Making Durban Climate Negotiations understandable- Part 1: The Kyoto Protocol

November 25, 2011 in 10. Kyoto Protocol, UN climate change negotiations | Leave a comment

www.nelemarien.info (*)

Climate Change negotiations are often deliberately made very complex, so normal people cannot understand what it is all about, even less be able to react, and ultimately can’t demand climate justice.

I will make a series of posts during the Durban climate change negotiations to make them understandable.
A first difficulty is understanding the UNFCCC webpage, and the documents on it. Everything is available, but finding them is like searching for a needle in the haystack.

In order to help you: here the overview to the links of the relevant bodies. I will give background and links to main documents for the most important ones.

As the main bodies of political interest are the AWG-KP, dedicated to the definition of the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, and the AWG-LCA, aiming to implement the convention in all its relevant aspects, I will first concentrate on the KP, and soon also on the LCA.

Ad Hoc Working Group of the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP): aiming to achieve a  second commitment period 

What it really is about

The aim of this working group is surprisingly simple: to define an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, in those specific articles that need to be amended in order to assure the second commitment period to be approved.
The Kyoto Protocol demanded in its first commitment period (2008-2012) a reduction of 5% from 1990 levels from all developed countries, as defined in Annex B to the Protocol. This list included the US, unfortunately, they never ratified the Protocol, thereby undermining it severely.

Of course, just defining a second commitment period is not enough. It needs to have convincing commitments by all Kyoto members. The actual list of developed countries’ pledges  – yes, some promises, no commitments – was composed after Cancun, and is in fact the same as the list for the LCA. Its total reduction is of 13 to 17% under 1990 levels, while the IPCC established that this should be at least 25-40% under 1990 levels.

The mandate for the AWG-KP and its work up till now

The mandate for the AWG-KP was decided in 2005, it has been a decision adopted by all Parties to the Protocol, and obliges parties to establish a second commitment period. In Bali, 2007, it was defined (cf paragraph 22) that this work should be finished by 2009, in the Copenhagen Conference.
In order to assure that this would be possible, in Poznan, 2008, a work program  was defined. I invite readers to turn specifically to article 49, which determines that first an aggregate number for emission reductions was to be determined, and then the individual commitment for every country. This work program was actually never followed, nor the deadlines reached, and now, in 2011 we are still left with highly inconclusive negotiation texts and no work program at all.

Contributions from countries to this text, have been mainly through submissions.

Also important are the list of ‘trigger’ submissions (cf agenda item 5) made in 2009 to the CMP, as those gave the textual proposals for amendment to the Kyoto Protocol.

The work of the KP in Durban


Since 2005, there have been 23 meetings in which the AWG-KP worked. Most of the time, a meeting has been coinciding with a session, which means an agenda is adopted in the beginning and conclusions are drawn at the end of the meeting. During 2011 however, three meetings took already place, but all were under the same session, which resumed over and over again. This makes that the actual session of KP in Durban is the fourth part of the resumed 16th session. Implications are that the agenda  is still the same since April this year, and that no conclusions were ever decided upon.

The Chair released a different scenario note  for this part of the session. A scenario note explains the ways the Chair intents to conduct negotiations and what he expects to happen.
The actual negotiation text  for KP still has incredibly many undecided issues in it, leaving few time in the Durban negotiations to clear them out. In fact, it shouldn’t be that long, nor that complicated, because the only issue that needs to be amended is art 3.1 of the Protocol, some consequential amendments, and of course Annex B, which defines the actual commitments.

Up till Cancun there was a previous version of the text, which in its option A (page 9) showed only necessary amendments, and in its option B (page 11) the whole ‘wish list’ of ways how (mostly developed) countries want to profoundly change the Protocol. This is precisely the big danger of Durban: they may decide to have a second commitment period, but with a legal text that totally perverts the original idea of the Kyoto Protocol.

This would be fooling the public opinion, but the climate can’t be fooled!

If you have questions on the Climate Change negotiation process, feel free to write me, I’ll try to give answers in next posts.

