Today is not a working day, but many delegations are busy preparing for tomorrow.

NGOs preparing for the coming week might be disappointed as the UN has decided to limit the number of NGO representatives that will be allowed into the Bella Center. They haven't said how many passes they will give to each NGO. At the Durban Review Conference held in Geneva, Switzerland in April of this year the UN suddenly decided to limit the number of NGO representatives to one per NGO being allowed to enter the main meeting hall during the High Level Session. They did this even though the NGO balcony was almost empty during the speeches of some senior officials.

The limits on civil society's activities, especially those of NGOs, participating in the UNFCCC process are increasing. Some of the restrictions are being unilaterally imposed by the host country.

The right-wing Danish government started the process by giving the police exceptional broad powers of arbitrary arrest and detention that do not meet international human rights standards.

 

Danish police then apparently unilaterally, decided not to let NGOs into  the Bella Center until 8 am. The left dozens of NGO representatives standing in the frigid temperatures in some cases more than an hour and interfere with their work at the COP15. Danish police head officer Frans Rasmussen, first blamed this decision on the UN, but the UN (head of security Mr. Woods) denied that the UN made such a decision.

 

Danish police have also used heavy-handed tactics to limit demonstrators influence on the government's meeting at COP15 by threatening arrest, assaulting demonstrators, arresting demonstrators and by-standers, infiltrating NGO organizing committees, and patrolling the streets of Copenhagen with sirens and flashing lights even in areas where no demonstrations are taking place. Some people detained by police were beaten with batons by the police, made to sit in freezing temperatures with their hands tied behind their backs, and denied medical treatment.

Press covering the arrest were also forcefully pushed away.

 

With their new powers of arbitrary search and seizure, Danish police seem undeterred to take this power, which already violates international human rights norms a step further and starts intercepting journalists' telephone calls. This is not a good sign for freedom of the press in Denmark.

 

Police have announced that they arrested almost 1000 people on Saturday at a demonstration which was estimated to have drawn about 100,000 people. The heavy handed methods of the Danish police at the Saturday, demonstrations, have led to Friends of the Earth threatening to sue the Danish police.

 

While no formal meetings are taking place at the Bella Center delegates are caucusing among themselves, most working from the Chairs' drafts for the LCA and KP texts. The Small Island States and African Group which have promulgated their own LDC texts have indicated that they have significant objections to the Chairs' text, but all regional groups have stated that they will work with there COP15 and Working Group (AWG-KP) leaders to improve the texts.

 

 

 

With many ministers scheduled to be in town when the negotiations resume, in earnest, next Monday the atmosphere inside the Bella center was subdued on Saturday. While the COP, which is working on a general text, and CMD, which is working on the Kyoto text or a new text to replace it, held stocktaking sessions, little progress seemed to be made.

 

There are now Chair’s texts for the COP and CMD on the table and proposals from the Small Island States, African States, European Union (there are rumors another proposal is out, but it is not being circulated by the EU which is becoming more closed), China and three others (Brazil, South Africa, and Russia) as well as a dozen texts submitted six months. There are also procedural proposal on the table form and that the Chair claims to be considering with little progress being made.

 

 

 

Most of the attention Saturday went to the demonstration, whose numbers were estimated to involved up to 100,000 persons. People marched from central Copenhagen—where they had heard Rev. Desmond Tutu and other speak—to the Bella Center flanked by hords of police.

 

Newspapers reported that up to 300 people were arrested, most for minor offenses.

 

 

At the Bella Center , Mary Robinson (former Irish President) and about a dozen activists handed a ‘sail’ (banner) to the Danish Chair of the Conference and the UNFCC chief Yvo de Boer.

 

 

Tomorrow the Bella center is closed to all participants, except the delegations who have rented commercial space. Umm…seems like you even get more negotiating rights if you have “paid to play.”

  

 

Anyone else can go to the Klimaforum09 which continues tomorrow near the Central train Station.

