Member Login
Syndicate
| Leaked Danish text dominates corridor talk at Copenhagen |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Meena Raman | |||
| Thursday, 10 December 2009 00:00 | |||
|
The draft, which also contains annexes, was "leaked" in the website of the London-based Guardian newspaper. The so-called "Copenhagen Agreement" is believed to be the initiative of the Danish government, as the President of the 15th COP. This document has sparked controversy, both in terms of the process and the substance, at least in the corridors and the press conferences of the Conference, Ambassador Lumumba Stanislas DiAping of Sudan, speaking for the G77 and China at a press conference late evening on Tuesday said that the revelation of the Danish text is "serious and unfortunate." He said that "the text threatens the success of the COP on two counts. From a procedural perspective, the UNFCCC is the only legitimate platform for negotiations and is the only place where all nations of the world are negotiating in an open and transparent manner. A more serious problem is substance of the text." "From the view of the G77 and China, the text merges two processes - the Kyoto process (under the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol) and the long-term cooperative action process (AWG-LCA). By doing this, it destroys both the UNFCCC and the KP," said DiAping. He said that the text is aimed at producing a new treaty; a new legal instrument that has the effect of throwing away the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries; between the poorest and the highly industrialized countries. It creates a new set of obligations for developing countries on mitigation, adaptation, financing and has proposals for the protection of intellectual property rights in relation to technologies. He said the text also divides developing countries and creates a new category of countries into the "poor and most vulnerable". The result of all this is to rob developing countries of a just, equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It also treats developed and developing countries as equals and overturn the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, he added. DiAping stressed further that the Danish text does not even pay lip-service to the proposals of developing countries. He believed that the strategic intent of the text and all efforts that have been going on for the last 6 months (referring pre-COP meetings organized by the Danish government) is aimed at a solution at the level of political leaders. Referring to the Danish Prime Minister, DiAping said that it was very unfortunate that a man trusted to lead the COP process in a balanced way for an equitable and just deal is bent on advancing the interests of developed countries. He called on the Danish Prime Minister to refrain from such attempts. In the corridors and cafes inside the Conference centre, the Danish text has become the main issue of conversation, speculation and even heated discussion. Some quarters in developed countries have expressed that the initiatives of the Danish Presidency have not been secret meetings but are what COP hosts normally do, in terms of consulting with Parties and that the text has been circulating among delegations and others. However, the view was different from developing countries. Several of their delegates who heard about the leaked text asked NGOs if they had copies. One delegate said that the text was shown to him but no copies were given as it was not to be distributed. The pre-COP meetings held by the Danish government have not been open to all Parties but have been on the basis of invitations. It is not generally known who was at the pre-COP meetings or how many such meetings there have been. The Danish Presidency has also not been mandated by the COP or any other official process under the UNFCCC to embark on the drafting of a text for the Conference. In fact in previous meetings of the UNFCCC many leading delegates have said "there is no Plan B", meaning that there is no short text already prepared. A reading of the text showed that it mainly reflects the proposals or positions of the developed countries, while neglecting the positions of the developing countries put forward in the negotiations and in the "non papers" that now form the main reference documents for the negotiations.. It proposes the adoption of a "political agreement", while "affirming the need to continue negotiations with a view to agreeing on a comprehensive legal framework under the Convention" no later than a time-frame to be determined. The issue of the form of the outcome has been most controversial. The G77 and China expressly stated at the opening of COP15 on Monday that it rejected attempts to have a "political agreement" and "plans for a new treaty projected to be negotiated post-Copenhagen that has been aggressively promoted from Barcelona to Copenhagen in various fora and through various statements made outside this process." The text goes directly against this. The text also proposes the inscription by developed country Parties to individual economy wide targets for 2020 in an attachment that would expect to yield aggregate emissions reductions by X per cent by 2020 versus 1990 levels or 2005 levels. This practically implies the replacement of the Kyoto Protocol as the