Climate regime « Climate Equity

In the end, the appointment for the new UN climate change chief came faster than expected and not for the person that was widely considered — at least in the press speculations of the last weeks — to be the front runner to replace departing Yvo de Boer who had announced his resignation as UNFCCC Executive Secretary just two months after Copenhagen.  In place of Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the former South African Environment and current Tourism Minister, on whose win most climate bookies had placed their bets, Christiana Figueres (pictured at the center), a 53 year old Costa Rican veteran climate negotiator, was chosen yesterday by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon just a week before climate talks are to resume in Bonn. She certainly is a UNFCCC insider having been involved in UN climate negotiations since 1994 in many functions, including repeatedly as contact groups chair for the CDM or emissions trading. But can Christiana Figueres catalyze climate talks with only six months to go to the next crucial COP in Cancun?  

Personally, I hope she has at least a good fighting change, mainly because of some of her strengths and distinct qualifications …  among which I would certainly count the fact that it is MADAME Figueres not MISTER Figueres assuming leadership of the UNFCCC Secretariat.  (more…)

The outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference will be discussed for years to come. There are much smarter people than I that can outlinethe implications for climate change and a new world order that has emerged in Copenhagen (one of them for sure being Malini Mehra from India-based Centre for Social Markets who published this extremely worthwhile piece).

What becomes obvious for a European working on climate change in Washington DC is the completely different perception of the Copenhagen outcome on both sides of the Atlantic. While European governments are frustrated and disappointed, most climate advocates in the United States define Copenhagen as a success and an important step forward towards tackling global climate change. Why is it Swing time in the US and Europe plays the climate Blues? (more…)

Monday morning 11:30am negotiations in Copenhagen have stopped completely. A day before the high-level segments start, countries are arguing about what to negotiate first and only agreed to disagree.  It was interesting as an observer to watch how the session of the group of the Kyoto-Protocol was ended by Australia insisting on closing the session, because the developing countries were blocking other sessions. All press conferences by governments have been canceled, behind the door talks are going on. In the meantime, Canada has announced a new climate target for 2020 that would put the home of the tar sands in a frontrunner position to tackle climate change. Sounds crazy? I know… (more…)

It is quite amazing how many different negotiation texts and informal working groups one could see in the first week of the COP. This is a stark contrast to the last two COPs I have visited, Bali in 2007 and Poznan in 2008, where the talks started very slowly and only in the Bali-COP had a dramatic finale. Copenhagen definitely brings a stronger dynamic and a higher speed – even before Ministers and heads of States have arrived. It’s crunch time in global climate diplomacy!

Copenhagen brings more direct confrontations, new proposals and immediate rejections. Todd Stern, the US key negotiator, laid out the perspective of his administration, including “I don’t envision public funds, certainly not from the United States, going to China” in this press conference. The Chinese Vice Foreign Minister he Yafei responded by calling Todd Stern “extremely irresponsible” and challenged the rich countries to live up to their historic responsibility. At a later briefing, Stern said his comments about the public funding issue and China were “a bit unfortunate.”

The question of responsibility was also adressed to US Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) in this BBC-interview. His only response when asked if the US shouldn’t take into account that that the average American emits 20 tones of CO2 per person, Europe-10, China-5, and Africa-1, was that, “There’s no way this is gonna pass the Congress.”

Even after some days of negotiation it is not fully clear how much substance and how much greenwash can be expected in the end of COP15, the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Heinrich Böll Foundation has published together with Germanwatch this background paper on possible elements of a fair climate treaty in line with the climate science.

Obviously there is also the danger that the world leaders will politically agree on a solution that includes loopholes. These are the four main dangers on the way to a Greenwash Agreement:

Danger No. 1 for a Greenwash Agreement: Long-Term Goals Without Short-Term Targets: It could be that a 2 degrees limit and non-binding long-term goals are announced with much fanfare in Copenhagen, but that the binding short-term goals (2020) remain clearly below the benchmark governments set themselves in Copenhagen. Binding short-term targets are the only realistic way for the achievement of long-term goals.

Danger no. 2 for a Greenwash Agreement: The Risk of Loopholes: Given the current state of negotiations, it is likely that we will be confronted with significant loopholes. Then the low reduction targets of industrialized countries would not be worth the paper they are written on.

Danger No. 3 for a Greenwash Agreement: “Politically Binding”: The concept “Politically binding” is a smoke grenade. A “politically binding” agreement would mean putting political will in a sieve through which it can quickly leak out: By no later than the next change of government, a country would not be bound to it anymore. By contrast, an agreement legally binding under international lawwould pour the political will in a leak-proof bucket, in order to be able to transport it for the distance. If at the end of the climate conference we have a politically binding agreement it would be a greenwash selling the world a sieve as a bucket.

Danger No. 4 for a Greenwash Agreement: “Pledge and Review”: If every country simply submits its own climate and financing targets and these are accepted, then no real climate negotiations are actually taking place. The purpose of the multilateral approach, that all participate and go further than they would otherwise, would be lost.If the legal bindingness is also absent, there will be no dynamic unleashed, only frustration and deadlock.

