L'Iddri en direct des négociations climat

To content | To menu | To search

Friday 18 December 2009

Climatic coma...

By Alexandre Magnan on Friday 18 December 2009, 18:47

What was the original subject here? Ah yes, climate change and its impacts on our societies and future generations - a terrifying prospect that is now unacceptable to call into question. At the Bella Center, which has hosted the core discussions of the Copenhagen climate summit, have we shown a tendency to forget the essential element: the urgent nature of the climate change threat?

We have now reached the heart of the negotiations. The tension is palpable due simply to the shear magnitude of the challenge: to find no less than a range of solutions so that the human race will not have to face a future that is worse than the present. Negotiators have spent the last 400 hours searching for compromise and sending signals to each other; and they were not the only ones, experts accompanying each delegation have done the same. It is now the turn of Heads of State since the ultimate aim of climate negotiations is to achieve a political agreement and, of course, Copenhagen is no exception to the rule. While the need to reach such a political agreement is essential, it is also extremely complicated. Why should this be so? It is because the fight against climate change raises issues other than those directly related to the subject, even when talks are dedicated solely to such issues. Mitigation and adaptation require the discussion of money and domestic investment, as well as the international transfer of funds. This is only to be expected since international negotiation is designed precisely for this purpose. Indeed, how can we hold talks about money without including, voluntarily or not, the discussion of other aspects of international politics? This would equate to a very blinkered outlook on matters of international trade, biodiversity, poverty and many others. We must therefore keep in mind the fact that we cannot negotiate on the climate in isolation, as there is no doubt that other world problems will, to a greater or lesser extent, influence discussions, inherent pressures and sometimes even the final agreements.

From an observer’s perspective, one from the scientific sphere or more broadly from civil society, a degree of self-questioning is understandable because fundamentally one should not lose sight of the key climate issues involved. The threats of climate change are as real as those from other international governance issues. The impression sometimes given however is of a process that gradually disconnects from its original purpose. How many times was the phrase "vulnerable populations" mentioned in the past two weeks? Has the situation emerged with each country agreeing to make strong commitments in terms of mitigation and adaptation, and with a real intention to keep to these commitments? To all those not present at the Bella Center, the feeling is that the answer to this question is no. When the President of Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, said that his country could simply disappear, how many people really appreciated the gravity of what that would mean? When this same president said that emigration was clearly still an option for Maldivians, but that they would not be able to carry with them the colours or experiences of everyday life, or those that their people have experienced for nearly 2,500 years, did many in the audience feel a real shiver of terror? Yet, this shiver has an important place in the negotiations as it may prove to be one of the elements, after hours and nights of discussion, that could help to establish a compromise, unblock a situation, or enable an agreement to be reached. To use an often drawn parallel between climate negotiations and the recovery plan for the banking system, those in power were able to make an agreement and define a strategy because there was a real fear of the major economic consequences of the financial crisis. Without discussing the merits of this strategy, a shiver of terror from Copenhagen could be of some use. At least it may help us to retain a level of humanity and will perhaps remind us to reflect on this incisive comment from Hugo Chavez: "If the climate was a bank, we would have already saved it."

5 comments no trackback

The Final Stretch

By Iddri on Friday 18 December 2009, 14:53

The negotiation ends in a few hours—where do we stand?

For the last several days and even with the Ministers present, the negotiation is at a total standstill. It got bogged down in procedure and very little progress was made on substance. Last night, some of the writing groups were clearly backtracking, especially on the issue of commitments and actions to cut emissions in developed and developing countries, each side digging their heels in deeper instead of taking a constructive approach.

The world leaders held meetings in small groups yesterday at 11:00 pm in an attempt to unblock the talks. Unfortunately, the first two attempts at finding a compromise were unsuccessful. The heads of state tried to agree on a substantial policy statement that would resolve the four key issues: the future of the Kyoto Protocol, the role of the United States, verification measures for developing countries and long-term financing. If world leaders resolve these major issues, the negotiation could come to an end. But no consensus was reached overnight. The Sherpas took over again in the early morning hours and tried to find a positive way out.

The world leaders returned late in the morning to make their plenary speeches. Even though most of them addressed each other politely, we could sort of tell how the negotiation would end.

Wen Jiabao. The Chinese Prime Minister outlined a very tentative way in. He remained firm on the verification issue, but gave indications a compromise was possible on that point—although he would abide by China’s restrictions, and there are many. He also specified that China’s commitment was unconditional, in other words regardless of what happens here in Copenhagen, China would fulfill its objective without requesting financial or technological support.

Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva. The Brazilian president showed he is extremely eager. He adamantly reconfirmed his desire to reach an agreement today, but not just any agreement—a substantial agreement, not a superficial policy statement. He also changed the game by making a surprise announcement that Brazil was prepared to offer financial and technological support to poor countries. And he emphasized that Brazil’s commitment was unconditional.

Barack Obama. The American president clinched it. His speech was clearly more for his domestic audience than for other countries. It should be mentioned that his Congress is watching him very closely, which puts considerable constraints on him. The first part of the speech was a lengthy overview of the political process at work in the United States. The second part addressed the negotiations more directly. Barack Obama reminded the audience of America’s two key demands: that the largest emitters set measurable objectives on cutting emissions and that their actions be monitored by the international community. He gave absolutely no indication he would make concessions—even slight ones—particularly on differentiation, to find a compromise. On financing, he brought up the commitment Hilary Clinton made yesterday: that the developed countries mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing nations with their actions to alleviate and adjust to climate change.

Manmohan Singh. The president of India appeared somewhat defeatist. He said we might be disappointed by the outcome of Copenhagen. But he also said he saw Copenhagen as a step towards reaching an agreement in 2010, thereby very clearly demonstrating he planned to do as little as possible in Copenhagen.

So, there is increasingly less hope for an agreement, even though nothing has been lost. The heads of state are negotiating a third text right now. Like Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva said, “It will take a miracle.” Let’s just hope against all hope that a miracle happens.

one comment no trackback

Thursday 17 December 2009

Eighty mayors representing one sixth of the world economy in Copenhagen

By Iddri on Thursday 17 December 2009, 19:57 - Cross-cutting issues

Organised alongside (and to put pressure on) COP 15 by the C40 network, a group of the 40 largest cities in the world, the “Summit for Mayors” brought together 80 mayors over the three days, representing 350 million people and a sixth of the world economy. The mayors present included Adam Kimbisa (Dar es Salaam), Michael Bloomberg (New York), Mauricio Macri (Buenos Aires), David Miller (Toronto), Gilberto Kassab (Sao Paulo), Boris Johnson (London), Marcelo Ebrard (Mexico City), Amos Masondo (Johannesburg) and many others, including Ritt Bjerregaard, Mayor of Copenhagen and host of the summit. It was the opportunity for experience sharing and declarations.

Faced with the inability of the national governments to reach an agreement, the feeling shared by the different local delegations wavered between vexation and a sense of greater responsibility. As summed up by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, and David Miller, Mayor of Toronto and Chair of the C40, “we cannot rely on the national governments… they are too slow”, “the battle against climate change will be won or lost in cities”.

According to Marcelo Ebrard, Mayor of Mexico City, this schism between the national and local authorities is seen at three levels: the speed of reaction, the scope of action and the need for rapid results. Indeed, over the course of the interventions and discussions, two elements emerged to explain the local will to act against climate change: the effects of climate change, which are felt very keenly at the local level, and pressure from voters.

Whereas the intergovernmental negotiations are making no headway, the mayors and the networks supporting them have gone away satisfied. As reiterated by Edward Yau Tang-wah, the Hong Kong Environment Minister, “we are not here to say that we are doing well, but to say that we can do more”. Above all, this Summit for Mayors was the opportunity to strengthen links between the mayors of the major cities of the world, to discuss the different joint actions possible and especially to share experience. Whether during the dinners, the transfers by bus or the sessions themselves, the mayors made the most of the three days to compare their actions, visions and ideas, and to learn from others. Furthermore, lobbying to ensure the local authorities appear in the wording of the final agreement text was a success. All the texts in discussion or in circulation (within closed or more open circles) mention the role of the sub-national authorities in mitigation and adaptation efforts, along with the need to include them as stakeholders in policy-making.

The request sent to national governments is simple: 1) a directorate general (Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD, stressed the responsibility of the public authorities in the definition of a framework to provide the necessary visibility to private investors); 2) greater responsibilities to ensure they have the room for manoeuvre needed to meet their commitments (Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, explained that the level of authority is the first question he asks a mayor before discussing any possible cooperation); 3) additional financial resources; and 4) a seat at the negotiating table, especially when the financing, technology transfer and flexible mechanisms are defined.

