Posts by: Sébastien Duyck
The first week of the June Bonn climate talks concluded with very mixed results, with some negotiations moving forward positively while others have been completely stalled. The next days will be crucial for a succesful outcome this year as there will be no additional session between the end of the week and the opening of the annual climate conference in Warsaw where decisions have to be made. To summarize the past six days of negotiations and to map expectations in relation to the coming few days, we have asked NGOs experts to give us brief introductions to the state of play of the discussions related to the issue that they are following most closely…
The striking lesson from this first week of negotiations is that the three negotiating tracks progress at very different paces. Mark Lutes (WWF) gives us a brief overview on where the negotiations stand in relation to each of the three tracks currently ongoing in Bonn.
The negotiations around finance will be an important key to the success of the discussions towards a 2015 global deal as the capacity of developed countries to deliver on their engagements has the potential to increase trust between developed and developing countries as well as to enable the latter to scale up their climate policies. Meera Ghani (CAN-Europe)
Adaptation is another important element of the negotiations towards the 2015 agreement, although countries have not yet clarified which role should this issue play in relation to the future package agreement. Sven Harmeling (GermanWatch) also emphasizes the negative impact of the agenda dispute in the SBI track on the negotiations related to “loss and damage“.
Many observers had highlighted the progress of discussions on equity as one of the major outcome of the previous negotiations round. Julie-Anne Richards (CAN-International) confirms that the past week built on this positive dynamics as countries further discussed the role of equity to define obligations under the future agreement.
Finally, Jan Kowalzig (Oxfam-International) emphasizes the upcoming steps for countries to increase ambition on mitigation actions in the short term. Mitigation action is certainly the corner stone of the negotiations under the Durban platform both in relation to both short term actions and post 2020 commitments.
We have interviewed five NGO experts to gather their views on where the negotiations stand after one week of negotiations in Bonn and where they would like to see progress.
Read post →“Бары дерутся, а у холопов чубы болят.”
When powerful people are quarrelling, it’s the commoners that suffer.
Just a week ago before the Bonn climate talks resumed, I highlighted here the opportunities at the UN climate talks for several discussions addressing the human impacts of climate change and climate policies. Alas, most of these discussions have not yet started as Russia opposed starting the work of the relevant negotiating track… The following paragraphs introduce the background of this dispute, the current state of play as well as the consequences on the talks.
What are we fighting for?
The negotiations between Russia and others has become so polarized that it is easy to loose sight of the substantive issue at stake: improving the process of decision making in the climate change talks.
In the final hours of Doha, Russia – as well as Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine – attempted to raise concerns related to the terms defining the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. In practice, this objection would have resulted in a further weakening of the environmental integrity of the protocol. Still, the adoption of the amendment to the Kyoto Protocol by consensus despite these four objections raises important procedural questions (I already discuss this matter in more depth in a previous post).
One should note that the definition of consensus is the subject of discussions in other UN processes. Just a month ago, the notion of consensus was also tested in the process leading to the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty. In this case, the formal objections of to Syria, Iran and North Korea were considered as not sufficient to prevent the reach of a consensus (see this post on duplibico for more details on these negotiations).
Down the rabbit hole
This session is far from being the first round of negotiations stalled by agenda fights. The intersessional session that took place in Bonn twelve months ago also witnessed very long delays due to procedural issues. Many insiders emphasized last year that the procedural discussions were important as they could provide a necessary common understanding on HOW to negotiate WHAT the final climate agreement of 2015 will look like (see this post for more background). However, the situation this year is quite different as delegates have spent a week discussing HOW can the negotiations tackle the issue of HOW to make decisions – reaching a level of abstraction totally at odd with the urgency to take climate action.
The discussion to accommodate the Russian proposal to include a new agenda item on decision-making has now reached a stalemate. While many countries are actually interested in discussing this particular issue, the vast majority of them opposes strongly to the idea of creating a precedent in enlarging the agenda.
The G77/China suggests discussing the issue proposed by Russia at this session but within an existing agenda item. Until a compromise is found between these two diverging views, there is no chance for parties to adopt the agenda. The G77/China has also proposed to move forward on the basis of the “provisional agenda”, thus trying to resolve the procedural issue in a side conversation while negotiators address each of the 18 other agenda items, a proposal also refused by Russia.
