As a newcomer to the climate talks, I found the current role of the Arab world in the process exciting. With key countries taking on a number of chairs positions in different groups like Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is chairing an Ad-hoc Working Group (AWG), Algeria Chairing the negotiation group G77+China which include all the developing countries in addition to China, plus Qatar hosting the biggest climate change conference.

In yesterday’s sessions of LCA and KP the Arab countries had delivered interventions and here they are in Brief as written in today’s issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin:

Kyoto Protocol session:

OPENING STATEMENTS:
Algeria:
“For the G-77 and CHINA, expressed concern that some Annex I parties have not submitted information on their QELROs (Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Objectives) for the second commitment period, highlighting the need to avoid a gap between commitment periods in order to preserve the Protocol and its flexibility mechanisms.”

Saudi Arabia:
“For the ARAB GROUP, urged for ambitious emission reduction commitments from Annex I parties and called for avoiding a gap between the first and second commitment periods.”

LCA session:

OPENING STATEMENTS:
Algeria:
“For the G-77 and CHINA, urged parties to address outstanding issues under the AWG-LCA, taking into account equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and historical responsibility. She said that commitments by developed states under the Protocol second commitment period should be matched by comparable reduction commitments by developed countries that are not parties to the Protocol.”

Egypt:
“For the ARAB GROUP, expressed support for the AWG-LCA Chair’s work plan, called for identifying what has been agreed at previous COPs and stated that discussions on all topics must be completed and not simply transferred to different bodies.”

As a newcomer, I think the Arab world is lucky to have all these chairs and good positions. I also think this is their chance to positively influence the process. How? By setting clear targets for the year, working together and taking advantage of their good negotiations skills and negotiators. The leading positions they are enjoying can be harnessed to make the process more progressive, faster, objective and impartial. Because back home in their respective countries we the people are counting on them to make a radical change to positively drive the negotiations process.

I think this is not going to be so hard for the Arabs after 2011 when they started to draw all the world’s attentions to their organized revolutions and to the Arab spring which inspired people around the globe. In comparison, solving the climate crisis should be like a walk in park for them. They surely can inspire the world one more time by succeeding to make a radical change to the process.

Like the Secretariat, the chair of the “Long-term Cooperative Action” discussions and many other delegates in the Maritim, ECO also has experience with the trials and tribulations of construction projects. But not to worry. Yesterday, the alliance of small islands states (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) presented a new blueprint for a sturdy and livable structure that can be a functional home for all of us, with a minimal carbon footprint and protection from the increasingly uncertain elements.

To build a good foundation, AOSIS has designed some strong pillars to replace or reinforce the flimsy developed country pledges. For instance, the EU, which has been mixing only 20% cement with sand for its concrete, can strengthen its climate edifice by rising to 30% concrete or even more. This is required to meet the building codes anyway, so why skimp and risk collapse?

New Zealand should raise its level to at least 20%. And in Australia, government papers, forced by NGOs to be made public, show that the conditions for its 15% target have already been met.

Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan will need to dig deeper foundations in the second commitment period to prevent vast amounts of hot air.

Canada, which has been out of compliance with building codes for some time, has decided to build tar sand castles and has given up on any construction that will last more than a few years.

Moving from the foundation to the ground floor, AOSIS, troubled by the United States, Canada, Russia and Japan – fleeing the building and planning to build their own shanties – warns they must use comparable construction standards, and prepare for the visit of the building inspector. As long as they remain in the Convention, they must demonstrate that their efforts are comparable to those of Kyoto buildings, and will achieve results consistent with the best available science.

Adequate housing for all requires scaled up contributions to the building fund, which is why the LDCs are unhappy with the lack of reliable and predictable finance. Conventionland’s wealthier residents, who have already built comfortable homes with high carbon footprints, have thus far refused to give a clear timetable towards meeting the US$100 billion commitment by 2020. They only seem to be offering play money and junk bonds to add up to the $100 billion.

