A storm in Tuvalu, real needs for "loss and damage"

The UNFCCC delegates and a few of observers have had a long night. The closing plenaries of the two subsidiary bodies for the implementation (SBI) and for the scientific and technical advice (SBSTA) started late in the afternoon and finished early in the morning. Especially SBI, where three major issues had to be discussed: civil society participation, loss and damage and the budget of the UNFCCC (for 2012 and 2013). After a long session that started at 17:30 to finish at 2 in the morning, only two of these main points were discussed: the civil society participation and loss and damage.

The resolved two topics have been intensively discussed by the parties and especially the item concerning loss and damage. Loss and damage is a kind of insurance system against/for? climate related natural disasters occurring in the developing countries. For example, in the case of the last floods in Pakistan, this system could have been activated to meet the urgent needs of the populations displaced or affected. Saudi Arabia wanted to include a reference to response
measure (a system to allocate money to the oil countries for the loss of revenues due to the decrease in fossil fuels consumption). All the countries, except Qatar (who hopes to host the next COP in 2012) refused on the grounds that response measures is related to mitigation and not adaptation. After a TINY modification of the text at 2am this morning, the chair, Robert Owen-Jones adjourned the meeting.

The other issue discussed was the enhancement of the civil society participation in the negotiations. As usual, Saudi Arabia, and more exceptionally Antigua and Barbuda tried to undermine the participation capacity of the civil society whereas all the other groups and countries wanted to make the UN process more transparent and open. The
draft decision was amended and our ability to participate reduced, we will see next year how this new decision plays in the negotiations. As of Friday morning, the discussion on budget for the UNFCCC still remained.

At 12:30am, the chair is going to resume the SBI session and the delegates are now going to discuss the budget of the UNFCCC. Through the Cancun agreements, the parties gave more work to the Secretariat for the organisation of the workshop, the redaction of the technical papers… In consequence, the UNFCCC had to increase its budget by 15%
to meet all its objectives, money that most of the developed countries are not really keen to provide.

The process may block again. Money, commitment, mitigation, some countries always have a good reasons to stop the process from moving forward!

Photo @UKYCC

In the maelstrom of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen and Cancun, developed countries agreed on transferring money to developing countries in order to help them adapt to climate change. However, the negotiations unfortunately happened during a difficult period for mobilizing “public resources”; several countries had to break their piggy banks just to save their economies from collapse. Crunched for resources, developed countries argued that the money needed for adaptation could not come from public sources alone, funds would need to come from “innovative sources”.

Among these innovative sources proposed by the Advisory Group on Finance (LINK) before Cancun, an old idea! Everyday, billions and billions of dollars are exchanged on the financial markets. Most of these transactions are not taxed and go freely from a country to another one, from one bank to another – without control. Implementing a tax on these transactions, even at a really small scale (0.05% in one proposal) would help to resolve two major issues of our century: adaptation and more transparency in financial transactions.

The Robin Hood tax campaign in the UK, for example, even at such low levels, could generate more than $32 billion per year on UK transactions alone. In Copenhagen and in Cancun, the industrialised countries agreed to come up with $100 billion per year by 2020 to support developing countries’ adaptation and mitigation efforts. Considering that even $100 Billion annually won’t be sufficient (the World Bank – claims that at least $75 billion annually is necessary for adaptation, alone) it is urgent and necessary to develop and implement this innovative source as a new levy for adaptation and mitigation in the developing world.

Furthermore, this tax has an incredible positive side effects. In order to tax these financial transactions, governments will need more clarity and transparency on the exchanges in these markets. This could help right a financial system that is totally opaque and impenetrable. The current lack of transparency is one of the reasons the last financial crisis took such a massive toll on Western government’s coffers (and not only Western).

What makes me happy in this debate is the position of France (my country). Since the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, France has strongly advocated for an international transaction tax. When it was proposed at the G8, prior to the Copenhagen Conference, the idea saw support from many developed countries, including the UK and Germany, but was strongly rejected by the United States of America.  In a session at the Climate negotiations today, a NGO representative wanted to hear the (American) chair of the LCA track, Daniel A. Reifsnyder, gave his view on whether or not such a tax could be adopted in the near term. He answered by: “I don’t see it adopted soon”. The American opposition has not changed yet.

At a level of only 0.05%, this tax will generate enough money to cover the adaptation and mitigation needs of the developing countries without having any side effects on the economics or households around the world.

One question still remains in my mind: when do we start?

