The past week of negotiations has been fraught with political baggage. Meeting for the first time since Cancun, at the first in a series of intercessional meetings for this year, negotiators have spent most of their time thus far trying to agree on an agenda, nevermind any actual negotiating. The week is almost over and they’ve yet to begin the task of beginning to operationalize the Cancun agreements, which is what they’re in Bangkok to do.

Early in the week, workshops around mitigation highlighted some of the key issues, including the inadequate emission reduction pledges of developed countries, the often ambitious actions of developing countries and technology mechanisms required for mitigation.

While these workshops managed to highlight a few fairly obvious issues, one such being that current emission reduction pledges bring us nowhere near the acknowledged 2 degree limit, or the even lower required-by-science targets to avoid runaway climate change, the stalemate around the agenda reminds me again of how out-of-touch this process is with its purpose. After all, setting aside the rights of the planet, biodiversity and other species, climate change negotiations are ultimately about the survival of people.

So perhaps the time is right to remind negotiators who they’re negotiating for, and what better way than to introduce the ‘People’s COP’ planned for Durban later in the year.

South African government has made it clear that COP17 will represent people, particularly those most vulnerable to climate change – the people of Africa. Perhaps a COP that speaks to African issues and priorities will put a face the negotiations that will pull parties out of their political agendas and towards a climate treaty that achieves the right thing.

Speaking at a meeting between the South African and Mexican ambassadors this week, the South African ambassador explained South Africa’s plans for an inclusive and transparent COP that will be accessible to civil society. He went so far as to ask, metaphorically speaking, that civil society pull government up by the bootstraps if they show signs of failing to deliver this.

The ambassadors expressed their ambition to bring about closer relationships with civil society, the presidencies and the parties before and after UNFCCC meetings this year.

Meanwhile, the South Africans and Mexicans are working closely together to bring about a suitable outcome in Durban. The parties have just come out of intense bilaterals in Mexico around information sharing from high political-level information to logistics and the two countries plan to intensify their relationship this year to ensure consistency in the negotiations.

The ambassadors expressed the need to create a balance between the implementation of what was achieved in Cancun as well as pending issues.

South Africa intends to focus on finance and adaptation, as well as the major political issue of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Finance in particular is a key focus area that the transitional committee intends to move forward. To this end, South Africa has called in the talent of its ‘Top Gun’, Minister Trevor Manuel, to make sure we get the kinds of solutions we need.

In the meantime, let’s hope that negotiators can use this time in the run-up to Durban more effectively than they have in Bangkok.

And reach agreement they did – eventually.

To me it seems as if the successes achieved at this COP have all happened in the past 36 hours. Until Wednesday, delegates seemed to be merely stating and restating their country positions. This seems to have shifted in the past few days culminating in stock-taking sessions on the release of the latest revised Kyoto Protocol and Long-term cooperative action plan texts. The outcome has been surprisingly positive, and, while not a solution, we have a relatively good start.

Today’s informal stock-taking sessions were supposed to begin at eight thirty this morning, but only kicked off after half nine this evening.

Remarkably, most countries in the informal stock-taking sessions showed an unusual willingness to accept the draft texts. I suspect a certain desire to get to sleep as the key factor inspiring their enthusiasm, but perhaps that’s my cynicism talking.

In response to loud applause from the audience, delegates expressed their acceptance of the text as a building block on which to work in the year ahead. The audience was very appreciative of the many references to compromise, diplomacy, transparency and hard work of the Mexican government in managing this COP. Mostly, however, they applauded delegates who expressed a desire to keep it short and let people get to bed as soon as possible.

Unprecedented as it is, we have indeed seen some success at COP16, and for that I am hopeful. It may not be quite what we were hoping for, but we do have two texts that most countries feel able to live with as a start. Statements of acceptance came from the US and the EU to the least-developed countries, energy-intensive China, oil-loving Saudi Arabia and the rapidly-sinking Maldives.