The understanding seemed to have reached its peak when Anibal Ibarra, Mayor of Buenos Aires, suggested linking municipal green procurement policies in order to put pressure on markets and producers and thereby benefit from economies of scale. But several cracks were already began to show: in response to a question from a journalist, “which is the greenest city?”, to which Ritt Bjerregaard evasively replied that there was no rivalry between cities, Boris Johnson – as is his wont – went straight to the point, stating that cities were in fact in competition, and that they should take advantage of the fact. In addition, Adam Kimbisa, Mayor of Dar es Salaam, reiterated that no climate policy would be a success in Africa if it did not first contribute to poverty reduction. Was this an easy meeting because nothing was at stake, or the emergence of a real multi-level climate governance?

one comment no trackback

Wednesday 16 December 2009

It’s in the text. So what?

By François Gemenne on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 16:33

A number of delegates have a specific goal in Copenhagen: to ensure that the final text will include a reference to the sector in which they operate. For example, in relation to oceans, cities, migration...etc. Certain side-events, theme days and lobbying activities are organized with the main intention to inform delegates of the importance of including a particular keyword within the agreement text. For now at least, these attempts have been successful: the draft texts in circulation refer to oceans, the displacement of populations, cities, climate debt and many other key issues. But what difference does it make? Does it signify recognition of the importance of individual sectors in climate change, providing possible incentives for the activation of certain mechanisms in future? However, it does not follow that a text is good, simply because it contains certain keywords. Yesterday I found myself in major disagreement with a colleague who declared himself very satisfied with a draft text on adaptation, which I considered to be very poor, simply because it made explicit reference to migration.

The importance of including these keywords lies elsewhere: to the researchers and activists who fight for the importance of their sector to be acknowledged. Above all, such keywords are a symbolic recognition of their work, and their legitimacy to take part in these negotiations. The crucial step is now to give substance to these references... provided they remain in the final text.

no comment no trackback

Process and outcome

By François Gemenne on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 16:32

While the final outcome of the COP15 remains uncertain, there is also much confusion about the process that will lead to this outcome. Since the start of the conference, developing countries have demanded that the negotiation process should be fair, open and transparent. Developing countries have for too long felt largely excluded from a process that often amounts to bargaining between industrialized countries - they now want their voices to be fully heard and will not hesitate to derail negotiations if they are not. Clearly however, beyond the formal plenary sessions, there is a problem of getting everyone around the negotiation table: the crucial decisions, as we know, are often made between a few people at the end of the night. In this regard, the proposal of Connie Hedegaard to rapidly organize informal consultations with selected delegations, in order to advance the process, was probably a bad idea: many countries have felt excluded from this process, fostering a climate of mistrust between industrialized countries and developing countries.

Another key issue in the negotiation process is the participation of civil society. The fact that this conference is of major importance, with the announced attendance of 119 heads of state and government, is partly due to the will of NGOs. Unlike other major UN negotiation areas, NGOs have been very closely involved in discussions in the build up to this conference, which they have both nurtured and stimulated. However, for logistical reasons, due to the Bella Center’s capacity and for the safety of delegates, the UNFCCC secretariat decided to severely limit the access of public representation to the Bella Center. Today, some 20,000 representatives of civic organizations will thus share 7000 accreditations. On Thursday, this figure will be 1000, and 90 on Friday. Contrary to what the secretariat of the UNFCCC would like us to believe, this decision is not only based on logistics: excluding civil society from a process that it has always accompanied is a deeply political decision, one which is well understood by the protesters that are currently being harassed by the police outside the Bella Center.

Whatever the outcome of the COP, we cannot do without a deep reflection on the fairness, openness and transparency of the negotiating process. It is not just a matter of logistics.

14 comments no trackback

As of Wednesday 12:00 pm

By Norichika Kanie on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 15:12

As the process turning into high-level stage while ongoing processes on AWG are undergoing simultaneously, COP15/MOP5 organization are getting further complicated.

Japan strongly opposed to the reference of continuation of the Kyoto Protocol until Monday, but it turned its position by the decision of the Ministry of Environment to accept talking about two tracks.

AWG-LCA concluded just before 07:00 this morning, and AWG-LCA draft conclusions were released as L7 & Add.1-9. Major parts remain the same as the draft text version 11/12/09, 08:30am with many parts still bracketed and a few technical changes added (and to be added). For example, the first review year is now 2014 instead of 2016, and paragraph 16 (former 15) described on two track approach is now bracketed.

AWG-KP had a stock-taking meeting at 20:00pm on Tuesday. Many parts remain bracketed, but they have agreed on commitment period to be either five or eight years, and on one single base year but not on identifying a specific year. A report was also made that LLUCF spin-off group met nine times, and some options for new rules were presented. A group on potential consequences reported to have met five times, yet positions are still to converge on such issues as guidelines; establish forum to report on negative impacts.

A plenary was held at 12:00pm, and many, particularly delegates from developing countries, expressed frustrations on un-transparent and complexity of the process.

