This year is a critical one for the global climate change negotiations. Durban, South Africa will play host to the UN Conference of Parties (COP 17) later this year.

One of the challenges in the run-up to Durban is understanding the politics of climate change arising from the Copenhagen meeting and the subsequent Cancun conference, the outcomes of those meetings, and how these outcomes relate to Durban and, therefore, what civil society demands can and should be.

What happened in Copenhagen and Cancun?

The Copenhagen conference was essentially a train wreck. It ranks as one of the worst international meetings held in the last decade and a half, and may go down in infamy for the Danish government’s handling of it.

The mandate of Copenhagen was to come up with outcomes in two tracks of climate change negotiations under the UN Climate Convention and its Kyoto Protocol (KP). There was a heavy push to involve heads of states. The direct involvement of these leaders complicated the negotiations because once they arrived, the formal negotiations stalled and negotiations went underground.

Essentially, a number of high-level officials from a small group of countries, around 26 or 28 (the actual list has never been made public) disappeared into a backroom at the conference centre. So you had the delegates of around 190 countries negotiating as part of the formal process as they are supposed to while, in parallel, in a backroom, there was a meeting going on that even the chair of the negotiations had not been invited to.

That small group came up with a document that they called the ‘Copenhagen Accord’. This was basically a document that was drafted initially by the Danish government with input, as far as we can tell, from a fairly small group of developed countries.

The negotiations in the backroom continued until after midnight on the final day, while delegates from the remaining 150 countries waited in the plenary room for hours. The Danish prime minister came back and said to the governments assembled that a small group had been working very hard and had come up with a document that they wanted to present as the outcome of the meeting.

For many of the delegates it was the first time they had seen the document or that version of the document, and they were given one hour to go back to their groups and review the document and basically accept the outcome.

And of course the flags of dozens of countries went up in the air: ‘Point of order,’ was decalred. The deputy executive secretary bent over and said to the Danish prime minister that there were some ‘points of order’ but the prime minister lent back and said, ‘There will be no points of order.’ Unbeknown to him, his microphone was switched on and this was communicated to everyone in the room, triggering pandemonium. He stood up and walked off the podium.

Delegates then heard a resounding banging that ricocheted around the room. A delegate from Venezuela had picked up the plastic name tag of her country and was banging it on the table demanding that the Danish prime minister return to the room and the other countries be given the right to participate in the multi-lateral negotiations.

When the Danish prime minister was brought back reluctantly and red-faced to the podium, the delegate raised her bleeding hand and asked: ‘Do I have to bleed to have my country heard in this forum?’ There were other interventions. Tuvalu said they would not sell their future for ‘30 pieces of silver’. Sudan asked whether the document was a suicide pact and whether delegates were being asked to incinerate Africa.

In the ensuing discussions in the plenary, the UK and USA mounted pressure on other countries, basically bribery and pressure, using finance in an attempt to get countries to agree, but ultimately countries led by Bolivia and Nicaragua held firm and the Copenhagen Accord was merely noted, meaning that the UN neither agrees nor disagrees with it; it simply recognises that it exists.

Following Copenhagen, many of those same governments exerted massive pressure on developing countries to sign up to the Accord. Many African countries did so willingly, in part because Ethiopia had been one of the countries that had been in the room and had supported the Copenhagen Accord and had brought it back into the processes of the African Union, but many other African countries stood firm against the Accord.

Between Copenhagen and Cancun there was a strong process to reinstate the Copenhagen Accord as the basis of negotiations and to reintroduce it as one of the formal documents. As negotiations moved to Cancun there were continuing concerns about substantive demands, but also about the process of negotiations – whether countries would genuinely be able to participate and represent the interests of their people.

In Cancun it was recognisable that this was going to be a different type of negotiations: The developed countries were not going to repeat the same mistake that they made in Copenhagen. Instead, there was a much more sophisticated process established that involved a number of things that were extraordinary in the UN process. This included meetings of small groups of countries that were not announced. A new text was developed in a process that no-one quite understands. In subsequent meetings of the Africa group, delegates acknowledge they still have no idea who drafted the document. The document was again tabled with a few hours notice, but this time with a much more sophisticated process and ultimately only Bolivia was really willing to stand up and raise questions about the process.