Implications for the negotiations
Russia has not only opposed the adoption of an agenda but also the possibility to move forward with other substantive discussions under the related body. Therefore, since six days, many important agenda items have been put on hold, such as mitigation, reconsidering the adequacy of the global goal or establishing a mechanism to deal with the irreparable impacts of climate change on local communities. Even if the body were to begin its work on Monday, the crowded agenda (containing 18 different agenda items) would mean that each issue would receive very little discussion time. The secretariat already indicated that this situation was expected to lead to a more condensed agenda during the upcoming Warsaw Conference, reducing the time available to discuss some of the issues that might be considered less crucial for the talks.
On the other hand, the inability of the SBI to move forward has resulted in parallel negotiating tracks to move forward with more energy. The Body for Scientific and Technological advice was able to make more progress than expected on issues such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation (REDD) and adaptation.
What will happen next week is not yet clear, as much is hanged at the capacity of the Russia (or perhaps rather of its lead negotiator) to accept to compromise. By insisting that its fancy be resolved exactly as it has proposed before anyone moves forward, the country is only making a little more urgent to find a solution to enable the international community to move forward even in the presence of a lone objection.
The negotiations between Russia and others has become so polarized that it is easy to loose sight of the substantive issue at stake: improving the process of decision making in the climate change talks. This blog post provides a little of background and highlight the consequences of this dispute on the talks.
Read post →“You will be evacuated next week.” The news to come through the crackling radio as a hammer blow late that evening, bringing relieve to the entire crew isolated some thousands miles of Moscow in the Polar solitude. Since the opening of the crack on the ice supporting the station, a feeling of anxiety seized all members of the expedition North-Pole 40. Since the installation of the floating research station on October 1st, the expedition has been left to its own devices without any shelter nor support available anywhere within days of navigation. The scientists now can look forward to the prospect of the being lifted out of their Arctic trap within the next two weeks before the crack finally reaches the location of their camp and the Arctic Ocean digests the remaining of their camp.
Still a feeling of resignation inhabits each of the members of the expedition. Since the first Soviet expeditions in the thirties, the North-Pole program involving floating research stations has been one of the most impressive and consistent project of Soviet and then Russian research, advancing science in perhaps the most hostile environment on Earth. In the past, the stations used to conduct their research for at least twelve consecutive months (North-Pole 22 remained a full decade on ice flows!). But already in 2010, the expedition needed premature evacuation as the sea ice melted around the station much earlier than anticipated. With a second emergency evacuation within only three years, the country will need to terminate the North-Pole research program in its current format, wrapping up one of the most adventurous legacy of Soviet research. The next generations of North-Pole research stations will need to be designed to float so as to remain on location even if the ice underneath disappears. A nostalgic feeling floats around the North Pole-40 crew, aware that an era has just came to an end due to the warming of the Arctic ocean.
Just as the 16-strong research crew spends its last two weeks on the ice packing for the arrival of Yamal, one of the massive Russian icebreakers capable of crashing its way through a thick layer of sea ice, another Russian team seems completely oblivion to the level of urgency of climate response. In Bonn, some four thousands kilometers further South; the Russian delegation continues to block relentlessly the opportunity for the climate talks to progress smoothly. For the fourth consecutive days, Russia disagreed today to any proposals put forward by other countries to accommodate the Russian perspective in a compromise acceptable for all.
Just yesterday, a session was organized at the Bonn climate talks to provide an opportunity for climate scientists to share the latest updates on climate science (see here for our report of the session). All the presentations delivered throughout the afternoon hinted consistently at the same conclusion – which the mother land of North-Pole 40 knows itself from first hand experience: very little time is left for strong decisions and actions if humanity is to maintain a reasonable chance of avoiding a severe escalation of climate impacts. Unfortunately, very few negotiators spent the time to attend this session and the politics of climate negotiations continue at their usual pace.
