On the surface, rather boring
Posted on 07. Oct, 2009 by Ben Jervey in U.S.A.
I’m tempted to leave you all with a short and simple seven word update today: nothing to see here, check back tomorrow. Negotiations are crawling along slower than a snail’s pace, held up still by a few crucial missing tidbits of info. (And if this is how things go with barely more than a week of talks left before Copenhagen, I’m honestly glad I wasn’t around for earlier meetings when there was even less a sense of urgency.) No movement at all on mitigation targets, and the finance discussions are muddled with about ten different proposals for how the heck to set up and run a fund to help poor countries both cut their emissions and adapt for climate impacts.
The only real drama to speak of on this otherwise drowsy day involved this latter point-where does the money come from, how is it doled out, who’s holding the purse strings. After the U.S. further explained its proposal-the third straight day of what has turned into something of a slow reveal-Bernaditas Muller, coordinator for the G77/China from the Philippines grabbed the mic with a pretty passionate response. Speaking, more or less, for the global poor, she pointed two barrels at the heart of the U.S. proposal and let the buckshot fly. Rich countries would like to see the cash they pony up be handled by an “existing institution” (read: the World Bank) that is up and running and used to dealing with massive amounts of money. Poor countries don’t like this idea at all, basically saying, “hey-we’ve been burned by the World Bank over and over again; why should we trust them this time around?” It’s tough to figure how this disconnect will be cordially resolved.
There’s another part of this U.S. finance proposal that developing countries REALLY don’t like-and it actually reflects a much deeper, tumultuous undercurrent that’s slowly rising to the surface and which really does have the potential to boil over and break down any chance for an agreement. The U.S. has suggested that everyone besides the LDCs (least developed countries) should be kicking up cash for finance. Not just the Annex I nations-as has been the conventional wisdom, and as the Framework Convention itself seems to call for-but every country should be giving what they’re able. Which obviously doesn’t play so well in the Global South-especially with particularly vulnerable countries like the Philippines-who don’t really see the logic in funneling cash into some fund that they don’t control, helplessly then hoping to see at least some of their contribution come back as ‘support.” It’s tough not to sympathize with this line of thinking.
The broader implications-this undercurrent I mentioned-are that the U.S. seems to be chipping away at this concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” that is written into the Convention. Common. As in, we’ve all got to do the same sorts of things. And Differentiated. As in, rich countries have a different level of obligation than poor countries. So what’s common and what’s the differentiation? What exactly do developing countries have to do? Well this little debate is shaping up to be the story of the talks. And right now the two sides are worlds apart. More on this tomorrow.
