Ministerial addresses continued throughout the day. President Obama dissapointed many with a lacklustre address that lacked concrete details. In contrast, President Lula of Brazil gave a barn-burning speech that offered real commitments and indicated the willingness of Brazil to finance others. Mid-morning, US President Obama met with a tight circle of world leaders for more detailed discussion – Canada was not present on that list. Later, when the countries broke for lunch, Prime Minister Harper did have a quick chat with President Obama.

In the early afternoon, Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez demonstrated their resistance to the closed turn in the negotiations, arguing that “there are no first or second class people, or first or second class nations”. Tuvalu pointed out that they continue to be excluded from discussions and they have yet to be presented with a concrete draft text for discussion.

Across Copenhagen, Canada received a colossal ‘Fossil Of the Year’, our third year in a row, the satirical award granted to the country that does the most to obstruct the climate negotiations. The awards presentation was particularly lively, with colourful video footage featured on CBC news. Along the same vein in Canada, the Globe and Mail revealed that an MP in British Columbia is dismissing climate change science to concerned constituents.

In the afternoon, Obama delayed his flight home to meet with Brazil, India, China, and South African heads of state. Emerging from this meeting, he spoke to a press conference at around 10:30pm in the Bella Centre. Here he announced a deal with these four major emerging economies that has left many baffled – ostensibly this kind of brokerage would be key to establishing a foundation for a good agreement. Unfortunately, there are many troubling indications about the deal as presented. It is not legally binding, it does not include any concrete targets, and it does not set a timeline to reach a final agreement.  Ultimately, it sidelines the multilateral process of the UN and excludes many of the nations that have the most at stake, including the least developed countries and small island states. These countries have yet to see a concrete text, a concern they have been raising all week as they remain outside the privileged circles of consultation.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated his satisfaction with the deal as it sits. In many ways, Canada could not be more content. Their confident repetitions of low expectations have materialised almost perfectly. During a CBC interview today, it would seem Harper is trying take credit, for “what the Conservative government has been saying for four years is now the underpinning of this agreement”, namely that it must involve all economies (even at the risk of no substance, it seems). Furthermore, Harper stresses that Canada will continue to harmonize with the US – arguably a one-sided claim given that Canada was not present during any high-level consultations convened by Obama.

However, not all is decided. The entire UN assembly has yet to meet in the plenary, and it is possible that the G77 may block this agreement. The European Union has also yet to respond. Many countries have very legitimate concerns with the abandonment of the multi-lateral process and the hard work of many delegations over the past two days, and two years. It’s all still up in the air.

In the meantime, hopes are frustrated here in Copenhagen. The current proposals on the table do nothing to prevent the spectre of dangerous global warming, in fact they lock the world into a 3 degree rise, as revealed in a leaked negotiation text from the secretariat this morning.

More is expected and must be delivered.

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa

There is nothing startling in this speech, and it includes many of the positions already identified in previous positions.  It continues the language  of  synchronising Canada’s efforts with the US, and maintaining a one-track approach (implying a new agreement rather than the Kyoto Protocol).  Far as I can tell, there are no concrete tragets identified, no new financing commitments, or reference to emerging science.

You decide what you think!

Here is some paraphrased text of his speech:

Canada’s National Statement at COP15

COPENHAGEN, Denmark – December 17, 2009 – We have come to Copenhagen to secure a fair, effective and comprehensive climate change agreement. We need an agreement that will put us on a path toward ambitious reductions in greenhouse gases and sustainable, low-carbon economic growth. An agreement that will ensure a growing supply of clean, affordable energy for all countries. An agreement that brings countries together to address our shared global economic and environmental challenges.

Canadians of all ages and in all regions share a profound interest in contributing to effective global action on climate change.

A new global agreement should consist of a single, comprehensive undertaking that includes measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments and actions covering the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries.

To be as fair and effective as possible, a new global agreement should support mutual confidence, and encourage countries to assume increased ambition over time.

It needs to speed the development and deployment of clean, low-emitting technology.

And it needs to support enhanced global action to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries.

Canada is ready to contribute its fair share, as part of a comprehensive global agreement, including fast-start funding.

Achieving such an agreement will require a renewed commitment to work together, a renewed partnership among all nations and governments. It is only through the efforts of all of us that we can protect the most vulnerable among us, including those communities and ecosystems that depend on ice and snow.