The COP plenary opened and the chair said that progress is being made on Tuvalu’s suggestion that a contact group be created to consider the proposal to have two legally binding agreements. She, however, said that this would be considered next week after more discussions.

Tuvalu then asked for the floor and reiterated the need for a contact group on a proposal for two legally binding instruments. It said that it “appears that we are waiting for some US senators to decide before we can move forward.” He said that he is not trying to embarrass the Danish government nor was he on an ego trip, but that “[t]he fate of my country is in your hands.”

The chair responded by stating: “I want to say loud and clear that two legally binding instruments are our goal and no option will be taken off the table.”<br><br><br>

AWG-LCA<br><br>

This Working Group deals with general issues related to climate chnage and a plan for Longterm Comprehensive Action.

The Chair of the AWG-LCA (Michael) then updated the COP on its work saying that it would complete its work by Tuesday. The chair said consultations are taking place. He ended by commenting on the legal nature of the agreement saying that this decision rested on the COP and its Chair.

The Danish Chair then opened the floor to statements by states.

China took the floor to say only that the WGs should continue.

US then thanked the AWG-LCA for making the text shorter, but found the current draft text as “inadequately reflecting” the needed to approach to the difficult questions.”

Sweden, speaking on behalf of the EU, then said that the text gives us “too little certainty that we will stay below 2 degrees C,” “the text is not balanced” as concern obligations of developed and developing countries, and essentially called for scrapping Kyoto with a new agreement. Called on need to succeed to live up to expectations of people and called for a “radical and new approach to the negotiations.”

Grenada stressed the need to take all proposals into account.

Brazil speaking for the G77 asked for a stronger text of AWG-LCA on adaptation. Said it is critical for G77 that Kyoto Protocol must be strengthened during Copenhagen meeting.

India, “associated itself with” G77 Brazil statement, calling for keeping Kyoto Protocol and strengthening it.

Saudi Arabia “endorsed” the G77 view on the Kyoto Protocol and strengthening it.

Pakistan “associated itself with” the G77 view on the Kyoto Protocol and strengthening it. Underlined need for transparency and inclusivity. Will engage with Chair’s text to improve it.

Australia “very encouraged by promising convergence” and agrees with G77 on REDD, good progress on finance but still “some bridges to build”…but “serious concerns” about issues that we need “a different sort of consideration on”. “We need a binding treaty” on mitigation and adaptation. There is no agreement on long-term finance and monitoring. Calls for detailed ministerial attention on second set of issues.

Oman “associated itself with” the G77 view on the Kyoto Protocol and strengthening it. Supports LCA and KP tracks.

Norway welcomes Chair’s LCA text, but thinks developing countries mitigation obligations are too weak and need to decide how to make the document legally binding.

Nigeria “supports” the G77 view on the Kyoto Protocol and strengthening it. Adaptation, finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building need work.

Marshall Islands thanks Chair of LCA and “associates” with Grenada and draws attention to Small Islands Group KP proposal. Says proposal provides a “fresh look” at how to move forward.

Venezuela “supports” the G77 view on the Kyoto Protocol and strengthening it.

Japan “supports” the concept of a package deal, but reiterates considerable concerns: (1) assumption of second commitment to KP and that “simple extension of the KP” is not acceptable, (2) mitigation section does not reflect balance of responsibility and needs more input, (3) also wants better financing provisions. Says need more focused text for HLS.

Kuwait “reiterates” the G77 view on the Kyoto Protocol and strengthening it. Must stick to Bali PA.

Mexico “supports” the G77 view on the Kyoto Protocol and strengthening it to reach a legally binding instrument.

Senegal stresses the need for legally binding text that “takes onboard” the need for support for adaption and mitigation for developing countries. We need a financing mechanism under UNFCCC.

UAE “supports” views of G77 and says LCa text needs further refinements and amendments. Stresses CbDR.

Zambia supports African Group and G77 statements. Express concern about exclusion of LDCs from CDM proceeds and registration fees.