Today, Russia stand firm its ground and demonstrates an incredible stubbornness refusing to accept any compromise to at least move the important discussions expected in Bonn forward. Upset by the Qatari presidency of the COP18 in Doha last December (in a manner that many observer will described as certainly disrespectful and lacking discernment), Russia came to Bonn to express its outrage (read more on the background of the issue). Would his negotiator have been reasonable, Russia could have voiced the issue that many share with the dubious interpretation of the rules of procedures over the past few years and find a way to continue this important discussions while progressing in parallel on the many other important issues on the agenda. Unfortunately, the honorable Russian delegate refuses up to now to start any decision unless the hundred-ninety-something other countries have it exactly his way, wasting already twenty four hours of negotiating time and turning what could have been a reasonable concern into a pitiful exhibition of frustrated diplomatic gesturing.
Too bad if the issue on the agenda of this particular body includes several entry points to address social implications of climate change. And too bad for its sixteen scientists waiting on their own for an icebreaker to rescue them before the dark waters of the Arctic ocean engulf their base camp.
Photo credit: Responding To Climate Change
Too bad if the country just had to terminate its epic Arctic research program due to climate change, Russia continues to refuse any compromise to accommodate its procedural concerns.
Read post →From Inuit communities loosing their hunting grounds due to the loss of sea ice, to subsidence farmers evicted from their land due to large agrofuel project, one can no longer doubt of the implications of climate change (and climate policies) on the enjoyment of human rights.
Recognizing human rights implications of climate change
Up to now, the international community has taken only few concrete steps to address human rights implications of climate change. The Human Rights Council emphasized in 2009 that the adverse effects of climate change have a range of direct and indirect implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights and that the effects of climate change will be felt most acutely by those segments of the population that are already vulnerable owing to geography, gender, age, indigenous or minority status and disability. This statement was acknowledged in the climate change negotiations and the Cancun Agreements emphasized that parties should, in all climate change related actions, fully respect human rights.
The Human Rights Council also emphasized that the “full, effective and sustained implementation of the UNFCCC in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Convention is important in order to support national efforts for the realization of human rights implicated by climate change-related impacts.”
Until now, the climate change negotiations process has a rather low track record of considering and addressing satisfactorily the human rights considerations of climate actions and the lack thereof.
A three tiers approach to integrate international climate policy into the human rights framework.
Human rights considerations could prove useful at three levels of the climate negotiations: when defining the global long-term objective of this process, when sharing the effort required to achieve this objective, and when implementing concrete policies and actions on the ground.
1. Protecting human rights from climate change impacts
First of all, the need to guarantee human rights could offer a threshold on the basis of which the global objective of the negotiations could be determined. The text of the 1992 framework convention indeed only indicates that the final objective of the convention and any related instruments is to “avoid dangerous interference with the climate system”. Countries agreed in 2009 to interpret this reference as implying a 2 degrees limit for the increase of temperatures and to review this objective between 2013 and 2015. Scientists have however highlighted that such a target would already imply drastic consequences for the most vulnerable communities. The consequences for the human rights of these populations should be taken into consideration when assessing whether a 2 degrees warmer world is acceptable or whether to aim at a stringer objective. A mechanism should also be established to address impacts that are unavoidable.
2. Needs, vulnerabilities, discriminations, rights and the “fair shares” of mitigation efforts
Once countries agree to a common objective, they will need to understand how does this translate in terms of responsibility of and expectations on each individual country. The issue of the division of this global effort is the focus of much of the discussions ongoing to prepare the ground for the 2015 global agreement. The concept of equity has emerged as a key principle that could guide these discussions, with indicators being identified to identify the “fair share” of each country. Human rights, and related principles, could help inform this exercise in providing a reference on the basis of which the “fair share” of each country could be define in order to limit the total impact of mitigation on the exercise of human rights. In addition to defining the contribution expected from various countries, rights-based approaches could help us identify the most adequate mitigation opportunities considering their impacts within countries on the most vulnerable populations (for instance on the rights of indigenous peoples, minorities, women, migrants…).
3. Protecting human rights from the impacts of climate policies
Thirdly, human rights standards need to be fully considered in implementation policies so that climate mitigation and adaptation does not come at the cost of the infringement of the rights of local communities. Safeguards should ensure that all climate related policies are designed accordingly and legal mechanisms established to remedy to potential violations of these standards and safeguards. Some projects promoted under the UN carbon market (CDM) and in relation to the reduction of emissions from deforestation (REDD) have highlighted the risks associated to large climate related projects implemented in the absence of such instruments: evictions of local communities, threat to the life on local leaders (see here for a short article by Alyssa Johl highlighting a case study of such issues)…
Accountability at all level
And finally, it is important to recognize that the UN climate change regime does not constitute a distinct sphere of international law that would be isolated from human rights law. The obligations of all countries related to the protection of human rights apply also to the decisions that they adopt at the climate change negotiations and to the actions that they implement as a result. It is thus key that the bodies established under the framework convention remain accountable for the implications of their decisions on local communities while existing Human Rights bodies held countries accountable for their (lack of) implementation of climate policies.
