Despite the fanfare and enthusiasm that marked the opening of the Climate summit on Monday, Tuesday brought clouds of concern and pessimism.

African and G77 (130 states) expressed concerns that 'others' were trying to manipulate their members. This became apparent when some African states seemed to side more with western interests than the views shared by the overwhelming majority of the states that are in the same group.

A Danish text also emerged that expressly calls for the adoption of a "political agreement" rather than a legally binding text. For some states and many NGOs this set a pessimistic tone on Tuesday and indicate that the host country, whose national is President of the meeting has already given up on what can be accomplished.

THE GOOD … OR AS BEST AS POSSIBLE

The agreement does reiterate some basic principles like that of Common but Differentiated Responsibility and protection for the poorest and most vulnerable.

It contains a reiteration of existing efforts to achieve a technology transfer plan of action and eventually binding provisions.

The text suggests that there should be some mechanism for verifying the financial provisions (what it will be is not clear).

THE BAD … AND SOMETIMES THE UGLY

The agreement also leaves the most controversial issues unresolved.

There is also much double talk.

While recognizing the need to take special adaptation action for the “the poorest and most vulnerable countries,” it does not recognize a similar duty towards developing countries.

While talking about strengthening the financial architecture to substantially increase finance for climate efforts in developing countries, it does not say how or event set principles for this (see below).

While recognizing the need to “promote” technology transfer, it does not say how or event set principles for this (see below).

It suggests a temperature cap of 2 degrees C, instead of 1.5 degrees C, which most small island states, the G77 and NGOs were calling for.

It does not set a date for the peaking of emissions and suggests in brackets only 2020, although the IPCC is calling for “no later than 2015.”

It does not specify the fast-track financing amount for adaptation, instead merely listing “[$X]”.

It does not specify that emission reduction must be made in relation to the 1990 baseline, instead suggesting that a 2005 baseline might also be acceptable and even allows purchased ‘carbon pollution credits’ to be taken into account.

 

talks about reducing deforestation without any concrete targets.

It talks about reducing emissions from shipping without any concrete targets.

It supports Carbon markets, which allow rich countries to buy the right to pollute.

It contains weak statements on national policies and response measures.

The provisions on financial measures are de minimus using the 10 billion per year level (abet in brackets) with World Bank has called for between 200 and 400 billion per year.

The text contains enhanced reporting requirements for everyone, but apparently no additional resources for developing countries to meet these requirements.

More optimistically it emerged that there are multiple initiatives calling for securing and strengthening references to human rights in any outcome document. Most of these initiatives raised human rights issues very much from a western point of view. In other words, they ignored duties of solidarity and cooperation, did not mention the right to development or other specific human rights, and did not mention economic and social rights or the right to self-determination.

One G77 delegate exasperatedly mused that the Road to Copenhagen may be becoming a Road to Nowhere.     

<link href="file:///C:DOCUME~1UNDELE~1LOCALS~1Tempmsohtml11clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List" />

 

Former multi-term presidents Mary Robinson and Gro Bruntland meeting with about fifty youth and civil leaders in the Malmo Townhall are preparing a call to world leaders to ensure that human rights are taken into account and to be delivered to the Executive Director of UNFCC Yvo de Boer at the talks in Copenhagen .

 

The group, the Climate Justice initiative, includes youth, European Union leaders, business leaders, and a few activists.

 

The document will call for human rights to be included in the Copenhagen outcome document’s text, for a legally binding text to be adopted, and for human rights to be at the forefront of action that is taken to respond to climate change.

 

Activists in the Group called for the document that is to be adopted and delivered on Wednesday, 9 December to include references to the right to development, the duty to cooperate to achieve respect for human rights that is stated in articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations, and the need of all states to show solidarity with each other to achieve the protection of human rights. It is not known whether these concerns, which reflect the interests of developing states, will be adopted by the predominately European Group.