All acknowledged that the deal was one of great compromise and one that had a significant way to go before it could be considered perfect. Participants were reminded of Ban Ki-Moon’s comment that the perfect should not be allowed to get in the way of the good.

Most important, however, was the faith that was restored in the negotiating process, which many feared would collapse entirely, threatening any chance of a future climate deal. COP16 has renewed the sense that a global climate change deal is possible.
Early in the first week of these negotiations, South Africa’s lead negotiator Alf Wills pointed out to me that a good climate deal is one where no one walks away happy. With a little bit of hope, a lot of hard work and great deal of deliberation, 16 years after the first convening of a COP, we may, possibly, be on the path to a good climate deal.

-

Audience members share translator during informal plenary in Cancun

Country delegations strategise while waiting for the latest text to be released

Putting their heads together - delegates discussing the latest text?

For many the time to talk has past (pic by Gary Braasch)

Tensions are running high in Cancun tonight. Delegates and observers from all over the world have spent two weeks wondering if Cancun will strike the necessary balance towards a climate change deal.
No one had great expectations of Cancun to begin with, but they all hoped that the minimum we would come away with would be agreement on the need for a fair, ambitious and balanced package.

We hoped for meaningful decisions under the two key negotiating tracks, namely the Kyoto Protocol and the Long-term Cooperative Action plan. We needed to establish frameworks for how to tackle adaptation, forestry issues, finance, mitigation, transparency and technology in a way that would meaningfully contribute to a legally binding, international agreement on how to respond to climate change. We also needed decisions under the two negotiating tracks on how to continue the negotiating process into the future. We needed a timeline and a workplan, commitment to a second period under the Kyoto Protocol, a legally-binding agreement under the convention, ways to deal with the fact that current pledges to reduce emissions are not enough to keep global warming under two degrees, and a revision of existing pledges based on the latest findings of the scientific community.

Unfortunately, as the last day of the COP draws nearer, parties are far from any kind of meaningful agreement. Rumour has it that some small steps will be made during the night as delegates and ministers meet to try and broker a deal – perhaps some countries will make commitments towards the adaptation fund, perhaps others will agree to a bit more transparency in reporting and keeping track of their greenhouse gas emissions. Given the seriousness of the problem, I find this woefully inadequate.

COP Blues have set in. Delegates seem frustrated and NGO observers have anxiety and disappointment etched into their faces. They all know that the outcomes of the negotiations will not be enough to call the negotiations a success. I for one, feel the same way.

Sitting in the plenary today, I listened to ministers of different countries speak. Instead of just hearing what that they were saying with one ear, while manically trying to blog and tweet at the same time, I shut down my laptop, put away my notebook and really listened.

One after another, after another stood up and spoke about climate change and the need to reach global agreement. Most of the speakers represented African countries or small island nations, and each of them had a similar story to tell. Each of them came to this conference as a leader of their respective nations, with the hopes of their citizens resting on their shoulders. In these countries climate change is not a myth. It is not a number to be avoided or a future threat. Instead, it is a very visible, very tangible and immediate problem.

Across Africa, increasingly unpredictable rains have meant the loss of crops and have threatened food security. In the small island nations, sea levels have already risen significantly, homes are vanishing under the water, decreasing land mass and polluting formerly fresh water systems with salt, thus making what little arable land there was, useless for agriculture.

Ministers spoke emotionally about the problems facing their already stressed nations and made heartfelt pleas to the international communities to help them to save their countries. They expressed their urgency, the need of their people for a fair agreement that would help them deal with the fact that in ten years time, many of these small islands will not be a part of the climate change negotiations – they won’t be involved because their countries will be uninhabitable.

Some managed to express their desperation, others just seemed resigned to the fact that the international community would be unlikely to deliver anything at all. After all, they have been asking for the same things for over a decade and a half to no avail.

I wondered how it was possible for wealthier, and therefore more climate resilient, countries in the room to see the suffering in a person’s eyes and not respond? Developed countries simply do not see or are not listening. A representative from Samoa asked the delegates if we were all simply callous that we could sit back and what a manageable humanitarian disaster unfold.