They enumerated their concerns, including a shift to a pledge-based process; the continuation of market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, even if there is no second commitment process; questions around the scale of financing; and concerns around technology and intellectual property.

Ultimately, the views of Bolivia were dismissed by the chair, the text was not opened for any negotiation and the chair said that consensus did not mean unanimity. In other words, the fact that a sovereign state opposes a consensus does not prevent the document from being adopted, which is inconsistent with the traditional understanding of consensus, which means that all parties participate.

Basically, what happened in Cancun was that there were a number of undertakings for further work and, in a sense, these are deliverables for the Durban meeting. But there were a number of issues that were left unaddressed because Cancun addressed the easy issues, but left the hard issues that arose in the Bali Action Plan.

CLASH OF PARADIGMS

Underlying these meetings is the clash of paradigms between the science-based, equity-based, rule-of-law-based process that was envisaged in the Bali roadmap and the pledge-and-review approach which the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reveals will lead to between 2.5 and five degrees Celsius of warming and associated impacts that include massive levels of loss and damage, particularly in Africa.

At Cancun, there were two main outcomes: One under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the other under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). Two key questions arise: What is on the table and what are the key things that need to be addressed in both of these areas?

On the table on the AWG-LCA is a two degree Celsius goal and a review to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050. The position of various countries reflects their underlying material interests: The Annex 1 countries (developed countries) have supported two degrees Celsius while within the African group there is support that has flip-flopped between two degrees Celsius and 1.5 degrees Celsius. The last statement was for 1.5 degrees Celsius.

There are also issues around mitigation, all related to the effort sharing question, because all of them affect how much the developed countries do and how much the developing countries do, and how much reduction need be made in each of a country’s economic sectors.

Obviously the level of cuts in terms of mitigation by the developed countries is important, but also their access to the carbon markets – how much of the effort they can shift back to the developing countries through carbon markets. Also, the use of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) agreement and the proposed forest carbon markets have to be added in to understand the basic effort sharing model to ensure that adequate effort is made by the developed countries and isn’t pushed onto developing countries in a manner that is unjust and unsustainable.

In terms of the general issues, there is a need to protect the current system and also ensure there is an adequate level of emissions reductions by the developed countries. On the table, however, there are a variety of different proposals. The most ambitious is a 50 per cent cut by 2017 put forward by Bolivia and a number of other countries, basically asking the developed countries to change their lifestyles and consumption patterns to halve emissions. The African group has again oscillated between two different demands: A weaker one (40 per cent by 2020) and a stronger one (45 per cent by 2020). African countries need to stick to the stronger end of the demands again to ensure the effort is undertaken by the developed countries and it doesn’t fall to Africa to pick up an unfair share of the burden.

Another issue is the question of markets and loopholes. In other words, do developed countries do what they say they are going to do and how much are they going to achieve through creative accounting, through loopholes. And then there are questions of how the system then accounts for this in terms of measurement and verification.

Via the Cancun agreement, the Annex 1 countries are merely going to take on targets to be implemented by them that are both not legally binding and negotiated. Developing countries have rejected this flawed model.

There also are concerns about the levels of the emissions gaps by Annex 1 countries and the comparability of efforts by the USA and the level of stringency of the reporting requirements of the Annex 1 countries. And so, again in response to that, the demands have been 40-50 per cent by 2017 or 2020, clearly comparable efforts by the USA in terms of their level of ambition, the legal form and their compliance and then maintaining the current system of mitigation pledges.

Attaining these desires may demand a political strategy, engagement by heads of state in Africa with their counterparts in the run-up to Durban, as well as very strong efforts in terms of media and communication and mobilisation by civil society and other actors in the developed countries to apply pressure on their governments.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the big demands are for a second commitment period. If the Africa group’s central demand is a second commitment period, Durban must not be the graveyard of the Kyoto Protocol – this has to be made very clear to the Annex 1 countries. They cannot come to Africa and expect to kill the Kyoto Protocol and fail to honour their legal obligations and fail to respond to the most basic demand of African negotiators. The challenge here, of course, is getting an adequate scale of emissions reduction and then closing the loopholes in the markets to close the emissions gap as well as ensure that Annex 1 countries do their fair share.