While it’s true that the climate change negotiations operate, like all aspects of international law, between states it is imperative that the negotiators remember on whose behalf these treaties are being negotiated. It’s not always clear that in the bruising battles being fought between north and south; developed and developing; Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 that the real people affected by climate change are even being considered. The African idiom that when elephants fight, it is the grass which suffers is an apt description of how real people and real issues are trampled on when powerful interests wrestle for supremacy in the international negotiations.

Sure, everyone pays lip service to the idea that the global poor are going to be the most affected by climate change – but has this really translated into the kind of urgent action needed to protect the poor? Not really. Everyone remembers the horrific pictures beamed across the world from the devastating Mozambican floods; from Hurricane Katrina; from the devastating forest fires in Australia; and here at home from the almost annual floods in the Western Cape that leave thousands of poor people homeless. Some of us who are old enough can even remember the famines that swept through eastern Africa in the 1980s. But these memories seem transient and instead of lending urgency to the work of the negotiators who should be working feverishly to avoid their recurrence, they seem to be of little relevance.

Of all the issues being negotiated, the most important issue that seems to be overlooked again and again is that we have very little atmospheric space left. So whether or not the USA can indeed pass the Waxman-Markey Bill on time to make an impact at Copenhagen; or whether China, India, Brazil and South Africa agree to take on emissions reduction targets; the fact remains that we are very close to what scientists tell us will lead to catastrophic climate change. This fact though, seems to sway no-one, not least the folk that we have entrusted with negotiating a new climate protection regime.

This is not to say that the negotiations are being approached in a laissez-affaire manner, or that genuine effort is not being put into the negotiations. Neither can it be said that the negotiations are a simple exercise. Far from it, it is quite clearly understood that multi-lateral negotiations are a complex arena where different interests have to be balanced in the effort to save the planet. What can be said though is that in failing to negotiate a climate deal that will adequately cater for the needs of the poor, and for the shrinking atmospheric space, while placing the emphasis on economic security we run the risk of severe global warming. What the people of the South – where the majority of the world’s poor reside – would like to know is when will the elephants stop fighting and start working together?

Sakhile Koketso is Sustainable Development Programme Manager for the Heinrich Böll Stiftung Regional Office for Southern Africa.

By Tigere Chagutah

As we hurtle along towards Copenhagen 2009, hoping for the best, but expecting the worst, developing countries have called for new and enhanced funds for adaptation and mitigation actions.

At a recent gathering of 10 African leaders in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa delegates agreed to demand a massive 67 billion dollar annual package to counter the impacts of climate change on the continent.

The meeting also sought to put in place a sturdy climate change negotiating architecture for the continent after years of grappling with the intricacies of multilateral environmental negotiations.

However, in the event that such a package and additional, predictable financial support for adaptation and mitigation actions materialises, how ought the funds to be governed?

Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, has outlined two main positions regarding the governance of climate funds.

Developing countries are proposing that climate funds be under the authority of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, with operating bodies to supervise financial flows.

This proposal, based on the equitable representation of Parties, would ensure a break with inequitable structures of the past and ensure direct control over funds by Parties under the Convention.

The developed countries, from whom the bulk of these funds are expected to flow, are pushing for governance of funds through existing channels.

This stance is based on their belief that existing multilateral institutions and regional development banks are efficient and therefore have an important role to play in the governance of the generated finances.

Industrialised countries also want to ensure that there is no proliferation of financial institutions, which would gobble up the resources.

Either way, one thing is certain, developing countries have for long been dissatisfied with the magnitude and current governance of climate funds and they will demand up-scaled support and a greater say in the management of resources in a post-Kyoto regime.

Tigere Chagutah is a PhD Candidate in Communication Studies at North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus – South Africa. He currently works for the Heinrich Böll Stiftung Regional Office for Southern Africa in Cape Town.

US Secretary of State is in New Delhi on her State Visit with lots of agenda to be discussed between two countries and one important agenda being Climate Change. In her speech in presence of Indian Environment Minister Mr. Jairam Ramesh, she advised India to take up ‘legally binding targets’ to make Copenhagen Deal a success. US is vigorously carrying out ‘Climate Diplomacy’ in India and China for last few months and pressurising these countries to be ambitious in their commitments. (more…)

Recently there are various versions/interpretations of India’s role in ongoing/upcoming Climate Change negotiations and most of Civil Societies have been trying to get out an endorsement on below 2 degree C temperature goal from India. So far India has not officially endorsed the EU position on stabilising the global temperature rise below 2 degree and its endorsements during US led Major Economies Forum has been seen as success by International community.

This also reflects that India is keen to play an active role in addressing the global problem on climate change as long as its conditions of deeper cuts by developed countries; financial and technological resources are met. These pre-conditions will open response from Indian Government and will help civil societies to continue its pressure on government to respond. (more…)