Despite the proclamation by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Ms Christiana Figueres "The Transitional Committee of the Fund is now fully on track to conclude the design of the Fund for the approval by UNFCCC's Conference of the Parties in Durban," little progress seems to have been booked at the third meeting and second to last meeting of the Transitional Committee asked to establish the foundation for the creation of the Global Climate Fund by COP17 in Durban, South Africa meetign in late November and early December of this year.

Still to be resolved are questions about the role of the private sector, how to ensure pledges are realized, where the fund will be based, how its resources will be accessed, how it will be governed.

Significant discuss was had about the role of the private sector but the opposition to an enhanced role seemed to be growing rather than receding in almost the same degree as the insistence for their involvement persisted.

Even if the fund is created at the largest level currently suggested, 100 million per year by 2020, it falls far short of the between 500 billion and 1 trillion USD that is estimated to be needed now and for foreseeable years afterwards.  

The Transitional Committee will meet again in Cape Town, South Africa from 16 and 17 October.

 

As States prepare to wind up their meetings in Bangkok, Thailand it seems like momentum may be shifting back towards the consensually accepted text of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP that were on the table before the Cancun meeting. The G77 and China particularly seem convinced by the Bolivian doubts about the Cancun text. In a presentation made in the pre-Bangkok sessions, Bolivia showed how the greatly disproportionate burden of emission cuts would fall on developing countries if the Cancun suggestions were followed and a 2 degree limit was to be achieved. This would be contrary to the cleave words of the UNFCCC that call on developed countries to bear a greater burden because of the greatly disproportionate contribution to atmospheric pollution and climate change. Another issue is what will happen when the Kyoto Protocol's de minimus emission limits (averaged at 5%, when we are talking about 50% or above now) are not met by the end of 2012 and are not renewed with strengthened commitments. In first instances developed States will be in violation of their Kyoto obligations, but the main effort is to renew them. The US is the main country blocking this. Developing countries want to push a renewal of the commitments with stronger commitments. Unless the developing countries are successful, we may be facing a climate change disaster in the near future. Finally, the Green Climate Fund talks are bogged down over who should be the main trustee. Is it the World Bank as developed countries who control the Bank want, or a more democratic entity. While the Bangkok talks seem stalemated on some core issues at least the countries are addressing the issues that will have to be decided. Failure to make real decisions on really important issues (as happened in Copenhagen and Cancun) will be deadly. Now we are asking the right questions...but will we have the courage to provide the right answers.

After the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA adopted the reports that were forward to the COP and COP-CMP, respectively for adoption.

In the COP-CMP the President adopted text by assumed consensus despite the objection of Bolivia.

In the COP again the President imposed her will over those of States and ignored consensus that could not be found by adopting the text. This time she explained that one State could not block consensus. For some it was a surprise that she was referring to Bolivia, a country hat has constantly put forward the most far reaching proposals for action, and not the United States, which is the only major country that has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and which despite this, for five years, has been the main obstacle to the the adoption of new emission targets for the next commitment period.

The adopted texts provide the State parties, for the first time, the option of abandoning the Kyoto Protocol in favour of a weaker agreement that my not even have legally binding emissions targets.

The adopted texts also provide for market mechanisms to be used to finance adaptation and for REDD+, thereby exposing the land of indigenous peoples to alienation and entrusting it to market mechanism.

After unsuccessful sparring with the chair about the meaning of consensus, while ALBA allies such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba stood at a distance offering little or not assistance to Bolivia as it tried to fight for the protection of those most vulnerable to climate change.

Finally as if to emphasize who was pulling the string the puppeteer took a bow as the US delegation asked for the floor to express its 'complete agreement' with the decisions of COP16.

While the State delegates repeatedly applauded themselves the mood was much more sober in the overflow room that held mainly civil society representatives who are on the front lines. Instead of applause for the Mexico's scripted folly, there were some contemplated gasps by activists who all too well understand the deadly consequence of the Cancun inaction or possibly worse action then before we had started.

The Mexican President then showed up to congratulate his foreign minister and then went on to explain how the coerced agreement was such an achievement in a lengthy speech that extolled Mexico's legacy.

One must wonder, however, who will be smiling after the self-congratulating politicians are dead and gone and when we start to see the consequences of the Cancun fiasco that will haunt some of the most vulnerable people in the world as their lands become uninhabitable as they are submerged or subject to desertification and the people subjected to disease, starvation, and poverty. Then perhaps the future generation will not be celebrating, but regretting that Mexico was more interested in aggrandising itself than in saving humanity.

For a body that has done its best to maintain its decision-making authority by consensus, the AWG-LCA seemed to be making decisions more by coercion then by consensus.

Many States participating in the AWG-LCA meeting also seemed more interested in getting home as soon as possible rather than negotiating the text that would serve as the basis of how we deal with climate change in further negotiations on how climate change affects our planet.

As a consequence Chair Margreet gavelled down the adoption of the Chair's Note as a draft decision of AWG-LCA based on her 'feeling of consensus' while real consensus remained elusive or at best coerced. The Chair then went on to adopt the report, gavelling the less controversial decision down as adopted without even giving States a chance to object.

By the end of the night it looked like the UNFCCC--from overzealous security guards that tried to ban negotiators to hurried Chair's who vying for the applause of tired delegates--had moved from consensus to dictatorship.

One has to wonder whether this reflects on the UNFCCC or the host country?

The AWG-KP adopted its report ignoring the objections of Bolivia and claiming Bolivia had not objected after its representative clearly said that she does not support a consensus on the report.

The Chair, retiring Ambassador John Ashe of Antigua and Barbados seemed to be more concerned with finishing his term rather than ensuring that consensus was achieved. ALBA ally Nicaragua remained silent while Venezuela gave weak support to Bolivia. And long-time outspoken champion of protecting the vulnerable from climate change, Sudan, represented by the articulate Ambassador Lumumba Diaping hardly mumbled a word of support. It was as if a black cloud had descended over the room and thrown a sheet of silent coercion over every developing country.

Bolivia meanwhile set itself apart from the other States as the defender of the integrity of the climate negotiations by protesting the draft report and especially the attached Chair's Note.

None of this fazed Amb. Ashe who gavelled down decisions hardly glancing at the States before him and quickly proceeding into 'thank you's' when the AWG's work had not even been completed. Among other rushed decisions was the final report with the objected to Chair's Note attached as annex.

What transpired certainly did not appear to be consensus, except perhaps by coercion.