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.

December 2009 is the key date when global world leaders aim to agree a ‘Global’ climate change plan at the forthcoming UN Summit at Copenhagen.  UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, outline what they would like to see emerge from the December 2009 Copenhagen summit in replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire in 2012. 

In his recent speech, Gordon Brown revealed a ‘Road to Copenhagen’ document which was presented to Parliament, and sets out why a Copenhagen deal is so important, and for the first time, what deal the UK Government is pushing for; some aspects are outlined below:

Emissions Reduction: Commit to firm reductions in amount of greenhouse gases they emit at Copenhagen.  The European Union has already pledged that it will reduce emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 30% if other countries commit to a similar level of action in a global agreement.

Adaptation: The UK wants a deal which gives developing countries the support they need to develop their own national plans to adapt to climate change. Other Adaptation actions could include better water conservation, new farming methods and plans to build new homes and businesses away from flood plains.

Tackling deforestation: The UK wants to see a deal which at least halves the rate at which we are cutting down tropical forests by 2020, with a complete end to global forest loss by 2030 at the latest.

New technologies: Carbon Capture and Storage to prevent emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations entering the atmosphere; Electric vehicles that produce lower emissions; Solar and other renewable power that produces cleaner energy; Energy efficient products for use in homes and business.

The UK plans for action are based on the UK Climate Projections a few weeks ago, that showed that Britain will also suffer if we do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions.  By the 2080’s temperatures could, under a high emissions scenario, be up to 12 degrees C warmer on the hottest summer days and sea levels could rise by 36 cm.  

Together with our EU partners we have already made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, with an offer to reduce emissions by 30% if an ambitious global deal is agreed. 

The talks will discuss the sectors in which the greatest reductions can be achieved.  This will also vary on a country by country basis, as the largest carbon emitting sectors will vary, and the impact on national strategies in preventing future growth which will almost certainly cause debate for some.

As part of a broader marketing campaign within the UK, Ed Milliband is the forefront of ‘Act on Copenhagen’ the official UK government website launched on 26th June, and designed for activities in the lead up to global climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.  In addition, thousands of pamphlets will be issued to schools, citizen’s advice centres and libraries explaining why a global deal is vital and giving 15 top tips on what each of us can do to cut our carbon footprint as part of the global effort.

Not everyone will hold the same view as the UK and therefore anticipate that a convincing argument will need to be pitched at some world leaders, and China is one of them.  In the face of a strong and ever growing, and prosperous economy, what actions will be taken to limit the growth of factories, air travel and industrialization?

Developing nations are emitting up to 50.3 per cent of world emissions, a study provided by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, therefore, Gordon Brown will play a leading role in not only to pledging to reduce emissions from all members, but in leading the securing of a global agreement on climate change – a role which many leaders may wish to take.  With Ed Milibands recent announcement for a UK coal consultation Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration, this may be the driving force for the UK to show that they are leading the Copenhagen debate, and not following it. 

Gordon Brown plans to meet with the President Obama administration at the September meeting of the G20 in Pittsburgh before presenting his plans, with the hope of a successful outcome at Copenhagen in December.

Flickr Photo credit: Benoit Marquet/Oxfam GB

While the highly anticipated summit in Copenhagen is in December, there are already international negotiations taking place amongst country representatives. Much has changed in the world for many nations since Kyoto, and India is a prime example. Since Kyoto, India has since become one of the top 3 emitters of carbon dioxide and continues to grow. Similarly, India has experienced tremendous growth economically that has led to marked improvements in certain development goals, though not all. Perceptions on climate change since Kyoto have also changed, especially within India, as awareness among Indians has risen, though fragmented.

Recently, Indian-based The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI) sponsored its annual Sustainable Development Summit in Delhi. Attracting a number of international delegates, the Summit was marketed as a starting ground for Copenhagen. While there is increasing international pressure on India to commit to aggressive climate policies, India’s participation in the international arena tends to be one of mixed rhetoric: vocal in its concerns and priorities as these frameworks emerge, yet silent and awaiting commitments by other nations.

India emphasizes technology and funding in climate diplomacy

India has been steadfast in echoing the ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ tone in its climate diplomacy in the past few years. This tone is likely to continue in the months leading up to Copenhagen focusing on the ‘principle of equity’. Noting that developed countries assistance in technology and funding is critical to building their capacity to address climate change goals, the Government of India has resisted any commitments to emission targets. Shyam Saran, senior official in the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, stated  “We would expect the Copenhagen outcome to provide us with the space we require for accelerated social and economic development in order to eradicate widespread poverty.” This stance challenges some of those emerging from international organization officials, such as UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon who stated at the Delhi Summit “We should not argue who is more responsible, who is less responsible, who should do more and as to who less. This is a common, shared responsibility.”  The latest publication from the Ministry of External Affairs outlines India’s position on climate issues leading up to Copenhagen and challenges misconceptions of India’s position. Some points:

• On India’s resistance to GHG target commitments: Challenging criticism, the publication emphasized that the Government of India’s position is based on the fact that India’s per capita emissions are low and the Government is intent on ensuring they remain low in the future. In addition, India is interested in seeking outcomes in Copenhagen that address inevitable outcomes resulting from climate change- seeking an equitable distribution of resources to adapt.
• On India’s vocal objections and lack of proposals on the international front: The Indian Government is looking to address issues that currently hinder technology transfers in India such as weak intellectual property rights and lack of collaborative research and development (R&D).

Economic downturn concerns

In the months leading up to Copenhagen, the view among Indian officials is one of concern that economic downturn will deflate developed countries commitments to global climate change commitments particularly emission targets, funding, and technology transfer. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee voiced that the current economic downturn  should not be used as an excuse for developed countries to scale back environmental commitments. Domestically, India’s own “Green Energy Summit” supposed to be held early this month and attracting India businesses, NGOs, and ministries was postponed due to the economic downturn. Thus, capacity concerns associated with technology transfer worry Indian officials as economic constraints limit diffusion and adoption of new technologies in various sectors.

India looking to lead in research and technology

Erik Solheim, Norway’s minister for environment and international relations, suggests India should take a more assertive approach on emission targets and set the tone for developing countries in the climate change pact leading up to Copenhagen 2009. In its own contexts, the Indian Government has aimed to be leader on the international front, stating India would not allow its per capita emissions to exceed the average of developed countries’ and has sought its own Action Plan to confront issues. India has also shown interest in forging R&D partnerships with countries such as the United States- noting President Obama’s increased attention towards renewable energy as an opportunity for the Indian economy. In the end, equity concerns and capacity shortfalls are key issues formulating India’s stance on climate change.

Clearly, India’s accountability and capacity in climate change issues has considerably been – and will continue to be- a target of discussion as India receives a growing spotlight in the international climate change policy arena leading up to Copenhagen in December.