Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Bolivia at the UN climate talks: “We need to stop going in circles”
September 6, 2012

 

In the Bangkok session this week, developing countries expressed frustration at the slow progress of the UN ‘informal’ talks on climate change.

In Monday’s LCA (Long-term Cooperative Action) talks, Columbia asked the delegates to discuss the concerns of developing countries.  United States, however, said that discussion of these concerns this would “pre-empt” the discussions next week by the Adaptation Committee.  They then proceeded to read out the agenda.

The proliferation of bodies under the UNFCCC seems to have led to delays and disruption.

Bolivia thanked the US for their extensive reading of next week’s agenda, but told countries: “we need to stop going in circles”… “we need to discuss substance and make progress”.

The extensive reading by the US of the following week’s Committee agenda actually reminded me of something – the ‘filibuster’ tactic used in the Senate of the US itself.

Developing country voices are not being heard:

The fact that the UN sessions are informal has meant that proposals to the Chair were not being discussed. Bolivia said they had submitted a paper to the Chair of the LCA on 30 August, on behalf of the G77 group.

On Monday, Bolivia asked the Chair – why was it not there?

A delegate later told me that since the session was “informal”, the Chair had no obligation to put it on the table.

That means that the views of G77 countries were not being heard properly:  yet this Group of 77 countries represent some 80% of the world’s population!

These Bangkok talks are ‘informal’ since countries claimed that they could not afford to pay for the translation services required for a ‘formal session’.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, announced before the session that: “Due to the…financial constraints, work during the additional session will be of an informal nature, hence there will be no formal plenary meetings, no interpretation or webcast services and no official documents”.

Why do countries have so little commitment to the process?  Observers argue this is a deliberate tactic.

Once again, attempts to push discussions into informal sessions and closed meetings (where civil society cannot observe the discussions) mean the talks become even less transparent.

Naura, on behalf of the island states, requested an informal note or “Chair’s summary” of the adaptation discussions so far. United States, however, once again blocked this request: “we cannot agree to and oppose any draft decision.”

“We cannot accept a written statement.” (United States)

In fact, the Chair was not even present at this meeting, but had been replaced by a stand-in. The multitude of meetings seemed to have reduced the capacity of the Chair.

Meanwhile, the world continues to hurtle towards 3 degrees of warming.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A slice of the broader narrow picture
June 17, 2011

Last night was UNfairplay’s first ever side event!

Side event = boring, dry, uninspiring? Not necessarily, I know I have been surprised at how engaging issues of participation have been for those involved in UNfairplay, and to those who we try to convey our findings too. Our aim was to draw attention to the report but also to highlight other schemes created to plug participation gaps at the UNFCCC. I think the reason our arguments are gaining traction and interest from all sides is very simply because they are issues of justice, and plain unfairness. My parents always hated my “its not fair” phase at the age of 7, well it’s back.

UNfairplay presented on the findings of our report (‘Levelling the Playing Field’) and updated on some of the updates and ways forward that we’ve been blogging about at Bonn.

We also had speakers from The Legal Response Initiative, the video for which you can see below, if you’re feeling that geeky. I promise we did not pay him to drop our name that many times!

UNDP were up next (United Nations Development Programme) to talk about how they build capacity before and during negotiations by doing in country training sessions, explaining publications in the native language etc. It was really really good to hear a UN programme that was already aware of the deficiences inherent in the process, showing that awareness is certainly not the problem of the Secretariat. In our experience, since the Secretariat (of the UNFCCC) can only do what the parties tell it to do, and with money they are given by the parties, it is more likely that they just dont have the funding at the moment. The mandate is also lacking, but we know for instance that Bolivia have publicly condemned their issues of interpretation and translation, stating last week that the 6million that went into Bangkok should have gone into translation.

We then had the video presence of Nick from Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) who produce summaries of the negotiations every day, in a variety of languages, and for free. This service is very valuable to delegates and civil society alike, although in our view we would say that whilst they are perfect to maintain current knowledge, it is not sufficient information to negotiate with or form a position from. That is, unless you are an under represented delegation with very little time and therefore choice as to how much, rather than what, they read.