Let me conclude by recognizing the United Nations and the Government of Denmark for their tireless efforts and leadership on climate change. Canada will continue to act at home, to align its policies and commitments with those of the Obama Administration, and to work in partnership with all countries, developed and developing, who are committed to effective global action on climate change.

When I followed up with  the question of whether Canada would like to see more specific elements in the text included, for example GHG emissions reductions targets, a goal such as 350 PPM goal, or adaptation financing, Mr. Martin answered that Canada has not changed its position and for many these specific targets remain the subject of great debate.

Now, the current negotiating position (as outlined in this position paper), does respect the goal of maximum 2 degree C warming. However, both the document and Mr. Martin are careful to frame this in reference to global emissions not rising to dangerous levels. Thus, Canada supports a global reduction to ensure maximum 2 degrees temperature change, yet has been quiet on translating this to national commitments. Instead, Canada supports a 2020 target of 3% below 1990 levels, which is far below the national targets that the IPCC has recommended to prevent catastrophic global warming (25-40% reductions). From what I can gather, the rational for this approach is that Canada is an energy superpower, and as such as increased license to continue with rising emissions. These are the unique national circumstances often referred to in government statements. The logic depends on global reductions worldwide absorbing and counter-acting the rise in Canadian emissions.

That’s a rather swaggering negotiating position, and it makes other countries nervous. In response to arguments like these, developing countries are defending the Kyoto Protocol tooth and nail in order to protect against the burden of emissions reductions falling on them. They may have good cause for concern. This tension inspired Maclean’s magazine to explore why “suddenly the world hates Canada“.

And battle lines are drawn. It seems that this is going to be a sticking point. Should rich countries take responsibility for the emissions they have piped into the atmosphere for over 100 years? Do poor countries have the right to develop? And forget the history for a second, what does the atmosphere say?

Today in the high-level, Australia spoke on behalf of the Umbrella group of nations – representing ‘rich’ countries that are not part of the EU. Canada is part of this negotiating block. The language in their statement referenced binding commitments on all major emerging economies, which is a far cry from the principles in the Kyoto Protocol. This makes sense, as Canada has already made it clear that they no longer support the Kyoto Protocol track.

The EU’s statement delivered by Sweden was more nuanced. They did recognize that “we will never succeed without important contributions from the emerging economies, which must reduce emissions significantly compared to business as usual”. However, they framed their discussion in the context of development and alleviating poverty. They discussed billions in broad and fast-track adaptation funding (“ready to commit to fast start funding with at least 7.2 billion Euro (10.6 billion dollar) for the years 2010 to 20). They cited their own goals to protect the 2 degree threshold, and reduce emissions by up to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. They called on both the US and China to take leadership. From the US, they expect “as from all developed counties, a legally binding economy-wide commitment to reduce emissions.” From China, they expect, “binding actions”. This was refined phrasing, avoiding a lot of hidden mines (binding actions are a lot different than binding emissions targets), and refreshingly honest.

I wonder what they expect from Canada.

More speeches will be coming in throughout the evening (till after midnight according to the schedule). In the meantime, negotiating sessions are indefinitely on hold.

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa

Meetings postponed... again. A shot from the display screens, that normally include exact times and locations.

This could be the talks breaking down. I really hope not, but things don’t look good. The issues are extremely divisive and it does not seem like anyone is taking responsibility for moulding a consensus. The negotiators are stuck in the wheels and talking in circles. Everything today has been delayed, postponed, collapsed, reconvened behind closed doors, and then postponed again.

What I just heard in the discussions tonight was unbelievable. The meeting was intended to take stock of where discussion had concluded regarding the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol.

The first few working groups reported their progress, or more accurately lack there-of: for example, “there were some issues of consensus, and as a result the entire annex is in brackets”.

Ultimately, given the lack of resolution, they concluded that “we’ve reached the point where political direction is needed”.

Given that the draft text is not in a state to be presented to the ministers tomorrow, the chair asked the negotiators to take more leadership, arguing that “you can make decisions here and in the COPMOP (Conference of the Parties)”

To which the negotiators from Switzerland made a surprisingly frank response: “You tell us we can make decisions, that we need to meet again. But we have been working in drafting groups, to do what? Mr. Chairman? We were up till 2:00… we don’t know what to do next. Please tell us now, Tuesday evening, before the high-level segment, on where we will go? What will be the outcome? … For the time being, each time we go to the drafting groups, we add on versions in a very creative nature, and we go nowhere. Please explain to us where to go.”

