… but doesn’t agree on when to turn down the heat. This is Oxfam’s resumé on the freshly released G8 climate change communiqué. Leaders could not improve on last year’s commitment of “a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050”. They did however agree that to reach such a global reduction, developed countries will have to reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050. There was no agreement on a specific year as a baseline, and the final wording – “compared to 1990 or more recent years” – reflects the disagreement between the EU who pushed for a 1990 baseline and the USA and Japan who want future emissions to be compared to a more recent reference year.

As hoped and expected, it was agreed, however, that “the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C.” This is the first time that the US has officially agreed to such a target, something that would have been unimaginable under George W. Bush. The Canadians were opposed to this statement earlier this week, but after long negotiations and NGO campaigns from the likes of Avaaz, Canada accepted the language.

Like last year, no interim goal has been agreed on, though the EU’s push for a 2020 goal is reflected in the statement that a 50% reduction by 2050 “implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter”. This lack of an interim target does not sit well with a 2°C target as Kim Carstensen, leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative, puts it: “What are [world leaders] going to do between now and 2020? If they don’t outline a path to reach the announced goal, the 2 degree statement will just join a long list of broken promises.”

In the short term, they will be working on their economic recovery. The deterioration of the economic climate is noticeable throughout the document. Yet, positively, the trend to “green” individual stimulus packages (at least rhetorically) has been picked up in the communiqué: “We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and sustainable development worldwide.”

For those interested in adaptation and forestry, the document seems to have something on offer.  The document mentions the “possible security implications of the adverse impact of climate change and the potential for increased conflicts over scarcer resources.” It goes on to discuss not only deforestation but also land degradation and the importance of biodiversity.

The bottom line is that apart from the lack of interim targets, most NGOs and other observers agree that the communique is adequate. Or as John Kirton, of the G8 Research Group, put it – “It met my standards.”

The G8 leaders will now take this communique to the Major Economies Forum tomorrow.  There Obama will chair a difficult meeting in which he will attempt to reverse China and India’s longstanding opposition to adopting quantitative emissions targets.

By Ruth Brandt, Niel Bowerman and Marie Karaisl

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 Prime Minister of Tuvalu (source: apwf.org)

At the beginning of the negotiations at Poznan, it was suggested that the Adaptation Fund (AF) was one of the few areas on which significant progress would be made (see my previous post). In the end, negotiations even on this issue went right to the wire, after there was failure to reach an agreement by the theoretical deadline on Wednesday.

A key sticking point was the legal capacity of the AF board, specifically whether countries should be able access the funds directly. The EU wanted direct access to be delayed, mainly because of worries that without proper controls in place, funds might be used for purposes not related to adaptation. This attracted the ire of the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who accused “some key industrialised countries” of trying to make the AF inaccessible to those most in need, by blocking their way with red tape.

However, this impasse was overcome today, the final day of negotiations. Now the AF board has the right to sign contracts, and could be releasing funds within months. Despite a generous Swedish donation of $500 million over the next three years, it is severely under-funded. As mentioned in my previous post, Oxfam has estimated that adaptation needs of developing countries will be $50 billion a year by 2015.

Despite this financing gap, it is good news that the AF has finally been operationalised. This will allow some of the poorest and most vulnerable countries to get vital adaptation projects underway as soon as possible, and should set the scene for an equitable deal at Copenhagen next year.

==

Note – A synthesis of various countries’ suggestions for action on adaptation can be found on p.64-83 of the ideas and proposals document agreed by the AWG-LCA on Wednesday. The subsidiary bodies also made specific conclusions on the Nairobi Work Programme and the LDCF.

Floods in Bangladesh (credit: dfid.gov.uk)

Some commentators think that one of the few things we me see progress on at Poznan is the “Adaptation Fund” (AF). Unlike the LDCF (see my previous post), it was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries. It is operated by the Adaptation Fund Board, but the GEF runs the secretariat and the World Bank is the trustee.

Current arrangements suggest it will mainly be financed with a share of proceeds from CDM project activities (2% of CERs). This means its replenishment is heavily dependent on the success of the CDM.

The UNFCCC reckons that this process could yield anything between $250 million and $3 billion a year by 2030. However, this is a fraction of most assessments of developing countries needs for adaptation financing. Oxfam, for example, has estimated this to be $50 billion a year by 2015, and the UN has estimated $86 billion. WWF estimates that there is less than $1 billion currently earmarked for adaptation. Whichever way you look at it, there is a big financing gap.

Therefore, the AF clearly needs sources of financing above and beyond the CDM. One source is pledges from rich countries, but so far these have amounted to less than $300 million. Aid agencies and many developing countries have been making the case for more serious pledges by rich countries, given their historical contribution to carbon emissions. For example, China and India have suggested the rich countries commit to donating a percentage of GDP for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Whatever the figure agreed on, this is a sensible and equitable suggestion.

To make up some more of the shortfall, Oxfam has suggested that instead of 2% of CERs going to the AF, this figure should rather be 7.5%. Furthermore, as Simon noted the other day, Yvo de Boer has suggested another source of financing for the AF could be Joint Implementation (JI) projects, potentially adding an extra billion dollars or so by 2020.

Sorting out the AF is a matter of urgency. The chair of its board announced yesterday
that the AF is even short of the cash needed to just keep it running. There are many suggestions on the table for financing adaptation, and a key outcome of Poznan should be some clarity on which ones are likely to be taken up in a post-Kyoto deal. This is crucial as it will allow more research to flesh out proposals before Copenhagen next year.