(*) Nele Marien was climate change negotiator for the Bolivian delegation from 2009 – Nov 2011

Occupy COP 17

November 25, 2011 in UN climate change negotiations | Leave a comment

The Occupy COP 17 Movement proposes the ‘Peoples Agreement’ of Tiquipaya as an alternative to start thinking from, in their opposition to the non-solutions being proposed by the official fora.

http://occupycop17.org/

From 28 November to 9 December the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will be taking place in Durban, South Africa. This is where decisions on how to avert catastrophic climate change and protect our environment are meant to take place.

Instead the very same people responsible for the global financial crisis are poised to seize control of our atmosphere, land, forests, mountains and waterways. They want to institute carbon markets that will make billions of dollars for the elite few, whilst stealing land and resources from the many. We need to organise to protect the planet and safeguard those who depend on and defend our ecosystems.

Occupy COP17 can be a forum for those who wish to discuss and implement real and equitable solutions to climate change, with climate justice at the heart. It is open to all, operating on the principles of inclusiveness, openness, non-hierarchical organizing and consensus decision making.

Kyoto Protocol should not be held hostage to a new treaty – India

November 22, 2011 in 10. Kyoto Protocol, 12. Financing, UN climate change negotiations | 1 comment

Geneva, 21 Nov (Meena Raman) – India’s Environment and Forests’ Minister, Ms. Jayanthi Natarajan, has said categorically that a new long-term binding agreement cannot and should not be a quid pro quo for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). Read the rest of this entry »

One Year Since Cancun and Just Days Away from Durban: MORE THAN 4°C

November 18, 2011 in 10. Kyoto Protocol, UN climate change negotiations | 1 comment

Balance sheet and perspectives on the climate change negotiations (Part I)

http://pablosolon.wordpress.com/ (*)

Almost a year has gone by since the results of the climate change negotiations in Cancun were imposed with the objection of only Bolivia. It’s time to take stock and see where we are now.

In Cancun, the developed countries listed their greenhouse gas emission reduction pledges for the 2012-2020 period. The United States and Canada said they would reduce emissions by 3% based on 1990 levels, the European Union between 20 and 30%, Japan 25%, and Russia from 15 to 25% [1]. Adding up all the reduction pledges of the developed countries, the total reduction in emissions by 2020 would be 13-17% [2] based on 1990 levels.

These greenhouse gas emission reduction “pledges,” according to the United Nations Environment Programme [3], the Stockholm Environment Institute [4], and even the Executive Secretary of the Climate Change Convention [5], would lead us to an average increase in global temperature of around 4°C or more.[6] That is double the amount they established in Cancun: a maximum temperature increase of just 2°C.With an increase of 2°C, the number of deaths per year attributed to climate change-related natural disasters, which was 350,000 in 2009 [7], could skyrocket into the millions. Some 20-30% of animal and plant species would disappear. Many coastal zones and island states would end up below the ocean, and the glaciers in the Andes – which have already been reduced by one third with a temperature rise of just 0.8°C – would disappear entirely.

Can you imagine what would happen with an average global temperature increase of 4°C or more? [8]

Nobody at the climate change negotiations defends or justifies an increase of that magnitude. However, Cancun opened the door to it.

When Bolivia opposed this outcome, the negotiators told us that the important thing was to save the diplomatic process of negotiation, and that the climate would be saved in Durban. Now we are just days away from the start of Durban, and it turns out the reduction pledges have not risen by a millimeter. Worse yet, some countries are announcing that they may stick toward the lower range of their pledge amounts.

Sadly, throughout 2011, the climate change negotiations held in Thailand, Germany and Panama have focused on form rather than content. What is being negotiated is not how the reduction pledges can be increased, but rather, how they can be formalized.

The Cancun “agreements” meant going from an obligatory system with global greenhouse gas reduction goals to a voluntary system with no global goals at all. It is as if one said to the inhabitants of a small town about to be washed away by a flood: “bring whatever stones you may have and let’s see how high a dam we can build!” In reality, you must first determine how high the dam should be to stop the flood, and based on that, each family should be told how many stones it must bring to help save the whole town.