Clearly, Switzerland didn’t get the answer he was looking for, as the chair responded:

“I’d love to be the one to determine that.. but I’m not responsible for ministerial discussions. If you give me the mandate, I could go write something up… but that’s not my job. I’m not responsible for what happened or failed to happen in the ministerial yesterday, what I do take responsibility for is the preparation of a report for the COPMOP. That is all I can do. You cannot ask me to give you clarity on what the president of the COPMOP has in mind. That is not my responsibility and I am not privy to that information. “

To which India retorted: “It will be very difficult to prepare a report to the COPMOP if we have NOTHING to report to the COPMOP.” Oh snap!

The translators needed a break and the room needed to be prepped for tomorrow’s state visitors, so the Chair closed the session and moved it into a closed contract group in a smaller room. I don’t know what happened there, as I am not allowed in.

The negotiators streamed out two hours later… reconvening in public a few minutes later.  They’ve passed a text it seems, with the AOSIS representative congratulating the Chair on his hard work. They were particularly happy on lulucf elements, which makes sense given this breaking analysis from the

Now it’s midnight, and the next plenary on long-term cooperative action has not even started. Things will go till 2:00am at least.

Can you see how difficult this process is? Nobody can seem to reach a consensus, and everyone feels unable to cut through the deadlock. It’s clear that there has never been a political mandate behind most of these negotiators which would enable them to make the tough decisions.

Perhaps the presence of the state leaders tomorrow will change that, but for now… wish them luck! They’ll need it. And some sleep.

(And stay tuned for more updates, things are changing by the minute here.)

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa

A group of Canadian youth trailed Minister Prentice throughout the day, trying to ask questions. Their efforts put my tracking skills to shame!

Then, in the early afternoon, a highly unusual statement from the government of Canada was purportedly covered in the Wall Street Journal. This statement acknowledged the government’s commitment to repairing ‘climate debt’, and promised 3% of GDP towards international aid and support for adaptation. However, several sources question the veracity of the statement (as well sound common sense – this is completely unlike anything the government has ever announced). There was some back and forward with retractions and responses, none of which were officially proven or unproven for most of the day. So it’s hard to tell what’s what in this situation, and even the National Post is having trouble sorting it out.

Now, it appears that the CBC has found an early copy of Canada’s new emissions reductions plan, or a plan to increase emissions (depending on your perspective). CBC reveals it has special targets 3 times lower for the oil and gas industry. Critics argue that this plan is much weaker than the soundly rebutted Turning the Corner plan of 2006. Canada’s been talking up their new plan for a while, so this could be a big deal. I can’t wait to find a copy of it myself!

Wow, I’m getting a little exhausted covering all of this. Stay tuned till tomorrow!

Rosa

The Bella Centre is progressively closing its access to observers. They have a colour-coded system here at the UN; with some pretty big distinctions. Government delegates (called ‘Parties’) have pink badges, the press has orange passes, the UN and security staff are blue, and observers have yellow badges. Observers include anyone from industrial associations, companies, political parties not in government, universities, and any non-governmental organizations ranging from the Red Cross to Greenpeace.

Those with a yellow badge are out of luck in the next few days. There are at-least 20,000 observers in the centre at the moment, this number will be cut to 7,000 tomorrow, restricted to a total of 1,000 on Thursday, and on Friday they will be restricted to an astronomical total of  90.

Those with the coveted pink badges are like the first-class passengers. They can get into any meetings they want (most of the time). And, they get to sit on the other side of the rope, (much to my chagrin today I was soundly berated by a security guard when I moved from a crowded section to an echoingly empty row of identical chairs across the hallway – apparently I wasn’t supposed to cross the rope). And the pink badgers are not always official negotiators, for various reasons there can be a range of people sponsored under a pink badge. Brazil, for example, has accredited 700 people with pink badges as part of its ‘government’ delegation, being rather inclusive in accepting students, NGOS, local governments, and many others.

So, who wears the Canadian pink badge? Thankfully, I didn’t have to stalk everyone with a Canada badge to find out, because the official delegations are available publicly on the UNFCCC site (the Canadian names start on page 35). Now, keep in mind that these lists were published right at the beginning of last week, and the government can add people as it sees fits. I have added a few names that were included in this Ottawa Citizen story about Prentice’s 17 “special advisors”. The information I have is likely not complete. Also, individuals can be registered and still not attend.