Solomon Islands draws attention to ASIS proposal.

Tajekistan thanks chair, but thinks it needs work.

Zimbabwe support G77 views.

Egypt expresses concern about uneven distribution of work between KP and LCA. Supports two-track outcome and the “indispensability” of second KP commitment period.

Bahrain supports G77.

Canada says text represents a steps forward in technology, forests, finance (“constructive work” especially on fast-track finance), and adaptation. Mitigation, however, is a problem…text is “deficient” and “insufficient” to make a difference/ Need legal agreement with international view for both supported and autonomous actions of developing countries.

Burundi supports statements of developing countries and especially LDCs.

Malaysia supports G77.

Missed one state speaking here…

Lesotho on behalf of LDCs supports G77 and African Group on two-track negotiations to preserve KP.

Papua New Guinea “associated itself” with Brazil, and says ASIS is non-paper that should be considered.

Gambia supports G77.

Palestine supports developing countries and calls for financing to developing countries.

Peru need to come up with document.

Chair then moved the Rules of Procedure and Papua New Guinea request to use rule 42 on voting…she said she will report later, still under consultation.

AWG-KP

 

Chair gave introduction describing situation of deadlock over one or two-track solutions. These tracks concern whether to reiterate and strengthen Kyoto Protocol or by new agreement.

 

Tuvalu asked for consideration of agenda item 5 through point of order. The Chair deferred saying consultations are ongoing so they would move forward with other agenda items.

 

Sudan for G77 regretted the bad faith of some other parties that are trying to kill KP. G77 and China position is that KP Chair paper can serve as a good basis for agreement. Reiterated two-track solution needed.

 

South Africa supported Sudan statement. Said KP must continue to exist and see “no reason why we cannot reach an agreement under the Kyoto Protocol … as well as a binding outcome under the other track” (art. 3(9)(a)).

 

 

Grenada on behalf of ASIS reiterated need for 2-track approach.

 

Gambia supported 2-track approach and expressed concern about fact that there will not be adequate time.

 

India supported 2-track approach and expressed concern about lack of KP progress, which he said is due to the “lack of willingness” of parties.

 

Papua New Guinea supports G&& plus China statement and welcomes Chair’s Text, but needs further work on forest trade and REDD. Said “we clearly observe the lack of will of developed countries” to work towards emissions reductions.

 

Sweden for EU restated commitment to agreement to keep global warming below 2 degrees C. Says that a new legal binding agreement will not reach goal and therefore they do not want text within Kyoto context. Indeed they want to kill Kyoto so as to get a better “balance” of responsibilities…read: shift more responsibility to developing countries and deny any historical responsibility.

 

Nigeria supports G77 and 2-track approach. Seems to allow for new treaty, but does not want to get rid of Kyoto until new text I ready.

 

Afghanistan supports G77 and 2-track approach.

 

Saudi Arabia supports G77 and South African and others for 2-track approach. Welcome KP Chair’s Text as basis of work.

 

Japan welcomes continued discussion on gases but calls for a new legal framework. And finds variety of points for Chair’s Text: (1) while committed to KP until it achieves purpose it does not think it is sufficient and wants to involve more actors. Says Chair’s proposal does not reflect all the proposals on table; (2) too many mandate debates that Chair of Cop has to resolve; and (3) any legal agreement should give attention to all parties concerns.

 

Oman supports G77 and other developing country statements and emphasized 2-track approach based on Bali Plan of Action.

 

Malaysia supports G77.

 

Canada seeks a single new legally binding agreement. Calls for Chair to resolve problems of competence.

 

Venezuela associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach.

 

Brazil associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach.

 

China associated with G77 statement and need for 2-track approach. Point out that all states agreed to Bali Roadmap. Only reason for no progress is “the failure of annex I countries to show the ability to act on the basis of their historic responsibility.”

 

Kuwait associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach.

 

Micronesia associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach.

 

Pakistan associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach. Said countries pushing otherwise are “dangerous”.

