The Daily IIJ » IIJ at UNCCC

“Climate accord damaging to poor countries”

IIJ at UNCCC — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:00:30 +0000

By Yasmin Arquiza

A last-minute agreement brokered by US President Barack Obama during the closing hours of the climate summit here Friday does not provide enough financing for poor countries that stand to suffer the most from the negative impact of climate change, an expert Filipina negotiator said. “The Copenhagen Accord is damaging to poor countries,” Filipina expert negotiator says.

“It is damaging to the interests of developing nations,” said Bernarditas Castro-Muller, a retired Filipina diplomat who serves as the coordinator for G-77 and China, the largest negotiating bloc of developing nations in the talks.

She said the agreement did not put in place the proper financing and technology transfer arrangements that would allow poor countries to adapt to climate change.

The informal Copenhagen Accord, which did not go through the normal negotiating procedures of the United Nations-sponsored conference, states: “The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources amounting to 30 billion dollars for the period 2010 – 2012 with balance allocation between adaptation and mitigation, including forestry and new and additional investments through international institutions.”

Priority for the funds would be “the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa.”

Specific pledges to the fund so far are $10.6 billion from the European community, $11 billion from Japan, and $3.6 billion from the United States, according to the document.

The agreement also set a goal of $100 billion in funding “from a wide variety of sources” by 2020 to provide the needs of developing countries, but Muller said most of these would come from loans and does not address the need to “pay the climate debt” of rich nations that have polluted the atmosphere for many generations.

While recognizing the scientific view that increases in global temperature should not go beyond 2 degrees Celsius to avert dangerous climate change, the agreement did not specify any targets for emission reductions from any country. Instead, it simply states, “We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible.”

Muller assailed the manner by which world leaders produced the agreement, saying “it’s the result of a non-transparent process.”

Negotiators from 192 countries have been working for two years to produce an agreement beyond 2012, when the first period of binding targets on emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol expires. However, there were still many sticking points by the time world leaders flew into Copenhagen for the high-level segment of the talks this week.

One of the few carbon-cutting measures in the agreement is the support for “positive incentives” on actions for a mechanism known as reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries.

The agreement included a table of voluntary mitigation pledges from 11 countries that do not have binding targets under the Kyoto protocol including the Philippines, which committed to reduce emissions by 5 per cent but did not indicate any time frame.

(With a report from Pia Faustino, GMANews.TV)

The IIJ invited journalists from Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines, Tanzania, Vietnam and Zambia to the UN Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) in Copenhagen. Please find their features within this blog (UNCCC09, see Topics in the navigation bar on the top left). More information can be obtained at http://unfccc.int

Forget about saving the world, leaders can’t agree on how to save face at Copenhagen

IIJ at UNCCC — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:30:03 +0000

By Priscilla Jebaraj

World leaders may have given up on saving the planet from climate change here at the UN talks at Copenhagen. Instead, they are negotiating a declaration which could be aimed at saving face.

Leaders, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, have delayed their departure from Copenhagen on Friday evening when the conference was scheduled to end. There are reports that the UN secretary general may have asked them to stay overnight.

It’s been apparent that there will be no legally-binding treaty or extension of the Kyoto Protocol here, but leaders are not even able to agree on a political declaration which would define what progress – if any – the world can take away from Copenhagen. With over 100 heads of state and government gathered here, they cannot afford to go home completely empty-handed.

However, the latest version of the declaration available at the time of going to print is being called a weak text, with few specifics pinning down commitments. It has no deadline for the finalisation of the negotiations. It also has no figures for emission reduction targets by developed nations by 2020, still using “x” and “y” to fill gaps in the text.

The language reflects the fundamental disagreements on the shape of a future global climate change regime. India has expressed disappointment, but pledged to work through the coming year for a better deal.