With a strong foundation laid, the LDC architects have proposed that a mighty Durban Tower can be built in a few years on the same institutional structure as the current, modest Bali Tower. The venerable old Kyoto Tower will be dwarfed by the combined ambition of these two new structures, which will have ample space for mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building. The new towers will be in full compliance will all codes. Regular visits by monitoring, reporting and verifying teams, checking up on finance and mitigation actions, will be welcome events.

The initial sketches from Durban are about to become detailed blueprints, full of shovel-ready projects that will be built for the occupants well in advance of the construction schedule.

The LDCs, like all of us, have placed their futures in the hands of a new Project Manager who we trust will not be satisfied with the current low level of ambition. All the settlers in Conventionland must spare no effort in ensuring the post-2020 Durban Tower reaches new heights, with clear milestones for each coming year.

Image: OJISANJAKE

Burden sharing?

On the first day of  climate talks in Bonn, Germany which is an inter-sessional or a negotiation session that happens between the conference of parties, two agendas ( subsidiary body of implementation and subsidiary body for scientific and technological advice) was formally and successfully adopted. India made its opening remarks and to no one’s surprise mentioned equity as soon as it could, just in case people had forgotten it amongst the burden sharing discussion of the durban platform. Up until now there were speculations on how the different parties saw equity. But, India is expected to lead on the issue since it has used equity as a defensive strategy for a long time.

Equity in the Durban package

At the platform in Durban, parties decided that there was an increase need of effort sharing to cut the green house gas emissions that could arrest human induced climate change. Sharing effort is a complex association of mitigation (legally binding or voluntary emission cuts), technology transfer (to achieve this emission cuts) and finance (adapting to already created climate change induced problems) and political will. While everyone agrees on the three former issues in principle, the political will that is again a complex association of economic and social situation of the country is the deterrent. This would ultimately decide what the Durban package would look like, what countries are ready to give and what countries are ready to take. With respect to India, it agreed to an agreed outcome with legal force. While, least developing nations have called for another protocol, India is still yet to commit on the kind of outcome. If India is any close to show commitment it rather be legal than something voluntary. The question however is if it would conditionally move to a higher mitigation commitment in exchange for finance and technology? That is an interesting EU and Indian dynamics.

Why India is at fault with equity

Another consideration in India’s climate change policy is the issue of development and pulling out 40 percent of its population out of poverty. This should essentially mean that the emissions should be used for activities like a better standard of living and not just GDP growth which is hardly suggestive of equitable growth within the country. According to the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) Report, 2011, Gujarat’s GDP is growing at an annual rate of 12%, and its per capita growth is more than three times the all India average. Despite this glowing state of the economy, the state fares poorly in overall hunger and nutrition levels. Conversely, Kerala’s economy has been in the doldrums for years, and yet its HDI is among the highest in the country. These simple numbers are enough maths to defeat India’s stance for an equitable rights to development. The international group would consider this as a right to pollute, nothing else!

International Equity and Right to Survival

The global target to which India subscribes in Interim Report of the Expert Group on Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth, Planning Commission Government of India, 2011 of Bringing down the level of emissions by 50 percent if we are to restrict global warming to 2 degrees Celsius is against the mandate of law as such a modest target will wipe out Bangladesh, Madives, Andaman Islands, the Sundarbans, Mumbai and many more coastal areas.

Cost benefit analysis of the argument on equity

In the 12th National plan “In the longer term, we must move beyond fossil fuels to non-conventional energy. However, these new energy sources are significantly more expensive at present than fossil fuels and increased dependence on these fuels will mean higher per unit energy costs.”  The top 3% of Indians are benefitting from the present system to get fossil fuels and pay taxes. The shifting to renewable energy should, in fact, be considered opposite of a “cost.” An opportunity, perhaps?

The picture is clear, more than anybody else, the least developed countries, Alliance of small Island states require an Ambitious, Fair and Binding deal in that order to survive with the same urgency as a drowning economy requiring stimulus.