In Durban, they are talking about two different paths for formalizing the voluntary regime of “anything goes”: one is to end the Kyoto Protocol  and list in a COP-17 decision the greenhouse gas reduction pledges each country wishes to make. The other path is to do the same thing by hollowing out the content of the Kyoto Protocol. In both cases the agreement is to undo the Kyoto Protocol before 2020.To better understand the second path, let me point out that the Kyoto Protocol currently includes a global goal of 5.2% emission reductions for the 2007-2012 period. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in order to limit the rise in temperature to the 2°C they have established, we must reduce 25-40% of emissions for the 2013-2020 period.[9]Those that advocate for maintaining the Kyoto Protocol as an empty shell are the countries that fear the reaction of public opinion, those that believe they have to at least pretend that the Kyoto Protocol will continue in order to placate voters. But the other reason why they would want to maintain a Kyoto Protocol that is empty of emission reductions are its collapsing carbon market mechanisms.The Kyoto Protocol has many weaknesses, but to turn it into an empty shell or make it disappear in Durban would be suicide. The only responsible alternative is to preserve the Kyoto Protocol with an emissions reductions goal that allows us to avoid incinerating the planet.(Second part: The emerging countries and the carbon budget)

* Pablo Solón is an international analyst and social activist. He was chief negotiator for climate change and Ambassador to the United Nations for the Plurinational State of Bolivia from 2009 until June 2011. http://www.facebook.com/solonpablo

[1] Document UNFCCC FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1
[2] A minimum emissions reduction of 13% and a maximum of 17% for the 2013-2020 period.
[3] http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/
[4] http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/sei-comparison-of-pledges-jun2011.pdf
[5] http://cancun.unfccc.int/cancun-agreements/significance-of-the-key-agreements-reached-at-cancun/#c45
[6] 4° C is a global average, but some continents such as Africa will see a temperature rise 8° C.
[7] Data from the Global Humanitarian Forum presided by former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan.

There must be coherence between what we do and what we say

September 29, 2011 in Uncategorized | 4 comments

President and Brother Evo Morales

Since 2006, Bolivia has shown leadership to the world on how to tackle the most profound challenges of our time. We have achieved the approval of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation in the United Nations and promoted a vision for society based on Vivir Bien (Living Well) rather than consuming more.

However there must be coherence between what we do and what we say. One cannot speak of defending Mother Earth and at the same time promote the construction of a road that will harm Mother Earth, doesn’t respect indigenous rights and violates human rights in an “unforgiveable” way.

As the country that initiated the International Day of Mother Earth, we have a profound responsibility to be an example on the global stage. We cannot repeat the same recipes of failed “developmentalism” that has already brought the relationship between humanity and Mother Earth to breaking point

It is incomprehensible that we promote a World Conference on Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations in 2014 if we don’t lead the way in applying the principle of “informed, free and prior consent” for indigenous peoples in our own country.

The Eighth Indigenous March has some incoherent and incorrect demands such as those related to hydrocarbons ant the sale of forest carbon credits that look to commodify Mother Earth (known as REDD). However their concern for the impacts of the construction of this road is just.

Thousands of the delegates of five continents who participated in the first World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth are deeply upset by the Bolivian government’s actions.

The conflict in TIPNIS should never have happened. Greater physical integration of the country is necessary, but does not need to go through the “Indigenous Territory and National Park of Isibore Secure” (TIPNIS). Obviously building a road that doesn’t go trough the park would be more expensive, but trying to save $200 million or $300 million dollars at any social and environmental cost goes against the very principles of the “Living Well”.

In order to stop the manipulation of the Right who wish to use this protest to return to the past, we must be even more consistent in defending human rights, indigenous peoples’ rights and the rights of Mother Earth.

It’s not too late to resolve this crisis if we suspend permanently the construction of the road trough the TIPNIS, bring to justice those responsible for the repression to the indigenous march, and open up a broad and participatory national and regional debate to define a new agenda of actions in the framework of the Living Well.

28 September 2011

Pablo Solón

Statement by Bolivia during the Security Council Debate: The impact of climate change

July 20, 2011 in News, UN climate change negotiations | 1 comment

Statement by Ambassador Rafael Archondo, Permanent Representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations, in the Debate of the Security Council on Maintenance of international peace and security: The impact of climate change 

New York, July 20, 2011

Thank you Mr. President.