But even incomplete, the list is interesting. Interesting for whom it includes, and also for whom it does not include (ahem! yours truly!!! … but seriously, take a look and consider if there are some big gaps).

Obviously, we have Minister Jim Prentice and Chief Negotiator Michael Martin. I wonder if Prime Minister Stephen Harper gets a badge when he comes? I don’t see him on the list.   We do have the federal negotiating team, which ranges from the head of staff at Environment Canada to lawyers and policy analysts in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Natural Resources Canada. All, in all, over forty-eight people represent the federal government, including a range of communications specialists. A number of Members of Parliament and Senators are registered, including NDP leader Jack Layton and Shadow Environment Critics David McGuinty (Liberal), Bernard Bigras (Bloc) and Linda Duncan (NDP). Gary Doer, former Manitoba Premier and Ambassador to the US, is on the list as well.

There are a number of provincial governments present, including six provincial premiers: Jean Charest (Quebec), Greg Selenger (Manitoba), Gordon Campbell (British Columbia), Darrell Dexter (Nova Scotia), Floyd Roland (NorthWest Territories), Eva Aariak (Nunavut),

Many of these provincial delegations are quite large. Quebec is bringing nineteen people, including seven security staff, probably in honour of Jean Charest, as well as his spouse, Michele Dionne. Lynne Beauchamp, the minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks, is attending.

Ontario’s delegation has seven accredited, including the Deputy Minister of Environment Gail Beggs.

Canada’s north has a strong showing, including nine from Nunavut: the premier Eva Aariak, as already mentioned, as well as the Minister of Environment Daniel Shewchuk. There are also nine from the North West Territories, including the premier Floyd Roland and the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources Michael Miltenberger. The Yukon is sending nine, including Deputy Premier and Environment Minister Elaine Taylor.

From the west, there are five from Manitoba, including Premier Greg Selinger and Minister of Conservation Bill Blaikie. Saskatchewan is sending two, one of whom is the Environment Minister Nancy Heppner. Alberta is sending four, including Environment Minister Rob Renner. British Columbia is sending two; Premier Gordon Campbell constitutes half that delegation.

On the east coast, there are seven from Nova Scotia, including Premier Darrell Dexter, as well as Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau. New Brunswick has registered one, Mr. Dean Mundee, the Director, Climate Change Secretariat, and Newfoundland had registered two.

There are a few other organizations represented, including the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, and the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Mary Simon.

A few professors are registered as well, including Ian Burton, Professor Emeritus from the University of Toronto, and William Lahey of Dalhousie University. Bruce Carson, from Canada’s School of Energy and Environment at the University of Calgary is the special advisor to the Deputy Minister.

A representative from the International Emissions Trading Association is included, as well as former astronaut Steve MacLean from the Canada Space Agency. We’ve got the Presidents of McGill and the University of Alberta. We’ve got several CEOs, including Jacques Lamarre of the construction and engineering firm SNC-Lavalin, Linda Newton of auto-parts manufacturer Linamara, and Charlie Fischer of the energy and oil sands company Nexen.

There is the CEO of Atco Ltd. and Canadian Utilities Limited; Galen G. Weston, Executive chairman of Loblaw Companies Ltd.; and Elyse Allen, President and CEO of GE Canada.  Former Industry Minister David Emerson is attending with the Government Delegation.

And, last in my list but definitely not least, we’ve got Mike Holmes, the well-known celebrity from Holmes-on-Homes. His presence has already sparked some lively discussion.

Yep, it’s a motley crew.

Think I can convince any of them to be guest trackers while they’re on the inside?

Much love from Copenhagen.

Rosa

Mike Holmes, the TV Handyman, is a special advisor to the Canadian Government Delegation

Suspensions, late starts, postponements, derailments. Chaos. I’m sitting in the main plenary at the Bella Centre. After waiting for 40 minutes, the crowd quietly stirring, a voice spoke from the podium:  ”On behalf of the president, I would like to inform you that this meeting has been postponed…But please stay in your seats”. Today’s events read like a page-turning suspense novel.

Chaos in the plenary...

