CCBF Blog

The Copenhagen Failure, Accord and Way Forward

Reflecting on COP15:

 - The Bali Road Map process with its two years of negotiating leading up to two weeks of high stress in Copenhagen has failed to deliver a deal.  Including the run up to Bali three + years has been taken out of the limited time we have left to stabilise the climate.

 - Instead of a COP15 agreement, Brazil, China, India, South Africa and USA agreed a 'Copenhagen Accord' which was then 'noted' rather than 'adopted' by the COP15 meeting.  The reaction of other countries to this 'Accord' varies.  Most support it as it is a way to move forward.  This must be the right as the failure to reach a deal in Copenhagen means delay in taking action and increases the risk that dangerous climate change will happen.

 - So what is in the accord?  In summary it is an agreement:

• That climate change is a problem and something must be done to reduce GHG emissions and adapt.
• To submit to the secretariate by 31^st January 2010:

a) Quantified economywide emissions targets for 2020 by Annex 1 (developed) countries.

b) Mitigation actions by Non-Annex I (developing) Parties

• To report progress every two years.  Annex 1 country progress will be measured, reported and verified by the UNFCC progress.  Non Annex 1 country progress will only be measured, reported and verified ‘domestically'.  (This difference was mainly due to

  China’s concerns re its sovereignty.)

• Developed countries commit:

a) USD 30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012 for developing country action on adaptation and mitigation including work on forests.

b) USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 for developing countries with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries.  A significant portion of this to flow through the ‘Copenhagen Green Climate Fund’ – to be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support developing countries mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer.  The agreement doesn't specify how the money will be raised. Instead a High Level Panel will be established under UNFCCC to study how to meet this goal.

• A Technology Mechanism will be established to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation
• Implementation of the Accord will be assessed by 2015 including consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters including limiting temperature increases to 1.5C.  (This timing fits in with the IPCC's next assessment report being finalised in 2014)

 

What next?  Suggested answers:

• Firstly let us support the 'Accord'.   Each country has until 31st January 2010 to make its commitments under it.
• Secondly a re-think is needed on the UNFCCC process.  Getting 192 countries to agree anything is too slow and difficult.  While one may sympathise with Tuvalu, the disruption this doomed country of 11,000 people caused to COP15 helped noone.  We need a process which gets a manageable number of parties at the negotiating table.  As COP15 showed if this is not done through formal process it will end up being done in a much less satisfactory informal manner.
• Third: All countries must consider their positions:
  1. Large countries must become fully responsible member contributors to global governance.  The USA's long standing failure to join the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity are examples of how far short it falls.   China's 'sovereignty' concerns over MRV seem archaic.   We need countries to recognise that we are on a single planet and must work together.   We need China's leadership setting an example to developing countries by embracing internationally verified MRV.
  2. Small countries must work out a way of becoming constructive participants in the process.  They cannot expect to each have a seat at the top table.  Instead, small countries with similar interests must band together and appoint a representative.  

What of us 'NGO' members who attended?   I kept well clear of the Bella Centre (where the negotiations were), learned a great deal and benefited from discussing the issues with many business leaders, academics and NGOs from around the world.  I attended:

• Forests Day - 1,500 people celebrating work being done on forests and looking forward to how much more they will be able to do when REDD++ money starts to flow.
• Oceans Day - About 250 people presenting worrying science on acidification and other changes in the planet's oceans and coastal regions.  Watch this space for a further downward ratcheting of the scientific assessment of the safe boundaries for the use of Planet Earth.
• The International Energy Agency's presentations on its roadmaps for achieving 450ppm by 2050.   A great but sobering assessment of how much needs to be done if we are to achieve this.
• The Climate Group's celebration of action taken to mitigate emissions by subnational Governments.
• Business gatherings arranged by Cambridge University, WBCSD, The Copenhagen Climate Council and The Climate Group.   These included  great examples of action being taken by individual companies but were diffuse underlying the message that business needs government to regulate before it can make the big changes which are required.

And a final word of sincere thanks to the Danes.  Noone could have done more than they did to support the Bali Road Map and try and make Copenhagen a success.  That COP15 failed inspite of their efforts was beyond their control.  Let us hope the failure will lead to a building a new, stronger, global decision making structure.   We desperately need this as the challenge of living within the boundaries of Planet Earth will become more severe and the decisions tougher in the years ahead.

Robert Gibson

Left out in the cold in Copenhagen

 
Here in Copenhagen things aren't looking good and early today there was very little chance of any type of deal. So frustrated is the Danish Minister that his office is in chaos and people are giving up hope that he can provide a revised text tomorrow to world leaders.