Last but not least was Achala from Eurocapacity. This is an amazing NGO initiative which trains up new delegates from the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s) giving them access to specialists and NGO’s that work within the negotiations. Valuable institutional knowledge is passed on by retired and experienced negotiators. All these trained negotiators take up offers on the basis that they contribute to a delegation and focus on one stream of the negotiations. Why?

Because there is no way that delegates can have enough knowledge to be useful in negotiations unless they have some focus. One stream, I can assure you, is more than plenty to deal with.

Then this morning (friday) Jamie, from Scotland, another YOUNGO (the Youth Consistutency) delivered an intervention in this morning’s SBI, the drafting of which UNfairplay had contributed to because we wanted to emphasise that interpretation and translation facilities are simply not sufficient. Although there are interpretators in main plenaries, the fact that most plenaries now get moved into contact groups and closed meetings, where interpretation is never provided, this situation is getting worse, and only like to get worse in future. See Jamie in action by clicking here.

So that’s it from UNfairplay in Bonn 2011, we hope you’ve enjoyed hearing about our efforts. If you fancy joining the group (in any capacity) and if you would like to join our info e-list to hear up-coming opportunities, drop us an email: unfairplay.fig@gmail.com. We also have some useful guidance on how to support delegations if you want to give it a go, downloadable at the bottom of the website: www.unfairplay.info

We know our work isn’t sexy, and doesn’t necessarily make for a brilliant read, but issues of fairness are so fundamental to international co-operation and respect for cultural integrity that we are making it our priority (in the quest for climate safety at least) So the truth is that the nitty gritty, in such a complex and dry process, will never be anything more than frumpy!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Money, money, money
June 14, 2011

You may or may not know, I wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t, but the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), which is a stream of the talks, currently has on its agenda a number of important ideas for improving civil society participation in this process.

These ideas include setting up an online consultation system for every major agenda item that is being discussed. This would act as a means of gauging support, recieiving alernatives before they are discussed, and possibly during negotiations, but online so the proposer does not need to be in attendance of meeting (potentially); also for a larger number of meetings to be webcast (although this probably still excludes closed meetings); a voluntary trust fund to aid participation of observers from certain developing countries.

Whilst all of these are to be welcomed, by UNfairplay and by anyone in an observer organisation/civil society (all UN labels for people who are not media or party delegates), the submissions are still not quite strong enough. Submissions asking this, and endorsements by the Chairs of the negotiations, have still resulted in a block on this issue by the US and Canada….as you might well expect.

That is only one indicator of many, but one massively inescapable stumbling block remains, that is, funding.

Without funding from the parties (it is a party driven process as we keep being told) the Secretariat does not have the means to carry out the things it is mandated by the parties to do. e.g set up an online consultation system, provide transcripts, improve webcasts, organise a meeting etc.

The outcome of the budget meeting has been positive; as the SBI chair predicted, a 15% (maybe 22% increase if some additional roles are added to the Secretariats mandate) increase in the Secretariats budget for the coming year has been put forward, and just requires consensus to be adopted, we’ll update you in the coming days. Bernaditas, the famous negotiator here speaking for the Philippines, reminds us that the increase in budget reflects the rise in obligations placed on developing countries under the Cancun Agreement, including resources for bi-annual reporting.

UNfairplay might suggest that some of the money go into translation as priority no.1.

Then maybe the UNFCCC could consider funding its own website improvements aspriority no.2, instead of waiting on a donor for phase 2 of the website development which could just never come…phase 2 could be the beginning of increased global participation by observer organisations around the world, and, delegates who cannot afford to come but need information on the Adaptation Fund side events, and would like to ask Q’s etc, as well as offering their position via an online forum. I am not a techie, or a geek, but I am sure there are ways to supplement the current system (but not necessarily replace it), to aid participation and capacity to contribute to the UNFCCC.

