Final night: Country statements

OK so the COP was meant to finish on Saturday morning.

However, negotiations are still going on with intense disagreement. I decided to do this entry on the SUNDAY rather than Saturday, as it gives us more opportunity to see where countries currently stand. There are some amazing videos regarding certain country’s positions.

India:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBH6MVirwJ4&feature=player_embedded

Equity is essential for this delegation and cannot be excluded from the text. Around minute 2:00 to 4:00 the negotiator makes a very passionate plea to incorporate the word ‘equity’ into the text. She states that the text is very weak, mitigation actions will apply to everyone. Saying goodbye to equity and common but differentiated responsibilities

European Union:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhr7cfdlIhw&feature=player_embedded

The standard EU argument has not changed; a legally binding document is the only way of reducing emissions. Europe has done it, everyone else should attempt. They want the words ‘legal outcome’ to be deleted, and replaced by ‘legal instrument’.

Europe wants the word ‘legal instrument’, legal outcome. They want a protocol by 2018 that requires all high emitting countries to take on legally binding targets.

The EU fully supports and is willing to sign up to a second commitment period.

China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m71tCPWcNqU&feature=player_embedded

Principles of equity, abilities and common but differentiated responsibilities should be kept and explicitly expressed in the text. Developing countries, including China, that they are taking action, more than some developed countries. Then why should developing countries, who have pledged to mitigate more than developed countries, should be burdened by legally binding agreements?

Colombia: Legal outcome is a weak wording, it is not enough. Legal instrument, as a phrase, is essential. They also don’t see 2020 as a good time frame to take action on climate change, they support Europe’s timeframe of 2018.

AOSIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHhgfVOHBfI&feature=player_embedded#

Although brief, this interview with AOSIS and EU representatives both state support for each other for the wording ‘legal instrument’, as they see legal outcome as being vague and opening up the possibility of not taking any action.

Venezuela

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbUKa2xevuQ&feature=player_embedded

She does not want there to be transparency, when there is not much clarity regarding the obligations of developed countries. The second commitment period is essential.

She has been threated that if we do not give them a blank check to emit up to 4 degrees, the green climate fund will not be delivered.

She states the concerns with the mercantile approach to climate negotiations, and believes that they are putting a price on Kyoto by giving developing countries $100 billion.

As I was writing this entry, the apparent outcome of COP17 was stated by the president, with interventions from the EU and India.

View it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKp2GGPvFP0&feature=player_embedded

We used to have the wording legal outcome…. Number of countries, including the G77, wanted the wording legal instrument.

After numerous consultations and behind closed doors negotiations, the new treaty will be an "agreed outcome with legal force."

What does this mean? We will find out in the next few hours…. (it’s 4am in Durban, they are still negotiating….)

Day 9: US and Claudia Salerno Video

Day 9

One brief article and one 8 minute YouTube video:

1)   The ‘trustworthy’ Guardian, noting the USA’s role on Thursday December 8 in supporting the roadmap

2)   Claudia Salerno, head negotiator of Venezuela and head of COP17 Response Measures discussion group, interviewed by One Climate NGO

1- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/08/durban-climate-talks-us-backs-europe

The USA has had an apparent sudden shift in their stance at COP17. After hearing last week that they would not support a second commitment period, they have hinted to the possibility that they will, as long as the world’s largest emitters do as well.

This is a step forward, as the US has been characterised by their reluctant and obstructionist approach to the climate change debate. Unlike Europe, however, the US has not specified a date for when a new legally binding agreement would come into place. The EU has 2015 as the target year for initiating the new agreement. This would incorporate all current Annex I countries (ideally) along with all BASIC countries. India, however, has expressed concerned with taking on legally binding agreements.

This issue has been highlighted a number of time in the last week. Despite the fact that we will probably not see a legally binding agreement out of Durban, we must go back to the definition of success. The fact that high emitting nations are able to express concerns and commitments to climate change is a step forward in the negotiations.

2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQrCRpvm59c

One Climate NGO runs this great interview with Venezuela’s head negotiator, Claudia Salerno. She states that she wants the best possible outcome out of Durban, and reemphasises the commitment developed countries need to make to mitigating emissions. She states that delegates know what needs to be done, but need to find a balance amongst parties to extend the Kyoto Protocol.

