Could it be that the same mistakes are being made by Mexico in COP16 as were made by Denmark in COP15?

There seems to be another surprise 'chair's text' emerging from an elite group of States that moves the negotiations back to the minimal positions of the so called 'Copenhagen Accord'.

The problem with this position is that there is near certainty that such low levels of accomplishment (see post on Talking about COP16 from an equity perspective) will subject hundreds of millions of the most vulnerable people in the world to inhumane conditions that seriously violate their human rights.

In other words, the new 'chair's text' suggests emission limits and financing mechanisms that are rejected by the majority of countries. The levels of action being proposed are so de minimus in comparison to what is needed that they would appear to be a conscious effort to harm or show disregard for harm to the most vulnerable people in the world.

It is surprising that the lesson was not learned in Copenhagen. An agreement can only emerge by consensus if it is a reasonable compromise of all parties views that ensures the protection of the most vulnerable people in the world. Any other type of agreement will violate the existing international legal obligations of all States not to allow their action to harm others and to ensure respect for human rights everywhere.

The developed countries' (especially American) wish to focus on funding and on developing countries mitigation is contrary to the object and purpose of the UNFCCC, which places the greatest responsibilities on developed States to ensure adequate mitigation.

This also may be the cause or a consequence of States apparent interest in focusing on national action at the expense of international action. A consequence that could be deadly for many of the most vulnerable people in the world.

Speaking at a side-event of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, the chair of the African Group, Mr. Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, highlighted glaring injustices persistent in climate negotiations.

 

Proposals from developed countries would put Africa at a risk of incredible degrees of warming. The pledges under the Copenhagen Accord add up to 5 degrees of warming, which would translate into 7.5 degrees in Africa.

 

There is also total imbalance in the area of finance. The bulk of finance is being allocated to mitigation. Adaptation money is being provided in the form of loans, Mr. Mpanu Mpanu said.

 

He compared the situation to a driver hitting a cycler and wounding him, and subsequently offering to loan him money to pay for his medical costs.

 

The chief negotiator stressed the unfairness of demanding China to undertake ambitious action while it just started to develop very recently. Why would Europeans have a right to all this atmospheric space, with China having rights to a fraction and Africans again to almost nothing?

 

Mr. Mpanu Mpanu said he totally agreed with President Chavez that if the Earth was a bank, it would have been saved already a long time ago.

 

The EU could again become a trustworthy partner as they helped salvage the Kyoto Protocol in the Marrakesh Accord. Norway is another partner that is to be taken seriously due to its science-based target.

 

 

At a side-event organised by the South Centre and Third World Network, several experts from developing countries expressed their views on the climate problem.

 

Side events in Cancun take place in the so-called ‘Cancunmesse’, a venue separated from the luxury beach resort where the official negotiations are held.

 

At the South Centre/ TWN event, Dr. Martin Khor, executive director of the South Centre, spoke on equitable sharing of the atmosphere. He recalled that 1,200 gigatons were added to atmospheric greenhouse gases. Three quarters were contributed by developed countries, who have 20 percent of the world population.

 

The question of how the remaining atmosphere is going to be distributed equitably should be the key question to be resolved at COP16, Dr. Khor said. This would require almost 100% cuts from developed countries by the year 2050.

 

But instead of acting accordingly, developed countries want MRV and LCA – and are trying to shift the burden of mitigation to developing countries.

 

We hear in the news that the outcome of Cancun will be the establishment of a fund. How low can you go – if there’s no money… And then again, the US is saying it will not agree to even set up a fund in the absence of agreement on developing countries’ mitigation.

 

The solution is to stick to the Bali Action Plan: continuation of Kyoto, US comparable action, enabling developing countries’ mitigation actions through finance and technology.

 

Meena Raman (TWN) stressed the importance of the 13 August LCA text, which included proposals from all Parties, including those who did not support the Copenhagen Accord.

 

In the “Chairs note” text, the mitigation aspect is completely absent. Developing countries are wondering what’s going on here. It seems that new text is being prepared behind closed doors.

 

The 29 November text raises several problems:

 

-       Shared vision: only a reference to a 2 degree target; very week language on historic responsibility and equitable sharing of the atmospheric space; postponing action on a loss and damage mechanism

-       Finance: “mobilizing” 100 billion instead of 1.5, 5 or 6% GDP developed countries

-       Capacity building: no establishment of a technical panel

-       Markets: establishes a process for launching market mechanisms

-       Intellectual Property: a dialogue instead of action on IPs.

 

 

Lim Li Lin discussed the clash of paradigms, that is, the difference between pledge-and-review and a legally binding system based on an aggregate target. The discussion in the LCA on the legal form is about an attempt to move all mitigation discussions to the AWG-KP, particularly the migration of market mechanisms to the LCA track.

 

Developed countries want a legally binding treaty under the LCA so that this can supersede the Kyoto Protocol. There is misinformation that the outcome of the LCA is supposed to be a legally binding treaty. It could also be a set of COP decisions.

 

Developed countries are also trying to expend the rules and create ‘loopholes’ so that they can meet their targets on paper but not in reality.

 

Then there’s the issue of markets. Countries like Bolivia insist that targets must be met domestically; there must be no offsets.

 

In response to several questions, Martin Khor applauded that water has now been declared a human right by the UN General Assembly.

 

In a final remark on adaptation, Dr. Khor said that there must be a structure to facilitate adaptation and a loss-and-damage mechanism. The discussions are now on how to build seawalls, not on how to address damage in countries like Haiti and Bangladesh. How are these countries compensated for the losses?

 

 

As COP16 opens the battle lines seem to be drawn on the plane of financing. This means that Joint Implementation projects (whereby rich countries trade with each other to maximize their potential to pollute) and CDMs especially REDD+ (whereby rich countries trade with developing to maximize their potential to pollute) will be in focus. Also high on the agenda will be a new fund to channel money to States that need assistance to (especially) adapt to climate change. The beneficiaries want a transparent, non-bureaucratic and representatively governed fund, while the donors main concern is to control the money. The problem lies in part in that the donors seem to think their contribution is voluntary, while the beneficiaries say it is mandatory. The UNFCCC woudl seem to favour the latter.