This morning, two out of three contact groups were suspended due to irreconcilable differences. At first it seemed like the group of African nations would boycott the negotiations. Now it appears that the entire G77 has suspended their participation until their concerns are addressed (but it is not yet an official ‘walk-out’). They are insisting that the Kyoto Protocol be secured and take priority in any future talks. As it stands, this is the only legally binding treaty that exists to combat global warming, and it is based on the principles of historical responsibility. Rich countries have specific targets under this protocol, while developing nations are granted flexibility to grow their economies without binding targets.

It appears this existing understanding has reached an impasse, with more and more rich countries, like the EU, US, Australia, and Canada, insisting that major emerging economies such as India and China face binding emissions reductions as well. Of course, the picture is always more complicated than this. Many developing countries will accept some targets, provided it is accompanied by long-term financial assistance in the form of technology transfers and adaptation support.  So far, that commitment has yet to solidly materialize. In the meantime, any concrete solutions are hard to imagine. Pretty soon, the world leaders arrive, and the high-level ministerial starts Wendesday. Hopefully the head honchos can use their acclaimed leadership skills (that’s what they are, right?) and wrestle some of these demons to the ground.

Even if the talks resume (which they will, eventually), the content of the ‘informal discussions’ I intended to observe have some tricky points. These issues include: long-term emissions reductions goals, developed country targets, developing country targets, the role of market-based approaches, public financing, trade issues, and international aviation and shipping. So basically, everything.

And now it looks like the meeting is starting. Except that I’m being asked to leave. Apparently it’s now closed to observers? How nice! After two hours of waiting, they decide to let us know.  I hope they enjoy the seats we warmed up for them… maybe it’ll help them with the negotiations.

Looks like they need it.

That’s it for now,  I’ll be back soon with more updates.

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa

Shortly after, the plenary moved to a different session specifically for the countries that had signed the Kyoto Protocol (called the CMP track). Canada spoke,  as well as many other nations. During their speech, Canada seemed to confirm that they have moved beyond the Kyoto Protocol and are interested in a new agreement. This prompted some response from other countries.

Included below are Canada’s interventions along with some highlights from other countries to put it all in context. I erred on the side of over-quoting as I find these country statements particularly informative. I hope you do too.

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa

Canada, speaking about the text on long-term co-operative action (LCA), delivered by Chief Negotiator Michael Martin, loosely paraphrased by me:

This text represents a step forward. It is clear that our work is progressing in a number of areas. We have made progress on technology, on forests, we have constructive work underway on finance. There seems to be growing consensus on fast-start finance as a key element here. We have made progress in Copenhagen to significantly scale up adaptation. It is clear that there is significant work left to do on mitigation. We as parties have yet to make significant progress in this area. As drafted, the mitigation elements in this text are deficient, they are insufficient to support an effective agreement. Many countries, developed and developing countries, have indicated a willingness to take ambitious action. The challenge here is to reflect that willingness in an agreement, need to find a way to express it in a legal form. To build mutual confidence amongst parties to strengthen their level of ambition over time. The commitments must be subject to a transparent process of international process, including both the supported and autonomous actions of developing countries… We have the opportunity here to strengthen national emissions inventory, this can strengthen our mutual confidence in effective global action over time… I believe we can find a way to address these challenges. Canada remains ready to work under your guidance to address them.

Canada, speaking about the text on from the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol, delivered by another Canadian negotiator, loosely paraphrased by me:

Canada seeks a single new legally binding agreement that covers the vast majority of global emissions, the challenge we face within the two-track approach, within which we are operating on the current KP-LCA process. Within the KP track, we are only focusing on actions by a sub-set of parties. First, our discussion presupposes a certain form of legal commitment. When we have not yet decided the form of legal commitment for all parties, in particular developed country parties. The parties in the KP track are only responsible for about a 1/3 of global emissions. This represents a significant imbalance. A single agreement reflects the best approach. But a number of parties support a two-track. We have a fundamental divide concerning the architecture of the post 2012 agreement. It seems apparent that the KP track is not able resolve this. It may be more appropriate for the COP to address this issue. Madame President we are confident that with your leadership we will address this issue and develop a fair, effective, and comprehensive agreement.