commitments of developed countries that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol are mandated to be made in the Kyoto Protocol track, in a decision to be made by the Kyoto Protocol's working group on further commitments of Annex I parties. These commitments are not meant to be made in a new agreement under the Convention. The developing countries are strongly opposed to the "killing" of the Kyoto Protocol and its replacement by a new agreement which is likely to have much looser disciplines on the developed counties' emission reductions, thus allowing these countries to escape internationally legally binding commitments The text is also contrary to the understanding reached in Bali, in which under which developed countries which are KP members are to make their emission-reduction commitments under the KP, while the USA which is not a member to the KP but is a member of the Convention would make its commitment under paragraph 1(b)(i) of the Bali Action Plan. Developing countries have maintained in the course of the negotiations that under paragraph 1(b)(i), developed country Parties who are not Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (meaning the United States), would undertake comparable efforts as developed country Parties under the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, paragraph 1(b)(i) is to deal with the US. The Danish text makes no reference to the comparability of efforts that is needed with between the US and those who have to make commitments for mitigation in the Kyoto Protocol. The text does not refer to any commitments to be made in the KP, thus implying its abandonment. In relation to developing countries, the Danish text distorts the understanding of the G77 and China as regards paragraph 1(b)(ii) of the Bali Action Plan. That paragraph of the BAP refers to nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) which are enabled and supported by developed countries through finance, technology and capacity-building. Hence, NAMAs are mitigation actions which are enabled and supported and it is these actions that are then to be measured, reported and verified (MRVed). The Danish text expects developing countries to reflect in an attachment, all the mitigation actions, including those that are not supported or enabled, referring to all actions as NAMAs. This clearly echoes the proposals of particularly the United States and Australia. In fact the text comes with an annex containing a table on how developing countries are required to list down their mitigation actions. In addition, the Danish text proposes that the developing countries mitigation actions yield in aggregate, a specific percentage deviation in 2020 from "business as usual" and "yielding their collective emissions peak before [20xx} and to decline thereafter". Many developing countries have opposed the establishment of quantified emission targets for developing countries, which this proposal aims to do and have said that this is contrary to the UNFCCC and the BAP. The Danish text also proposes that all mitigation actions of developing countries (whether supported by finance or not) be inscribed in a Registry. The unsupported actions are to be subjected to a "consultative review". Such proposals are clearly beyond the mandate of the BAP. The text also commits developing countries to inscribe supported mitigation actions in a Registry and to indicate their expected emissions outcomes. The text also states that an effective mitigation response requires a well-functioning carbon market. It calls for work towards a transition from project based to more comprehensive approaches. This issue is within the purview of the Kyoto Protocol, and is being discussed in the KP track. By placing the issue in an agreement under the Convention track, this is another indication of an attempt to replace the KP with a new agreement. On the issue of technologies, the Danish text calls for the respecting of IPR regimes for environmentally sound and climate friendly technologies. This language is clearly opposed to the position of the G77 and China and individual developing countries that have put forward language to review IPR rules, including to allow developing countries to exclude patents on climate-related technologies. As news of the leaked document swept through the halls of the Conference, African civil society organized a spontaneous march around the corridors. They were angry by the reference in the Danish text to temperatures being limited to a maximum of 2 degree C. Chanting " 2 degrees is suicide and genocide" for Africa and "One Africa - 1 Degree" the groups made clear that that they will not stand by while Africa gets divided up by "climate colonialism." The large and diverse group moved into the main area of the Bella Center to spread their message. The march came as most attendees were leaving the venue and often swam against a tide of traffic but captured attention with its chanting and dancing. Augustine Njamnshi of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance said for Africans, these negotiations are a matter of life and death. As the protest broke up, Njamnshi was mobbed by reporters--some of them had just arrived. TWN Update No. 7 Copenhagen News Update 10 December 2009 Published by the Third World Network www.twnside.org.sg Like it? Share it!
|