Closing the mitigation gap

Several times in the recent history of the climate negotiations, developed and developing countries agreed on keeping the increase of the global average temperature below 2°C. However, following what the countries pledged in Copenhagen in 2009 and after in Cancun in 2010, the emission reduction pledges will not be enough to meet this 2°C goal. Several gaps must be filled if we do not want them to become an abyss of uncontrollable human and environmental consequences. The European Union is calling it the “ambition gap” and  NGOs in the Climate Action Network call it the “gigatonne gap”.  In order to address the gap, some actions must be urgently taken: increase emission reduction pledges of the developed and developing countries and close loopholes in accounting.

Increasing emission reduction pledges: in 2007, the IPCC stated that if we want to keep the increase of the global temperature below 2°C, developed countries have to reduce their emissions between 25 and 40% by 2020 (relative to 1990 levels). However, the current voluntary commitments of the developed countries stand far from this range – between 12 – 19% according to a recent report from WRI.

Developing countries can also share the international burden; the IPCC recommends they deviate their emissions by 15 to 20% from what is being called their Business as Usual (BAU) scenario. However, during a presentation given by the AOSIS group yesterday, it seems that the current pledges of BAU deviation for developing countries (and especially the biggest emitters) is not sufficient. Moreover, at the beginning of the session, Oxfam International released a study explaining that developing countries carry 60% of the current mitigation burden while the developed countries barely share 40% of the global goal (LINK).

The responsibility truly taken by the developed countries is consequently extremely low and weak. They fail at fully taking into consideration the principle of common but DIFFERENTIATED responsibility.  Loopholes plague mitigation rules, actually canceling out the already inadequate domestic/national efforts pledged. Poor accounting rules in LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Changed in Forestry), for instance, could permit Annex 1 countries to hide important quantity of GHG.

What’s called “hot air” is another controversial issue, this only concerns the ex-USSR countries for which emissions totally dropped after 1991 and the collapse of the USSR. The rules being defined by the year 1990, these countries can consequently keep increasing their GHG emissions and even sell a lot of carbon credits on the market without having to make any domestic efforts of mitigation.

In 2010, different research institutes and even UN bodies warned the world about the consequences of this gap. According to UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), if this gap of 5 to 9 gigatonnes of CO2eq is not addressed quickly (LINK to the report) we can expect an increase of the global temperature between 2 to 5°C by the end of the century.

It is now a matter of urgency that developed and developing countries reconsider their emission targets and close the existing loopholes.

First Place Fossil is awarded to Japan. It is the three-month anniversary since the tragic earthquake and the Fukushima nuclear accident and today Japan reiterated their position to include all technologies in CDM, which includes nuclear energy. Just when Japanese people initiated events to show solidarity and to demonstrate against nuclear energy in more than 100 areas all over Japan, it is hard to understand their position. Did they do not have the time to reflect their position based on this tragic experience? We urge Japan to listen to their own people and come up with a new position right away. Japan can actually lead the discussion and persuade others to exclude nuclear from the CDM!

The second placed fossil goes to ….well we aren’t exactly sure. Flying in the face of enhanced NGO participation, an important focus of this session, and the mantra of transparency, ‘an unknown Party or group of Parties’ approached the Chair to block the valiant efforts of Ambassador De Alba to open the LCA informal on legal issues on Friday afternoon.  Not only do we need fair, ambitious and legally binding efforts to save our dear planet, those discussions should take place in an open and transparent manner.  Just as we have supported the call for Parties not intending to commit to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to come clean with their intentions, we expect the same level of transparency with respect to legally binding intentions under the LCA – and that starts with opening the informal to observers.  For your non-transparent ways, this Party or group of Parties gets an Anonymous Fossil.

Tsunami warning

In the last night of climate talks in Cancun, parties to the UNFCCC decided to set up workshops over the course of 2011 to better appreciate the implementation of the Convention. One of those workshops, under the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) track, focused on mitigation targets of the developed countries and took place today.

As defined in 1992, the objective of the UNFCCC is to find an agreement that could limit the dangerous impacts of climate change on humankind. Limiting this risk means reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases responsible of this change. In the UNFCCC process, it is called “mitigation”.

This morning’s workshop focused on the mitigation efforts of the developed countries, and I was able to catch presentations by Canada, the European Union (EU), Switzerland and the Alliance of the Small Island States (AOSIS).

Canada came first, explaining their total committment to limiting the dangerous impacts of climate change, notably by investing 6 billions of dollars at the federal level in ‘carbon capture and storage’ and biofuels. Unfortunately, those two technologies have not proved their environmental efficiency.  Canada then recalled their commitment to reduce emissions 17% by 2020, (with 2005 as a reference year).  With climate change worsening by every month without action, this commitment is actually less ambitious than their original Kyoto commitment from 1997. In terms of efforts…  they can – for sure – make it much better!