Priority no.3 should of course be transcripts. We go on and on, but that’s because they could be so useful!

Even within the Youth Constituency I could not make all the meetings, but I know some of them are of interest to me, or I feel I should go, so what do I do? I look to the minutes and notes taken from the meetings….then I can catch up and contribute in full updated knowledge. If I don’t read the minutes, or none are produced, I immediately feel like I don’t know enough to be able to contribute in the meeting, or offer any constructive comments etc. This applies equally to delegates as part of a much much bigger process.

Why does the UN not provide transcripts of negotiations already? Because it is politically unsavoury. Countries like to be able to evade being pinned down on previous statements, and the details of their position. This ignorance (which would come from not attending, or not having time to watch the webcasts afterwards) is particularly helpful in confusing delegates whose first language is not English, who are inexperienced in the process, who are part of an under represented delegation, or just happened to zone out for a minute in plenary. Importantly, a lot of those delegates will be from countries who are already feeling the effects of climate change, and so the perpetual suppression of the affected voices goes on.

Transcripts don’t need lots of bandwidth like the webcasts (which are available to everyone), they are word-searchable so it should take less time to catch up than webcasts, they would eliminate misunderstandings arising from strong accents or bad english, and they are easily translatable. It has to be said though, our proposal of transcripts could never be implemented without a party mandate, so we’re working on that one.

You may be asking yourself why wouldn’t we put funding of delegates from under represented countries as priority no.1…well, Helena is busy number crunching, and so unless we are mistaken, we could have some interesting news for you tomorrow.

[for more info on some of UNfairplay's proposals find our report here]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Passionate Pragmatism
June 11, 2011

Hello from Bonn, I’m Sophie and I’m new to Unfairplay.

Coming along to Bonn as my first involvement in the UNFCCC process has been a steep learning curve.

So what has my experience so far been?

This is a world of acronyms. At time it feels almost like learning a new language. It can be rather confusing, but as with learning a new language, it comes with a buzz as you realise you are slowly starting to get your head around it.

One that note, here’s an update from Unfairplay and an insight into some of what the team have been up to this week.

Over the first week of the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn the Secretariat have engaged with civil society groups in various settings. Unfairplay have been at these sessions and have both contributed directly, and also heard many of the issues around improving participation that Unfairplay work on raised by other groups.

Sessions included a civil society consultation workshop with the Secretariat that spanned the day on Wednesday. Also meetings with Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary to the Secretariat, firstly with YOUNGO (the youth constituency: http://www.youthclimate.org), and then civil society groups (including YOUNGO), which provided another arena to communicate on key issues. Unfairplay has taken part in these sessions and others, asking questions directly to Christiana, as well as handing her a copy of the report.

A great example of  the team’s  input came at a side event on Thursday, in a consultation on the redesign of the UNFCCC website, when a proposal from Unfairplay to improve participation in the process was met with positive response. The suggestion was to use ‘tagging’ within webcasts from the Plenary so people can watch sessions remotely, but specifically have the ability to skip to the part of the video they’d like to see, rather than having to watch the video all the way through. UNfairplay got some great feedback and support from Andrew Ure of the Australian delegation who was very keen on this idea, having a sort of revelation moment as he realised how much easier it would make his job! So, exciting news for that proposal.

This is now being taken forward into a half hour interview with the Secretariat. There is also a survey available, which if you have experience of using the UNFCCC website, please please fill in: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/G82Q538

As mentioned, the exciting (in this context!) consultation workshop hosted by the Secretariat on Wednesday resulted in a consolidated list of proposals, with a report to follow, on the ideas from civil society in their engagement now being fed back to the UNFCCC process. The hope is of having the ideas fully considered by the parties with the request to adopt the suggestions. Issues raised include language barriers with all meeting being conducted in English and closed meetings where security on the doors at many sessions prevent entry. These, along with proposals, are being passed onto the parties and Unfairplay will continue to follow and participate in this process under YOUNGO.

On a broader note, throughout the negotiations the issues of slow progress and stalling are rife. But wise words came out of a Global Campaign for Climate Action daily briefing with YOUNGO this week; that there are two options in the face of this:

One is to adopt a sense of lethargy.

The other is to continue to work passionately on the solutions, with the hope the process will catch up.

Lets continue with the second option!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Christiana gets it…
June 10, 2011

Dear readers,

I hope we haven’t left you waiting for an update from Bonn for too long. The lack of reporting fortunately does not mean we have been inactive, in fact, the opposite is the case. Conny has been in Bonn since Monday, and Isobel, Isabel , Lena and Sophie have joined her tuesday night.

We used the opportunity of a side-event organised by the University of Zurich and LEAD International about “Building capacity of developing country leaders and negotiators to influence international talks.” to learn more about their research, which closely relates to our field of interest. The CIS-centre of the ETH Zurich researched in particular about the negotiating habits of small delegations and had a discussion about how to help small delegations. Interested? (Here is a link to their presentation)

Excitingly, we finally got a chance to formally hand over our report “Levelling the Playing Field” to Christiana Figueres, the secretary general of the UNFCCC. This is her giving it the once over:


YOUNGO, the youth constituency here, had a 30 minute-long meeting with Christiana, where they made some time for us (thanks!). Additionally, we got a chance to ask Christiana of how the UNFCCC secretariat is planning to address the issue of imbalanced negotiation capacity. Her answer: Unfortunately, it comes down to the limited funds of the secretariat. If there is money available, she will send more delegates to the conferences. Secondly, there are other UN-agencies (like UNEP) that have a larger physical presence in many developing countries as well as a longstanding cooperation with the local governments. Hence Christiana hopes that those agencies could be the ones training new delegates for the negotiations.

Also, we’re working quite closely with with YOUNGO and other youth organizations. For example, Conny moderated the YOUNGO meeting yesterday and helped out with the fossil of the day. Isobel moderated the YOUNGO meeting today, and most of us are involved in the campaign planning for the youth campaign here in Bonn. Together with PushEurope, YOUNGO will encourage the EU to move their emissions reduction target to 30 % as well as to lobby all delegations to raise their ambitions.

One last head’s up: Next week, we are organizing the very first UNfairplay Side-event! We’ll keep you posted.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The key policy issues here at Bonn 2011
June 10, 2011

Just to give you a quick update on what the main issues at stake are here in Bonn, the UN climate talks 2011.

1. The extension of the Kyoto Protocol to a second commitment period after 2012.

Developing countries (LDC’s, AOSIS etc) are definitely in favour of a second commitment period, as they see the alternative being voluntary pledges with no legally binding obligations. This would mean we have no hope of reducing maximum temperature rise to 2 degrees C (or 1.5 degrees if we are being very hopeful). Unfortunately, some countries like Russia, Canada or Japan have said they would block a decision to renew the Kyoto Protocol. If we don’t renew KP, which took about 18 years to negotiate (despite it being very weak in commitments anyway), then we’re back to square one without any legally binding agreement. We cannot let this happen! The other alternative, suggested by the U.S, is ‘pledge and review’, a voluntary system of countries pledging emission reduction targets, set by individual countries, with no reference to whether the global reduction is sufficient to achieve maximum temperature rise of 2 degrees. The problem with pledge&review is that it is NOT legally binding, and there is no enforcement mechanism when a country fails to meet their targets.

2. There is no money for another intercessional meeting between now and COP17 in Durban. Countries aren’t keen to fund it because the last intercessional in Bankok consisted entirely of agenda discussions (!) and, until yesterday, so did Bonn…. Maybe next week the EU will commit the money. Christiana Figueres (the secretary general of the UNFCCC) urges countries to make a decision and said that unless money is being put forward by the 17th June, there will not be another meeting. After that date, the secretariat would not have enough time to prepare another meeting.

3. Current emissions reductions pledges are not good enough to ensure a maximum temperature rise of 2 degrees, never mind the 1.5 degrees threshold necessary to ensure the survival of all countries and all peoples. For example, Canada’s new emission reduction targets that they presented here are actually LESS than their previous ones (very poor ones anyway) from the Kyoto Protocol. According to a new report by the UNEP, even if all the pledges are met as promised (quite unlikely in itself), we are still emitting around 5 gigatonnes of more CO2 than allowed to stick to 2 degrees.

Overall, the atmosphere is indeed not very productive. Many of the discussions go on behind closed doors and some big blocking countries (like Saudi Arabia, which wants to be reimbursed for any losses in oil sales or Canada, which got three fossils yesterday) are holding things up. On the other site, all tracks now have finally opened and are meeting and we youth are fully involved in planning a campaign to call on countries to change the mood and raise the ambition!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Support for Climate Change Adaptation Core of First World Bank Strategy for Kiribati
March 22, 2011

Good new for Kiribati’s much needed climate adaptation plans!

In the final hours of negotiations – a bit more about what’s at stake for Kiribati

Kiribati: we will be the first to go

Kiribati – a call to the world

“Washington, DC, March 1, 2011 – The World Bank Board today approved the first Country Assistance Strategy for Kiribati. The strategy, which was developed in consultation with government, donors and civil society, puts climate change at the centre of the three-year plan.With 33 atoll islands, spread across an area the size of India, Kiribati is one of the most remote and geographically dispersed countries in the world.  Its’ inhabited atolls lie only a few meters above sea level, making the country highly vulnerable to impacts from climate change and natural disasters. Already the effects of rising sea-levels and associated soil salination are starting to threaten limited fresh water supplies.Reflecting Kiribati’s vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters, the core of the World Bank Group’s Country Assistance Strategy will be to support the Kiribati government on climate change adaptation measures. This will include supporting the government to manage groundwater reserves, managing coastal areas, improving rainwater collection, and developing new sources of water.“Despite its small population – the challenges loom large for Kiribati” said Ferid Belhaj, World Bank Country Director, the Pacific. “The country and its people are at the coal-face of climate change and other natural disasters. This is a very real existential threat. This Country Assistance Strategy shows the World Bank’s commitment to work with the government in the critical area of climate change adaptation.”In addition to climate change adaptation, the strategy will also focus on generating opportunities from regional and global integration; investing in climate-friendly infrastructure developments and enhancing telecommunications.Underscoring the commitment to scale up support for Kiribati, the World Bank board also approved the Kiribati Road Rehabilitation Project today. The project will restore the only road connecting the communities in South Tarawa, the nation’s capital, which have received no major maintenance for over 20 years. Approximately 44 percent of Kiribati’s population of 110,000 lives in the capital. The project will also focus on supporting necessary sector reforms and institutional strengthening to ensure sustainable financing and the maintenance of the Kiribati road network. Plans will also be put in place for managing the impact of natural disasters on this critical road infrastructure.“Building safe, sustainable and effective roads is an important precursor to development for Kiribati. The restored roads in South Tarawa will provide a conduit to critical services and connect more people, businesses and the government to the things they need most,” said Ferid Belhaj, World Bank Country Director for the Pacific. “Equally important is the incorporation of institutional measures to ensure sustainability in the face of severe environmental impacts, like those confronting Kiribati. I am pleased we will be supporting the Government of Kiribati in both areas through this project”The project will be financed by a US$ 20 million grant from the World Bank – the first such World Bank grant to Kiribati – and will be undertaken in conjunction with the Asian Development Bank, Australia and New Zealand. It will be implemented by the Ministry of Public Works and Utilities.

Article found here: [Link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

OneClimate.net interview
December 9, 2010

If reading’s not your thing here’s a multi-sensual update on what we’ve done, are doing and will do.

With hope.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

“Leave the atom alone.” E. Y. Harburg
December 9, 2010

For days now I’ve been following the discussions on the Kyoto Protocol. I sat writing down often repetitive and technical discussions on, among other things, the gases that should and shouldn’t be included in the protocol; on what mathematical concept should be used in the transfer of excess from one commitment period to the other and on what version of science should be used to measure the ‘Global Warming Potential’ of different gases.