“The outcome may well fall short of expectations. Nevertheless, it can become a significant milestone,” said Dr. Singh. “I therefore support calls for subsequent negotiations towards building a truly global and genuinely collaborative response to climate change being concluded during 2010,” he added.

US-President Barack Obama warned against such a postponement of the talks. “These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades and we have very little to show for it other than an increase, an acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over,” he said.

Despite the hype of over 100 heads of state at a single platform, their speeches on Friday morning failed to bring anything new to the table, merely reiterating the divide between rich and poor countries here.

The 192 nations represented here are trying to craft a global climate change regime that will reduce the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and help poor countries adapt to the impacts of climate change – droughts, floods and rising seas. They also need to aid the development and distribution of technology to reduce emissions and find the money to fund all this activity.

The talks have been hamstrung by rich nations insisting that large developing nations like India and China join a new legally binding treaty to cut emissions, while on the other side, developing countries are demanding that rich nations fulfil their legal obligations to reduce emissions and finance adaptation and tech transfer efforts in the first place.

Developing countries are not prepared to accept an “imperfect deal” that compromises the world’s only legal treaty to combat climate change – the Kyoto Protocol. “President Obama said it was time to act. And if we are to act, then I have to ask you – starting from now, please fulfil the Kyoto Protocol,” said Bolivia’s President Evo Morales.

“I would love to leave Copenhagen with the most perfect document in the world. I am not sure if some angel or wise man will come down to this plenary and put in our minds the intelligence that we lacked up until now. I don’t know if that’s going to be possible,” said Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The IIJ invited journalists from Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines, Tanzania, Vietnam and Zambia to the UN Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) in Copenhagen. Please find their features within this blog (UNCCC09, see Topics in the navigation bar on the top left). More information can be obtained at http://unfccc.int

“Failure is staring us in the face in Copenhagen”

IIJ at UNCCC — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:36:33 +0000

By Goutam Mondal

World leaders are meeting on this morning to hammer out a declaration in the dying hours of the Copenhagen climate conference. On the table at the moment is a figure on the need for long-term funding for climate action in developing countries, but no clarity on who will provide the money and where it would come from. Leaders have also apparently agreed on short-term (fast-track) finance for the developing world. But heads of state and government have so far failed to agree on the crucial issues of emission reduction targets and how to verify these cuts.

Greenpeace International head of climate policy Martin Kaiser said: “Failure is staring us in the face in Copenhagen. Further empty promises from world leaders could make negotiations spiral towards a major fiasco. As world leaders get together this morning, it is obvious that the job is far from done, the climate is far from being saved. Negotiators have only repeated good intentions, but are not giving themselves the tools to keep their promises.”

With only low emission pledges and uncertainty over the legal form of a future agreement, Copenhagen would set the world on course for a 3 degrees Celsius or more increase in temperature which threatens the very existence of civilisation. “World leaders only have a few hours to turn this around and get the job done before it is too late.”

Targeting small scale farmer’s to fight Climate Change

IIJ at UNCCC — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:00:07 +0000

By Justus Wanzala

Climate friendly agricultural systems are key to fighting global warming and ensuring adequate food humanity. James Harkness, President of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy said in a session on importance of agriculture in fighting climate change at the on going Copenhagen Climate change talks that agriculture as a sector can reduce its emissions and be a major sink to green house gases already in the atmosphere.

Experts attribute use of nitrogen fertilizer for production of crops like maize to increasing emissions. Livestock such as cows also emit tones of methane as well as manure derived from their dung during its decomposition. Carbon dioxide is equally emitted by farm machinery through use of fossil fuels.
“With carbon sequestration (low release of carbon into the atmosphere) and shift to low input (less use of fertilizers) agriculture systems we can improve the resiliency of our soils, water systems while reducing dependency on fossil fuels.” He called for enhancement of support for agriculture systems that are both adaptive and mitigative against climate change.

A bulk of farmers in poor nations of Asia and Africa are small scale farmers. Harkness faulted the approach of agriculture research institutions in these countries emphasizing that there is need to focus on indigenous technologies.