After Canada, the European Union presented their mitigation plans. They look like the best in class – unfortunately it’s a class of dunces. The EU’s efforts could be improved in ambition (notably by committing to 30% by 2020 instead of 20%, which they’ve indicated is possible).  At the moment, even not doing as much as they’ve signalled they could, the EU’s commitment as a block makes them a leader among developed country’s in mitigation.

Then Switzerland talked. They have the same mitigation objective as the EU, -20% by 2020. In the talks, their position usually follows the European Union one. But instead of making the efforts at the national level by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels (for heating, transportation, industry and others) they decided to off-set 80% of this reduction. In other words, their efforts will be extremely low and weak compared to what they could have done if they had decided to actually reduce their emissions domestically. For a country that sees itself as a leader, the details are disappointing.

The last presenter was the Federated States of Micronesia on behalf of the Alliance Of Small Island States (AOSIS). Her presentation had a number of slides, but it was a powerful visualization in her first slide held my attention. She showed a graph comparing global emissions to sea level rise. Over the last twenty years, the upward-curving line plotting emissions data is matched with an upward-curving line plotting sea level rise.

We know that several island States like Micronesia have large populations on deltas and coastal zones, living in extremely low-lying areas.  I can’t help but wonder if some developed countries, by their lack of seriousness and political will, are not playing with the number of people who will have to flee in the next decades.

Brackets!

Today, the delegates are going to leave Bonn and not return until June next year (for a new session of SBI and SBSTA), but one day still remains. The last day of negotiations is basically always the same, in the morning, the delegates use to finalize the documents they were working on during the week and in the afternoon they meet in plenary session to vote and express some concerns or comments.

However, and before this traditional last day of negotiations, the delegates still have a lot of work and still have a lot to negotiate. And since the talks in one of the working group (LCA) are closed to observers, we do not really know what the outcome of this week is going to be. Furthermore, this morning, the chair of this contact group was really vague and unclear when she met the civil society. Such a blurry situation!

The second working group chaired by John Ashe is still open to observers and the session we attended yesterday afternoon was just unbelievable. During the first hour, the delegates were negotiating on the substance of the draft text, but after this first hour, the rhythm of the talks totally changed, and a bracket war started.

At the beginning, it was a really intense discussion between the European Union and Brazil about an option that EU would like to get rid of in the text.  After that, all the parties started to add brackets everywhere they could. European Union even asked to put asterisks into brackets, asterisks referring to the “economy in transition” status of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Of course and in order to preserve their interests protected by this status, the lead negotiator of the Russian federation came in the room to remind the parties of this importance of the derogatory status for these three countries. Straight after, the funniest statement was given by the delegate of New Zealand (actually, I am not sure that it was New Zealand…) who asked the chair to add “curly brackets” instead of “brackets”. Of course, some of them raised the question of the “curly bracket” and asked for more explanations, that nobody could really give!

Finally and in order to simplify the talks, the delegate of Saudi Arabia not surprisingly proposed to put a bracket before the title and a second one in the end of text. It is what we could call Saudi pragmatism!

We don't have to queue anymore, but we are still not in!

On Monday, everyone of us in the Maritim heard the Head of the US delegation deliver a really strong statement on the importance of civil society participation in these negotiations. With a few strong words, he reminded parties why NGOs have to be kept in this process.

Firstly, civil society representatives are actually more than just observers of the talks. By helping the most vulnerable countries and the smaller delegations, our participation contributes to make these talks fairer and more balanced, between rich and poor, developed and developing, tiny and huge delegations. This role played by civil society ensures more equity.

Secondly, civil society (if it is useful to remind you of this) represents the citizens. Wherever they come from, whatever they think about climate change, civil society organisations represent the diversity of citizens from around the world.

However, since Tuesday this crucial role of NGOs seems to have been forgotten by the parties. Since you delegates decided to draft the texts, civil society and NGOs have been kicked out of the room. Of course, we do understand that this process of negotiations needs some calm and secrecy to work, but we also have some concerns about the total lack of transparency in these negotiations.

Furthermore, by closing these doors you also send such a negative message to the 6 billion humans whose lives depend on the decisions you are taking behind these doors. Soon, hopefully really soon, humankind will have to implement what you are thinking and writing herein. Then how will we change this world that needs to be changed if nobody has understood you. By opening the doors, you not only let the eyes and the ears of billions of people coming in to understand you, you mainly let us prepare with you a safer future.