In the mean time, many NGO delegates stand outside of the conference venue to express their side of frustrations not to be able to observe the process.

no comment no trackback

Is European “fast-start” funding up to the challenge?

By Sophie Galharret on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 13:38

The European Council of 11 December concluded with pledges by the Member States concerning “fast start” funding to combat climate change. This funding is aimed at the developing countries in order to kick start the investment needed for climate mitigation in the next three years.

These contributions are voluntary, based on the budget situations of the different Member States. In total, the Member States pledged 2.4 billion euros per year for 2010-2012, or a total of 7.2 billion, including 1.65 billion euros from the United Kingdom and 1.26 billion from France.

In September, the European Commission published a communication on the estimated funding needed for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, along with the share provided by the different mechanisms (developing country contributions, public finance and the carbon market). Of a total estimated amount of 100 billion euros per year by 2020, the Commission calculated that the share of public finance could represent between 22 and 50 billion euros, and Europe’s share between 2 and 15 billion euros. Furthermore, it estimated that the fast-start financing needed would be in the range of 5 to 7 billion euros per year for 2010-2012. Thus, the figure announced at the end of the European Council is in line with the September communication. However, it is not clear to what extent the funding announced is truly additional in relation to the existing amounts of development assistance. Relatively speaking, these pledges remain very modest, especially when compared to the global amount of ODA, which stands at 120 billion euros per year, and in the sense that the developed countries are expected to double these amounts dedicated specifically to development assistance. If we include the estimated amounts aimed more specifically at climate change (100 billion euros per year), developed country public financing efforts will have to be tripled by 2020.

no comment no trackback

“Climate REDI”: a pledge of 350 million dollars for developing countries

By Iddri on Wednesday 16 December 2009, 12:32 - Finance

Over the course of the two weeks of negotiations, alongside the official meetings, the US pavilion in the Bella Center is proposing a series of conferences bringing together the most influential American politicians of the moment. Gary Locke, US Secretary of Commerce, was there on Friday to present US climate policy under the US recovery plan, along with the aims of the Waxman-Markey bill passed in Congress.

On Monday 14 December, the small makeshift room was packed to receive Steven Chu, Nobel Prize in Physics and Secretary of Energy under the Obama Administration, known for his firm position on climate mitigation. He came accompanied by the Italian Environment Minister, Stefania Prestigiacomo, and the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, to announce the launch of a new initiative to provide technological support for developing countries, known as “Climate REDI” (Renewable and Efficiency Deployment Initiative).

The aim of this initiative is to accelerate the deployment of renewable energies and technologies that improve energy efficiency in developing countries, through mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to combat energy poverty and to improve public health among the most vulnerable, especially women and children.

Climate REDI will finance four major programmes – three of which are new – in close cooperation with existing programmes: the development of domestic solar energy in non-grid areas; the promotion of clean technologies; the creation of an online platform for sharing clean energy information; and the creation of a programme to provide technical and political assistance for the implementation of energy policies in developing countries. It is thus structured around five mechanisms: quality assurance to avoid the establishment of “sub-standards” in developing countries; minimum energy efficiency standards; performance labels aimed at consumers; funding for investments in the first stages of the development of low-carbon products, to reduce costs and encourage private investment; and, finally, information sharing on clean energies.

The funds will be released by the Major Economies Forum (MEF), which includes 17 of the most developed countries. The United States will invest 85 million dollars per year in this initiative over the next five years. Italy has pledged an investment of 30 million dollars, and Australia 5 million dollars. Sweden, Norway and the United Kingdom are also partners of the United States in this programme.

This investment nevertheless appears extremely limited faced with the scope of the immediate assistance required by the poorest nations for their adaptation to climate change, estimated at between 5 and 7 billion euros per year over the next three years (“fast-start”) and 100 billion euros for the 2013-2020 period. According to Steven Chu, REDI is an initiative that is based on the immediate funding requirements of developing countries and does not foresee the outcome of the negotiations on financing for mitigation and adaptation. Moreover, the additional nature of this funding in relation to existing commitments has not been established.

However, further to this pledge, which was deemed to be limited, the United States got its first “fossil” of the negotiations. The Fossil of the Day awards, inspired by Jurassic Park, are presented every day by the NGOs to the countries that blocked progress at the negotiations.

Finally, the MEF Technology Action Plans have just been published: http://www.majoreconomiesforum.org/articles/statement-of-the-chair-of-the-leaders-representatives-of-the-major-economies-forum.html

2 comments no trackback

- page 1 of 7