A comprehensive approach to integrate human rights considerations through the climate change regime could enable countries to move forward in the negotiations on the basis of obligations and principles accepted by all. It would also prevent that the decisions adopted under the convention result in policies clashing with the rights of local communities and contested in domestic and international courts.
Photo Credit: World Bank Photo Collection, UNEP-Grid Arendal, CIMMYT and zoomion
A comprehensive approach to integrate human rights considerations through the climate change regime could enable countries to move forward in the negotiations on the basis of obligations and principles accepted by all…
Read post →Quatre semaines seulement après avoir conclu à Bonn une séance de négociations relativement positive, les représentants gouvernementaux et les ONGs sont de retour sur les rives du Rhin pour la deuxième et dernière réunion intermédiaire des négociations sur le climat. Au cours des 10 prochains jours, les négociations sur le climat viseront à préparer le terrain pour la conférence annuelle sur le climat organisée en Novembre à Varsovie.
Même si l’on ne s’attend pas à ce que cette séance débouche sur l’adoption de nombreuses décisions, les deux prochaines semaines ont le potentiel de jouer un rôle charnière en s’appuyant sur la dynamique positive de la réunion précédente pour préparer des décisions concrètes à adopter lors de la conférence de Varsovie.
L’ordre du jour des discussions pourrait en effet permettre aux négociateurs de discuter de deux questions fondamentales qui devraient être en permanence au cœur de ces négociations: (1) les conséquences sociales et humaines de ce processus de négociation ainsi que (2) les opportunités concrètes pour renforcer la coopération mondiale autour des mesures d’atténuation.
1. Dans quelle mesure les négociations onusiennes sur le climat répondent-elles aux les besoins des communautés les plus vulnérables?
Pour une fois, les implications sociales des politiques climatiques mondiales seront abordées à plusieurs reprises lors de cette réunion.
- L’équité comme principe fondamental?
Le mois dernier, les négociateurs ont débattu pour la première fois sur la possibilité d’utiliser le concept d’équité pour guider le partage entre pays des efforts attendus pour lutter contre le changement climatique. Alors que toute référence à ce concept aboutissait jusqu’à maintenant à de fortes tensions dans les négociations, de nombreux pays semblent maintenant avoir compris que ce principe pourrait fournir une référence primordiale afin de comparer les actions proposées par chacun des pays. L’UE a par exemple suggéré la semaine dernière que les objectifs nationaux d’atténuation puissent être évalués sur la base d’indicateurs objectifs afin de déterminer dans quelle mesure ces objectifs couvrent la «juste part» de la responsabilité du pays en question et, le cas échéant, de définir comment cet objectif national devrait être rehaussé. Les deux prochaines semaines démontreront si les gouvernements sont réellement intéressés par l’utilisation de ce principe pour favoriser une meilleure coopération au niveau international.
- Quelle est l’ampleur des conséquences du changement climatique que nous sommes prêts à tolérer?
Cette séance de négociation va également lancer une nouvelle discussion pour examiner l’objectif de l’augmentation maximale de la température mondiale. La Convention Climat de l’ONU suggère seulement que les gouvernements doivent « empêcher toute perturbation dangereuse du système climatique » sans préciser sur ce que cela signifie dans la pratique. Il ya trois ans et demi, les chefs d’Etats et de gouvernements présent lors du sommet de Copenhague avaient identifié une augmentation des températures de deux degrés comme étant la limite à ne pas franchir, et ce malgré que de nombreux rapports scientifiques aient souligné qu’un tel seuil induirait des conséquences drastiques sur les pays et les communautés les plus vulnérables. Les négociateurs avaient par ailleurs aussi accepté l’idée d’une discussion future pour revoir la pertinence de cet objectif.