Regarding the transparency of the negotiations, she states that anyone that thinks the process is transparent is naïve. ALBA countries want to make sure the mistakes made in Copenhagen are not repeated; however she is unsure of what will happen tomorrow.

Day 8: Australia in COP17

Today I will cover the role of the Australian Delegation in Durban. Topics are:

1)   Civil Society engaging with Australian Delegation

2)   Australia’s position in climate negotiations

1 – http://adoptanegotiator.org/2011/12/07/minister-combet-arrives-in-durban-with-work-to-do/

This is a short article and video by UN Climate Tracker NGO. It shows the convergence of civil society with government representatives, in this case Mr Gregg Combet, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

The NGO dialogued with Mr. Combet and outlined some suggestions on what certain sectors of society want Australia to commit to and push in Durban. The 2^nd commitment period and the development of the GCF where the main issues noted. Along with this, striving for 1.5 degree temperature rise and the Robin Hood tax were suggested.

Although, as expected, the Minister openly received the comment, it will be unlikely that Australia will be in any capacity to fulfil all of the requested items (see article below). There was, however, agreement in regards to initiating the GCF as soon as possible to ensure financing to the least developed nations.

2 - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/australia-cautious-on-kyoto-extension/story-e6frg6nf-1226216928328?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+%28The+Australian+|+News+|%29

The Australian newspaper outlines Australia’s position in regards to extending the Kyoto Protocol.

As expected, Australia is encouraging a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, however it must also incorporate all major emitters, as it has the risk of covering only 15% of global emissions if not everyone signs up.

He also noted Australia’s domestic commitment to addressing climate change at a domestic level via market mechanisms. Along with this, the delegation outlined the country’s commitment to financing adaptation and capacity building to developing countries

Both of these articles show that Australia is committed to a successful outcome in Durban. Although high emitting countries from the G77 have expressed the potential of signing up to legally binding agreements in the future, Australia should still sign up to a second commitment period. This commitment period would act as a roadmap/transition to allow an opportunity for other high emitters to develop mitigation methods that will enable a new legally binding document to be created in the near future.

Day 7: Agreement amongst parties and India's green future

Here are two articles from business-oriented news-sites. They discuss the following topics

1)    Agreement at COP17 amongst parties

2)    India as a future green leader?

1 - http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=160518

According to UNEP, Durban has seen an increase in cooperation amongst parties. UNEP believes that un Durban, despite some parties disagreeing with some of the key issues, there is a strong sense of global community. The G77 and the developed world share the common vision that climate change needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

The article interestingly notes that low-carbon economies are the future of the world. This is once again in line with Cristina Figureres’s Green Economy pledge. Low carbon economies will not hinder economic growth, but would rather allow room for sustainable development.

2-http://adoptanegotiator.org/2011/12/05/18362/

India has the potential of becoming one of the world’s leaders in green technology implementation. The article outlines that India will be particularly interested in obtaining financial support from the GCF. There is potential for India to develop as a global leader in green jobs and technologies.

This will, however, require a lot of cooperation with the private sector, both domestically and internationally. It will allow an opportunity for skills to be developed in the population to power a green revolution in India.

It must be noted that India still faces a high degree of poverty and poor infrastructure in certain regions, as well as a booming population. Finding a balance between poverty eradication and business development will be an imperative agenda item for India in the next decade.

Day 6 Blog: EU stance and Green Economy imperative

Two media items regarding two different topics:

1)   EU’s Press Briefing (Monday 5^th)

2)   UNFCCC’s secretary pledge for a green economy (Rio +20 links)

1-    http://unfccc4.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop17/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=4382&theme=unfccc

This is a very informative press briefing on the EU’s stance at COP17.

Basically they outline their push for a 2^nd commitment period, which the EU would sign up to, to act as a roadmap for a new document to be produced by 2015.

This outcome has been supported by most G77 countries, and China and Brazil have expressed interest in the document, as long as some conditions apply to it (more at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/05/china-eu-plans-kyoto-durban).