Some other excerpts, during the discussion on long-term cooperative action (LCA), loosely paraphrased by me

The USA: Thank you Madame President. I’d like to thank the chair and the work the group has done. It has been a heroic effort to bring the group from hundreds of pages of text to something we can all work off of. As the chair of the LCA suggest, we can see some progress moving forward: the groups on the technology work, forestry, discussions on adaptation. It does bring the question of how we deal with very contentious issues. The current draft text inadequately reflects this. We encourage the chair to continue informal consultations to discuss that. The current draft did not work in terms of where it is headed. The overall document provides a good path forward. We do not think we have very much time. We look forward to seeing this move forward as expeditiously as possible. There are many ministers arriving, they can bring views and a sense of urgency to the table. Carry us forward to the next stage of this effort. We look forward to the next process of this stage moving forward, by Monday we hope we will have more clarity and in particular the very core question of how we will have an operational agreement coming out of this meeting.

Sweden (on behalf of the EU): It is now Saturday, and half of this historic meeting is already behind us. The environmental integrity and effectiveness of the agreement is of utmost importance for the EU. The EU will contribute more than 10 billion for fast-start finance. We were presented the text proposals… let me frank, when it comes to the reaction of the European union and it smember states, the text gives us too little certainty that we will be able to stay below 2 degrees, it does not provide us with enough guidance on how long-term cooperative action will function. On one side, the Kyoto protocol, and on the other no legally binding agreement at all. It will lead to a particular agreement that will cover less than a third of global emissions. There is no time frame. As we come to Copenhagen, the EU said that a new binding agreement based solely on the Kyoto procotol is inadequate, it will not deliver significant reductions … we need common and transparent MRV rules, robust compliance mechanism, common LULUCF accounting rules. The text before us doesn’t include these central elements. The outline of a loosely framed agreement is far below what the EU can accept as it gives us no certainty that we will stay below 2 degrees change. When our leaders leave at the end of the next week, the world expects us to conclude a political agreement that is concise enough to be transformed into a legally binding agreement

Brazil, on behalf of the G77 and China: Thank you madame president, again we would like to indicate our thanks to the chair. We feel that the text is a text is which we are willing to work on. We think we can advance. There are issues that need to be addressed. One element which the G77 would like to emphasize is the treatment of adaptation, in order to fully address this critical issue. The text has a at its basis a critical, important issue for the G77, which is its acceptance and structure reflecting the continuity of the Kyoto protocol. This is essential to the outcome that we are all looking for. This is the Copenhagen outcome that the G77 contemplates. We believe that the text is important in directing our work in a way that achieves progress in the very limited time that we have, and we are looking for these results here in Copenhagen.

India: India associates itself with the statements made by Brazil, on behalf of G77 and China. How should we proceed? Yes, definitely, the two tracks should be maintained. It is good that the parties should be engaged in the process, with openness and transparency. Bearing in mind the convention and the unambiguous standing of the protocol, avoid any sidestepping of our main work. We seek to ensure that the Kyoto protocol be strengthened for the future for the second commitment period. (The delegate now holds up a small cedar box). In my bag, I carry this souvenir, ma’am, it has the words UNFCCC COP3 Kyoto, December 1997. The President of the 3rd COP gave this to me, I carry it with me. The Kyoto Protocol is one of the most important treaties, and we must ensure it is strengthened for the second commitment period.

Australia: We are very encouraged by the areas of convergence. Promising progress on REDD, the development of an adaptation framework. We are starting to see the shape of a technology package. There is no chance of meeting the climate crisis without a dramatic step-change on technology. Progress on finance, but there are still bridges to build. We have some serious concerns about the existing gulfs on those issues which will be ultimately essential for a deal. Currently, we are not yet on a path to deliver the environmental outcome that we need. Mitigation is the stand-out, and we need to see credible efforts by these countries. All these efforts need to be quantified, clear, and solidified in a binding treaty. We are committed to translating our agreement in Copenhage into a legally binding outcome into a fixed time frame… Of course there is the issue of long term finance which will be crucial to a deal. The first set can be addressed in working groups, the second set should be addressed through plenary discussion and detailed ministerial discussion later this week.

Some other excerpts, during the discussion on the Kyoto Protocol (KP):

Sudan, on behalf of the G77 and China: The G77 rejects any opportunity to dismantle or weaken the KP. It is the only good agreement we have. The paper produced by the KP –chair can serve as a good basis for the work of the KP in the remaining short time, to complete the mandate, and to decide the second commitment period. We re-affirm the well-known position of the G77 and China that we need to reach a deal here in Copenhagen that maintains the two-tracks, including the legal framework, the Kyoto protocol and the convention. We need an agreed outcome that is fully effective with sustained implementation of the convention.