 

Nepal associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach. Reiterates Bali Action Plan.

 

Bolivia associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach. Reiterates Bali Action Plan. Says they are “trying to kill the Kyoto Protocol to erase the Climate Debt that they have with developing countries and Mother Earth.” Want to proposes that domestic reductions be considered in second phase of KP.

 

Zimbabwe associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach. Reiterates Bali Action Plan. Urged speeding up of work.

 

South Korea support Chair’s Text.

 

Uganda associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach. Welcomed Chair’s text.

 

Egypt associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach.

 

Benin associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach.

 

Norway wants a new commitment period but is not sure whether to incorporate KP into another treaty or keep parallel. KP is not sufficient.

 

Ecuador calls for the defense of human rights, especially indigenous peoples right. Says action is a matter of social responsibility.

 

Togo associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach.

 

Fiji aligns with Grenada statement for ASIS and supports 2-track approach.

 

Kenya associated with G77 and China statement and need for 2-track approach.

 

Switzerland supports merging 2-tracks.

 

Chair says she will consult on 1 or 2 track approach and then closes debate.

 

COMMENT ON KP DEBATE: Developing countries say they want to wait to see want happened in the whole package before making a decision on Kyoto. Rich countries refuse to pay more for stopping climate change and want developing countries to pay equal share without consideration for historical responsibility.

 

On suspended Agenda item 5 (consideration of proposals by parties) Chair says consultations continuing.

 

Tuvalu asks for debate on agenda item 5. Amendments of Annex A and B; extend article 16 to support funding for Adaptation; article 15 to improve implementation; and another article on immunities for KP officials. Reiterates commitment to 2-track approach. Ask for this agenda item will be considered at COP15 and not forwarded to next COP.

 

Chair agreed to continue consultations and to report back.

 

 

India responses to Tuvalu proposal by saying too much already on agenda. Says Tuvalu proposal has many concerns (undoubtedly mainly that India might be bumped to Annex I) and would slow down action.

 

5th meeting of CMD adjourned.

Day Six starts.... 'Chair's text' under fire ... G77 (maybe even )/ Africa uniting?

 

The delegate's are here on Saturday, but it has yet to be seen if they will be accomplishing something.

 

There is general unhappiness with the ‘Chair’s text’ as all sides think they can get more.

 

 

 

The largest demonstration of the Conference also takes place in town and out to the Bella Center . It ends with Mary Robinson and a few other dignitaries giving a 'message' to Yvo de Boer. Is that the right address? Yvo de Boer is not a decision maker, but the secretariat. While he can influence things, he certainly can't do much to change them.

 

 

 

The main negotiating parties are clearly:

 

1.       The Small Island States. They have the most to loss and the fight for. The Presidents of Papau will be the real fighters next week when it get hot. They will be carrying their battle not only to the COP, LCA and KP, but also to the G77 where if there is unity, it will probably be the small Island States that provided it. Ambassador Williams is the articulate, if measured, lead negotiator.

 

2.       The African Group—most affected states after the Small Island States—will also be vocal. Although they seem less able to put a comprehensive plan on the table, they do know what they want in part and have been asking for it (more technology transfer and the money to take adaptation and mitigation action).

 

3.       The G77 plus is the powerhouse in the mix. Led by two Sudanese—Ambassador Ibrahim Mirghani Ibrahim and Lumumba Dia-Ping—they have the democratic power to make decisions if there are any votes. Lumumba is a charismatic speaker with the ability to get civil society and the public sympathy. One on one he would probably embarrass the resource laden American President Obama, but his voice is not so loud that it can’t be drowned out by all the noise the and EU can create. Ibrahim is much more reserved and cautious. His main tasks will be to unify the G77 behind a meaningful position.

 

4.       The EU and US can be considered together, because although they are offering different levels of cooperation and reasonableness (the EU having an advantage in both categories), they have the same common goal: keep as much of the disproportionate wealth that they have accrued since industrialization by limiting as much as possible what they have to share. They are currently under-bidding in the hope that they can prevent a bidding war that might focre them to make real contributions. In other words, while it is estimated that from a minimum of 200 billion Swiss Francs (same in USD) per year is needed (by World Bank ) to nearly 1 trillion Swiss Francs (Martin Khor) these two are offered a mere 10 billion Swiss Francs a year and then only for a defined period of between three and five years. This won’t prevent the most adverse impacts of climate change, this won’t start to repay the Climate Debt (what they unjustly accrued, and what they unjustly cost the rest of the world), and this won’t help developing countries very much to do anything about climate change. Moreover, they actually form of the contributions might mean they are actually cutting aid to the developing world because it may—according to the EU representatives—come out of ODA…ie what they already owe.

 
A major issue is how decisions are made. Papau New and have suggested that maybe there needs to be voting. Of course, everyone wants a consensus, but tat might change if the only consensus possible is to do so little as to be meaningless. Disturbingly the chairs of the working groups and even the President of the Conference seem to think that consensus is the only way to make decisions. This is probably wrong. The UNFCCC clearly foresees decision by voting (34 majority) when consensus cannot be reached on some matters. The Small Island States may push this point and with G77 support could succeed. However, be careful, the US and EU will be trying to buy every G77 state, they can find an open ear with.

 

Finally, one should not under estimate the role of private actors. Businesses are busy lobby to open markets and keep the action market-oriented, while NGOs are merely pushing for substantive action and haven’t given much thought to who takes it. These two forces are coming more and more into conflict, but when they are not fighting each other the NGOs are pressing states through public action, while the corporate sector is busy lobbying states with lavish perks. I wonder what it takes to get a state to privatize its natural resources so that they can be exploited by some foreign country while their own people starve.

 
The hurt this causes people could be seen in the eyes of people like Ken Sara Wiwa, who to his death by hanging for fighting this scourge exclaimed “Lord, take my soul, but the struggle continues.”

 

 

 

A single consolidated text has been drafted by the Danish chair. Like the text, the Danish promulgated it appears to give more weight to the concerns of developed countries at the expenses of developing countries. She essentially took out everything in the small Island states' text that was not in the Danish/US/EU text.

 

The Africans, Small Island States, and G77 are very unhappy with the so-called compromise text. It is not a compromise at all just another attempt to ignore the voice of the most affected states and save the rich states' money.

 

Interestingly, while most civil society NGOs support the Africans, Small Island States, and G77...the big supporters of the western states are the hords of mainly western profit making companies that are represented here. These companies have fancy booths, glossy papers, and on concern...how to make money out of climate change. As George Kennon once said of the US, and which is undoubtedly true for this climate profiteers, whatever has to be done they will preserve their standards of living, even if this means impoverishing others or in this case literally letting them suffer in the conditions that the rich state shave created.

The Chair's draft text or the "Danish Text Version 2" does not take into account the historical element or the 'Climate Debt' as Bolvian President Evo Morales calls it, ie how developed countries have benefited from their pollution of Mother Earth.

The Chair's text also does not include support for mitigation efforts by developing countries or assist them with emission reductions.

 

It remains vague in many places. For example, it does not decide between a 1.5 degree C and 2 degree C temperature caps; it lists 50 or 85 or 95 as the level of cuts based on 1990 baselines that are needed by 2050; and it calls for emissions cuts reductions 75-85 or at least 85 or more than 95 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. It even calls the long term goals "aspirational and ambitious."

It calls for taking into account both "historical responsibilities" and "an equitable share in the atmospheric space."

 

Right now the 192 states of the LCA (Longterm Common Action Working Group), from which the draft text emanates, are meeting and there are many voicing their discontent with the new text.

 

Some states are now suggesting that what we need is a decision of the COP instead of a new draft treaty. If that is the case the decision can be made by a majority (of 3/4) if not consensus is found.