Durban is one stepping stone but there is also the danger that developing countries may be forced back into discussions around institutions, and the big picture issues taken off the table.

Developing countries and indeed the world are basically being herded into a fait accompli around the Kyoto Protocol and a fait accompli about the global system for stabilising the Earth’s climate. One that, from UNEP (a very conservative multi-lateral institution) figures, is likely to lead the Earth to between 2.5 degrees Celsius and five degrees Celsius of warming.

There are people and institutions working to block progress on climate change. They are the same people that are undertaking projects in Ogoniland and other parts of Africa. They are the same companies that are undermining climate legislation in the United States Congress and they are the same corporations that are emitting the greenhouse gasses that are causing the problems that the world is saddled with.

Africa, and indeed the larger developing world, needs to put forward alternatives that are inspiring, that will actually lead negotiations to the solutions that are needed to save the Earth and humanity from destruction. So, Durban is a stepping stone and must deliver a bold step on the path to a just climate outcome.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS AND AFRICAN AGENDA

The just ended United Nations Climate Change Conference in Panama barely made progress in resolving the thorniest issues, stalling negotiations to conclude a global agreement later this year in Durban, South Africa to save the planet from overheating.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol, the architecture of any future agreement, long term finance and sources of funding especially for the Green Climate Fund are some of the most fractious issues still outstanding.

Durban, South Africa will be a critical battleground to break the deadlock within the framework of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2011. The Panama talks made progress on a few issues, notably adaptation, agriculture, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs).

Panama also agreed on a negotiating text and plans for disbursement of US$30 billion fast-start finance. The fast-start finance pledged has emerged to be neither new nor additional, but as largely repackaged official development assistance, African civil society and developing country governments have said.

In 2010, developed countries undertook at the Cancun UNFCCC meeting to provide US$100 billion each year by 2020 and US$30 billion by 2012 for poor countries to adapt to climate change impacts and move towards low-carbon economies.

The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol together make up the fundamental global legal framework on climate change. The first period of emission cuts agreed in 1997 expire at the end of 2012. A new round of emission cuts must be agreed in Durban to avoid gaps between the first and second commitment periods to save the earth from tipping.

Canada, Japan and Russia, signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, are determined not to commit to a second period of emission reduction under the Protocol, unless all major economies – and that includes both China and the United States – submit to the same legal terms. The United States is not a signatory to the Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, established legally binding targets for developed countries to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions linked to the earth’s warming.

The European Union (EU) will renew its commitment to the Protocol but only if it is tied to an agreement that spells out clearly when and how other countries’ pledges will be placed into a legally binding international agreement.

But many other groups including the African Group and 132 member group, G77 and China, are opposed to attempts to phase out the Kyoto Protocol.

Chair of the G77 and China and ambassador of Argentina, Jorge Argüello said ‘the Kyoto Protocol is a cornerstone of the climate change regime, and nothing will be achieved unless it can be extended in Durban’, adding that the second commitment period is paramount for the group.

‘Much as some rich countries like to repeat that discussing scenarios that they oppose is not “realistic” or “practical”, they must recognise that there is no point in insisting on a solution outside the Kyoto Protocol when 132 parties have strongly declared they can only accept a second commitment period as a meaningful outcome,’ Argüello said.

With the front of Parties fractured, the search for alternatives to the Protocol intensified in Panama. An EU proposal includes two parallel treaties one of which extends the Protocol for those covered by the agreement.

The second proposal calls for imposition of binding emissions targets on countries that currently face no legally binding emissions reduction commitments such as the US and emerging economic powers particularly China, India and Brazil.

Proposals for a temporary treaty that extends the Protocol until 2015 to safeguard the legal foundations and mechanisms and allow negotiations for comprehensive agreement to be reached beyond Durban seem to have gained a bit of ground in Panama.

