|
Copenhagen Climate Negotiations - Positive outcome or just a disaster?
Jan-Gustav Strandenaes writes his final instalment from the climate conference in Copenhagen, and it was not all that bad, he says:
Global warming but bitterly cold
It was cold. Bitterly cold. Frost smoke hung over Oslo harbour shrouding the capital’s new opera house in a mysterious veil. As if to spite the debate on global warming and the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting, a stable, high pressure over North-Eastern Europe had directed freezing cold winds in from Northern Siberia and the Arctic regions and had held Europe in a cold grip for more than a month after the COP had ended. Walking through the snow to meet my delegate friend now in January, my winter boots were making creaking sounds against the cold snow. At fifteen degrees centigrade below zero, the sounds, the smells and the feel were those of my childhood winters, when everything seemed just all right. My delegate friend and I had tried to meet up in Copenhagen during the climate negotiations, but subjected to busy schedules, we had failed miserably and instead agreed to meet again in Oslo. He would report back to his colleagues in early January in Norway after having spent a relaxing time with his family Christmas and new years. Then he would be off to New York again.
The Copenhagen accord – a betrayal?
The Copenhagen Accord and the outcome of COP 15 were now hailed as the failure of Copenhagen and the betrayal of humanity’s future. This is what would happen to the world when we are being subjected to the callous and hard-handed direction of the big powers. Such were the summary condemnations of the outcome unanimously voiced by the civil society activists who had been literally left out in the cold in Copenhagen; an unforgiving and meagre outcome they said. The eloquent and verbally hard hitting representative from the island state of Tuvalu spoke for the small and vulnerable nations when he said he had a feeling they were forced to sell their future for thirty silver coins, reminding the COP at the final plenary that their future was not for sale irrespective of the price. Saying this, he had instantly been given a resounding applause from many of the delegates, which seemed to give credence to his statement. With a biblical reference he had dramatically rejected the agreement initially brokered by President Obama of the US and Prime Minister Wen of China with the support of the EU, Brazil, India and South Africa.
A new beginning
Still, there were so many layers to the outcome of the conference, and many of these had not yet been picked up by the general debate. So many facets of global politics had been moved around in the course of two weeks in Copenhagen, so many historical battles had been fought behind the scenes at the conference. I did not feel comfortable participating in the popular denouncing of the outcome. Many positions had been moved far away from the faltering beginnings of the climate negotiations in 1992 in Rio and old political constellations were beginning to crumble. At the close of this century’s first decade, ironically labelled the zero decade, which supposedly was a correct time wise description, we might see the contours of a new political beginning, fitting this century. That was hopeful. And at the same time there were ill-boding signs on the horizon. But the world had to hurry. Procrastination or postponing decisions were no longer we could resort to. We needed action now. I was waiting for my friend, eagerly anticipating a seminal meeting with him. I had oodles of unanswered questions, and knew my friend would provide me with information rooted in ‘from behind the scenes’ sources. Often un-named, yet coming from reliable sources they could provide me with missing contexts.
No transparency and little governance
I had left the Bella Centre in Copenhagen on that December day, after seeing my friend, when hundreds were queuing to get in. This had been during the early days of the second week, and there had been no reason for me to stay on. ‘We will only allow 90 persons from the NGOs during the High Level Segment to be admitted’, was the official entrance policy from the organisers. It was scandalous, and showed a blatant disregard for the commitment and continued work of civil society. Close to 14000 people from civil society had been given legitimate and recognised accreditation to this UN meeting. Now they were deprived of this democratic right, ostensibly due to heightened security surrounding the state leaders. It was always like this – ‘we, the peoples’ were often reduced to security threats when decision-makers thought the democratic element became a burden. The decision to reduce the number of NGOs was also consistent with my earlier observations that lack of transparency had become an inherent quality at this COP.
An optimistic delegate with an outcome
The door to the restaurant opened, a whiff of subzero air nearly blew out the candles on the table next to the entrance making people look up. A big smile, a face oozing of good health, at least an impression a person wants to give having just weathered a hike through a northern, freezing winterscape. He seemed to be looking forward to a cosy, warm interior and shouted a boisterous hello, making people take a second look at my friend; he always enters a room with self-confident bravura, I thought. Settled behind large cups of steaming hot chocolate, having gone through our friendly happy new-year greetings we got down to business.
“You seem overly happy and content,” I ventured
“Indeed, I am, because now we have lot’s to do, and something real and concrete to work with. In fact, I think we got a lot more out of this troubled conference than we actually feared. The next COP in Mexico end of this year will be exciting,” he added. I was slightly surprised at his unequivocal up-beat answer, and noticing my hesitation he plodded on; “look, the COP outcome gave us a lot: we have money on the table, more than ever before, we have agreed to the 2 degree target, we are closer to solutions on tech transfer, the US is back at the negotiation table and we have committed all nations to a mitigation responsibility and the two track approach is gone. What more can you demand?”
