As negotiations continue, albeit, not so effectively, inside the Bella Centre, the Klimaforum09 http://klimaforum09.org/ has come to a succesful close.  With over 190 talks, 50 exhibitions, 30 climate films and documentaries, global music, theater, and invited guest speakers it was clear that civil society and NGO's were serious about getting together and collaorating in ways that were not happening inside the Bella Centre. 

A major accomplishment by the Klimaforum09 group is the creation of the NGO Declaration, A People's Declaration from the Peoples' Climate Summit - Klimaforum09 which laid out what the collective NGO's demand from the nations within the UNFCCC as a solution to the climate crisis.  The main points of the declaration include:

1 - A complete abandonment of fossil fuels within the next 30 years, which must include specific milestones for every 5-year period. We demand an immediate cut in GHG of industrialized countries of at least 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2020.
2 - Recognition, payment and compensation of climate debt for the over-consumption of atmospheric space and adverse effects of climate change on all affected groups and people.
3 - A rejection of purely market-oriented and technology-centred false and dangerous solutions such as nuclear energy, agro-fuels, carbon capture and storage, Clean Development Mechanisms, biochar, genetically “climate-readied” crops, geo-engineering, and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), which deepens social and environmental conflicts.
4 - Real solutions to climate crisis based on safe, clean, renewable, and sustainable use of natural resources, as well as transitions to food, energy, land, and water sovereignty.

Targetting the G77, Mathilde Kaalund-Jørgensen, Coordinator of the declaration process, had two minutes on the Plenary floor yesterday at 4pm, after a four hour wait, to speak on behalf of the Declaration.  She asked for the Declaration to be accepted by the UNFCCC as an official document. As well, she highlighted the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring sustainable revenue for those most immediately and directly affected by the climate crisis.

After hours of negotiations, the Parties decided to "take note of" the Copenhagen Accord in a decision, attaching a list of countries endorsing the Accord to it.

This non-solution was the only thing that the deeply divided conference could agree on.

While American President Obama, followed by media sources from all over the world already reported on a “deal brokered in Copenhagen”, the parties to the UNFCCC were in reality more divided than ever before.

 

The main problem was that the “deal” was brokered between 22 out of 192 countries that are parties of the Convention. This caused an outcry by many of the developed countries that felt excluded from decision-making processes.

 

During early evening hours, several texts started appearing with the title “Copenhagen Accord”. A majority of countries had to obtain the texts through the media rather than from official sources or indeed the Danish chair of the conference.

 

Already in the first week of the conference the Chair had started working on a draft decision with a small “group of friends”, which led to persistent protests by developing countries, both in public and informally.

 

Annoyance rose when at the last day of the conference negotiations on the draft continued behind closed doors, leaving a majority of countries outside of the process. The “group of friends” was suspected of deliberately ignoring the existing LCA and KP texts, on which all parties to the UNFCCC had been negotiating for years without sufficient results.

 

It effectively meant that the text could undermine or even invalidate the Kyoto Protocol, which is the only legally binding international agreement on emission reduction targets.

 

The attempt of Danish PM Rasmussen to push through the so-called “Copenhagen accord” was deemed to fail. The idea was to distribute the text to all parties, who would have an hour to discuss it in regional groups before adopting it by consensus.

 

However, after the Chair had presented the text and proposed his idea of 60 minutes consultation and adoption, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Tuvalu and several other countries started to slam with their name plaques to make points of order.

 

Tuvalu was the first to speak. It said that the text proposed was unacceptable, as it aimed for limiting global warming to 2 degrees, an aim that could effectively threaten the existence of the small island state. Obama’s announcement at a press conference that a deal had been reached at a point where a majority of had not even seen the text was clearly a sign of “disrespect”.

 

Bolivia echoed Tuvalu in finding 2 degrees an unacceptable target.

 

Cuba added that the document is that of an emperor, mentioning numerous major defects in the text. Costa Rica said the document could be nothing but an “Inf” (information) document.

 

Venezuela highlighted its exclusion from the negotiation process, saying it violated the UN Charter.

 

Nicaragua then asked for suspension of the talks and proposed to adopt two documents which would extend the mandate of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, suspend the COP and MOP meetings until June 2010 in order to consider a treaty by then.

 

The talks were suspended for about two hours, during which consultations went on about the texts and proposals.

 

Upon re-opening of the session, (around 5.15am) Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba withdrew their proposal. Instead of “Copenhagen Accord”, two “Inf” [information] documents were proposed for adoption – which were the draft texts that had been considered before.

 

Sudan said that draft text L.9 was the worst document in the history of the UNFCCC and threatened the lives of millions of people. The 2 degrees target threatened the existence of the African countries. The draft was “murderous” as it resulted in 3.5 degrees of warming in Africa. L.9 was a suicide pact for Africa.

 

The President of the Maldives than made an emotional plea, saying 2 degrees of warming seriously threatened the Maldives but the document should still be adopted as otherwise the talks might collapse like the Doha talks.

 

The Maldives was supported by numerous countries, including Canada, Australia, France, Senegal, United Kingdom and surprisingly also by Ethiopia for the African Group. Why were they willing to join an agreement that did not include the 1.5 degree limit that they had fought for so tirelessly?

 

The United Kingdom was anxious to get the agreement through and proposed to adopt the document as a COP decision, suggesting that "money will start to flow immediately if the decision is adopted".

 

Venezuela, supported by Cuba, clarified that it had already indicated that it could not join consensus. Her country was not for sale.

 

Sudan said there are ways through which negotiating is possible. But at least the principles of common but differentiated responsiblities and historic responsibility should be recognised. The proposed draft only included the proposals of developed countries. The way forward lies in the decision to extend the mandate of the AWG-LCA.

