After over 24 hours of extra time, the 194 countries gathered in Warsaw for the annual UN climate conference adopted to consensus a set of 38 decisions covering all aspects of international cooperation on climate change. While most of these outcomes are of a rather technical nature, the conference also resulted in decisions addressing specifically the pathway to the Paris 2015 climate agreement, the delivery of long-term finance for developing countries and the establishment of an institutional mechanism addressing the issue of “Loss and Damage”.
To better understand the implications of these decisions for diverse countries across the planet, our team share their first reactions to the Warsaw outcomes…
LATIN AMERICA
BRAZIL: mainly focused on emissions from deforestation – by Raquel Rosenberg
The main impact of the resolutions of COP19 in Brazil will definitely come from outcome decisions concerning the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and land Degradation. The “Warsaw REDD+ Framework” is the most significant package of decisions since Cancun and the first definition of REDD+ activities in the climate change negotiations. The 7 decisions related to REDD+ establish the technical requirements to receive results-based-finance, assigns a key role to the Green Climate Fund among the various financing sources, creates an online tool for recognition of results action and their corresponding payments under the Convention and encourages all entities supporting REDD+ to use the same methodologies and tools of the UNFCCC.The text provides that no country will be paid if there are no proofs of implementing the agreed safeguards. The impacts of that decision in Brazil will be felt in a few years, since the country has the biggest forest in the world and the sectors contributing the most to its emissions are agriculture and deforestation. The architecture of this economic instrument that has been built in Warsaw is going to allow Brazil to address the emissions of these sectors. The announcement by the governments of UK, US and Norway of a 280 millions $ package to be invested on the protection of the forests will definitely help on curb the rate of deforestation (deforestation increased in the country by 28% in 2012) and make sure that the use of the soil can be better monitored in Brazil.
In the negotiations towards the 2015 climate agreement, the main achievement for Brazil was the implementation of the proposal of national consultations (in the paragraph 2 of the ADP decision). The realization of these consultations will have a huge impact on the involvement of civil society as a whole, including also indigenous people, traditional communities, youth and children, resulting in a much bigger credibility, transparency and inclusion in the path until 2015. On finance, Brazil highlights the GCF, which has an inclusive and balanced governance model, supporting the country as a key player. The same decision indicates that in 2014 should be initiated the capitalization of the fund, which stills remain empty. Unfortunately, the COP did not make much progress on two additional Brazilian proposals related to historical responsibilities and early action.
PERU: readying to step forward as facilitator of the 2014 talks - by Veronica Villena
Peru came to Poland not as a regular guest but as the incoming host of the 2014 COP. All the work done in Warsaw was supposed to insume the peruvian role as a facilitator to achieve a road map for Paris, seeking higher mitigation goals, the capitalization of the Green Climate Fund, stronger funding commitments and the establishment of a international mechanism for loss and damage. Even though this COPs results were not the first best, they settle down the ground for next year’s work. Under the ADP discussion, Peru - as a member of the AILAC - should have emphasized the importance of having a global binding agreement post 2020 in which not only the developed countries has settled rules and goals but also the developing ones according to the work done domestically. This last element is particularly important in order to contribute not only to addressing the global climate change crisis but also in supporting the sustainable development of each of the countries.
In the other hand, the decisions adopted in Warsaw in relation to technology transfer and REDD+ contribute and complement to the efforts done at the national level with the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) and National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA). Still, additional work remain after these decisions so it will be seen at the next UN climate conference whether further decisions can be reached on these issues in order to contribute to the main goal of the negotiations.
INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES
POLAND: a terrible presidency accompanied by unprecedented mobilizations for climate justice – by Michalina Golinczak
Bad COP: Poland, the second most air-polluted country in Europe, hosted “the dirtiest climate conference on record”. COP 19 was a failure of the Polish government in nearly every respect: beginning with the pre-COP being open to the business representatives for the first time in history; continuing with the corporate fossil fuel sponsorship, visa denial for Nigerian delegates, the parallel organization of the International Coal & Climate Summit, a very weak presidency; and ending with Marcin Korolec losing his job as Environment Minister during the talks.
Good COP: At the same time, Warsaw saw a huge mobilisation of people fighting for sustainable future and safe environment. On 16 November 2013 more than one thousand people – including many foreigners but with a group of Polish citizens also visible – marched through the city to campaign for ambitious climate action. Two days later a group of activists organized a protest in front of the Coal Summit with a giant inflatable lung, demanding a “healthy and clean future” without coal. And finally, on 21 November 2013, over 800 accredited representatives of NGOs and social movements walked out of the climate talks. Polish citizens and the international community showed their dissatisfaction with the current politics and pointed out the need of urgent action. The governments cannot ignore this massive pressure any more.
UKRAINE: safeguarding its own economic interest - by Olga Monchak
Ukraine came to COP19 with a clearly defined goal - to protect its state economic interests and secure advantageous terms for itself in the carbon trading under the second commitment period of Kyoto. In particular, Ukraine aimed to re-settle the reserve of carbon credits calculation, which, according to the “Doha amendment”, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan were obliged to buy in the beginning of each year of Kyoto-2 participation. As the terms of reserve calculations depend on the annual amount of CO2 emissions and since the energy strategy of Ukraine until 2030 is fossil-oriented, this question couldn’t be closed easily by Ukraine. The suspension of the association agreement with the EU raised the charges for Ukraine even more. As a result, the most important decisions for Ukraine in these negotiations were postponed until Bonn and Peru. In relation to the other key issues addressed by these negotiations Ukraine did not (or could not?) do anything really good or bad. The pledges of Ukraine are still low, in fact Ukraine is planning to rise it’s carbon emissions by 40% until 2030.
NEW ZEALAND: contributing little to these talks but losing even less - by David Tong
New Zealand brought little to the table in Warsaw, got little, but lost less. Our negotiators kept a low profile this year. We wanted a few key things out of Warsaw, with limited success on finance, Kyoto negotiations, and forestry rules and had little success. For example, we sought the next step on a new work program on agriculture – unsuccessfully.
On the roadmap to the 2015 deal, we got much of what we wanted. It looks more and more like the New Zealand proposal for “bounded flexibility” in the 2015 deal is likely to be where the deal falls in Paris, because it is a flawed compromise, not because of our advocacy.
It is hard to see what solace bounded flexibility will provide for our Pacific neighbours. One big win for the Pacific, however, is the establishment of the Warsaw Mechanism for Loss and Damage - against New Zealand opposition.
We got lucky, in some ways. Australia and Japan’s new stances let us continue muddling along with little ambition and no clear plan to deliver on our previous mitigation and finance pledges while escaping most scrutiny.
Continue here with the perspectives of our fellows from Asia and Africa…
Picture credit: iisd/ENB