No agreement, just a feeble consensus
“We have an accord, which has been ‘taken note of’ and not committed to or signed on to”, I corrected, “which is, incidentally, a huge difference from the Bali Road Map which was unanimously agreed to. There is no legally binding outcome, there is no real money on the table, all we have are pledges for money, and ‘only’ 100 billion US dollars by 2020, which is a lot less than the developing nations asked for. The Copenhagen Accord was agreed to outside of the formal UN negotiations, bringing almost 20 years of global procedural negotiations to nought. Two powerful state leaders, President Obama of the US and Prime Minister Wen of China with a few cronies decided the entire thing outside of the UN formalities and there is obviously a feeling that the legitimacy of the Accord is thus in question. And the same two leaders unwilling to admit to let alone discuss real emissions reductions for their countries. And I fear that the outcome and the way it was negotiated actually weakens the UN process and the UN system. Perhaps no agreement had been better that a bad agreement? Besides, there is no legally binding agreement, perhaps the biggest failure?” I brought up the principal arguments against the outcome immediately following the closing of the COP.
Hot chocolate and a tactical blunder
“I love this hot chocolate, no powder here, just properly made, and creamy too.” My friend smiled, his present boisterous mood was a far cry from the expressions of beleaguered fatigue and brooding despair that seemed to have haunted him in Copenhagen only three weeks earlier. Referring to what I had just said, he answered: “I’ll start where I agree with you. If the outcome is perceived and understood as weakening the UN system, and if it was really made outside the UN, it is a devastating and disastrous outcome. The COP process must continue, and governments and civil society must work hard to keep global decisions inside the UN. The UN is the only institution that allows all nations, from the Maldives and Tuvalu to China and the US with substantive contributions from civil society to be heard on an equal basis. The UN must be strengthened. Not only do decisions inside the UN give credence to agreements, it provides them with legitimacy and eventually legality. And yes, no legally binding agreement is a huge shortcoming. But if you read the Bali Road Map properly, the recommendation there was to have such an agreement in Copenhagen, but we will now work to have it at the coming COP, the one in December 2010 in Mexico. And the new protocol to replace the present Kyoto, is not going to be signed until 2012. We still have some time. Not a lot, but some. Then, what was not in accordance with UN procedures at Copenhagen? It was not only Obama and Wen who dealt with the proposed accord. A ‘Friends of the Chair group’ had been established, and that group had some 28 nations involved, all representing the informal groupings at the COP and at the UN, - the African Union, the LDCs, AOSIS, the EU, JUSCANNZ, they were all there. And this is normal procedure. You know as well as I that when negotiations have been driven down a dead end, informal groups are established to reach agreement, and these groups are invariably referred to as ‘friends of the chair’. Then the ‘friends of the chair’ document is brought to the plenary for all delegations to consider and study. What was not good, was the impatience of the Danish Prime Minister. I think he wanted too much and too fast, and was not familiar with a meeting of this calibre. He gave the plenary only one hour to study the accord. That tastes of railroading issues, and is exactly what the opponents of any outcome would be looking for. It was a tactical blunder on his part.’
A callous Dane
“Opponents? You mean Sudan?” I was not quiet sure were my friend was going. “Well, Sudan had its own agenda, in addition to at times representing G-77 . But Sudan’s belligerent and aggressive attitude actually did G-77 a disservice. Even their own turned against them. No, there were others opposing the Accord from among the developing nations, mostly from the OPEC group. Instead of looking at oil as a lasting resource, useful for multiple purposes, they seem to think oil is profitable only as a source for petrol, you know, imminent income and gratification. And they often oppose constructive suggestions out of sheer short-sightedness and greed. And in some way they also play neatly into the hands of the big oil companies, including countries in the north that are big oil producers, countries that could speak more boldly and not just establish all sorts of green funds.” My delegate friend looked at me, smiling and obviously pointing a finger in my Norwegian direction. I did not want to take the bait. He continued; “You know, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela blocked the effort to deal with heavy crude oil as fuel for ships. Everybody knows that this is a heavy CO2 contributor. And the Spanish Prime minister criticised a few days ago Bolivia and Venezuela for being blindly intransigent with the US. Besides, I also think many developing nations were suspicious of the accord, coming as it was from big powers.”
“Historical baggage, two hundred years of colonialism and all that?”
“Yes I think so. And that is why the action from the Danish prime minister caused so much harm. Unfortunately he came across as an insensitive pawn speaking for the self-righteous North. But there is more to this that can help explain the ensuing confusion. The organizers of this COP were suddenly faced with a challenge they had not really thought through. What we had in Copenhagen was something never seen before. Here we were at a regular routine COP, a Conference of Parties, and suddenly we were faced with a real Global Summit superimposed on this meeting. Neither the Danes nor the UN had thought this through properly. These two elements, the ‘normal’ negotiations and a High Level Segment of this calibre were definitely not integrated. It was as if 130 of the world’s most influential state leaders descended on Copenhagen out of the blue and found themselves with nothing to do. And then they did something quite unprecedented. They sat down and started to talk to each other to find a solution. And they did. They acted the way they are used to, and with all political rights, and disempowered their negotiators, leaving them confused. How in the world could these lesser negotiating mortals pick up on their leaders’ initiative without instructions? Chaos and confusion ensued. The fact that it all ended in a readable outcome is in itself almost a miracle.”