Rich countries are pushing for a new agreement to replace or phase out the Kyoto Protocol. These countries, especially the United States, the largest historical emitter of global warming substances, Canada, Japan and Russia insist on a legal agreement that commits all ‘major economies’ in a symmetrical fashion where ‘the commitments of Parties were unconditional and not linked to the provision of finance.

While this position may sound reasonable because the mitigation actions of developing countries are not part of the Kyoto Protocol, it undermines the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ enshrined in the UNFCCC treaty which recognises the disproportionately high historical contribution of developed countries to climate change which therefore enjoins these countries to bear greater share of the cost of preventing the earth from warming out of control.

But in its current shape, the proposed new agreement – with its weak mitigation regime ‘pledge and review’ mechanism and ‘do as you please approach’ – will transfer the enormous burden of climate change to developing countries who have contributed the least to the phenomenon and who will also suffer the worst consequences of climate change in the coming decades.

African CSOs and the larger global climate justice movement see the actions of the developed countries as both self-serving and dangerous to humanity.

Third World Network (TWN) noted at a session during the Panama climate talks that Kyoto Protocol Parties refusing to undertake a second period of emission reduction commitments were in breach of their international obligations and the mandate for the UNFCCC’s Ad-Hoc Working Group on Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) negotiations.

‘The Kyoto Protocol is the only option we have and Durban is the last opportunity to ensure that internationally binding emission reduction commitments with international rules and compliance continue and do not lapse or end altogether’, TWN said. TWN is a member of the global Climate Justice Now movement

This new treaty which developed countries want to replace the Kyoto Protocol with, TWN said will ‘enshrine in international law a weak domestic “pledge and review” system that will no longer be rooted in international commitments, be backed up by the rule of international law, or be based on a consideration of what science says is necessary’.

Ominously, such a system will trigger temperature rise of up t o 5 degrees Celsius and in regions like Africa, ‘this could mean 7 to 8 degrees Celsius of warming’, said TWN. Civil society therefore urged the larger international community to act swiftly to address the issue.

Annex I countries (developed countries), TWN noted, are more determined to ‘ensuring the Protocol’s market mechanisms continue and expand even in the absence of the second commitment period, rewarding them with benefits without corresponding commitments’.

These market mechanisms will basically ensure that Annex I countries conveniently shift the burden of climate change on to developing countries. For example, rather than cut down on their levels of greenhouse emissions and other pollutants, these Annex I countries will seek to hold down the development of less developed parts of the world such as Africa by acquiring forests there.

Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Swedish Environmental Institute and and UNFCCC records indicate that developing countries are doing far more in curbing climate change than developed countries.

But Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UNFCCC sounded upbeat about a deal in Durban when she addressed the lobby group, Climate Markets and Investors Association, in London days after the Panama UNFCCC talks. Figueres said negotiators in Durban may go ahead to extend the Protocol without Canada, Japan and Russia.

Figueres may be upbeat about the December talks but the entrenched positions of negotiating parties foretell Durban will not save the earth.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS AND AFRICAN AGENDA

Climate change is upon us in Africa. Our rivers are drying. Our crops failing, diseases increasing, people going hungry, and thirsty. An unrelenting sun scorches our land while other areas are ravaged by storms and disease. Scientists now say the world could warm by 6°C – or more – a global average that will be exceeded in Africa. This threatens nothing less than the collapse of our continent.

Today Africa grapples with a challenge that is not of our making; effects we had little role in causing. We find no alternative but to look to those nations that contributed most to causing climate change, and to call on them to lead through their example.

We call on Sweden as the President of the European Union to fulfill its duty to ensure that Africa is kept safe from the rising impacts of climate change. Yet we find it failing in this duty. Along with other leaders of developed nations you have proposed:

That global average temperatures be limited to “below 2°C”, yet this threatens catastrophic harm to Africa (which could warm by around 1.5 times this global average);

That global emissions be limited to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050, yet this risks a 50% chance of exceeding 2°C; and

That Annex I countries cut their emissions by 80% by 2050, and non-Annex 1 countries including African countries make up the rest the rest of required effort. This would rob Africa of its fair share of atmospheric space and limit our prospects of development while we grapple with a more hostile climate.