 

But clearly some countries preferred another way forward, with the UK asking for suspension of the session for procedural reasons after numerous delegations expressed their dissatisfaction with the process for several reasons. At 09.19am, the session is still suspended…

At about 3 am Saturday morning local Copenhagen time, the Danish chair put yet another surprise text broker by himself and a few friends (Chair's proposal) on the table seeking its endorsement by all states. The text did not include emission limits, any adequate financing, provision for technology transfer,and only referred to the 2 degrees C limit.

Several states objected. Sudan, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Philippines,  and the G77 objected to the 'closed door' agreement and introduced proposals calling for going back to the work of the two established Working Groups, which had been ongoing for two years to draft an extension of the emission limits under the Kyoto Protocol and a new legally binding agreement with provisions for more emissions to achieve a limit on warming of 1.5 degrees C and no more than 350 ppm of Co2 in the atmosphere, long term financing of at least 500 billion Swiss francs for developing countries, and provisions ensuring adequate technology transfer to developing countries. Such an agreement would probably be agreeable to more than 80% of the UNFCC countries. The Chair's proposal met none of these goals. Tuvalu and Marshall Islands also called for the Chair's text to be considered as a miscellaneous document claiming the document was too flawed to be considered any other way.

Venezuela listed its objections as (1) only 25 of 192 states took part in discussion of the document of which only 14 of 134 developing countries took part, (2) Chair only had mandate to establish two friend of the chair groups for LCA and emissions (KP), (3) negotiators worked on text  in belief that they were drafting text, but that text has been disregarded, (4) reporting of two friends of chairs groups were never convened, (5) Chair's text does not include commitments sufficient to deal with climate change, and (6) 1.5 degrees C is omitted and so if adequate funding. Proposed L7 as miscellaneous. Asked developed countries to focus on principles, not money.  Says four hours too short to agree on proposal. Decisions need to be taken by consensus.

 

The Philippines indicated that the figures used in the Chair's draft were not what was being discussed. She said that the developing countries want the negotiations to continue into the next year. Progress is being made, but the existing structures must be used as the Bali Action Plan agreed. Suggested don't destroy what has been accomplished.

Most developed countries and some developing countries including Grenada, South Africa, Ethiopia, Ghana, China, Singapore, Algeria, Gabon, Sweden, UK, US, Slovenia, Barbados, Brazil, Saudi Arabia (put admitted there is not consensus), Lesotho (speaking for LDCs, but saying that he has not had time to take group position), and India spoke in favour of the Chair's proposal. The UK issued a veiled threat offering inadequate financing and threatening that of developing countries don't thank us, and adopt Chair's draft we will give you nothing. In other words, die slowly, or we will kill you faster.



The Danish President (Prime Minister Rasmussen) at one point sought to count the votes and violating his duty of neutrality encouraged states to sign up to document so that it will enter into force.

Grenada Amb. Williams speaking for AOSIS said that the following states participated in the drafting of the document: Grenada, US, UK, Sweden, Spain, Russia, Maldives, South Africa, Bangladesh, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Ethiopia, Columbia, Korea, China, Brazil, and UNSG (... others? chosen by whom?) She said "I will accept the unhappiness that is felt in some quarters, but I will not accept the blame for that."

 

Disappointingly, the Maldives (President said he was unsatisfied with document but still supports it; said 1.5 necessary, but agreed to 2; said need good document, but has agreed to proposal) and Ethiopia seem to have been bought by the US and and EU. That these leaders could jeopardize the lives of their own people is astonishing. 

Reactions to Chair's proposal:

"L9 [Chair's proposal] asks Africa to sign a suicide pact in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries .... 2 degrees Celius is certain dead [for Africans]."

Lumumba Diaping, Lead Negotiator of G77

 

"Climate negotiations in Copenhagen have yielded a sham agreement with no real requirements for any countries. This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn’t even a real one. ... The actions it suggests for the rich countries that caused the climate crisis are extraordinarily inadequate. This is a disastrous outcome for people around the world who face increasingly dire impacts from a destabilizing climate."

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S.

"The city of Copenhagen is a climate crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport in shame. World leaders had a once in a generation chance to change the world for good, to avert catastrophic climate change. In the end they produced a poor deal full of loopholes big enough to fly Air Force One through."

Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International

"The so-called agreement is merely a white-wash of rich developed states responsibility for climate change. It is a proposal that a few states tried to impose on all states in a process that offends fundamental principles of transparency and sovereign equality. The only just part of the outcome was the courage of the G77, Africans, and Small Island States to stand up against this injustice."
Curtis Doebbler, UN rep. of Nord Sud XXI & Prof. of Law, An-Najah Nat. Unv., Nablus, Palestine

Apparently, the many heads of state present in Copenhagen have been asked to work through the night and finalise their work on an agreement that can be adopted by consensus.

Ambitions have been lowered significantly. None of the key issues -- finance, technology and emission reduction targets -- will be resolved in Copenhagen. Leaders would sacrifice their sleep for "some kind of agreement" that will merely conceal the deep divisions that remain existing between parties.

Some key negotiators and ministers from developing countries suggested informally that no agreement might be a better option as this would at least "show the world that Copenhagen has failed, due to mess and exclusion". They also indicated that many countries are under huge pressure from the world's most powerful nations to join consensus on a weak agreement. In their view, which is shared by civil society all over the world, the wealthiest countries do not want Copenhagen to fail, but do not want to deliver either.

For those who would have liked to see a fair and effective outcome in Copenhagen, the best to aim or hope for now is a decision that contains strong principles guiding future meetings, and assurance that the Kyoto Protocol and Bali Action Plan will remain the basis for negotiations.