The Copenhagen Accord – a challenge to all nations
“Don’t you think we owe the developing nations something? After all, we, the developed and industrialised north have caused the problems we are all suffering from”. I voiced one of the most common arguments against the Accord.
“Morality speaks, or is it just moralism?” my friend retorted. “No one disagrees today with historical facts. By the same token, I think it is fair to say that almost everybody agrees with science, and says – we have to solve this global warming problem. And yes, the developed nations need to foot the bill. And we have come up with a large sum. And this money has to be put to good use. We just can’t pour it over all sorts of projects. But we now can start financing large-scale mitigation and adaptation projects that will all contribute to keeping emissions so low that we will not – hopefully - push the temperature rise above 2 degrees. But we need commitments from all nations, rich and poor, because energy consumption today, no matter where it is on the globe, emits CO2. The IPCC report itself points to a clear fact – by around 2025 or 2030, the total emissions from the so-called developing nations will far exceed the total emissions coming from the rich nations. And that is why we need the one-track approach. Universal standards for all, and massive assistance to the nations that cannot afford the costs of a zero-carbon development. Remember what President Mohamed Nasheed from the Maldives said to the plenary. Here, I have his speech.”
My friend produced a document carrying the official insignia of the Maldives nation. He had underlined a part of the speech, which I read: ‘Developed countries created the climate crisis. Developing countries must not turn it into a calamity. Therefore I invite the leaders of big developing countries to recognize their responsibilities. I urge them to bring forward verifiable actions to bring carbon intensity 30% below business as usual by 2020.’
A global outlook that fits this century
My friend’s eyes shone with eagerness. “And this President is not sucking up to the rich, developed nations. He is a man with great integrity and he speaks for a nation that may vanish literally speaking, in the waves of the oceans.”
My friend pointed to another section of Nasheed’s speech, where I read: ‘Technical creativity can make great leaps for mankind, but politics must create the springboard. Industrialized countries must raise the level of their ambition. They must commit to 45% by 2020 and 95% by 2050. The fact is that the majority of the future emissions rises are projected to come from developing countries. I’m sure that China shows leadership others will follow. After all, it is not carbon that we want, but development. It is not coal we want, but electricity. It is not oil we want, but transport.’
“And the beauty of the Accord is that it totally removes the main argument that the conservative world has used against global emissions regimes. The one-track approach actually indicates clearly that the emerging well-to-do in developing nations will no longer be exempt from carrying the burden which all people in the developed world would earlier have had to carry alone. If you remember, this was the major argument that the Bush administration based their opposition against the UNFCCC on. Now this is gone. And have you seen the entire outcome document? Well, I did not think so. Media shouts about the brevity of the Copenhagen Accord – just over three pages. Well, it is only a few lines shorter than the Bali Road Map, from COP 13 in 2007. But a number of parallel negotiations went on in Copenhagen and successfully agreed on a vast number of other related issues also dealing with global warming.”
My friend brought up the entire outcome document, a thick wad of papers, to be studied. He looked at his watch. Time for him to go. He was on is way to New York again. “Get civil society on board. And get them out of their 1970’s thinking”, he said earnestly. “We can no longer use historical inequalities and injustices to allow any nation to be given exemption from today’s and tomorrow’s climate change and global warming exigencies. Commonly agreed commitments, legally binding for all, and massive assistance to those nations too poor to finance this,” – he paused, thinking, ”you know, the biggest and most massive failure of the COP, actually of all COPs, is not having dealt with or dealing with consumption and production issues at all. According to very reliable estimates, our daily consumption accounts for 40% of global CO2 emissions. Changing this and giving people opportunities to change consumption patters, would be a massive contribution to CO2 reduction. There’s your task ahead, get all people on board.” He buttoned his winter-coat and was off.
More meetings, more work, but hopeful work
So there it was then, an outcome worth studying, and implementing. Perhaps we had been judging the result based on an outmoded world-view, and needed to upgrade our global outlook to fit 2010? And now, I looked at the entire COP 15 outcome document – more to read, understand and implement. I looked at my calendar of events- UNEP had its major annual assembly meeting end of February, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development would meet in May, the next COP would meet in December in Mexico, and then of course, there was to be a new global summit on Sustainable Development in Brazil in 2012, and many more meetings and conferences between. And they all had issues relevant to the environment and global warming. There would be time to change things for the better, but we had to work. A lot. All of us. And fast. On what? Consumption and new economy perhaps? Decoupling growth and consumption. And fill the gaps the COP 15 left out. We could all contribute.
Copenhagen, December 2009
|
|