Delegates, it is not too late to make civil society inclusiveness and transparency two really core principles of the UNFCCC negotiations. Even if civil society looks at you, even if we sometimes criticize you, and even if we sometimes disagree with you, we are all here to make our common future safer and to preserve this world for the next generations.

Delegates, let’s open the doors!

Parties Only and NGOs ... out!

No comment required!

Today, just two meetings are open, a first one this morning on LULUCF and a second one this afternoon on Annex I parties’ emissions reductions. Such a busy day! And we NGOs are just… kicked out of the really important meetings.

When I came to Bonn on Sunday, I still believed that United Nations are a model of transparency!

Margaret, the LCA Chair

In the article I wrote yesterday, I gave a quick summary of the ongoing negotiations in Bonn. After two days of discussions, the image of these talks is now clearer. After the really intense KP plenary session of Monday morning, the delegates participated in a workshop about mitigation targets, and the different aspects of the negotiations on emission reductions. Following what has been said today by the Chinese delegates, this workshop was really helpful and useful to the negotiations. But let’s be honest, this workshop was really terribly technical…

In the other working group (AWG-LCA) a major event happened in the evening when some of the delegates were having fun at the traditional opening ceremony. The Russian delegation decided to walk out of the negotiations because the proposal of spin off groups made by the chair of the group was not clear enough. In other words, they asked the secretariat to submit a real document to the negotiators in order to explain how and when they are going to work on the different topics. This was finally resolved this morning when Margaret took the floor and she invited the delegates to read the schedule of the next four days. After quick and clear discussions the delegates agreed on the schedule and started working…. on Tuesday, one day later…

As they maybe thought that the next drafting sessions were going to be really rough and that the parties were going to discuss a lot, they decided to kick NGOs and observers out of the sessions. Such a pity. I now always have this feeling that when the negotiations are really interesting the delegates decide to restrict the access to the talks. One of the reasons why they do not want to open to doors to observers it is also because some countries “play” a role in the open negotiations and sometimes in the closed discussions they can accept compromises that are not always the position they were proudly defending.

Even if we can see some progress in these negotiations here in Bonn- they have started drafting a text, they have decided to discuss the really important issues (such as the gap between the two commitment periods) – the process is still so slow. From now, there are just four weeks left before Cancun, and if we carry on working at this rhythm, it is really not sure that we will get a consolidated text. The spectre of Copenhagen is still in everybody’s mind and a lot of delegates understand that we are not negotiating fast enough.

However, some parties can take advantage of this slowness, for example Japan which said yesterday that its emission reductions targets were not for the Kyoto Protocol. China and some other developing countries highlighted this point several times today.

Are we just negotiating slowly, or are we trying to kill the Kyoto Protocol? That is the question.

Thanks @Anna Collins for correcting this article.

New steps in Bonn

It is just 2 months since the June session of the unfccc, after two weeks of negotiations, the delegates left Germany with much disagreement over the new text. For the developing countries, the text written by the Chair of LCA was not balanced enough, and for some developed countries especially for the USA, the text did not reflect enough the Copenhagen Accord.

At the end of the june meeting, the Chair, Margaret, had to write a new text. This new text was issued in July, and is going to be discussed during this new session, this one-week session.

The one-week sessions are definitely not my favourite ones. These sessions have always been disappointing since I began following the  negotiations. Last year, in August, in Bonn, the negotiations were just on procedures and were blocked for a week. In November, in Barcelona, African countries walked out and the talks were blocked for one day! These one-week sessions are really scary!

However the agenda of this week is really heavy. Considering the negotiations of the next commitment period, the parties will have to discuss numbers and LULUCF. Numbers mean by how much and how the Annex I countries are going to reduce their domestic emissions. LULUCF is the mechanism that takes into account the emissions and the capture of CO2 due to carbon sinks of the Annex I countries, such as forests or wetlands.  One of the big points that will be also discussed here concerns this document /10 dealing with the solutions to avoid a gap between the first and the subsequent commitment period. Really legal and sometimes boring things, but the future of the Protocol and of the commitments that the Annex I countries endorsed in 1997 are at stake!

The LCA plenary has just started and then we will know quite soon what the agenda of this week will be. But unfortunately and until tomorrow afternoon, I am the only one tracker in Bonn. Anna from the UK is only arriving tomorrow, after her arrival, it will be easier to follow everything and to tweet-blog-report on the plenary and on the talks.

So let’s hope that these new steps in Bonn will the steps forward we need in the negotiations!

Thanks to Anna for correcting this blog.