Canada has slightly adjusted its mid-term climate mitigation targets to match US pledges. Canada’s Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, recently announced that Canada has changed its mitigation goals in an effort to harmonize with the Obama administration.

Canada’s new emissions reduction target for 2020 is a cut of 17% on 2005 levels. Heading into the Copenhagen meeting this past December Canada’s mid-term target was a 20% reduction on 2006 levels by 2020. This adjustment comes as countries report their national targets to the UNFCCC as outlined in the Copenhagen Accord. The new Canadian commitment has been labeled by environmental groups as being slightly less stringent than the previous target, and well outside the range of targets proposed by the European Union (20% cuts from 1990 levels by 2020, with the possibility of going up to 30%).

On the face of things, Canada’s adjusted target is just another step towards an apparent harmonization between the Canadian and US positions on climate change, something that Minister Prentice has been calling for since taking over the portfolio.

However, differences clearly remain on policy direction and actions for addressing climate change. While Canada will now follow US pledges for 2020, it is not clear if Canada will adjust its long term targets to match those included in legislation before the US Senate.  A climate bill passed by the House proposed a sharp cut of 80% on 2005 emissions levels by 2050, a target that the Canadian government does not seem to be considering.

Additionally, as previously reported on Climatico here, there is a big difference in stimulus spending on green initiatives on either side of the 49th parallel. Reports by the Pembina Institute have suggested that the U.S. is vastly outspending Canada on a per capita basis on renewable energy infrastructure.

In a recent speech in Calgary to oil executives, Minister Prentice indicated that any Canadian action on climate change was contingent on American actions. Critics have argued that this matching of American policy may result in indefinite delays as climate legislation faces an uphill battle in the US Congress.  This position has also resulted in furthering internal political divisions within Canada, as Quebec Premier Jean Charest came out strongly against the federal government policy.

If Canada is to wait for certainty in the American position it could be some time before Canada implements a comprehensive program to reduce emissions, either through a cap-and-trade scheme or through regulation.

While the Obama administration is making moves towards regulating carbon emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency it is unclear how far along Canada’s plans are to similarly regulate industry north of the border.  A plan to regulate emissions from heavy industry in Canada was due to be released last year (a deadline already shifted numerous times) but will now likely be stalled indefinitely.

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, 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:

1. All major economies need to declare to take decisive action. The US proposing to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
2. Transparency in the reporting of emissions that leads to a credible treaty and accountability of the parties.
3. Financing of adaptation in the poorest countries, with the US contributing $10bn by 2012 for the fast start and later, in 2020, being part of a $100bn funding effort globally. This is contingent on countries signing a treaty that fulfils the first two aims.

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.

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’.

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

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

The clock is ticking. The UNFCCC’s Copenhagen summit is just 7 days away, and recent reports have been encouraging. Shortly after China and the US made announcements on commitments to reduce their GHGS, Commonwealth leaders backed a $10bn Climate Change fund. Proposed by UK PM Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the fund seeks to provide immediate financial support to those States most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

UK PM Gordon Brown said on Friday that half of the fund should be aimed at helping the most vulnerable states to adapt to climate change, whilst the other half should be targeted at measures to reduce GHGs in the least developed countries.

The first funding would be made available early next year, before any international agreement could take effect, whilst there are suggestions that funds for the most vulnerable small island states would be fast-tracked and made available immediately.

This agreement by the Commonwealth demonstrates how climate change can unite different countries - small/large, rich or poor to find a resolution; and delivers some promise for next week’s summit.

The Commonwealth leaders also agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, though it is widely believed that “a full legally binding outcome” might have to wait to 2010.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, added that any commitments they would announce would be “ambitious”, though it is highly likely that will be subject to significant commitments by other influential nations too.  This prisoner’s dilemma characterises the negotiations, and also represents the biggest threat to a global deal.  However, the recent flurry of announcements for GHG reduction commitments from many of the key players has sparked hope that all is not lost yet.

The countdown begins. I will attend the final week of negotiations with a focus on proposals from the developed nations.