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

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.

 EU leaders failed to agree on a financing proposal for developing countries after their two-day summit this week, leaving the EU’s negotiating position on the issue open-ended.

A Kenyan riverbed: developing countries are expected to bear the brunt of climate change because of their geography and their lack of capacity to adapt to change (Image: Matt & Kim Rudge @Flickr)

In a set of conclusions that were long on rhetorical concern about accelerating climate change but short on any new commitments for the EU, the European Council effectively endorsed the views set forth in the Commission communication on funding that I discussed a few weeks ago. This means that the 27 Member states have agreed a common view of the amount of funding required for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries – €100bn annually by 2020 – but not over how much of this should come from the EU and its members.

One of the reported reasons for the failure to reach an agreement is reported to be, as usual, down to differences between the richer and poorer members of the EU. A coalition of East European countries allegedly resisted specific commitments due to concern over their ability to afford the proposals. But the BBC also reported differences over negotiating strategy as a cause for the ambiguity of the Council’s position. Germany, it is suggested, believed that providing an explicit figure would provide less of an incentive for other developed countries to make similar commitments.

How much the EU is really willing to pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, then, remains to be seen. But the failure of EU leaders to establish a common position underlines the political difficulty associated with large transfers of wealth to countries whose citizens don’t vote in European elections.

Manmohan Singh (source:wikimedia.org)

Manmohan Singh recently argued that annex 1 countries should provide 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and that India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless this rose to 0.8%. It seems that conditional bargaining chips are all the rage these days in climate negotiations, after the EU’s offer of “a 20% reduction, or 30% if everyone plays nicely”.

Dr Singh’s plan is quite ambitious – Obama’s climate change envoy Todd Stern has already dismissed it out of hand. India’s climate change gurus have been taking an ear-bashing from Hillary Clinton this week, marking another rise in tensions between the US and India over emissions reductions.

Stern argues that India should fix a year for peak emissions and make sure that its emissions reductions are “MRV-able”, but as mentioned above, India demands increased amounts of cash if that is to happen. This does seem a little bit unreasonable. 0.5% of GDP seems like a fair deal given the various estimates of the costs of mitigation and adaptation for developing countries that have been flying around.

Something has to give somewhere, and you can bet that the horse trading will carry on right until the COP. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few weeks, with only a few months until Copenhagen, and countries leaving themselves ever less wiggle room.

Copenhagen's famous mermaid (source: about.com)

The leading think-tank Chatham House held a conference on Monday and Tuesday this week, entitled “The Politics of Climate Change Agreement”.  There were some high-level speakers, including Joan Ruddock (DECC minister), the head of UNEP, and the chief negotiator of Papua New Guinea (he who told the USA to “show some leadership or get out of the way” at Bali).There was a vein of optimism running through the discussions – after all, who would have thought three years ago that the US would (almost) have a cap-and-trade bill, that India and China would have mitigation plans, and in 2008 investment in renewable energy would exceed investment in both nuclear and fossil fuels.

The main focus of the conference was what needed to happen politically to get a good deal at Copenhagen. The position of most developing countries is that annex 1 countries must provide binding targets for emissions reductions by 2020, consistent with keeping us on a 450ppm pathway or below. Secondly, there will be no deal without clear commitments by rich countries on adaptation financing. There was general agreement that Gordon Brown has broken the logjam on this with his speech last week finally putting a price tag of $100bn a year.

These are both likely to be forthcoming, but the extent of rich country cuts are still unclear – the Waxman-Markey bill in the US is unambitious, and recent figures put out by Russia and Japan were also disappointing. An aggregation of commitments so far gives a 16-26% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. This is not good enough, as the IPCC says we need 25-40% cuts by 2020 to stay on the 450ppm pathway.

On the rich country side, the US in particular wants developing countries to commit to binding emissions cuts (cf. previous stand-offs with India), which many of them see as unjustifiable. This will probably be the major sticking point at Copenhagen. The piece of UNFCCC jargon for developing country emissions cuts is “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” (NAMA) by poor countries, which implicitly mean a move away from business as usual. This move is critical, because even if OECD emissions were zero, developing country emissions would still need to fall in order to meet 450ppm.

It is clear that we need a political deal at Copenhagen, even if the technical aspects take another year to hammer out. Regional or national negotiations targets around CCS and industry will be important, but a global political agreement is needed to hold it all together. The worst outcome would be a deal with vague or insufficient emissions reductions, including lots of greenwash around REDD. In conclusion, four essential elements for a good deal probably include (i) emissions targets for rich countries consistent with staying below 2 degrees warming, (ii) NAMAs for developing countries, (iii) a decent institutional framework, (iv) financing for adaptation.