“Traditional and local knowledge should be supported in poor countries instead of inappropriate technologies developed and funded by the West being forced on farmers in the global south,” said Harkness.

He added that research and farmer education should aim at optimizing sustainable agriculture production and reduction of green house gas emissions and decried the lesser role played by poor countries in the Global Research Alliance on Agriculture and Green House Gas Emissions.

Dr. Urs Niggli, Director Research Institute of Organic Agriculture said organic farming is effective in managing, conserving biodiversity and curbing pollution and can easily be practiced by small-scale farmers.
He said research done by his institute indicated that organic farming can reduce global green house gas emissions by almost five percent.
“Currently, there is an initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Department for Environment and Natural Resources) supported by leading organic research institutes to establish a new alliance of organic research institutes. The initiative is called Organic Research Centre Alliance (ORCA) and focuses on cooperation between research institutes in Africa, Asia and Latin America to intensify on-farm research on developing organic agro-ecological systems,” Niggli told Islam Online.
He said the initiative involves working with farmers on their farms and addressing solving specific problems facing them.
“I see a huge potential in that kind of research and it can be organised in a kind of snow-ball system as all these on-farm activities attract a lot of farmers and motivate them to do experiments on their farms as well,” he said.

Sceptics of organic farming voice concern over its ability to produce enough food to feed hunger stricken populations in poor nations.

Niggli who is also a World Board Member of International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) said yields from organic farming can be increased through research initiatives that put functions of ecosystems at their core.
He firmly believes that rural poor communities can be empowered to practice sustainable farming and at the same produce enough to food. “The big chance of climate change – if we can talk about chances – is that the world leaders, the governments and international organisations and the public finally become aware of the multifunctionality of agriculture. Agriculture must deliver food, but as co-benefits, it also improves soil fertility, increases biodiversity in agricultural and semi/natural systems and habitats.”

Farmers he said can learn sustainable farming methods and sell food and other improved ecosystem services to the public.
“I see here especially a new added-value strategy for farmers in developing countries, and the international protocols on climate change have to lay the ground that sustainable but nonetheless productive farmers like organic farmers can profit from these opportunities,” he told Islam Online.

According to the World Agroforesty Centre (WAC), growing of trees in a billion hectares of farmland by intercropping them with crops has a potential of preventing 50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere.
Adesina noted that in the on going Copenhagen talks, Africa must insist on a global carbon market which fully accounts for the environmental benefits of sound agricultural practices of smallholder farmers.
According to Adesina African farmers need access to the technologies that will enable them to grow more food and do so sustainable. His views are in tandem with those of Harkness. “The future of agriculture needs to be resilient against climate change.”

The next 24 hours will decide

IIJ at UNCCC — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:00:08 +0000

By Simit Bhagat

The endgame at the climate change battle has begun. The best option for India and developing countries, it became clear on Tuesday, is to ensure that the industrialized countries are not able to set grounds to kill Kyoto and rewrite the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in future negotiations.

All hopes for even a substantial political agreement faded on Tuesday as industrialized countries refused to offer any commitments on mitigation, finance and technology. On Monday night and through Tuesday, several important G-77 countries, including India, held closed-door meetings to block any attempt by the host Danish government to parachute in a fresh and biased draft for the political statement before the heads of states arrive.

The BASIC countries – India, China, Brazil and South Africa – had extracted a commitment on Monday from the presidency of the formal talks, host Denmark, that it would not spring any surprise at the last moment on the developing countries. However, anticipating just such a move on Wednesday, the G-77 prepared grounds to reject any attempt by the industrialized countries to hijack the agenda of the climate talks.

A source in one of the important African countries in the G-77 group told TIMES OF INDIA that the salient points of what the Danes want to push through a new draft had been shared by the host country with select G-77 countries.