The COP15 opened with cordial formalities calling for action and consensus. The Danish Prime Minister called for joint responsibilities. The Head of the IPCC highlighted the clear scientific facts on climate change and stressed that concrete action to prevent the worst case scenarios can be taken at reasonable cost. The head of the UNFCCC spoke and the COP15 formally elected the Danish and EU climate leader Connie Hedegaard as President of the COP15.

However, as soon as cordialities ended the disputes began with Papua New Guinea asking that decision be made by 3/4 majority. Papua New Guinea argued that this is the only way to ensure that progress will be made. The chair agreed to take this proposal under consideration and consultation, but not immediately. Papua New Guinea pursued this calling for at least reconsideration at the Plenary on Wednesday. The African Group, G77, Saudi Arabia (Gulf Cooperation Council) all spoke sticking strongly to their pre-sessional points of view that (1) progress must be made based on UNFCCC and Kypoto. Sudanese Ambassador Ibrahim Mirghani Ibrahim speaking on behalf of the G77 called for a just conclusion based on Bali Roadmap and ensuring a legal obligation based on the Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CbDR) of all states. He also underlined the need for more effective financing mechanism.

Saudi Arabia seemed to be in obstructing mood calling for an investigation of the IPCC's data citing the already discredited allegations of skeptics that cite stolen emails. Lesotho speaking on behalf of the LDCs associated itself with the G77 and African statement. He stressed the historical and collective nature of the COP15 responsibility and stressed progress must be based on Bali principles on adaption. Called for 1.5% additional to ODA for LDC country adaption. Pointed out only five countries benefiting from LDEF (UNFCCC Climate Fund) and stressed the need to revitalize financial mechanisms under COP15 auspices. Grenada speaking for Small Island States called for urgent and two internationally legally binding instruments on climate change impacts and adaption efforts (financing).

Mexico speaking for small group of about five countries (Enivrionmetnal Integrity Group) focused on AWG-LCA calling for a legal binding outcome document from this WG. Supported continuation of Kyoto and asked President to open negotiations. Australia speaking on behalf of the Umbrella Group (Canada, Iceland, US, Australia, Russia, etc.) called for 2% cap on Co2 emissions cut, 50% reductions by 2050 and all countries acting according to the ability. 'Substantial' reductions by 2020 and 'substantial'financing and substantial increase in investment from, among others, carbon markets. Called for accountability of emissions... not funding. Agree up to and after 2012 and based on Bali with a legally binding treaty. Little consideration of CbDR.

Sweden speaking for the European Union called for 2% cap on Co2 emissions cut through effective legally binding agreement "if not here then as soon as possible in 2010. Global emissions must peak by 2020 and be cut to 50% reductions by 2050 (not 80% as is required to achieve 2% target!). Calls for 'Substantial' scaling up of support to developing countries. Urges 'false start financing'. Little consideration of CbDR.

It is just one day to go before the most important international conference on climate change in history starts. Today several hundreds of government delegates, civil society representatives, journalists, academics, conference service staff and security personnel are making last-minute preparations for the conference at the enormous Bella Centre, the conference venue.

Highlight of the day was a meeting of the G77 and China, the group of developing countries that share similar concerns in international climate change negotiations. Last month in Barcelona, the group, chaired by Sudanese Ambassador Ibrahim Mirghani Ibrahim, strongly rejected the attempt by several developed countries to throw the Kyoto Protocol into the dustbin. Today several members of the group stressed again the need for developed countries to commit to ambitious legally binding emission reduction targets, so as to avoid severe climate change damage in developing countries. The G77 includes dozens of countries that will suffer the most from climate change, in many cases to the extent that human rights are being violated. These devastating impacts might become disastrous if global average temperatures are allowed to rise at the same speed as is currently the case.

Also discussed in the group was the need for mobilisation of substantial financial resources to allow developing countries to adapt to climate change and take steps to get on sustainable tracks of economic development. This need is not, as some cynics have suggested, an attempt by greedy governments to get financial benefits out of the wrongdoing of the West. It is a real need for compensation for a problem that is created elsewhere, and that requires costly measures in countries with tiny GDPs and millions of people are living below the poverty line. It was encouraging to see that governments representing these people were planning to take a firm stance on these issues in the coming two weeks.