Talks in the last few days have been in deadlock largely because of a trust deficit and an inability to reconcille the sharp difference in emission cuts and how to fund them. Developing countries have felt very marginalised by a process that they think is clearly under the control of rich countries that they staged a walk-out on Tuesday. NGO's (so that is everyone from Mr/ Ms CEO to an angry activist) have been banned from entering the Bella Cantre (I think 300 (out of 30,000)can get in today) and the rest of us have been kept out in the cold leading to many protests in the Bella Centre and in Copenhagen.

The biggest worry today is that because of the delays, the negotiations are not ready for the leaders who had expected only to bargain over the final details in a prepared draft agreement. Frustrated negotiators are speaking openly of reaching a weak political agreement that would leave no clear way forward to tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions meaning that negotiations could stay in limbo well into next year.

However, as we all know talk to different people and you hear different things and being an optimist I think the momentum could turn positive at the 11th hour. Maybe there is a way through. Gordon Brown is doing a great job in being positive and proposing a new approach to financing climate change and Obama arrives on Friday with people hoping he'll be a game changer (even though he is constrained by tough politics at home).

Many people wonder if Obama could actually legally commit USA to any targets. Apparently he can bypass Congress through an 'executive agreement' and has the power to make an international commitment that enforces existing US Environmental laws. This is interesting as 2 weeks ago the EPA formally declared that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are a danger to human health -- a finding that could pave the way for massive new regulations under the Clean Air Act for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants. Others however say that if the president signs an international climate treaty pledging reductions in carbon emissions, he will violate the Constitution that states that the president cannot sign treaties without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.

All of the above is written 9km away from the Bella Centre! Luckily we are not literally 'out in the cold' but we are far from the action. However we are all off to an alternative COP forum today where they will video in COP negotiations and we will get to hear George Mombiot speak and others - people who really are concerned about the survival of our planet, rather than the politics of self interest and strategic procrastination.

Ciara Shannon (freezing)

Scotand's commitment to reducing emissions 15 Dec 2009

Scotland commits to reducing emissions by 42% by 2020 and is offering any world leader who makes a similar commitment a bottle of the proper stuff: 
 

Robert Gibson

 

Oceans Day at Copenhagen - 14 December 2009

After Forest Day 3 which was a mega jolly affair of 1,500 people, Ocean Day was an intimate affair of about 200 people at the HQ of the European Environment Agency.  This had the advantage that most present were experts on this issue.  

Oceans Day was put together separately from the UNFCCC process which seems to hardly considered ocean issues.

Much was time spent on Ocean Acidification - see graph above.   The implications for the food chain are grave.

Robert Gibson

Creative Circus

 
 

 
 

Ciara Shannon

Welcome to the Circus....

Those of us who arrived in Copenhagen to face the all important second week of what has become Hopenhagen thanks to a well co-ordinated campaign here were faced with the brutal reality that some 45,000 delegates had been registered with the UNFCCC, but that the Bella Centre could only accommodate 15,000 people. Such confusion meant that many of us were held at the gates by police from the early hours of this morning, in sub-zero temperatures, only to be told that registration had closed. I had to use every trick in the book to get access to the Centre itself and after 5 hours of waiting outside, I finally managed to get my delegates' badge. The fun is about to continue tomorrow as delegates will need a so-called 'secondary pass' to enable them to get in from Tuesday as pressure on the organisers mounts. To say the organisation here is chaotic is truly an understatement. In plenary today, we've already seen negotiations temporarily suspended as G77 nations walked out. The talks have restarted and one can only feel that this is the essential part of all of this - the rest, side events, meetings, stunts, exhibits by all and sundry - is simply a sideshow which takes away from the real discussions. With some members of country delegations being denied entry with the rest of us mere mortals outside today, one wonders what impact this may have on the main talks themselves - simply put, some negotiators were not in the room today. One other interesting sidebar - reading through the list of delegates it is immediately obvious the extent to which COP 15 has been dominated by NGOs - everyone from the Girl Guide Association to WWF are here - and in force - some key NGOs have 750 delegates. Business is hardly present and indeed some are saying that business has been excluded. How can this be the best way to achieve genuine dialogue?



have



As

Forest Day: Yvo De Boeur regains hero status

 
 

As Robert said, Forest Day was a fantastic event, particularly as forests and the consequences of different forest management practices are higher on the global political agenda than ever before.

Highlights for me included listening to Rajendra Pachauri (Chair IPCC), Elinor Ostrom (recent Nobel Prize winner), Sir Nicolas Stern, Hilary Benn ((UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and Wangari Maathai.

There was also about 20 negotiators present and apparently negotiations on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) and its extended track "REDD plus" have taken a "positive" turn. REDD is a policy that aims to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries and requires the developed world to finance and incentivise governments of developing nations for preserving forests. However, the Bali Action Plan called for "policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries". This then led to REDD-plus which also provides finances for efforts to conserve forest areas, adopt environment friendly methods or plant new trees - as against REDD, which was just about reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation of forest areas.