The formal UN negotiations have got practically stalled with industrialized and developing countries not budging on any key issues. The industrialized countries, fronted more and more by Australia now, want to kill the Kyoto Protocol, bring the domestic actions of developing countries under international scrutiny and force a disproportional future carbon budget for the emerging economies by asking for a peaking year.

The developing countries have refused to accept the key demands of the rich nations while asking for targets from them under Kyoto Protocol and hard figures for the amount of financial and technology support they will provide the poorer countries.

“The next 24 hours will decide,” as Yvo de Boer put it. Probably the only statement that everyone would agree on right now.

South Africa insists on 40%

IIJ at UNCCC — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:00:15 +0000

By Newton Sibanda

South Africa has said that developed countries must commit to ambitious and legally binding carbon emission reduction targets of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
In a statement issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs at the ongoing UN Climate change conference, South Africa said this was in accordance with the science and their historical responsibility for emissions.

“South Africa recognises that as a responsible global citizen, we want to take more action, not only because we have a responsibility for future generations, but also because the science tells us that we are very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. While we insist on the right to development, we will do everything within our capability to achieve our development and poverty eradication objectives in the most sustainable manner possible,” the statement read in part.

“Given our unique circumstances, we consider that sustainable development policies and measures, which are development-oriented actions that have the co-benefit of avoiding emissions, are particularly appropriate nationally appropriate mitigation actions. The eradication of poverty and dealing with the legacy of apartheid are fundamental national priorities which require that we have the space, time and resources to develop.”

South Africa noted that a positive outcome in Copenhagen was central to its ability to enhance action on climate change.

“The extent of the actions to be taken by South Africa, and other developing counties, will depend on the provision of support, from the international community for mitigation and adaptation actions, and in particular through finance, technology and support for capacity building from developed countries, in line with their commitments under both the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Bali Action Plan,” the statement read.

“It depends on us agreeing fair, ambitious and effective agreements in Copenhagen.”

Climate Change mitigation: Africa lowers demand to 100 billion US$

IIJ at UNCCC — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:00:15 +0000

By Chinyere Fred-Adegbulugbe

The Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Mr. Meles Zenawi announced today that Africa was ready to accept a mitigation and adaptation fund portfolio between 50 and 100 billion USD. The fund would start 2013 to reach up to 50 billion dollars per annum by 2015 and 100billion USD per annum by 2020.

This new climate finance package represents 75 per cent cut from the continent’s original demand of 400 billion USD per annum from rich countries to help cope with climate change impacts.
Zenawi, who made this proposal on long term finance on behalf of the African delegation at the ongoing United Nations Climate Change Conference, also asked for start-up fund of 10 billion USD per annum for the three years of 2010-2012 to be used to address urgent adaptation and mitigation tasks including forestry and to prepare plans for more ambitious programmes in the future.

This means that Africa hopes to receive 30 billion USD the next three years in adaptation and mitigation funds. While asking that 40 per cent of the start-up fund should be earmarked for Africa, he also requested that the fund allocated to Africa be administered by the African Development Bank under trustees composed of equal number of donor and recipient countries.

Making his presentation to a high-level segment of the conference that, Zenawi also proposed that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change should mandate a commission of political leaders and experts to review all such funding mechanisms and come up with a reliable system of funding and submit its report within six months.

Explaining the rationale behind the new proposal, Zelaya said, “I know my proposal today will disappoint those Africans who from the point of justice have asked for full compensation for the damage done to our development prospects. My proposal dramatically scales back our expectation with regards to the level of funding in return for more reliable funding and a seat at the table.”

His proposal, expectedly have drawn criticisms from climate change stakeholders who viewed African’s new demand as weak.
The Climate Finance Specialist Liz Gallagher describes this latest figure as disappointing. She added, “Such turn-around on the level of finance being asked for by Africa points to the influence of some of the big powers behind the scenes. To slash the figure from 400 billion USD to 100 billion USD is a high-risk strategy. On the one hand Africa could be showing its willingness to compromise; but on the other it is placing its trust in the Unites States and other developed countries to deliver on finance here in Copenhagen. These countries have failed to stump up vital cash up to this point, so whether this strategy is wise or naïve remains to be seen.

The European Union, however, has reiterated its commitment towards assisting the developing countries by announcing a 7.2 billion Euros contribution to the proposed fast start funding for three years, from 2010 to 2012.

Brasil investirá US$ 5 bilhões

IIJ at UNCCC — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:00:11 +0000

By Juliana Radler

Brasil investirá US$ 5 bilhões em ações de combate às mudanças climáticas em países da África e da América Latina. Um dos pontos de maior discussão na conferência do Clima em Copenhague tem sido a questão do financiamento para o fundo de combate às mudanças climáticas que será criado para que os países em desenvolvimento possam investir em projetos de adaptação e mitigação aos efeitos do aquecimento global. As cifras estão sendo colocadas na mesa pelos países desenvolvidos, mas a última versão do documento que vem sendo negociado em Copenhague ainda não menciona valores a serem investidos. A ONU quer levantar pelo menos US$ 10 bilhões por ano de 2010 a 2012 em novos fundos, que seriam o embrião deste acordo para apoiar países pobres. Várias nações defendem a necessidade de repassar US$100 bilhões por ano a partir de 2020 para ajudar os países em desenvolvimento.

Hoje, o Brasil anunciou oficialmente que contribuirá com o fundo, doando US$ 5 bilhões em 10 anos para serem alocados em países mais pobres da África e da América Latina. A senadora Marina Silva foi a primeira a defender aqui em Copenhague que o Brasil contribua para esse fundo de mudanças climáticas, já que o país está entre as maiores economias do mundo e também está entre os maiores emissores de gases do efeito estufa.

A senadora propôs inicialmente uma contribuição (simbólica) de US$ 1 bilhão. A proposta da senadora foi criticada pela ministra da Casa Civil, Dilma Houssef, que alegou primeiramente que o país não deveria contribuir para o fundo e que essa cifra, de qualquer forma, “não faria nem cócegas”. Entretanto, Dilma Houssef, que está presidindo a delegação brasileira na COP, voltou atrás, e propôs que o país contribua sim para o fundo e com um montante de US$ 5 bilhões divididos em 10 anos.

A contribuição brasileira ao fundo de forma alguma isenta o país de também receber recursos dos países desenvolvidos para suas ações de combate as emissões de gases do efeito estufa, sobretudo, no campo de redução do desmatamento, o vilão das emissões brasileiras. “O Brasil se orgulha de ser comparado aos países ricos na economia que faz as emissões de CO2, mas quer ser igualado aos pobres para o aporte de recursos na hora de construir uma economia de baixo carbono”, enfatizou a senadora Marina Silva.

A posição do governo brasileiro na COP 15, segundo informaram os ministros Carlos Minc, do Meio Ambiente e a ministra Dilma Houssef, é a de que recursos para ações de adaptação, originários de um eventual Fundo Global Ambiental, devem ser destinados exclusivamente para os mais pobres. Já os países emergentes de economias mais fortes, como o Brasil, devem receber recursos para projetos de mitigação de suas emissões de gases-estufa.

No caso dos países mais pobres, o Brasil investirá recursos como 20% do Fundo Amazônia em nações da América Latina que possuam regiões da floresta. Já o Inpe fará o monitoramento gratuito, por satélite, do estado da Floresta Amazônica e também da Savana africana. Minc lembrou que esse monitoramento é fundamental para que esses países se candidatem a receber recursos do Redd.

Para atingir as metas de redução de suas emissões de CO², até 2020, entre 36,1% e 39%, Dilma disse que o Brasil precisará de cerca de US$ 166 bilhões, mas nem tudo poderá ser originado de recursos do orçamento da União. O País, portanto, terá de captar recursos externos para diversos projetos de mitigação que visam à redução de suas emissões de gases-estufa.