What amazed me even more, however, was that each of these country representatives stood up, told their stories, asked for action and then listed what their small, poor or both countries were already doing to limit climate change.

They know that their actions alone will have no effect on their countries. While the sinking Maldives goes carbon neutral by 2020 and war-torn and poverty-stricken countreis like Sierre Leon and Somalia promulgate their own climate change policy strategies, those who have the real power to do something about this are squabbling over power. Despite the efforts being made by the poorest countries with the most to lose, those in the position to resolve this problem, namely, the US, Japan, Canada, the EU, Australia and a host of other fortunate countries, fail to act in a meaningful way. For all humanity’s progress, technology, cultural advancement and democratic process, we still don’t listen to each other. Perhaps we simply don’t want to…

Watch this space.

Pick up your compass and lead the way to a low-carbon economy

Certain power producers have decided not to wait for an international agreement to start tackling climate change. South African power producer Eskom, together with similar companies in Japan, China and the US, are working together to find ways to lower emissions in their respective countries through their own actions.

Internationally, the energy sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and subsequently, increased average global temperatures and climate change.

In recognition of this, Eskom and its partner organisations intend to work together over the next year, so as to present their plans to reduce emissions from power production at the next Conference of the Parties (COP), in Durban.

Meanwhile, in the face of much anti-coal lobbying and the recognition that burning fossil fuels simply isn’t sustainable, Eskom is planning to reform itself into a renewable energy company in the long term. The company hopes to focus particularly on solar power and is already in the process of debating various technology options.

This does not, unfortunately, mean much for South Africa’s integrated resource plan (IRP) which is currently in the planning phase and is due for promulgation in February. Eskom is proud that 16% of South Africa’s energy needs will come from renewable energy technology by 2030, but this falls far short of what the country is capable of.

Scenarios from non-profit organisations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (http://www.wwf.org.za/media_room/news/?3021/WWF-report-calls-for-50-renewable-energy-by-2030) and Greenpeace ( http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/energyrevolution/), demonstrate that substantially more renewable energy is possible in South Africa than is currently being included in the country’s long-term energy plan.

Another issue of concern is the South African government’s version of ‘green’ energy, which seems to include numerous, large nuclear power stations. While nuclear power is better than burning coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, it’s by no means clean or appropriate for South Africa. Electricity from nuclear comes with a number of realistic and practical burdens.

It’s too expensive – Nuclear power stations and technology comes with an extremely burdensome price tag. It’s  a bit like buying a mink toupe that requires careful maintenance and may be potentially embarrassing, instead of taking the right vitamins and supplements to get your hair to grow back naturally.

It’s too slow – South Africa needs power faster than we can build nuclear power stations. Internationally, there is a lengthy wait for the required components. It would take too long to meet our energy needs.

It’s dirty – while nuclear is cleaner than burning coal, the process still produces extremely aggressive waste – the kind that causes nasty abnormalities and cancer. This is not an exaggeration. Marie Curie’s notebooks and even her cookbook are stored in a lead-lined container because they are so dangerously radioactive, they pose a risk to the health of the reader.

While the waste produced from nuclear energy production takes up relatively little space and can be contained, it unfortunately remains radioactive for thousands of years. Maintaining whatever method we’ve created for storage of is not a burden we can entrust or burden future generations with. We have no idea whether or not conditions in the future will be such that our descendants will be able to cope. Would you bury an active bomb on your family property, assuming that your great grandchildren will know how to work around it, perhaps diffuse it or be able to move elsewhere if it blows up?

Eskom’s plans are admirable, and this is exactly the sort of initiative we should all be showing, so let’s follow Eskom’s lead and take the responsibility for climate change into our own hands. We each have a responsibility and a part to play. However, let us be wise in our strategy but not attempt to solve the problem with a plan that will give us cause for regret.

The BASICs group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China gave a press briefing last night and seem to be as closely linked as their Adopt a negotiator trackers)

The four members of the BASICs group, which was established in 2009 to advance the interests of Brazil, South Africa, India and China (all large, growing economies), reaffirmed their alliance and their non-negotiable requirements for reaching a climate change deal at a press conference in Cancun yesterday.