India: We welcome the tracks which have been produced by our AWG-chair, and also because it follows the two-track approach and the format of the two-track approach is very – to our negotiations. The lack of progress is of concern to us along the KP track. The velocity of the LCA track has gone far ahead of the KP track, even though the KP track started much earlier. It is not issues, but it is a lack of willingness on behalf of KP parties. There has now been an imbalance of work. It is important that the balance of work between these two tracks remain. The KP track is a legally binding treaty.

Papua New Guinea: We reject the LULUCF  text (land use and land use change in forestry). We offered two options, one that enforced measurement and monitoring, and one with optional accounting. Of course, rich countries can pick and choose the rules. To our surprise, the ethical option was deleted, and the fraudulent option remains. We clearly observer the lack of willingness of rich countries to commit, and for small island states our concern remains.

Sweden, on behalf of the EU: The EU is committed to reaching an agreement, we respect the 2 degree goal. We also know that the KP only covers one third of global emissions. This legally binding track alone will not win the fight against climate change. Working solely within the KP is not an option.  These texts give us no certainty that we can stay below 2 degrees, no progress on long-term cooperative effort where significant reductions will happen. On the one hand, there is the second commitment period under the KP and on the other there is no legally binding agreement at all. We can’t accept half an answer. We need to sort out certain issues before we can establish new agreements.

China: Certain parties have made determined efforts to obstruct  the KP and interfere with its efforts. We are fully prepared to take part in the discussions, the consultations, under the leadership of the chairman of the working group in the net few days, so that we will be able to make some real progress. The Chinese delegation wishes to emphasize that the twin track system we have been working on for the past 2 years, there were no disagreements in Bali, that’s why we had the Bali roadmap, that was something each and everyone agreed to before the eyes of the world. The only reason that we have not made progress as quickly as others had hoped, the only reason is because Annex 1 countries have not been able to show the political will to act based on their historical responsibilities and their obligations under the convention. The world is watching whether the Annex 1 countries are really prepared to match their words with actual commitments, and real action.

Bolivia: It is not acceptable that someone wants to change the rules of the Bali mandate. This is not acceptable. There are two tracks. We have lived by these rules for the year. Why are they trying to kill the Kyoto protocol? Because they want to erase the climate debt they have to developing countries. If we begin to speak about how only a third of emissions are covered under the KP, not remembering that 75% of historical emissions are the responsibility of developing countries, then we are going to forget that who has to give the first step are developed countries. Developed countries have to give clear commitments on the Kyoto protocol. It is their responsibility and they should take the lead. What is happening here? They are saying they are going to wait and see what happens with the rest of the package, and then they are going to make commitments. That is not acceptable from our point of view. We want to say that we have asked for a proposal that is not on the table, that domestic reductions from developed countries should be clearly established in this new section of the KP.

Ecuador: We have asked for the respect of indigenous rights in the text, now we must ask for the respect of our rights in the process. Many people, species, and countries will face disappearance. It is not a matter of a political will of congresses and leaders, it is a matter of action. Developed country parties should assume real commitments. It is not just assuming commitments, it is also complying with commitments that will get there…

And last, but not least. Tuvalu’s incredibly powerful statement at the beginning of the session, loosely paraphrased by me:

Tuvalu: Thank you Madame President, It has been said in the media that I am trying to embarrass the country of Denmark. This is not my intention at all… Madame President, I know that you tried to visit Tuvalu, though you did not make it. Had you visited, I think you would understand our position. Our entire population lives within 2 meters of sea level… I understand that we are waiting for the US senate. It is ironic that we are waiting for one country to decide before the international community can move forward. President Obama was currently in Sweden accepting a Nobel prize, whether rightly or wrongly. For him to honour his noble prize, he should address the greatest threat to humanity, climate change, and the greatest threat to human security,  climate change. This is not just an issue of Tuvalu… millions of people around the world are affected. This is not just Tuvalu. Over the last few days I’ve received calls from all over the world, offering faith and hope that we can reach a conclusion on this issue. Madame President, this is not a media trip for me, I have refused to take media calls on this issue. This is not an ego trip. As a humble servant of the government of Tuvalu, I have to make a strong appeal to you that we consider this matter properly. I don’t want to cause embarrassment to you or the government. I want to have for the leaders an option to consider a legally binding treaty. We’ve had our proposal on the table for 6 months. 6 months, it’s not the last two days of this meeting. I woke this morning, and I was crying, and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit. The fate of my country rests in your hands.

