Rethinking equity in the Philippines?

photo credit: IISD

The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) has come to the forefront as climate negotiators from around the world work overtime in the closing days of the Lima talks.

As enshrined in the UN climate convention, CBDR simply means that richer countries should take the lead in climate action because they have caused the most greenhouse gas damage. And through the years, the firewall between these richer countries, and developing or poorer countries, has been maintained.

However, as the world inches towards a new climate deal expected to come out in Paris this year, all countries are now called to put forward commitments. This has been a hotbed for conflict, and now, on the last days of the negotiations, the disagreements are coming to the fore.

Several groups, even in the Philippines, are concerned that the country’s so-called pivot from the Like Minded Developing Countries bloc, may also mean we have turned our back on equity.

I sat down yesterday afternoon with the spokesperson of the Philippine delegation to the climate talks, Antonio La Viña, who insisted right off the bat that the Philippines is still calling on developed countries to do their part.

First of all, we keep on saying that developed countries must take the lead in terms of cutting emissions, in terms of support, etc., but we don’t have to belabour the obvious, right?

The idea here is to emphasize what we can do, because we can do something. The idea here is to actually say that developing countries through the years have taken on accountability as well.

I don’t understand why people don’t see that countries that from becoming developing have become developed countries. Countries that used to have very little contribution to emissions have now much higher, maybe even the top emissions in the world, you know what I mean? And why would the responsibility not change because of that? It doesn’t make sense.

He added later in the interview that our extreme vulnerability demands an all-in approach.

We are victims, we are affected by climate change, it is in our interest that all countries reduce emissions, no exceptions, according to their ability and to some extent historical responsibility. But I think more important is ability than historical responsibility.

La Viña said that the Philippines is freer now that we are out of the LMDC and more focused on G77 and China, or the group of about 130 developing countries which is the biggest negotiating bloc in the talks.

It’s important from a strategic point of view because the problem that you have when you have a leadership position in a group is that even when you differentiate, you are identified with that group. And so we couldn’t move.… We were spokespersons for LMDC in many instances. We cannot now call on developing countries to cut their emissions. It’s a contradiction in terms.

The LMDC is a tactical alliance, it’s not a permanent alliance, you know? I think the G77 is a better alliance for us to be part of, and of course the Vulnerability Forum… our interests are much more aligned there than with LMDC.

This contradicts a press conference earlier this week, where Comm. Sering repeatedly told reporters that the Philippines was never part of the LMDC, or at least not officially.

He also suggested the possibility of the Climate Vulnerability Forum, a group of 20 countries which the Philippines will preside on, moving beyond mostly dialogues, knowledge-sharing and capacity-building.

Well maybe in the months to come we will work hard to get a new negotiating bloc, we’ll see.

But we prefer to stay with G77, and that G77 is the main negotiating bloc. And I suspect LMDC will eventually do that as well, make G77 their main negotiating bloc and not differentiate from G77. That’s what we’re trying to do here. That’s my personal preference.

(And those are) the instructions to us, (to) stick with G77… everything else is tactical.

In a follow-up interview after the evening’s stock-taking, La Viña Tony also praised the efforts of former lead negotiator Yeb Saño in the last two years, but denied that his and Ditas Muller’s exclusion in the delegation, among those of other advisers, was due to this pivot away from LMDC.

“We have to recognise that Yeb has carried the team over the past two years.” However, his absence is a result of “decisions of the government…And I’ve come to the conclusion they have every right to do that.”

“The ideal situation would have been Yeb was with us and we made the pivot with him.”

However, La Viña also noted that “China has also made the pivot and that has influenced the way they are negotiating.”

This has been mentioned repeatedly here in Lima. In my discussions throughout the week, a number of negotiators have noted that we have been surprisingly quiet on our traditional bread and butter issues of equity and CBDR. Instead now, we seem to have changed our framing towards that of a “human rights approach”.

There have also been similar nods at Chinese negotiator Su Wei, who has traditionally been much more vocal than he has been these last 2 weeks.

As the last days wrap up in Lima, we have seen much less fuel thrown on the firewall between developed and developing countries. To some, it seems that the dividing wall has begun to crumble.

But as our Philippine head of delegation, Lucille Sering, mentioned 2 days ago:

“Any redefinition of the CBDR must be tread[ed] carefully, and, if so, must be morally grounded.”

With the new draft text out, and the equity lions and lioness get ready to pounce, we will have to wait and see how these traditional red lines begin to fade, wobble or even straighten.