the defects and make up for the deficiencies.

As I consider the issue, there are 2 simple approaches that flew away from the negotiator’s attention.
1. It is not fair to limit the greenhouse gas emission by choosing a percentage of reduction according to a base year. The base year emissions in different countries widely vary. Even if a certain country would choose a high percentage of gas reduction, it could happen that this certain country will have the right to emit more CO than another country, which even didn’t declare any gas reduction.
Why not use well known and widely spread in the world practice establishing emission allowances (quotas) that depend on the population and GDP (per capita emission, per GDP dollar emission). In that case all the countries would have equal rights. If a country would have less emissions, it could sale it on a “carbon market”. If a country exceeded the emission allowances (quotas), it should buy “carbon credits” on a “carbon market” or pay for it.
2. To preserve forests there is also a simple and well known approach. It is based on concepts of the “natural” rent and the assimilative potential of a territory. It is known about the amount that a certain forest area can absorb. A country with a certain forest area can have the corresponding additional “carbon credits”. If the forest is cut off, the country would have to pay in accordance to the reduced area. The tax fee in such a case could be much higher than “carbon credits” for the same area.

If such basic mechanism would appear, all the following from them questions could be easily decided. Especially questions concerning financing. Every country would know how much it could get and how much it could loose. There should be an accurate mechanism and accurate criteria of distributing the finances.

As for the decisions that were not legally obligatory (not only for COP 15 Accord, but for Kyoto protocol and IPCC as well).
The UN is the only international organization, which is aimed to make vital decisions for all the planet (Earth). If some countries would not join the mankind’s efforts to survive, how could we all live in one World? It would be impossible. From the other hand the UN should transcend its efforts to meet all the country’s demands.
And of course if everyone agrees that a certain list of countries can join some actions voluntarily – it’s OK too.

CommentsLikeUnlike 0 people liked this

[...] independent research group Climatico has released a very good summary of the COP15 proceedings: Copenhagen: Copenhagen De-Briefing: An nalysis of COP15 for Long-Term Cooperation (2010). The report is a perfect length to assign as a student reading and isn’t freighted [...]

CommentsLikeUnlike 0 people liked this

Thank you for your corrections and comments. I hope you otherwise enjoyed the report. Thanks for reading.

CommentsLikeUnlike 0 people liked this

I write to expose some comments on the content of your report.

Your opening statement in the Introduction states that purpose of the negotiations was “to create…a[n] international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012″.
The Kyoto Protocol does not expire in 2012, it has no expiration date. What ends in 2012 is the first commitment period for Annex I countries. In fact, the same Protool in Article 3 paragraphs 1, 7 and 9. The Protocol also guide on the procedures to be followed for ammendments which include the definition of further commitment periods. Refer to Articles 20 and 21.

Under “The Role of Developed and Developing Countries” you state the “Developed countries are often accused… enshrined in the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities [in italics]“. Although such phrase, common but different responsibilities, can be discussed as a concept, it is not just a concept but a principle that guides the actions of countries under the UNFCCC. Sacred or not, the principle is in paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Convention. If a country is a Party to the UNFCCC, then accepts and recognizes such principle.

Under the same section of the document, you portray the developing countries as being one bloc. That is incorrect. Maybe you were thinking about Annex I and Non-Annex I countries. Furthermore, you state that the G77 includes smaller groups such as AOSIS. G77 was created under UNCTAD and now works throughout the whole United Nations system. Most but not all the countries in AOSIS are part of the G77. AOSIS is an adhoc group from SIDS, but same here, not all SIDS are in AOSIS. As you may see, is incorrect to portray developing countries as a single bloc as mentioned in page 5.

On “Concentious Issues” under CDM (page 17) you stated that “The UN suspended approvals for Chineses wind farms”. That is incorrect. The UN system does not have such right or responsibility. The Executive Board (EB) of the CDM is the one in charge of approving or rejecting CDM projects. The EB is comprised by individuals from different countries and the operation of the EB is under the guidance of the Conference of the Parites, meaning under the guidance of the 192 countries that are Parties to the UNFCCC.

Your text box (page 22) states that the COP has the mandate to follow up on the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord establishes that the COP will decide on and provide guidelines to measure, report and verify emission reductions, but not necessarily that the COP will follow up the implementation of the Accord. At this point (when you published your report) there is not a list of countries that adhere to the Accord, thus is uncertain whether or not all the countries that are Parties to the UNFCCC agree on the Accord.

In the “Acronyms” you include AOSIS as “Association of Small Island States” which is incorrect. Should say “Alliance of Small Island States”.

In the hope the commets are useful to you and your audience.

Kind regards

CommentsLikeUnlike 0 people liked this