At first this raised a large question for me; what was the political reasoning behind the niggling over the use of science? Yet as time went on, and this niggling only got worse, I started to appreciate that what was happening in that room got right to the heart of the flaws with international negotiations on climate change; in fact on every level of action on climate change.

Climate change is at its core a scientific issue. The evidence of its existence is found is science and the possibilities for its combating are found in science. Yet the people who take the final decisions, be it in national governments or here in Conference of the Parties, are politicians not scientists. As we were given presentations on the affect of using different scientific reports (a more recent one and a less recent one) I could tell that I was not the only one in the room struggling to understand. The negotiators sent here, are undoubtedly, very intelligent and well rounded in their knowledge but they cannot be expected to have a detailed understanding of the complicated scientific concepts put forth in IPCC reports.

Furthermore their ability to understand this scientific knowledge depends heavily on the number of scientific advisors they can bring with them; so while Brazil with their 591 delegates can happily dedicate teams of people to decoding the best way to manipulate the science for their ends, others are left floundering. It appears that complicated science is yet another barrier against some of the most needy delegations here in Cancun.

Today one of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations was simply not scheduled, and another was cancelled. Both of these relate strongly to intricate scientific principles; or lack of the aforementioned. It would appear that talks have ground to a halt, because the honorable delegates cannot agree on matters of science; perhaps most ridiculously on whether to use the latest science, or older science which better fits political aims.

If I ever asked someone to design a house for me, I would not ask a lawyer or a doctor. Not because they are not skilled, intelligent people but because I would know that an architect could do it better; after all it is what they are trained to do. In this vein it makes little sense to me to give the politicians the right to cherry pick science. Especially when some are much more able than others to pick the best cherries. That being said; I do appreciate how difficult it is to orchestrate the kind of international negogiations we are looking for. And I am sure that the UNFCCC is a, if not the, key component of tackling climate change. I also, however, strongly believe in the necessesity to leave science to the scientists.

Only now am I starting to recognize the contrast in these two beliefs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Visualisation of the delegation sizes
December 8, 2010

A technical one for you today:

Worldmapper.org has kindly produced a map based on the data of our report. It shows the number of delegates per country that are represented here in Cancún, as stated in the provisional list of participants published by the UNFCCC on the 30/11/10 (available from the UNFCCC website).

 

Some of you might be new to the worldmapper-style representation of maps. Maps are distorted to show each country in proportion to a specific topic (in this case the number of delegates at COP 16). It might be helpful to compare the map to a reference map for a better orientation. Below, we pasted a land area map as a reference for a better orientation when compared to our map of delegates. We realise that those maps can seem quite unusual for an unfamiliar eye, so please follow this link for an extensive explanation of how maps are created.
As you can see above, at first sight, it seems that the economic South is not as badly represented as one might expect. Europe is certainly very bloated, especially the western and northern European countries. Russia disappeared from the map, China and India also seem underrepresented given their usual size. Japan is exaggerated, similarly to New Zealand and the South East Asian Countries.
Africa seems quite big, which is largely due to Nigeria (175 delegates) and South Africa (199 delegates). Actually, on average, African countries are significantly under represented with an average of around 20 delegates. In comparison with Europe, Africa has 3 delegates per 100m inhabitants while the EU has 6.4 delegates per 100m inhabitants.
You might wonder about the North American representation. The U.S. actually seems to have shrunk in the relation to its neighbours. But the U.S. also has a very large population and land mass and hence the number of delegates might seem relatively small in proportion. One comment given by an art teacher from Hong Kong was: “Maybe they just don’t care as much?”
Latin America, too seems quite large, which is due to Brazil’s massive representation here. With almost 600 delegates, it exaggerates the whole South American continent significantly. The rest of the Latin American countries’ delegations actually seem quite small.
We have also created a comparison of the number of delegates at COP 3 and at COP 16, which is shown below.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: