COP15: The end or a beginning?

December 24, 2009

In case you are wondering why the final bow comes a after a gap – its because it is time to reflect deeply.

COP-15 has ended in the sense that the delegates have departed; after issuing a three-page “Copenhagen Accord”.

But there are many questions left unanswered – for example, what are the limits to which emissions can rise without triggering a chain of devastating impacts? What will happen to efforts to get clean technology into developing countries? Will the money promised for adaptation ever materialise? You can follow these unfolding issues on our website, specifically on the pages above.

The dust is beginning to settle, after moments of drama on the last day – when the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez went full throttle against “Yankee imperialism” and described US president Barack Obama as “an emperor who comes in the middle of the night … cooks up a document” which he will not accept; when the head of Cuba’s delegation offered to slash her hand to express her opposition to the accord; when the head of Tuvalu’s delegation denounced the US$ 30 billion as quick start fund as “30 pieces of silver to betray our children. Our future is not for sale”.

The analysis and recriminations have begun: what are the gains and losses (see Climate accord offers some grounds for hope, say analysts); who are the villains and victims?  What is the gameplan of the US and the BASICs? And EU’s views on this grouping of US and BASICs? Cracks within G-77 plus China?

As I mentioned in the opening blog, it is not easy to make sense of the hall full of so many delegates, all with spoken and unspoken agendas.  And COP-15 has only carried forward the uncertainties to COP-16.

A special thanks to the blogging team members Laura, Mohammed and Ochieng. And the Danish Fellowship Centre, NORDECO and Danicom team for facilitating coverage by me and Ochieng Ogodo.


Weak Copenhagen accord angers developing countries

December 19, 2009

The Copenhagen summit has highlighted the continuing sharp differences between developing countries and developed countries on climate change issues. It has come up with an apology of a document, a weak, watered-down, three-page text  presented for adoption at a plenary session of COP-15 on Saturday night.

Several developing countries immediately rejected it and discussions continued as I left the Bella Center groggy eyed at 6.00 a.m. this morning.

Five hours later,  “the conference of the parties takes note of the Copenhagen Accord,” a final decision at the 193-nation talks said. It did not specifically say it endorsed the accord.

The rejection by developing countries follows two weeks of heightened dissent by many developing countries about attempts to drive a consensus among a select group of about 30 developed and major developing countries, Brazil, South Africa, China and India; and excluding  most developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

The accord does not mention specific targets or deadlines for greenhouse gas emissions. It merely  it agrees to reduce global emissions to stop the rise in global temperatures below two degrees Celsius.

It agrees to provide US$ 30 billion from 2010-2012; and US$ 100 billion each year after 2020.

The accord also agrees to set up a Copenhagen Climate Fund to support projects on reducing emissions due to deforestation and degradation, adaptation, capacity building, and technology transfer.

It says it would set up a mechanism for development and transfer of mitigation and adaptation technologies.

The European Union last night tried explain that the glass is half full. That, for the for the first time, 192 countries have come together to work out a global deal. And that there is progress on the funds.  Though the EU, too, did say the accord fell short of expectations and was a disappointment.

So what is half empty?  Small island states like Tuvalu would like stronger commitments to keep  the rise in temperatures  below 1.5 degrees over pre-industrial levels. No mid-term and long-term specific mitigation targets for developed countries, no peaking years for emission reductions.   Many developing countries would like something more concrete on board, in terms of money for mitigation and adaptation, than vague promises to generate funds through all possible means for a slew of activities.

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net


“Less than perfect” deal

December 18, 2009

Its past 11 pm. And in case you wondered what happened meanwhile, between lunch when I wrote the last blog after the informal plenary ended and now, there were deadlocks, many drafts leaked and not leaked, rumours, and cancelled press conferences.

It finally boiled down to the United States and China in a stand-off – on the  issue of whether developing countries should allow verification of all national mitigation action plans, which China (and India) are against. India, for example, says it will allow international monitoring and verification only of mitigation actions supported by international finance or technology.

Finally we have US President Barack Obama issuing a statement in the White House that “meaningful accord” has been reached, though it is “less than perfect”.

Reuters quotes France’s president Nicholas Sarkozy also confirming that countries have agreed to a “less than perfect” agreement.

Which basically means countries have not resolved satisfactorily clear emission targets for 2020 and 2050, or long-term finance for developing countries;  and there is no deadline to have a legally binidng treaty at least by 2010.

And with the clock tocking towards midnight,  the final agreement/deal/accord whatever is still to emerge.

More to follow


COP mood on the last day: video interview with Wael Hmaidan

December 18, 2009

 

It is the final day of the negotiations at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP15). Over 120 world leaders gathered in Copenhagen to reach a final agreement after two weeks of back-and-forth political negotiations. Wael Hmaidan, director of the environmental NGO League of Independent Activists (IndyACT), talks about his views on the final hours before the conference’s end.

Mohammed Yahia, Middle East and North Africa Regional Coordinator, SciDev.Net


The grand finale — Undemocratic text?

December 18, 2009

Bolivia and Venezuela  have just said their countries were not consulted on the draft final text. They reminded Ban Ki-moon of meanings in the English dictionary, and that  the word “all”  does not mean “a few”.

Bolivia’s Morales said  Bolivia was very concerned by the  way in which  groups of only a few presidents or heads of state were consulted about the text.

And Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez said: “We were not approached or asked”.  There are no first-category and second-category presidents, he said, adding “we will not accept this (draft document/text/whatever)”.

Obama, too, received a lesson in meanings of words, with specific reference to his statement that the time has come act and not talk. “Starting from NOW, please fulfil the Kyoto Protocol,” Morales reminded an absent Obama who left soon after his speech.

More to follow,


How the clock ticks to the grand finale — (and not so grand text)

December 18, 2009

Hello and it’s the finale today. UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has kicked off the high level summit,  with the words: “The finishing line is in sight. The discussions are bearing in fruit.. Just hours remain”.

And so these are glimpses of how things are shaping up as the clock ticks (and it’s likely to tick long into Saturday).

The major players — China, Brazil, US and India — are the early speakers and each seems to have reiterated what has been said so far.  If you read between the lines, and the lines themselves, there is something on the table, with many imperfections, and the protractions will continue in 2010.

US president Obama again did not have anything new to say, but agrees (what seems obvious by now) that “our ability to take collective action is in doubt”.

And that “this is not a perfect agreement…. we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. ….Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years”.

He repeated that the US agrees to contributing (an unspecified amount) to a quick start fund worth US$10 billion per year till 2012 and US$ 100 billion per year till 2020; but aid to countries is conditional on transparency from the latter.. There was the usual rhetoric (time is running out; time not to talk but act; need to act boldly and actively), etc etc

Obama was preceded by Brazil’s irrepressible Lulla da Silva who characteristically indicated that the agreement in the pipeline is less than perfect, with few figures and that: “If we do not have the conditions to have such a (well worked out) document, I am not sure if some angel or wise man can come  down to this plenary and put in our minds the intelligence that we lacked till now”. Wonder who was referring to?

And India’s Manmohan Singh says  The outcome may fall short of expectation, and that to settle for something that would seem as diminished expectations and a diminished implementation of UNFCCC would send “a very wrong message” from this conference.  He says the vast majority of countries do not support any renegotiation or dilution of the principles of UNFCCC, in particular the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

More to follow

T V Padma, South Asia Regional Regional Coordinator


Forests and People

December 17, 2009

Climate change discussions on forests issues have centred on emissions and finance. Deforestation accounts for up to 20 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions and forest-rich countries such as Brazil demand compensation if they are to stop cutting down trees to grow crops or build new roads and power plants. The money being discussed is to the tune of US$ 15-25 billion.

Somewhere in the preoccupation with forest gases and cash; the actual forest dwellers, far removed from international climate politics, have escaped attention.

A book released by the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Realizing REDD+, at COP-15 last week says involving local communities, rather than alienating them, can go a long way in improving the efficiency of REDD projects. For example, giving subsidies on fuel-efficient stoves for local communities could help them turn away from cutting forests for fire wood.

Stop carbon imperialism, say Bolivia's indigenous people at COP-15

Some of the more successful REDD projects indicate that involving local communities in setting up systems for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) helps produce “accurate data at lower cost while improving transparency on carbon inventories”.

While advanced remote sensing techniques provide valuable data on forest cover, it needs to be supplemented with observations on ground, and who better than the local communities to aid you in that?

In Bolivia, for example, a federation of indigenous groups is undertaking a REDD demonstration project covering more than six million hectares.

All this also means the forest communities are paid for the services they provide, which in turn ensures strong incentives for forest users and those responsible for cutting emissions are compensated directly, points out CIFOR scientist Arild Angelsen.

How much protection indigenous forest communities will receive in any final outcome of Copenhagen will be known in just one day.

Laura Garcia Oviedo, Latin America contributor


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 72 other followers

%d bloggers like this: