After several informal weekend meetings, including between the COP President with arriving Ministers to set the stage for political discussions, the COP and COP/MOP headed into the last week when decisions have to be made, or, at least decisions will have to be made not to make decisions. Unfortunately, it seem that there will be more of the latter rather than the former. Nevertheless, if any type of decision can be made it will likely enhance the relevance of the UNFCCC COPs as the appropriate negotiating forum on climate change.

It also looks like there will be restrictions on civil society access to meeting buildings. Although not as onerous as in Copenhagen, the ticket system is overly broad to achieve its ends and thus limits civil society participation more than is necessary. To even enter the main conference building at the Moon Palace delegates will need secondary passes. That means civil society representatives will not be able to hold meetings (or at least many will not be able to attend meetings) anywhere in Moon Palace hotel's main premises.

On a similar note, civil society's Klimaforum has been relegated to a place (the Polo Club) so distant from the main venue (about 20 kilometres away or at leasts 30 minutes by car) that it had to cancel all its events on Monday because people could not get to a demonstration and back in the same day. Attendance is not high in any event, again something to which its location might have contributed.

While political posturing continues State are starting to dig into entrenched positions. The developing countries supported by most NGOs want a fair deal that provides them more assistance to enable them to assist with mitigation activities. To these countries this means new strong Kyoto commitments of 50% emission cuts as soon as possible. The developed countries want a deal that spreads the responsibility for climate change more equitably. To these countries the main tactic seems to be to stop the creation of a new commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. The developed countries position appears to be at odds with what they agreed upon in the Kyoto Protocol that requires them to negotiate a new emission target. They frequently point to the fact that the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but the US has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in part because it want to keep executing minors. Should the States parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child call for negotiating a new treaty that allows them to execute minors? Such logic seems silly, but similar to what is being argued by developed States in Cancun. A fair deal does mean that developing countries have to contribute to emission cuts. Indeed, developing countries want to do so, but they need resources (money and technology) from richer developed countries to do so. Developed countries have this money--they gave more than is needed every year to US banks in one year...isn't saving our planet or at least hundred of millions of Africans from killer diseases like Malaria, hunger, and drought, as important? Maybe it all come down to selfishness, or at least being willing to share?

Could lead to 5°C of Warming!

CANCUN, MEXICO, 3 December 2010 - Rumors of a secret Mexican text that would essentially replace the Kyoto Protocol with the Copenhagen Accord, leading to a dangerous and unacceptable climate change of up to 5°C (9°F)have begun circulating here.

    

Ministerial level officials are now planning to arrive well in advance of the High-Level Segment, which was scheduled to start next week. Some observers expect the Mexican presidency to present the secret text to Ministers as early as Saturday evening.

      

Civil society advocates responded to the rumors by demanding that delegates reject any attempts to introduce such a text into the conference. Replacing the aggregate global emission targets that are supposed to be negotiated under the Kyoto Protocol with the non-binding pledges of the Accord could, according to a UN analysis released November 23, set the planet on a course for devastating changes by the end of the century -- as much as 5°C (9°F) of warming.

"There is a clear way that UN negotiations work and succeed. We saw it earlier this year in biodiversity negotiations. We saw it when the Climate Convention and Kyoto were ratified. But we did not see it in Copenhagen and we are not seeing it here. Without a fair process we will never see a fair outcome. We must not let Cancun repeat Copenhagen." Chee Yoke Ling of the Third World Network said.

 

"The only way to avoid wholly unacceptable climate change impacts is to set aggregate, science-based emission reduction targets, and then to allocate them between countries in a just way. That was agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Replacing the Kyoto Protocol with a pledge-based system along the lines of the Copenhagen Accord would be devastating to the climate and the world's people. It would be unjust and unacceptable." Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International said.

 

"Even a three degree world would condemn millions of the world's poorest people to a devastating future of hunger, weather disasters and increased conflict. Entrenching the Copenhagen Accord exposes us to those risks, and even much worse. As much as 5 degrees of warming could occur according to research just released by UNEP. I wouldn't think that the Mexican government would want to be responsible for establishing the system that locks in dangerous climate change rather than stops it." Sivan Kartha, senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute said.

 

Again their are rumors of Mexican draft COP decisions on financing and REDD+. The first seems to be a compromise with some good points in it, but no mention of where the money will come from or how. The governance over a new Climate Fund seems equitable and transparent, but World Bank not excluded as trustee to be found based on bids.

Second there seems more problematic as it is mainly market-based when we know markets can't provide the necessary funds.

And third, the US, especially, is trying to alienate States that are taking strong positions on developed States mitigation obligations especially a new Kyoto emission target. The EU seems more flexible, pushed by outside Norway. US is also focusing on bi-laterals with India and China. This has resulted in some posturing that could actually help, although the end goal is sinister.

Part of this sinister goal may be to end Kyoto. Some States are trying to ensure that there are no new Kyoto commitments. Japan and the US are the obvious ones, but they also include other EU countries and a few oil rich countries. This seems to be a violation of their treaty obligations (art. 3(9) of the Kyoto Protocol). This the point made by States pressing for new commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, which include the ALBA (Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia), most of the 54 African countries and the League of Arab States, which for the first time is negotiating as a block in the UNFCCC at Cancun.

Finally, the elephant in the room that nobody seems to notice, perhaps intentionally, is the amount of money being talked about. The Copenhagen Accord which is widely discredited among most countries used 100 billion per year by 2020 because it was a convenient figure for the US. The High Level Task Force on Financing just accepted this as if it were somehow scientific fact. It is isn't! In fact the World Bank estimates the total cost of mitigation and adaptation to be more than 725 billion per year, if we acted last year! Others' place this at around one trillion and growing. When you use these more realistic figures the private sector contribution become a mere token contribution. Using realistic costs figures based on the best available estimates might focus everyone's mind. Right now we are cutting costs so much that it lacks resemblance to reality. Quick money should not substitute adequate funds.

Most attention on Day 3 focused on Japan's announcement that it did not support the extension of emission limits under the Kyoto Protocol, but was this really news? Japan has been saying this all along, even though it should be able to meet its Kyoto Protocol target of cutting emissions 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. All Japan did was draw more attention to its position with its announcement, it did not announce a new position. IN short it was probably an unintended publicity mis-step. While people at gawking at the Japanese gaff, discussions continue behind closed doors and other issues like financing--especially to REDD to be or not to be and longer term (read: LCA) emissions target (which is perhaps what Japan was trying to push for by reiterating its uncomfortableness with Kyoto Protocol. There also seems to be growing consensus on a legally biding LCA text outcome, but ironically some significant divisions about which text that should be based on. Some say that the States are negotiating based on the Chair's '29 November text', but the only official text on the table is still the text from 13 August 2010 (UN Doc. No. FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/14). Perhaps these rumours are just expressions of strategies whereby States are trying to set baseline that are more favourable to them.