Le lancement de cet examen commence donc cette semaine à Bonn et devrait continuer jusqu’en 2015. Un rehaussement de l’objectif global à long terme n’entraînerait pas automatiquement l’augmentation de l’ampleur des politiques d’atténuation. Mais les discussions qui accompagneront cet examen offrent une occasion de discuter de l’étendue des impacts du changement climatique que les gouvernements sont prêts à accepter comme tolérable.
- Quel soutien la communauté internationale peut-elle apporter aux communautés les plus touchées?
En 2010, les négociations ont reconnu le fait que, en raison de l’absence de politiques d’atténuation suffisamment ambitieuses, de nombreuses communautés sont d’ores et déjà confrontées à des impacts climatiques sévères contre lesquelles les politiques d’adaptation ne sont plus en mesure d’offrir de protection satisfaisante. La Conférence de Cancun sur le climat a donc décidé d’établir un mécanisme global afin de compenser les « pertes et dommages» résultant à la fois de catastrophes naturelles liées au changement climatique ou d’évènements à évolution lente (comme l’élévation du niveau des mers). Les négociateurs devraient conclure cette année les discussions sur la manière d’opérationnaliser ce mécanisme afin de s’assurer qu’il puisse répondre aux besoins des communautés les plus affectées.
- Comment réguler plus strictement les marchés du carbone afin que les projets qu’il génèrent n’entrent pas en conflit avec les droits des communautés locales?
Les gouvernements ont toujours été extrêmement divisés sur le rôle des marchés du carbone dans la politique climatique internationale et il est peu probable que cette situation change au cours des prochains mois. Certains exemples dramatiques ont prouvé dans le passé que – à moins d’être soigneusement réglementés – les marchés du carbone pouvaient conduire au développement de projets industriels et agricoles enfreignant les droits des communautés locales. À Bonn, ce sujet sera débattu lors de la réforme des règles appliquées au marché du carbone international. Indépendamment de la discussion visant à définir si les marchés du carbone doivent servir de base au futur accord sur le climat attendu en 2015, il est urgent de s’assurer que les mécanismes déjà en place ne fournissent pas d’incitations à des projets ne respectant pas les principes fondamentaux sur lesquels repose l’ONU.
2. Les négociations sur le climat porteront-elles sur des solutions pratiques pour limiter les émissions de gazes à effet de serre ?
Compte tenu de l’écart alarmant entre les réductions d’émissions recommandées par les scientifiques et les politiques d’atténuation actuellement mises en œuvre, il est urgent que les gouvernements mettent en place à court terme de nouvelles politiques de réduction des émissions. Un rapport du PNUE a récemment évalué le potentiel de plusieurs mesures permettant de réduire les émissions tout en générant des co-bénéfices environnementaux, sanitaires, économiques et sociaux:
- Le déploiement des énergies renouvelables et des politiques d’efficacité énergétique,
- L’adoption de politiques ciblant les polluants contribuant au changement climatique et qui avaient été jusqu’à présent ignorés par le protocole de Kyoto,
- La contribution de tous les secteurs économiques à l’effort global de lutte contre le dérèglement climatique, y compris l’agriculture, l’industrie forestière et le transport international,
- La réforme des subventions aux combustibles fossiles afin de mettre un terme à l’utilisation de l’argent des contribuables pour soutenir des industries polluantes.
Les négociations sur le climat sont souvent critiquées pour être trop abstraites et déconnectées de la réalité. L’ordre du jour de la réunion de Bonn offre néanmoins plusieurs opportunités de redonner une pertinence à ces discussions en abordant les questions des conséquences sociales des politiques climatiques (ou de l’insuffisance de celui-ci) et du rôle du processus onusien dans la mise en œuvre de mesures concrètes d’atténuation.
Il est encore trop tôt pour savoir si les négociateurs sur le climat saisiront l’opportunité qui leur est offerte de faire avancer ces discussions. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que la conférence mondiale sur le climat prévu au Bourget en Novembre 2015 a peu de chances d’aboutir à l’accord international qui y est attendu si les négociations continuent sur le même rythme qu’au cours des années précédentes.
Crédit photos: rlanvin, A.Currell and UNEP-Grid Arendal
About the author
Passionate environmental advocate, PhD student (Human Rights and Environmental Governance). Following particularly UNFCCC, UNEP and Rio+20 processes