Facts: Forests and other land ecosystems currently capture and store more than a quarter of the world’s carbon emissions, deforestation and forest degradation simultaneously contributes up to 17–20% of global CO2 emissions. Major contributions to fighting climate change could be achieved through improved forest management and land use practices.

How might REDD plus be funded? There are many different proposals, broadly they fall into three categories:

1)Market mechanisms: countries that reduce deforestation would gain credits for reducing their carbon emissions, which would then be sold on international carbon markets.

2)Government funds: a large pot of international funding would be set up and play a similar role to the official development aid that flows from rich to poor countries. An example of this is Brazil's Amazon Fund to which Norway has pledged US$1bn

3) A combination of the two

Sir Nicholas Stern was good (spoke with no notes) and stressed that one of the lowest costs way of reversing climate change was to stop deforestation. He said deforestation could be halved at a cost of ball park US$15 billion per annum by 2020. Costs should be shared globally and he stressed that funding from governments alone will not be sufficient.

Hilary Benn then spoke and mentioned that "REDD+ will only succeed if we - as developed countries – do our bit. So as well as contributing finance, that means stopping the purchase of timber from damaging deforestation and supporting the purchase of timber from sustainable sources.  This will send a message and help to change behaviour. It will reduce the risk of deforestation moving from places - which are benefiting from REDD finance - to others which are not. Our responsibility as Governments is to use the power we have – when we buy timber - to help the market for products that don’t have a damaging ‘forest footprint’. And it’s not just about timber; it’s also about sustainable palm oil". He ended by saying: "This year we celebrated 150 years of the publication of Charles Darwin’s, ‘On the Origin of Species’. Darwin revolutionised the way we see and think about our place in  the world – who we are and where we come from. Darwin bequeathed to us this simple advice. He said: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent…. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. He was right. He had the courage to tell us what the science told him. It is up to us to find the courage to secure the world’s future for our children and our grandchildren. And the time to do this is now". (Excellent speaker)

In the afternoon, Wangari Maathai spoke with extraordinary and exciting conviction. She was the first African woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and won it for forming the Green Belt Movement where for nearly thirty years, she mobilized poor women in Africa to plant 30 million trees and reverse deforestation. This woman is phemonenal, but ironically was always dubbed as a troublemaker for speaking out. The president of Kenya called her a "mad woman," and "a threat to the order and security of the country." Her husband abandoned her, filing for divorce on the grounds that she was "too educated, too strong, too successful, too stubborn and too hard to control." Maathai maintained that it was particularly important for African women to know that they could be strong, and to liberate themselves from fear and silence.

At the end of day, Yvo De Boer popped in to deliver the final address. Most noticeable was his passion and ability to empower that was completely absent at the Global Business Day. He began by saying how critical this moment in time in history was for climate change. The strong scientific base, a broad understanding of the challenge, a resounding political will to come to grips with solving the problem, 43,000 people registered in support to COP15, as well as 120 heads of states converging on Copenhagen next week. If we fail to deliver a resounding answer to climate change then the political attention will move elsewhere. Now is the time but he stressed, it is vital to make sure that beyond the political wins of the conference, that we we pay attention to the broader agenda of sustainable development. He powerfully called on us all to be the environmental, ecological and social conscience of the process. Rock on Yvo!

Ciara Shannon

Desmond Tutu: The world expects a real deal

 

A moving candelit vigil led by Mary Robinson and Desmond Tutu (Dec 12th)

Beyond the official open and closed door negotiation sessions and expert led side events there are other more inspiring events. One such was a a candlelit vigil that was part of a global vigil call for peace held on December 12th just outside of the Bella Center (freezing it was).

Tutu arrived in all of his cuteness and said, "You beautiful , wonderful young generation. We the oldies want to leave you a beautiful world. It is a matter of morality. It is a question of justice (huge laugh). If you are responsible for the mess then you are responsible for getting rid of the mess. That is justice." "If you are able to bail out the banks, please just give us a few billion to enable the poor, to enable the poor to use alternative fuels. They can't do it if you ask them to pay for it. Please for your own sake, rich people for the sake of our world, be nice and pay up. We the world expects a real deal." Bye, Bye.

Yesterday Tutu handed a petition to Yvo De Boeur with over half a million signatures, calling for a "fair, effective and binding climate deal.

Campaigners and experts say a real deal on climate is: a) Fair - $200 Billion in climate financing for poorer countries. b) Ambitious - a 2015 peak year for carbon emissions and a safe carbon level of 350 parts per million in the atmosphere. c) Binding - legally enforceable.

Ciara Shannon