While most states discuss Climate change either as an entirely future phenomena, or in terms of green house gas emissions. Canada’s three Territories: Northwest Territory, Yukon and Nunavut discuss Climate change as an imminent threat to their lifestyle and even their economies.

Arching into the rooftop of the world, Canada’s Northern territories occupy a vast 3.4 million sq. km, containing a surprisingly rich array of wildlife and natural diversity as well as being home to many of Canada’s first nation and Inuit communities. Climactically, the territories exist in an often fierce environment that is susceptible to changes and will experience changes more immediately and with greater variation than the rest of the Southward world.

Despite having only a combined population of 100,000 Northwest Territory, Yukon and Nunavut have to take adaptation and mitigation seriously. Climate change represents a threat not just to traditional industry and commerce but particularly to First nations and Inuits whose traditional way of life is built around their surrounding ecosystem. North Western Territory has First nations as the largest single demographic at 36%, while in Nunavut Inuktitut are 69% of the population, only in Yukon are the First Nations not the largest grouping (they are the second largest) .

Unsurprisingly, Yukon and Northwest Territory have all outlined plans to reduce their emissions. Perhaps surprisingly emissions per capita are relatively low given the extreme conditions of the territories. NorthWest Territory emits on average 5.7 tonnes of Carbon per person (the same as Denmark), approximately 418kt ( rom 2005), the majority of which is transport and energy.

NorthWest Territories publishes its plan, with Yukon’s plan here and Nunavut’s energy plan here. All contain the usual mix of information, stated Green House emissions and mitigation plans, with Yukon for example committing to 20% emissions cut by 2015 and carbon neutrality by 2020/22 (draft action plan here). Reducing emissions is undoubtedly important, and technological improvements can make a huge difference with such a small population. However given the territories represent a tiny fraction of Canada’s GHG’s the efforts are more important as symbols of their willingness to shoulder a burden, because they more than the rest of Canada face more immediate threats from Climate Change.

Both the Yukon and North West Territories’ reports contain substantial sections devoted to adapting and mitigating Climate Change in their regions more so than reducing GHG emissions. This shouldn’t be surprising. Houses are built on permafrost foundations, melting could endanger the both the buildings as well as a large amount of infrastructure including transport which has assumed the permafrost as a permanent landscape feature. Water supplies need to be rethought, snowpacks, river flows and rainfall could all change, change with small shifts in temperatures and weather in the far north.

Traditional transport routes could be interrupted by unpredictable snow patterns, in the winter this can lead delays in the freeze up endangering traditional pursuits such as trapping for animal fur which relies on the ice for movement, increases in snowfall can lead to roof collapses.

Animal populations will have to cope with shifting temperatures, rain and snowfall as well as variations in the ice, this isn’t just an issue for animals hunting and fishing are core parts of the economy in the territories. For many hunting, trapping and fishing are traditional lifestyles and essential to First nation and Inuit economies and culture.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect, linked to changes in landscape and wildlife are to human health in the region. Traditional hunting pursuits could be endangered, leading to a more sedentary lifestyle among native communities which can raise the human risks of diabetes and obesity.

Many environmentalists may groan as more and more reports come out confirming what we already know and too often they seem an excuse for inaction, further studies an excuse for policy delay. In the far north, knowledge is a powerful tool to prepare native communities for changes that will directly impact upon their lives and their children’s lives. Fortunately the Government’s have not been blind to changes around them. Research is being conducted into the changing ecosystems, weather patterns and animals within the region. Human health has not been forgotten either, Health Canada produced this report for health funding, for First Nations and Inuit communities, along with information sites such as Climate Change North, providing educational resources particularly aimed at school children.

It provide a sense of scale that even in developed countries, where some still deny climate change and the policy debate at a federal level is best described as reluctant, Climate Change forcing steady but serious changes to traditional lifestyles.

Already a whole quarter has passed since the frenzy of negotiations that led up to the 20/20/20 Package agreement at the European Council meeting last December. The series of ministerial meetings that occurred back then are being repeated this month. Environment Ministers met last Monday; Economic Ministers will meet on Tuesday 10 March; and European heads of state (the European Council) will meet on 19-20 March.

NGOs are flagging up the importance of developing countries in a global deal

A number of NGOs, including WWF, Greenpeace and Oxfam are using the opportunity to pile on the pressure for the EU to agree on solid financing commitments for an in international climate deal. With the bloc having already committed substantial sums of money towards mitigation action domestically (see the EU section in Climatico’s new quarterly report), much of the NGOs’ focus has been on financing for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

Although the coming global climate negotiations in Copenhagen will feature on the agendas of the Finance Ministers and the European Council, it is very possible that both meetings will pass without substantial new commitments. The state of Europe’s economy will undoubtedly be the main priority for the Finance Ministers and the Council. Copenhagen is still relatively far away, and EU leaders may want to wait for other countries – particularly the US – to give some clearer indications of their intentions before making further climate funding decisions.

The Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ended yesterday. A selection of the sessions were webcast. One week every year, the tranquil swiss skiing village of Davos is transformed into an extravagant schmoozefest for the rich and powerful that are lucky enough to make it through WEF president Klaus Schwab’s door.

This year, bankers kept a low profile, not wanting to be seen in extravagant and luxurious settings. Some of those who came reportedly swapped their lear jets with first-class seats on commercial aircraft. According to one, the crisis had humbled them. Others said that for bankers, “sorry” is indeed the hardest word. The current and former U.S politicians that attended were those willing to take the blame. (Clinton, Gore, and Dean) The usual contingency of US senators was largely absent. Obama sent Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor.

Not surprisingly, the financial and economic crisis figured heavily on the schedule this time, with each panel seemingly gloomier than the previous. Nouriel Roubini, whose previous warnings about an overheating economy used to be dismissed, was now the centre of attention. For most commentators, the main stories were the absence of bankers and the blame for the crisis that they received, as well as Turkish PM Erdogan’s overheating in an angry exchange with Israeli President Peres (and its possible implications) in a session on Gaza.

Against this backdrop, climate change featured as a bit of a side show, despite it being the most important year for global negotiations since 1997. However, the forum featured many sessions on the topic. (although few public transcripts) The official outcomes report (pdf) notes that, at the request of PM Gordon Brown, a new WEF task force of business leaders, economists and other experts was launched to provide advice to the UN climate negotiations. No details yet on who is on it.

The most newsworthy climate session (at least of the few that were webcast) was structured as a call to action featuring former VP Gore, UNSG Ban Ki-Moon, UNFCCC SG de Boer, Danish PM Fogh Rasmussen, Shell CEO van der Veer, and Swiss Re CEO Algrain.

- Ban-Ki Moon urged participants to stay focused on reaching a global agreement despite the economic uncertainty. In previous sessions, he noted climate change was the only “existential threat that we face”, and called on business and government to support a “Green New Deal.

- Gore urged participants not “to get the impression that Copenhagen is a weigh station on the way to something next year.” He reiterated comments he made during last week’s senate hearing and said “we need an agreement this year, not next year, but this year.” He noted that developing countries hold the key to a global agreement, as their engagement was more or less a precondition for some developed countries (i.e US) to consent to binding targets. And Gore came out in favour of a carbon tax, saying emissions trading was the next best solution to integrating carbon externalities in markets.

- de Boer said “we have got to get it right in Copenhagen, as there is absolutely no second chance here.” Offering few specifics, he said a global deal would need to include ambitious targets, significant engagement by developing countries (notably BRICS), stable, predictable financing for mitigation and adaptation, and new global governance. On the last point, he talked about the contradiction of asking developing countries to take more responsibility in global climate governance, while keeping their formal influence in global economic institutions (G8, IMF/World Bank) well below what the size of their economies warrants.

- Shell CEO van der Veer called for an a global agreement where developed countries take on obligatory cuts, and developing countries are included through sector agreements. He referred to CCS as an interesting technology with huge potential, but hampered by cost and lots of uncertainty. He said it could, at best, be a bridge to a future of renewable energy.

- Fogh Rasmussen said agreeing on a fixed framework with clear targets is a prerequisite for creating a market. He held out Denmark as an example of how renewable energy can be a driver for both climate mitigation and economic growth.

Some other notable messages;

In a session on emissions trading,

- Nic Frances of Cool nrg said energy efficiency will have to account for 50 percent of global emissions reductions under any long-term plan, and described plans to distribute millions of free energy-efficient light bulbs in the UK and Mexico.

- Lars Josefsson, head of energy giant Vattenfall, said global average per capita emissions would have to come down to 1 ton per day this century in order to avoid dangerous climate change. Today, that would amount to EITHER one hot meal, a t-shirt, or a 20km car ride. Take your pick.

- U.S Congressman Baird (D-WA) flew to Davos to call for 20 percent cuts in 20 weeks (!), all based on each of us making voluntary reductions in personal energy use. Why not?

In a session on climate justice,

- Kofi Annan offered few specifics but said a global agreement in Copenhagen would have to be fair and equitable.

- President Jagdeo of Guyana lamented the limited amount of adaptation funding available under Kyoto (USD 400 million) and said his country alone needed USD 450 million. He questioned the politicians willingness to spend hundred of billions to bail out financial institutions “too big to fail”, but their unwillingness to save the planet. He was in Davos to push for financing for poor countries to fund reforestation.

- Howard Dean said the EU was now the global leader in environmental standards and carbon markets after eight years of Bush, but predicted President Obama will get the U.S back on track.

Update 5/2: Here is IISD’s brief Davos climate wrap-up.