Their joint call for the development of an adaptation framework, the advancement of urgent actions for mobilising and providing finance to developing countries, mechanisms for technology development and transfer and forestry-related actions, and ambitious mitigation commitments and actions, including MRV/ICA of such commitments and actions, reflected aspects of their desire to reach a balanced package climate change agreement.

Wondering what that’s all about? Here’s a translation in English.

We need to build an adaptation framework:
The effects of climate change are already evident and things are going to get worse. In the coming years, communities around the world will have to find ways to adapt to rising sea levels, water and food insecurity, and more extreme weather events than we are used to.
Poverty makes the ability to deal with climate change effects much harder. Measures have to be put in place to help communities adjust to the effects of climate change. These communities will need money and assistance. If negotiators can agree to a framework for such a plan, this would give the world a direction in which to move to build a climate-resilient future.

We need finance for developing countries:
If developing countries are going to grow their economies to improve the lives of their citizens, and avoid pumping large quantities of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, they are going to need cash. The technology required to transition away from our dependence on oil and coal towards low-carbon economic growth is expensive. To be more precise, $30-billion is needed for start-up finance and $100-billion will be needed every year by 2020.
There is much debate around who should contribute to this fund, whether it should be public or private and who should manage it.
For more information on which countries are contributing and which are benefitting, see the (fasttrackfinance) site.

We need mechanisms for technology development and transfer:
We require a plan in order to share skills, knowledge and new technologies that will help us to deal with the challenge of climate change, which some countries have, but others do not.

We need ambitious mitigation commitments and actions, including MRV/ICA of such commitments and actions:
MRV stands for measurable, reportable and verifiable. In other words, mitigation projects need to be measurable, reportable and verifiable, so that parties (countries) can judge whether or not other parties are fulfilling their obligations and can determine the extent to which emissions are being reduced globally.
Some countries have objected to this, notably China, feeling that it is too invasive. Nevertheless, the BASICs group is committed to transparency and accountability, and is currently working on a draft document of an international consultation and analysis (ICA) process.

The Basics group commented yesterday that they are committed to the ICA process and have a plan in mind for how it might be structured. However, the group maintains that the process must be anchored in a multilateral process.

The three imperatives identified by the BASICs group as the hopes for Cancun include agreement on finance, technology transfer and securing the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol (KP). Key countries, in particular Japan, have expressed their intention to not agree to a KP second commitment period, creating something of stalemate withing the process. The group argues that the KP is the effort of long-term negotiations and has made its contribution to efforts to combat climate change and should continue to contribute to the process. As such, they hope that Japan will reconsider and commit to the second period under the KP.

The BASICs group posits that Annex 1 countries (developed countries) who are not part of the KP, will need to look at making binding commitments under the LCA track, while developing countries should adopt voluntary commitments.

Social justice in the transition away from dependence of fossil fuels? Bring it on!

Last night at South Africa’s COP17 promotion (held at the Durban stand in the Cancunmesse) I bumped into delegates from SA’s labour movement. While some country delegations include labour representatives in climate change negotiations, this is by no means the norm, so kudos to SA.

More importantly, however, I’m pleased to see that the labour movement takes an interest in climate change. Labour represents a large proportion of the people who will be affected and who stand to benefit from a transition away from fossil fuels towards a low-carbon economy. So why would labour be involved in the UNFCCC process?

1. Climate change texts needs to represent social interests: This is not just an economic or scientific process, but one that includes people and it should, therefore, strive for social justice.
2. Decisions made in the interest of climate change mitigation must consider the workforce who will be affected. The transition away from fossil fuel dependency and increasing low carbon reindustrialisation should create sustainable jobs for people. The key word? Sustainability.
3. Climate change negotiations represent people. For this reason, people should have a voice in the process. Labour and civil society need to be respected within this process and should have greater involvement than they currently do.