The EU states that it is not adequate for only the EU to sign up, as they only account for 11-18% of all global emissions. It is therefore imperative that in the transition period to the 2015 document, high emitting countries, including ones in the G77, take on legally binding commitments.

2 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/cop17-christina-figueres-durban?newsfeed=true

A brief article, but notes the personal attachment people in power have to the issue. As UNFCCC secretary, Figueres wishes for the ideal outcome in Durban. This brief article notes her passion for achieving that outcome, and highlights that businesses, as long with governments, need to work together and collaborate.

As businesses have their own agendas and interests, Figureres states that it is a low carbon economy that can pave the way towards a less emissions intensive future.

It is interested to see the mention of the green economy by Figures. Throughout last week, not much has been mentioned in regards to the green economy. As this is one of the key issues being discussed in Rio+20, I would have expected to see more references to it throughout COP17.

Day 5: Week 1 Summary and Success in Durban

I offer you here two things:

1)   UNFCCC executive secretary’s summary of week 1 (Very short statement) http://unfccc4.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop17/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=4347&theme=unfccc

2)   What success may mean for Durban http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/11/30/durban-where-success-will-mean-the-avoidance-of-failure/

Christina Figueres’s provided a very quick summary of the main issues that were discussed in the first week of COP17, and what is expected for next week.

The EU has highlighted that a 2^nd commitment period is an option with some adjustments. Adaptation is also likely to have a significant role in the next text. The green climate fund has been a main issue of discussion, and there is a strong possibility that the world will see the beginning of adaptation fund being initiated after Durban.

Along with this, the draft Durban text will circulate amongst Parties throughout the weekend to be analysed and communicated to ministers. This text is to be debated next week and presented to the world at the end of the conference.

The second article states that we should see Durban as an opportunity to build and expand from the legally binding documents we already have. Annual climate meetings are about re-enforcing the commitments we have already made (in the KP) and building trust between parties. The authors note that the 2^nd commitment period of the KP is as pressing issue, and that due to the current political and economic climate it may be difficult for the world to see any solid developments.

COP17, however, should not be judge against creating a new document. Rather, maintaining climate change as an imperative agenda for the future rather than creating enemies over a 2^nd commitment period would mean success. Ensuring that bottom up, country specific climate change mitigation actions are still being considered and pushed by parties will mean that climate change is still being addressed, but from a bilateral and regional level rather than internationally.

Day 4: Climate Change impacts in Africa and Ideological stance on Climate Change

I am providing you with 2 articles. As 1 is in Spanish, from the Argentine media, I will provide an overview of the points it makes

1)   The effects of Climate Change already being felt in Africa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/01/cairo-cape-climate-change

2)   Science, Equity and Justice: Capitalism and the Climate Change regime http://www.ecoportal.net/Temas_Especiales/Cambio_Climatico/DURBAN_COP17_Ciencia_Justicia_y_Equidad._Principios_para_arrancar_el_clima_de_manos_del_capitalismo_salvaje

The first article, published by the Guardian, outlines the effects climate change is already having in the African region. We’ve al heard it before, however it is important for these things to resurface in the dawn of annual negotiations, as it refreshes concepts in civil society.

Extensive droughts, loss of crops and potential increase of diseases are affecting the African continent. Unseasonal weather patterns threaten the livelihoods of cities and rural areas. The events will continue in the short term regardless of the Durban outcome, however long term events and intensity can be reduced if agreements are reached in the immediate future.

The second article poses a more ideological stance on climate negotiations and the climate regime. It argues that the process is heavily managed and supervised by the industrialised world, living little room for developing countries to have input into the decision making. Along with this, it argues that the processes, such as the green climate fund, ought to be managed by sources such as the World Bank, due to their history of vested interests. Finally, it proposes that military and defence funding should be reduced and transferred to climate change mitigation, research and adaptation.

Let's bear in mind that this second source is from a left-leaning source. Their reports on climate negotiations usually revolve around the ideological and political context of the world. 

Day 3: REDD - flaws of market based mechanisms?

Today, I will focus on REDD+, and the possible loop holes and dangers that exist within the mechanism. All 3 articles and videos are related, so feel free to read/evaluate only one of them.

