It has been said that history repeats itself, but today’s events might be better described as history being forgotten. This is because the main issue at dispute seems to be the unwillingness of developed countries to admit that they have any historical responsibility for climate change. The African Group rammed this home by walking out of the late morning meetings.

 

They however returned in late afternoon but did not at all seem satisfied. Instead they seemed as if they were exasperated with the failure of the developed states to admit their historical liability, which one African delegate described as a duty that was “so founded in science and history as to make any other view unbelievable.”

 

In an evening press conference the African group coordinator lamented the inconsistency of the developing countries approach.

 

There still seem to be much distance between the different parties.

 

The talks stalled on Monday as African leaders voiced their concern that the developed countries were trying to dump the Kyoto Protocol. Announcing their intention to demand that the Kyoto Protocol be kept alive with new and meaningful emissions targets and that the two-track approach of the Bali Plan of Action be maintained., the African leaders  refused to compromise by giving into the Chair's efforts to find a compromise whereby the Kyoto Protocol will be set aside.

The Chair is now undertaking informal consultations, but it is unlikely that the African Group will bend...the question is will the US and especially Europe do the right thing?

The states are meeting right now in a closed plenary and it is the African group that is emerging as the regional grouping that will determine the fate of the negotiations. They appear to have decided to exercise the prerogative that their size and membership grants them in combination with like-minded G77 states. While still leery of a last minute surprise text by the Chair based on the concerns of European states, as appeared last week, the Africans joined by the India and China, seem to have found the courage to draw the proverbial 'line in the sand' and insist on a fair and effective agreement or no agreement at all.

Several African governments have even publicly indicated that their heads of state have put their travel plans on hold and they may no even come to Copenhagen unless what the ‘rich’ states offer contains real emission cuts and significant funding (well above the 10 to 30 billion currently on offer) to developing countries to help them adapt to and mitigate their contributions to global warming.

 

This stand does not rest well with the Americans and the Europeans, but they may be placed in a position in which they have a choice between real action and no action at all. Such a situation would leave developed countries holding the bag of responsibility for our deteriorating climate and only booster the leverage of developing states in future negotiations.

 

African leaders courage to stand up for a fair and strong agreement has also emboldened some the world leaders who are already arriving. President Mohamed Nasheed, for example, is heading over to the NGO Klimafourm09 to sign the NGO Declaration, which already enjoys support of large NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, before heading to the Bella Center to meet with state representatives.  

 

Now the UN officially says that they have decided that NGOs will be left out!

 

Although there was no pre-conference warning, the UNFCC Secretariat did start warning us a few days ago and we probably should have heeded the police brutality against civil society over the weekend as a warning, but now it is official as we have been told at a briefing that NGOs will be largely excluded from the governmental process when it counts the most.

 

More precisely, we have been told that despite the fact that for months they knew there would be more than 30,000 participants, the Bella Center only has a capacity of 15,000. Thus the following limits will apply. On Wednesday, 16 December only 3,000 NGO representatives (including the business community) will be allowed into the Bella Center and only 350 or at most 450 seats will be made available to NGOs in the plenary meeting room. On Thursday, 17 December the number of NGOs with access will shrink to 1,000 being allowed into the Bella Center and only 350 seats will be made available to NGOs in the plenary meeting room. And on Friday, the penultimate day of the COP only 90 NGO representatives will be allowed in and only 90 places seats will be made available to NGOs in the plenary meeting room.

 

On Wednesday and Thursday secondary passes will be apportioned according to registered NGOs, on Friday according to the nine civil society and business coalitions. The designated contact point should collect the passes which are now available by the room reservation desk.

 

NGO with exhibits might be able to gain access to the Bella Center Friday evening to take down their exhibits.

 

It is now not sure, after NGOs received assurances, if the NGO constituencies will be allowed to speak (deliver 3 minute statements) during the High Level Session at which 180 states will speak, 113 of them represented by the head of state or government.

 

In reply to a question about whether the proceedings can be broadcast offsite, the UN replied it will try. It is likely thy can set up some cattle yard where we can passively watch as if it was a football match. Copenhagen has done this before for Danish football, but maybe that was more important for them.

 

In reply to a question about making documents available, especially the proposals by states, the UN responded that I would try harder. Until now mainly the documents o developed states—the European Union and USA—and the Chair’s have reached the public domain, while there is still no sign of recent drafts submitted by ASIS and the African Group on the website…although the leaders of these groups say they should be there.

The main points of discussion seem to center around the following issues:

 

1. How will adaption and mitigation efforts be funded?

 

This is the major point for the Africans and likely the G77 plus China. They want a long-term plan that is under democratic control. The US, EU, Japan and most industrialized countries want to give only on a short term basis. Right now the offer between 10 and 30 billion over 3 to 5 years. The Africans and G77 have not set an amount and instead say setting up a democratically controlled process is. What is important with binding contributions? Indeed, the UNFCC and Kyoto Protocol parties both have established funding mechanisms, but they do not work. Expert's estimates of what is needed range from the World Bank’s estimate of 200-400 billion USD per year to South Center Director Martin Khor’s estimates of 800 trillion USD. The NGO Nord Sud XXI has suggested a target of 1 trillion a year…”just so we can be sure to do something about climate change.”

2. Should the two-track approach of the Bali action plan be adhered to or jettisoned?

 

The developing countries (Africa, G77 plus China, and the Alliance of Small Island States or ASIS) want the two-track approach. This approach wants two texts, one from the working group on general principles and long-term strategies (AWG-LCA) and another working group (AWG-KP) on revising the Kyoto Protocol and extending the emission targets beyond 2012. They say this is what was agreed at COP14 in Bali (Bali Action Plan – BAP) and that they cannot go back on it now. The US, EU and other developed countries prefer a one-track approach with a new treaty that starts from zero. Their main reason is that they want to deny their historical responsibility and include China and India among countries to make reduction commitments.

 

3. Who should be monitored and how?

 

Donor countries want to know where their money is going. The recipient countries don’t disagree that this should be the case, but demand that they be allowed to monitor whether states are giving what they pledge, and they want a way to ensure that developed states stick to their pledges. There should be a way to resolve this deadlock, but until now there has not been. If there is agreement on money (see point 1 above) then this issue may go away.

 

 

4. A legal or an aspirational agreement?

 

What type of agreement should come out of Copenhagen. On this issue, the usual alliances appear to be strained. China and India are in agreement that there should not be a legally binding agreement but that the Kyoto protocol, which is a legal agreement, should be maintained in its present forms with updated emission targets. The real champions of a legal agreement as well as maintaining Kyoto are the small island states or ASIS. Tuvalu, a small island in the Pacific has taken the lead with their led negotiator taking a hard line on his call for a legally binding agreement. Objections have arisen from China and India, with the US sitting on the sidelines smiling. Resolving this rife is the key to G77 unity.

5. What should be the emission reductions/limits?

ASIS is the most optimistic calling for a reduction of 45% by 2020 and 95% by 2050…both based on 1990 levels. ASIS, the Africans, and the G77 plus China seems to agree that we need to keep the temperature from rising over 1.5 degrees C.

On the table are:

 

1. Chair of AWG-LCA text. Most states willing to work with it.

2. Chair of AWG-KP text. Most states willing to work with it.

 3. ASIS AWG-LCA text.

4. African AWG-LCA text.

5. EU (Danish) AWG-LCA text.

6. There are also twelve texts on the table that were submitted before the official June deadline for texts that were to be considered at Copenhagen.