Of greatest single concern is that it seems the European Union seeks to continue its domestic pollution well into the future by “offsetting” its emissions to Africa and other developing countries, further transferring the burden of curbing climate change to those countries that had little role in causing it.

Also of concern is the European Union’s seeming willingness to ignore their legal obligations under the Kyoto Protocol; failing to agree a second commitment period of the protocol will undermine the only international emissions targets for developed countries.

These positions are as unjust as they are unsustainable. We call on the European Union and other developing countries to recognize their historical responsibilities for the causes and adverse consequences and to repay their climate debts to Africa and other developing countries. Our detailed demands are set out in the attached African Climate Justice Manifesto.

As we near Copenhagen, the eyes of the world are upon the European Union. We call on you – as a leader of nations and as friends to Africa – to ensure that Sweden, the European Union and its partners in the industrialized world address their historical responsibilities and debts, and ensure that Africans and all people can look forward to a bright future.

]]> http://www.climate-justice-now.org/pacja-letter-to-sweden/feed/ 0 http://www.climate-justice-now.org/pacja-letter-do-denmark/ http://www.climate-justice-now.org/pacja-letter-do-denmark/#comments Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:07:08 +0000 CJN http://www.climate-justice-now.org/?p=462 We write to you as an alliance of civil society organizations in 43 countries across Africa that represents a diverse group of people and shares a common concern on our continent about the growing catastrophe that is climate change.

Climate change is upon us in Africa. Our rivers are drying. Our crops failing, diseases increasing, people going hungry, and thirsty. An unrelenting sun scorches our land while other areas are ravaged by storms and disease. Scientists now say the world could warm by 6°C – and by more in Africa. This threatens nothing less than the collapse of our continent.

Today Africa grapples with a challenge that is not of our making; effects we had little role in causing. We find no alternative but to look to those nations that contributed most to causing climate change, and to call on them to lead through their example.

We call on Denmark, as the Presidency of the Conference of Parties, to fulfill its duty to all Parties to ensure a fair and balanced process and an outcome that respects the distinct mandates to implement the Kyoto Protocol and the Climate Convention. These outcomes must ensure that Africa is kept safe from the rising impacts of climate change. Yet we find it failing in this duty. Along with other leaders of developed nations you have proposed:

That global average temperatures be limited to “below 2°C”, yet this threatens catastrophic harm to Africa (which could warm by around 1.5 times this global average);  That global emissions be limited to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050, yet this risks a 50% of exceeding 2°C; and there by making the costs to Africa significantly worse.

That Annex I countries cut their emissions by 80% by 2050, which would rob Africa of its fair share of atmospheric space and limit our prospects of development while we grapple with a more hostile climate and the twin challenge of tackling poverty.

Of greatest single concern is that it seems the European Union and other developed countries within the Umbrella Group seeks to continue its domestic pollution well into the future by “offsetting” its emissions to Africa and other developing countries, further transferring the burden of curbing climate change to those countries that had little role in causing it.

Also of concern is the seeming willingness of these developed countries to end rather than implement their legally binding obligations under the Kyoto Protocol; it is undermining the single international agreement that establishes binding international targets for developed countries.

These positions are as unjust as they are unsustainable mindful of the historical responsibility of developed country parties who have to take the lead in ensuring a stabilization of atmospheric concentrations while not undermining the right to development of developing countries.

We therefore call on you to ensure that the European Union and other developed country parties commit to adequately reduce their mid-term emissions under a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol as well to provide additional and predictable financial and technological support for clean development and adaptation in developing countries.  Our detailed demands are set out in the attached African Climate Justice Manifesto.

As we near Copenhagen, the eyes of the world are upon Denmark. We call on you to ensure that Denmark and its partners in the industrialized world address their historical responsibilities and debts, and ensure that Africans and all people can look forward to a bright future.

Yours Sincerely,

Mithika Mwenda,

Coordinator – Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance

]]> http://www.climate-justice-now.org/pacja-letter-do-denmark/feed/ 0