1) http://www.fern.org/carbonmarketswillnotdeliver  - Why carbon markets will not deliver

Carbon markets based around REDD credits are likely to be highly uncertain, inequitable, and not address the core systemic issues that drive deforestation. Carbon markets are highly dominated by Western entities, and the profits generated rarely feed back into re-forestation projects. It is also argued in the report that, as is the case for CDMs, most of the funding and profits would only make it to a select group of countries, and not necessarily the most vulnerable ones.

The report suggests that rather than relying on a market for funding, Southern governments should push for other means, such as taxes, levies and financial transfer payments.

2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/30/peruvian-amazon-carbon-piracy

OR a Video by Forest Peoples Programme (FPP): Carbon Piracy and land conflicts: The reality of REDD in the Peruvian Amazon http://unfccc4.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop17/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=4315&theme=unfccc

These two media items refer to the same report. Prepared by the FPP, and presented by Indigenous groups from Bolivia, the report outlines how REDD contracts are not in the interests and benefits of numerous indigenous groups in the Amazon.

The main concern is the lack of understanding and accurate communication of what indigenous groups are signing up to. Contracts are usually in English and have complex, Western focused legal matter attached to them. Indigenous groups are being talked into signing an agreement with to pre-defined end period.

Market based mechanisms are deeply embedded in Western ideology and are being pushed on communities that have had seldom experience with the market. Although REDD has possibilities NGOs and national government are going to be very careful with the contracts regarding carbon trading, as the profits generated may never make it back to the community.

SUMMARY: First 2 days in Durban

What has happened in Durban so far?

For those that don’t want to read the news or are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information, here are some of the key outcomes of COP17 in the last 2 days:

·      COP18 will be held in Qatar

·      Carbon Capture and Storage has been listed as a Clean Development Mechanism

·      The G77 is committed to a 2^nd Kyoto Commitment period

·      Canada has stated that they will not sign up to a 2^nd commitment period

·      Japan and Russia are likely to follow Canada’s lead

·      Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, however they also stated they will not block a 2^nd commitment period.

·      WMO stated that 2011 was the 10^th hottest year on record since 1850, despite the heavy La Niña effect, which in theory should have decreased global temperatures

FD

Day 2: Agriculture and ALBA's position in Durban

This entry will cover 2 items:

1)   Why agriculture can’t be ignored in COP17 (but will)

2)   Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Dominica and Nicaragua: COP17 positions

 Quick summaries: 

1) http://ag4impact.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/victim-and-culprit-why-cop-17-cant-ignore-agriculture/

This item is from the ‘Agriculture for Impact’ NGO blog, a subsidiary of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

The author states, rightly so, that agriculture is a victim and culprit of climate change. African farmers are being severely affected by changes in climatic conditions. Industrial agriculture, on the other hand, emits high amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The entire agricultural sector emits up to 30% of GHGs every year (IPCC).

There are currently no mechanisms in the climate regime that reward farmers for mitigating their emissions, or provide funding for farmers affected by climate change.

Durban, I believe, will not see the incorporation of agriculture into the Convention or any next text. It is a complex issue that is surrounded by food security concerns, hence any restrictions on production would raise concerns amongst certain groups. There should be an acknowledgement at a bare minimum, however I believe this is highly unlikely.

2)   ALBA’s position in COP17 - http://unfccc4.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop17/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=4281&theme=unfccc

30 minute video from the head negotiator for Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Cuba and Dominica.

They speak as the ALBA group (South American states) and have some key messages:

·      They support a 2^nd commitment period

·      They wish to push the Green Climate Fund and oversee the development of it throughout COP17

·      They don’t believe a new text is an efficient way of dealing with climate change, it would just be handing the 1^st world a blank check for mitigation requirements

·      KP has all that we need in terms of mechanisms and regulations

·      G77 fully supports a 2^nd commitment period

·      When asked about China and India, they said that yes, they are high polluters, but that the developed world pledges are absolutely pathetic and that the developing world is already mitigating significantly more.

The ALBA is usually very vocal about their positions, so it will be interesting to follow their role in the climate negotiations.