The President’s response: Thank you for your strong statement. I would assure you that two legally binding instruments are our goal. No option is taken off the table.

Today’s been a busy day for Canada.

Though I have to admit, it started slow for this poor tracker. Bleary-eyed after a late night blogging, I dutifully hauled myself out of bed at 6:30 and crawled onto the special shuttle bus to the conference centre. I arrived just in time to make my way through UN security, sprint down the long halls to the Canadian public gallery, and arrive breathlessly in time for the 8:00 am public briefing.

This morning, the briefing with Chief Negotiator Michael Martin was crammed tight to the walls, and packed with questions from youth delegates. As per usual, Mr. Martin successfully conveyed a small amount of information in a long period of time (the hallmark of an accomplished diplomat). He deflected many of the difficult questions posed to him by the youth delegates.

As far as any new ‘intelligence’ on Canada’s position, nothing startling came up. Canada is sticking to its 3% mid-term target (below 1990 levels). We have no new plans for future adaptation funding. We are ostensibly supporting a ‘constructive and global’ solution here in Copenhagen. When asked directly about Canada’s position on the suspended talks, Mr. Martin answered that it seemed to be a tension within the G77 and he did not envision a controversy around proposing the contact group as Tuvalu had suggested. Questions about domestic policy were directed towards domestic legislators.

But, unlike Canada’s immovable position, some things did change today. There were many informal meetings today, most closed to observers, as I discovered when I tried to ‘track’ Mr. Martin into the main plenary. On the international stage, the Alliance of Small Island States released a proposed Copenhagen Protocol today. This protocol insists on support for the least developed countries, stresses the 350ppm goal (see 350.org for more info on that), and works towards a goal of maximum 1.5 degrees climate change (most proposals only aim for 2 degrees). A new text for the negotiating track on Long-Term Cooperative Action (self-explanatory title) was also published this morning, given to delegates only.

In case I lost you with that paragraph… basically: lots of meetings, some position papers.

For Canada specifically, some reports have come out on negotiations throughout the week. During a working group on the shared vision for the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Co-operative Action (AWG-LCA in unbearable-UN-acronym-speech), rumour has it that Canada advocated that this sentence be deleted: Furthermore, it shows that the economics of ambitious and bold mitigation action pays better than shy efforts, thereby reducing the risk of crossing tipping points that could result in irreversible climate change”. Hmmm…. I wonder what’s wrong with mentioning tipping points? or ambitious and bold mitigation action? Earlier this week, during a working group on article 2.3 and 3.14, Canada asked that the word “especially” be added before “developing countries” in a phrase regarding providing assistance to developing countries for adverse effects of climate policies. Now, to be fair, I have to agree with that.

Things got a ltitle dramatic in the evening. Canada won two of the dubious “Fossil of the Day” Awards presented by the Climate Action Network International. We’ve been racking these up those like crazy lately! There was a special surprise at the show tonight. Toronto’s mayor David Miller arrived to accept the first-place fossil, with Equiterre head Steven Guilbeault accepting the second place. Having David Miller present definitely upped the calibre of the stalwart satirical event of the day.

According to presenters, Canada won the fossil because:

For their 2^nd place win: Canada’s chief negotiator insisted in a briefing this morning that his country’s target of -3% below 1990 are, in fact, based on science. The price quote–in answer to a question, was: “Yes, Canada’s targets are science-based. Absolutely, yes.” Last we checked, the IPCC scientific community called for 25-40% emission reductions below 1990 levels. The Fossil Supreme Command Council can only conclude that he wasn’t referring to climate science at all, but rather the science of mathematics–because -3% is, indeed, a number.

For their 3^rd place win: Canada’s Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, said yesterday that, quote, “it’s in Canada’s interests to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new agreement.”

Adding these wins to the total, now Canada has first place in the talks. Maye it’s more like last place, when you think of it.

That’s it for now folks. There will be lots more to report tomorrow. Right now I better get to sleep, so I can drag myself out of bed at 6:30 for the next public briefing. Maybe there’ll be something new to report? A tracker can only hope.

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa

£