Segundo Dilma, esse valor é “apenas um indicativo” das necessidades do País. Dos US$ 166 bilhões, cerca de US$ 110 bilhões a US$ 111 bilhões seriam destinados para ações de mitigação no setor energético, US$ 32 bilhões para agricultura e US$ 21 bilhões para ações de combate ao desmatamento na Amazônia.

Compromisso
As economias emergentes, sobretudo a China, sofre grande pressão dos países desenvolvidos a se comprometerem de forma mais intensa com as mudanças climáticas, assumindo metas de redução e compromissos financeiros no acordo que está sendo negociado em Copenhague. Pelas regras de Kyoto, que será substituido por esse novo acordo após 2012, apenas os países desenvolvidos tem compromissos obrigatórios com redução de emissões e apoio aos menos desenvolvidos.

O senador norte-americano John Kerry deu exatamente esse recado em seu discurso hoje em Copenhague. “Em 2020, a China vai emitir 40% mais dos que os Estados Unidos emitirá. Por isso, é preciso que a China vá mais longe em seu compromisso. Nós estamos solidários com os países mais pobres do mundo e com os países-ilha mais vulneráveis. Estamos conscientes dos erros que cometemos no passado e não queremos que os países em desenvolvimento cresçam replicando o modelo de desenvolvimento que tivemos”, afirmou Kerry .

Climate summit stuck on question of whodunit

IIJ at UNCCC — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:00:54 +0000

By Yasmin Arquiza

From her handbag, expert climate negotiator Bernarditas Castro-Muller fishes out a piece of bond paper and folds it into five parts. She holds up one-fifth of the folded paper, and points out that it represents the minimal contribution of developing countries such as the Philippines to global carbon emissions.

It is her simple but clear explanation of the intricacies of the climate debate that have made Muller one of the more influential voices in the talks in recent years, which is why many members of the negotiating bloc of developing countries known as G77 plus China expressed shock to find out that she had been removed from the Philippine delegation to the landmark United Nations climate conference in the Danish capital this year.

“You really have few negotiators with the institutional memory and depth of understanding about the process, convention, and issues being discussed here. Clearly, she was seen as a threat, probably by the developed countries that have a lot of stake in these negotiations,” said Lim Li Lin, legal adviser to the international development NGO Third World Network (TWN).

In previous years, Muller has often stood up to remind intransigent countries such as the US about the “common but differentiated responsibilities” among the signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the climate negotiations.

Although rapidly growing China has overtaken the US as the world’s largest polluter, Muller points out that 80 per cent of the accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere came from the Industrial Revolution since the 19th century and not to activities in recent decades.

In terms of per capita emissions, even big developing countries such as China and India also lag behind industrialized countries, where each citizen produces huge amounts of carbon emissions compared to people in poorer countries.

The sticking points include how much and how fast developed nations must cut emissions; what emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil must do to slow the growth of their own emissions; and how much money rich countries should channel to the poorest countries so they can shift to low-carbon economies and cope with the adverse impacts of climate change such as destructive cyclones.

Muller describes the insistence on reductions from big developing countries such as China, India and Brazil as an “inequitable demand that constrains the economic growth of newly-developing nations.”

With its small carbon footprint and meager political clout, the Philippines is not considered an influential country in the negotiations but its delegation has traditionally played a leadership role within the G77 bloc. Filipino negotiators like Muller and lawyer Antonio La Viña of the Ateneo School of Government are also recognized as some of the most experienced negotiators in the talks.

Philippine environmental groups have expressed concern that the removal of Muller from the delegation may signal a shift in the government’s previous position that developed countries need to make deep and early cuts in carbon emissions.