Bolivia joins the statements made by the Group 77 and China, represented by Argentina and the Non-Aligned Movement, whose voice has been expressed by Egypt.

Mr. President:

Climate change is a real threat to the existence of mankind, other living creatures and Mother Earth, and given its systemic nature, can be analyzed from multiple dimensions such as social, economic, cultural or environmental. We also know that climate change has a security dimension, because temperature change can cause states to disappear and will cause new conflicts to arise. It is a global threat for which few are responsible yet millions are affected by.  Among those affected are small island states with which we would like to extend our solidarity to, especially to President of Nauru, who was with us today.

However, although we recognize the security dimensions of climate change, we disagree with the notion of having this issue be addressed by the Security Council because its permanent members that hold the right to veto are also precisely the states that are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Under this circumstance, is it conceivable that the Security Council would effectively adopt resolutions that sanction or mandate reparations from their own countries for the damage they are causing? Read the rest of this entry »

Press Release: Bolivia calls for urgent high level talks on cutting climate pollution

June 17, 2011 in News, UN climate change negotiations | 1 comment

BONN, 17 june 2011 – At the close of UN climate talks in Bonn that failed to address the huge shortfall in emission targets compared to what the science suggests is necessary, Ambassador Pablo Solon of the Plurinational State of Bolivia called for a high-level meeting to discuss how to drastically reduce climate pollution.

“In order to have success at the UN climate conference in Durban in December we need to have a clearer willingness to increase the emissions reduction pledges that are on the table.” Ambassador Solon said. Read the rest of this entry »

Press Conference Bolivia: General Evaluation of Climate Change Negotiations

June 17, 2011 in News, UN climate change negotiations | 1 comment

CLICK HERE to watch via UNFCCC Website

Press Conference

Plurinational State of Bolivia

General Evaluation of Climate Change Negotiations

Bonn, Germany

June 6-17, 2011

Exposeperson. Emb. Pablo Solon

Bolivia Proposes Pathway to Solve Climate Talks: Be clear about targets and honour commitments

June 16, 2011 in News, UN climate change negotiations | Leave a comment

BONN – Today, Ambassador Pablo Solon of the Plurinational State of Bolivia addressed reporters at the UN climate talks in Germany. Ambassador Solon outlined a clear plan, based on submissions from other countries and civil society, on how to move the talks forward in 2011.

“The key issue at these talks is the gap between how much climate pollution we need to reduce and how much countries are committed to reducing. We call that the “gap” and it’s the difference between 4C of warming and 2C of warming. The Cancun outcome sets us on a path to 4C.” Ambassador Solon Said.

“Some countries want to talk about the ‘rules’ first, instead of this gap in commitment, but we know that rules will not reduce this gap. Fixing rules will simply prevent the gap from increasing, it won’t set about actually reducing emissions. The heart of the matter is the depth of pollution cuts.” Ambassador Solon said. Read the rest of this entry »

Climate Gap: Who is Committed and What Can Be Done!

June 13, 2011 in Int'l Actions & Events, News, UN climate change negotiations | 1 comment

(SOP newswire2) Today, Ambassador Pablo Solon of the Plurinational State of Bolivia addressed reporters at the UN climate talks in Germany. Ambassador Solon outlined a clear plan, based on submissions from other countries and civil society, on how to move the talks forward in 2011.

“The key issue at these talks is the gap between how much climate pollution we need to reduce and how much countries are committed to reducing. We call that the “gap” and it`s the difference between 4C of warming and 2C of warming. The Cancun outcome sets us on a path to 4C.” Ambassador Solon Said.

“Some countries want to talk about the `rules` first, instead of this gap in commitment, but we know that rules will not reduce this gap. Fixing rules will simply prevent the gap from increasing, it won`t set about actually reducing emissions. The heart of the matter is the depth of pollution cuts.” Ambassador Solon said.  Read the rest of this entry »

Follow us on twitter!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 433 other followers

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers