The COP-KP-LCA...almost all the political parts of the Copenhagen Summit are deadlocked and not really moving. Yes, negotiations are going on, but they are largely parallel and not together.
On Friday, 11 December, three texts appeared (from the small island states, Africa and ) but it also appeared that the Danish chair was working to consolidate them. No one was sure if she was trying to make them a reflection of the text that the Danish had promulgated earlier in the week. This text had been heavily criticized by the G77, African, small island and the least developed states.

The Small Islands States text also appeared. It uses 1.5 degrees C and 350 parts per million of CO2  as obligatory caps in a text that is intended to be legally binding. It also sets up a democratically .

 

At a Friday lunchtime press conference UNFCC chief Yvo de Boer laughingly joked that the 3.6 billion year that the European Union was offering would buy “plenty of cups of coffee in Copenhagen” and that satisfied him.

After lunch the EU held a press conference at which it whimpered that it was contributing too much by giving 3.6 million USD per year (for three or five years) to developing countries for climate adaptation (and presumably mitigation). Admittedly, this is immediately fast-track financing, but the EU hasn't mentioned anything else...so one may assume that is all there will be.

An EU representative then added that this would include ODA, which might actually lead to a cut in overall monetary transfers to developing countries. As one EU representative also said, "adaptation will not be financed by public money."

 

No one seems to be willing to acknowledge that the western controlled (literally because of its pay to play system) World Bank says 200 USD billion annually is needed. Even UNFCCC Chief (a UN family official like the President of the World Bank), the Dutch national Yvo de Boer is saying 10 USD billion is good and 30 USD billion is excellent...although he did refer to it as 'coffee money' or what the Danish and Dutch might refer to as pocket change.

Once again, it is not the voice of the effected people who is being heard, the selfishness of the rich protecting their wealth...which in no insignificant part came from the countries in the South, who are now being asked to suffer so that the North can keep what it stole.

 

 

 

The ‘nouveau rich countries’ of China, South Africa, Brazil, and Russia promulgated a text that calls for greenhouse gas emission to be maintained at a level that prevents global warming from going above 2 degrees C, but still leaves questions about funding and even future Annex one (traditional rich) countries’ commitments unresolved. In layman’s terms, it was an agreement by the newly rich, that makes friends with the already rich. The rest of the world is pretty much left out.

 

 

The ‘nouveau rich countries’ 11-page text mentions human rights in a preambular paragraph stating that “the right o development and equitable opportunity of development are inalienable basic human rights of all nations, and social economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priority of developing countries.”

 

 

The operative paragraphs provide a basic framework of protection for developing countries, but only binds developed countries to vague targets…although its paragraph 4(b) appears to bind non-Kyoto protocol states (i.e. ). The text also does not allow purchased polluting power or ‘carbon credits’ to be used as offsets against emission limits.

 

To provide the additional resources that everyone agrees will be needed by developing countries the text provides for a technology transfer system (para. 10) and it provides for the establishment of Global Climate Fund under the control of all the state parties (para. 11). It also extends the mandate of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action until June 2010.

 

The non-legally binding text is intended to be a decision of the Conference of the state Parties to the UNFCCC, which will disappoint Small Island States and most developing countries.

 

An African and Small Island States texts are expected Friday.

 

 

There is also an NGO proposal being circulated that calls for changes to the LCA text that was being drafted for the past year. (i.e. ). The text also does not allow purchased polluting power or ‘carbon credits’ to be used as offsets against emission limits.

 

To provide the additional resources that everyone agrees to will be needed by developing countries the text provides for a technology transfer system (para. 10) and it provides for the establishment of Global Climate Fund under the control of all the state parties (para. 11). It also extends the mandate of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action until June 2010.

 

The non-legally binding text is intended to be a decision of the Conference of the state Parties to the UNFCCC, which will disappoint Small Island States and most developing countries.

 

An African and Small Island States texts are expected Friday.

 

 

The United Nations made a decision overnight to forbid NGOsfrom entering the Bella Center before 8 a.m. Danish police office Mr. Frans Rasmussen(he probably just happens to have the same name as
at the NGO hostile Danish Prime Minister and is likely no to family member) was outside the Bella Center at 7 am with about a dozen officers to stop NGO representatives them standing in below zero temperatures for more than one hour. Some services open from 6 am and most delegates arrive well before 8 am, so the period before 8 am is crucial to NGO lobbying efforts.

This NGO hostile action also appears to be contrary to rules the calling the participation civil The Island held a morning conference which reiterated, they committed there for legally instrument for action be At Plenary the Protocol Western Group attacked Kyoto and for new .They the Protocol but even targets again the by amendments strengthen Kyoto by emissions by for an establishment a group.Small State,as Jamaica,New as developing such Bangladesh,called continuing Kyoto with limits,for(Annexcountries.Bolvia speaking for the Alba Group called for an amendment focusing attention on the historical Climate Debt of developed countries and for 49% reductions from 1990 levels by 2020.

  

Egypt, alter joined by Syria, criticized any action that would weaken the Kyoto Protocol. South Africa, Benin, Nigeria and Nambia opposed all attempts by developed countries to reach an agreement that eliminates a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. Pakistan also criticized any action that will weaken the Kyoto Protocol. After these countries spoke, China asked for the floor again to reiterate its support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Ethiopia, Togo, Benin, Mali, and Gambia reiterated their support for the Kyoto Protocol.

Tuvalu took the floor again to stress that they want a successful reiteration of the Kyoto protocol and stressed that a contact group be established to consider their proposals.

Papua New Guinea asked for REDD to be included in the Kyoto Protocol.

East Timor said it was against any attempt by developed countries to integrate the Kyoto Protocol into one track.

China, India, Qatar, UAE, Malaysia, Oman, Kuwait, South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil argued for an amendment to Annex B as the single most important accomplishment, according to the Chinese delegate.

New Zealand and Australia who actually proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, also said that it favored a new agreement even more. In other words, they want to abolish Kyoto and make developing counties carry more of the burden of the Climate Debt.

The DRC supported all statements in favor of strengthening the Kyoto Protocol.

Columbia stated that while article 3 was important it also wished to discuss other matters.

 

Ecuador sought to focus on article 3.

Klimaforum09

The NGO Conference moved towards adoption of a quite radical Declaration calling for the abolition of the existing international financial and economic architecture and the creation of institutions that are much more accountable.

.

Governments woke-up to embarrassing headlines in the morning papers telling them that the Danish government was apparently forming their own little club (the G3?) with the UK and US to tout a weak instrument that would be neither legally binding nor even suggest standards that would actually do much about climate change. The text, which the newspaper The Guardian claimed had been ‘leaked’ to it was being given out yesterday by the European Union delegation to anyone who asked for it. It appeared to be more of a position paper for the states that did not want the Copenhagen conference to accomplish anything. It was only because the Danish (whose national is President of the COP15 negotiations) were now known to be associated with the text that it caused a commotion. How could the host, the neutral, good faith acting moderators, have acted in such a bad faith manner?

 

At the COP plenary, courageously insisted that governments agree to draft a legally binding instrument. When the Chair suggested deferring the request for consultations, the small island state stuck to its views and forced the chair to suspend the session.

 

The COP was reconvened after lunch at 3 pm, but only addressed less controversial issues, even though those too led to some disagreement among states.

 

When the COP adjourned for the night there had still been no adequate resolution to ’s request. There was also no African Group or G77 reply to the Danish text. The African Group, however, was rumoured to be working on a text that may be available on Thursday.

 

It wasn’t only governments that were surprised by the overnight ‘bad faith’ of the Danish host. Dozens of activists woke up in jail after the Danish police raided what they alleged were activists planning acts of civil disobedience. The Danish police, who have in the past been known to be tolerant, seem to have caught the Copenhagen bug and begun to ‘rough up’ activists to prevent them from demonstrating too strongly to save our planet. What might have clouded the riot-gear clad eyes of the police last night could have been the extensive police powers that the Danish state had granted them.

 

And at the NGO Forum (Klimforum09) there was another day of meetings and the advanced draft of a final Klimaforum09 NGO Declaration seemed to be ready for discussion and adoption on Thursday…including a paragraph on human rights.  

This morning around 60 civil society representatives took part in a meeting organised by Nord-Sud XXI on climate change and human rights. Speakers at this meeting highlighted the importance of civil society’s contributions to the protection of human rights against climate change impacts, especially given legal and political complexities surrounding the human rights-climate change connection.

Curtis Doebbler (Nord-Sud XXI, Al-Nan-Najah National University, Palestine) introduced the topic referring to the history of human rights. Human rights have been created to protect people. They are built upon common values and legal obligations, binding each and every state in the international community. Human rights require states to take action to protect people against climate change.

Ulrik Halsteen, representing the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), briefed the public on the action of United Nations human rights bodies on climate change and human rights. He pointed out that the adoption of two resolutions on human rights and climate change by the UN Human Rights Council are important signs of progress, as they reflect consensus among all members of the Human Rights Council on the fact that climate change impacts human rights. The latter might seem obvious in fact, but was considered somewhat controversial by states not wanting to suggest that climate change causes human rights violations.

Martin Wagner, Managing Attorney at Earthjustice, confirmed this point referring to his own experiences in litigating climate change through human rights mechanisms. Martin acted as the legal representative of members of the Inuit community in a landmark case on climate change before the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights. This petition made the argument that the United States’ refusal to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused climate change and seriously compromised the fundamental rights of the Inuit people, placing the ancient Inuit culture in peril. The refusal of the Inter-American Commission to deal with this petition was an unfortunate reflection of the conservativeness of the international legal system. Martin emphasized that this conservativeness, however frustrating, should not be a reason to avoid human rights mechanisms altogether. On the contrary: future attempts to litigate climate change could very well be successful. Success on the human rights front could also be achieved in Copenhagen. Particularly, the inclusion of human rights language into the outcome document would significantly add to the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable.

On behalf of Nord-Sud XXI, Margreet Wewerinke then discussed the NGO Declaration that was being discussed at the KlimaForum09. The Declaration initially did not include any references to human rights, even though participants in the KlimaForum very much agreed on the need to protect human rights in any instance. She came up with a concrete proposal for a paragraph on the impacts of climate change on human rights and the duty all states have to cooperate internationally to prevent such impacts. Including this paragraph in the NGO Declaration would send a strong signal to states about the human impacts of climate change, and would at the same time create an advocacy tool for those seeking to include provisions for human rights protection in a legally binding agreement on climate change.

Several participants then took the floor to raise questions about the implications of climate change for human rights, and the relevance of human rights in practice. Discussion arose on whether writing down legal rights on paper would really make a difference for individuals and communities whose territory was about to disappear, or whose culture was threatened with disappearance due to climate change. One speaker pointed out that as of today, we have many human rights treaties while the human rights situation in the world remains far from ideal. Another speaker suggested to create a World Court for the Environment, where everyone could file cases if the rights of the planet were allegedly violated. In response to some of these points, Ulrik said that current human rights mechanisms indeed suffer from deficiencies but do still provide many victims with avenues for legal protection. Martin confirmed this point, adding that the role of civil society was to keep on developing human rights mechanism by continuing to bring serious human rights cases for their consideration.

The event reflected a strong interest of KlimaForum09 participants in practical relevance of human rights mechanisms. This determination to start acting against climate change rather today than tomorrow is something that is missing in the main conference, where states increasingly get lost in conflicting interests. A main problem is that some states apparently prefer a weak political agreement over real action. Small island states such as Tuvalu, in contrast, have a very real interest in a legally binding treaty that would pave the way for coordinated global action. Like KlimaForum activists, delegates of these states are spending their scarce resources on a battle against what one delegate called “dominant countries, who will always have the last word”.