“A lot of things have changed in the Philippine position since Hillary visited the country. We believe that (Mrs. Arroyo’s) visit here with other world leaders will only affirm the Philippines’ support of the US position in the climate talks,” said Ma. Teresa Nera-Lauron of Ibon Foundation, one of the Philippine NGOs observing the talks in Copenhagen.

She was referring to the overnight visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Nov. 12-13 to visit victims of the recent cyclones and meet with Filipino youth.

Last November 10, Mrs. Arroyo told a cabinet meeting in Bohol that the Philippines would need to adopt a position “that does not insist on deep and early cuts but must be binding,” according to a press release in the Malacanang website.

“Cuts, amounts should not be the sticking points. Sacrifice as you can so it could be binding,” Arroyo was quoted as saying.

The position represents a turnaround from the country’s submissions to the conference since the start of the year, when “deep and early cuts” hewing closely to the scientific assessment of a 25 to 40 per cent reduction in carbon emission by 2020 was the Philippine delegation’s oft-repeated mantra.

“We really hope this does not signify a change in position for the Philippines government because it would be a real shame if the Philippines went from being a leader in the G77 to becoming a country that is creating problems within the G77 and undermining the positions of developing countries,” Lin of TWN said.

More delegates, less outcome?

IIJ at UNCCC — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:00:29 +0000

By Newton Sibanda

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has urged ministers at the UN climate summit not to be distracted from the goal of preserving the world from climate catastrophe. In a statement issued on the sidelines of the summit yesterday, WWF urged ministers to adopt a common vision where the average global temperature rise was limited to below two degrees and stabilises at 1.5 degrees.

“To minimize the risk of overshooting two degrees, WWF believes any measures decided at this conference should be subjected to science review finishing no later than 2015. This review, to see if what we are doing matches what we need to do, needs to be part of the agreement,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF’s global climate initiative.

WWF’s view is that the Copenhagen outcome should be legally binding on parties and consists of an amended Kyoto Protocol with new and adequate emission reduction targets for developed countries.

The global environmental non governmental organization says the outcome should also include a new and linked Copenhagen Protocol establishing the international legal framework around climate action in the US and in developing countries.

“Any agreement on funding needs to deal not only with fast start funding, but must also specify how the immediate funding can be used to create the capacity and the institutions needed to be able to rapidly handle growing levels of funding in coming years,” Mr Carstensen said.

“The agreement should also detail new sources of funding such as levies on international aviation and shipping and auction of carbon pollution permits, and it should make clear how and through what institutions the money should be distributed,” he said.

And briefing the press yesterday, the African Group Chair, Mr Kamel Djemouai from Algeria expressed disappointment with the proceedings at the summit. He said the negotiations were supposed to take into consideration the two track positions as was outlined in the Bali Action Plan two years ago.

“Our two major concerns are the AWG-KP (Ad Hoc Working Group of the Kyoto Protocol) and AWG-LCA (Long Term Cooperation Action), which we are supposed to follow,” he said.

Mr Djemouai said instead of parallel negotiations of the two tracks proceeding, some elements from the Kyoto Protocol were removed and married to the LCA.
“We want the two tracks discussed as two parallel and not as one component,” he said.

“Not all views of the Bali Action Plan are being reflected and the way we are moving in theses negotiations is not good, we will face risks if the Kyoto Protocol dies,” he said.

Mr Djemouai feared that if the Kyoto Protocol track is being absorbed in the LCA, it will jeopardize the outcome of a legally binding instrument they have been pushing for.
“We will not go on with the plenary that is being called for if we do not have the informal consultative meeting to iron out the pending issues,” he said.

Meanwhile, entry to the convention centre has been characterized by long queues that have been subjecting delegates to a long wait in chilling weather. The queues have been a result of the huge number of delegates that has almost tripled in three consecutive summits. This year’s summit has in excess of 15,000 delegates compared to last year’s Poznan summit that had about 12,000 delegates. The Nairobi summit in 2006 had about 6,000 delegates.