This being the last day of COP15, and the final hours of the final day, you would have thought it would be simply the finishing touches that they are putting on a final deal.
But of course not! This is the UNFCCC!
I am sitting in plenary at 5 in the morning
and that’s as far as I got! Soon after, the Lawyer from Kiribati who always visits our ‘office’ at the sofas, came to the back of plenary where Alex and I were propping ourselves up on the back wall, he looked much worse than us; his bloodshot and red-rimmed eyes betrayed the trials and tribulations of the last 2 days which meant he hadn’t slept for over 48 hours, except the odd nap- somewhere in the salubrious Bella Centre.
He wasn’t his usual cheery self.
After the initial comment of ‘we don’t usually expect our negotiators to stay this long-aimed at Alex and I- he sat himself down on the floor of plenary to have a break. He said he wished he could be rejoicing with us at this hour, rather than commiserating on what is a poignantly sad day….
We know for sure exactly what he refers to because we had experienced it only a few hours previously. Before spending the night at the Bella Centre we were invited to dine with the President of Kiribati at a traditional Indian restaurant in the middle of the city. 25 of us crowded in to one half of the restaurant, a hotch potch of Ozzies, New Zealanders, I-Kiribas and us Welsh! As instructed our team from UN fair play surrounded the President, and the space where his Wife would have sat if she were not still at the hotel unable to cope with the cold weather and snow. We soon learnt what was causing the permanently furrowed brow of the President; he was profoundly and unalterably angry and sad at the outcome of the negotiations. He had already given up on anything happening - even though the talks went on for another 12 hours-because although Copenhagen was the largest summit of world leaders ever, it was over. Presidents, Prime Ministers, dictators and excellencies had almost all left the Bella Centre at least 6 hours previous, meaning no snap and ambitious decisions that weren’t already on the table could have been made. We were back to civil servants and the remits they have been given.
To him it was crystal clear what this summit had meant. It had meant an opportunity for him to never have to break the reality of climate change to his people ( a truth he shades them from so as not cloud their culture of living in the moment and never planning more than a week ahead). He describes the arduousness of daily life as survival from day-to-day in itself, let alone with the added burden of catastrophic climate change on top. In fact, a particularly high tide on the night before he left for Copenhagen had washed away houses on the beach, as if he needed any more reminding.
The arrogance of world leaders who control rich and developed countries, thinking they can act solely on economy based arguments of gross domestic product (GDP) and good press, rather than for example, Gross National Happiness (GNH) had created an anger in the President that was evidently disturbing to himself. Disturbing because its an emotion so foreign to the I-Kiribati, they don’t do anger. As he said, it’s offensive to the countries who need help and support on the front line, for Developed countries to suggest they accept the money for adaptation otherwise they won’t agree to anything. It is quite literally putting a price on their future. No compromise on the targets of 350 and 1.5= no money tomorrow. Simple as that.
Never, not in Poznan, not in Bonn, have I ever seen the real life manifestation of what political power means. If I had my way, the person I was having dinner with would be the peak of political power thanks to his respect, dignity and hard work. However, as it stands Obama wielded his influence in the form of the fatal ‘accord’; Rudd of Australia bent nearby Island States to his crappy will because they need his blessing to migrate there; and countries like Africa and AOSIS members agreed to whatever got the adaptation funds flowing fastest. The idea of consensus is that it operates on a numbers basis-there is no hierarchy-anyone and everyone can contribute equally, and all should expect to be heard. The UNFCCC uses consensus to make decisions, nothing can be adopted by COP if it is not agreed on by every party to the convention. So why is it that this process has fallen victim to measuring how hard the hand can slap rather than just counting the hands?
Much as I love him there is a perfect example in the form of President Nasheed of the Maldives. He has committed his country to go carbon neutral by 2020, and he convened the first summit of vulnerable island nations. He shouts loud and clear at every opportunity for 350 and well below 1.5…..do they listen to him? No! He is seen as brazen and naive, even by fellow islanders. He is mocked for his enthusiasm, and like a child he cries out for simplicity and action on the truth. I love him. But he has zero political clout.
Despite the indescribable chasm of disappointment that COP15 opens up, the beautifully fragile tunes that they wove at the back of the Indian restaurant call out to me, and the eyes of the President frame my fight for the future because I know this injustice cannot go on, and the lives of these special and loyal people surely cannot be lost to the waves.
There is a text on the table. We all know it’s not enough: it’s not fair, ambitious or legally binding. I’m sitting in the plenary now (yes, it’s 5 in the morning) and state after state take the floor to emphasise that if this deal were signed, it would lead to the deaths of large chunks of humanity.
The most shocking part of all of this is how it was created. Earlier this week, China was in uproar over the Danish text – ‘it’s fallen out of the sky, there is no way we can discuss this’. Meetings are happening behind closed doors, for those countries informally dubbed ‘friends of the chair’.
Out came an ‘agreement’ which no one will agree to.
Sovereign equality has been ignored.
It is what we have been saying from the beginning.
At the beginning of the week civil society organisations were largely evicted from the conference centre. Posters reading ‘how can you make decisions about us, without us?’ appeared everywhere. The same now seems to have happened to the less economically advanced.
The problem is largely systematic.
Yesterday I sat in a high-level ministerial meeting about ‘developed’ countries’ emissions cuts and a woman from Japan couldn’t understand the level of English being used. There are no interpreters in side rooms (where most of the content is discussed) and as things got more important things sped up and native English speakers outstripped non-natives. Some text was pushed through that some delegates didn’t even understand. In a plenary session China began to speak and there was no interpretation. The meeting was suspended for 2 hours until enough interpreters were herded into their labelled boxes. Just now, a Venezuelan delegate needed to bang the table until her hand bled before getting attention.
According to some old-time negotiators here, one of the key tactics for pushing the Kyoto protocol through was tiring the negotiators out. Incoherence and melted minds claim their first victims from the weakest delegations.
It is a simple equation. Negotiations run 9 ‘til 5(am), some delegations are really big (300+) some are small (2). Small delegations lose mental capacity very quickly. This is not a joke.
Small delegations are usually of the countries which need to be heard most. As there aren’t as many people in island nations and developing countries as there are in Canada, the US and China, people argue that many small delegations have no right to expand. But the UN is not a democracy – it is consensus run. Everybody must agree on a common mission, at least that’s the idea.
With that as the fundamental aim, all countries must have the same capacity to voice their positions. When delegates wither and fall, whether they are replaced or not, the process has failed those who need it most.
Thankfully, at least for now, it is impossible to make a deal about them without them. UN consensus rules that everybody needs to agree, which is why no agreement has come out yet. Hopefully, at some point in the near future, those who are excluding others will realise that they are excluding themselves as much as the rest of the world.
Today we are sat with David, the lawyer from the Kiritbati delegation watching the presidential addresses. Each head of state gets up on stage and delivers some carefully chosen words. Endlessly they take the stage and talk about cooperation and fighting climate change together. And while they talk the real negotiating hasn’t even started. We are still waiting for what’s called the chair’s draft text. This is a text for the agreement to be signed up to by all the countries. It is written by the chairs and then negotiated on. Once the text is produced countries will add and subtract sentences words and commas from it. They’ll add and remove brackets. They’ll bargain with each other about what stays in the text and how it’s phrased. This process is complicated and time consuming. It needs to start now.
Today we’ve been busy attending, taking notes and summarising the main plenary sessions for Kiribati. The talks have been tense and amongst the inhuman UN language there have been tears and anger from the official negotiators. We witnessed the spokesperson from Tuvalu break down as he spoke in utter desperation to save his culture, community and livelihood. The future of his whole country is in the hands of a few.
Watching the Alliance of Small Island States hold their press conference last night, we could feel the exhaustion in their words… the dark lines under their eyes showed how stretched the small delegations are. They have to negotiate and hold press conferences whilst larger delegations have individuals who do nothing but rest and deliver speeches.
The bad…
The wonderful Bella Center, the host of the COP15 conference, only has a capacity of 15,000. The Secretariat, the people who keep the conference ticking over, are putting into place what’s called ‘double-badging’. This means that as of Tuesday, we might not be allowed in anymore. So Kiribati’s already tiny team will be reduced even further.
Sound like fair play? Not really.
As of this week, only a limited number of NGO people (like us at UN Fair Play) will be allowed in. So even though we’re doing important work for a vulnrable, underrepresented country we might be left hanging around outside unable to do anything. We won’t be able attend meetings for them, take notes or summarise documents.
It’s doubly frustrating because lots of people we’ve met here aren’t even doing very much. We’ve started calling them “grazers”
They just wander around “grazing”, popping in, popping out, collecting stickers and papers and aren’t really interested in any of the negotiations… they seem to think of COP as a festival rather than the official negotiations of the most important meeting ever to exist. So we’re angry at being bumped off the list when there are people in the conference who don’t really need to be here.
It doesn’t help our situation but sometimes, just sometimes, it’s good to moan. We’re trying hard to get round this situation. We’ll keep you posted.
So we’ve told you a lot about the work we’ve been doing for Kiribati, and a lot about the negotiations in Copenhagen. But not very much about Kiribati it’s self. To give you sense a of the country we are working for, and how they are threatened by climate change, here is short video about Kiribati.
Yesterday, we (Isabel and Jess – the two lawyers of the group) sat in on a side event entitled ‘Recognising and protecting human rights within the Copenhagen agreement’. As the talk unfolded, it hit us just how significant this issue is. It is so obvious, yet seems to somehow have eluded the general concerns surrounding climate change.
The SIDS (small island developing states) have, along with numerous others, been campaigning to get realistic emission and temperature targets out of the negotiations here at Copenhagen. Yet what will happen if these ambitious targets are not achieved?
We saw from Kiribati’s presentation the devastating effects that sea-level rise will have on their home – one of the first things to go will be their freshwater supply – thus rendering the island uninhabitable within a matter of years. This then raises the issue of relocation, and what the rights of those who are forced out of their homes will be, both in the area they are relocated to, and over the land they are relocated from. They cannot be considered as ‘refugees’ since refugees are seen as temporarily relocating, with a view to moving home at some point. Those affected by climate change are leaving their homes knowing they will never return. Inhabitants of the Pacific Islands are already relocating – both internally to other islands and externally to mainland.
Why then is the issue of human rights only now coming to light?
As was explained in yesterday’s meeting, there were grave concerns among the SIDS that, had the process of relocation been started earlier, pressure to reach ambitious emission targets may have been taken off developed countries.
The current situation at COP15 where 350ppm and 1.5°C are the key targets may not have been pushed for, had there been a ‘solution’ to the rising seas faced by SIDS. It is therefore extremely important that Human Rights are brought to the forefront of both peoples’ minds and discussions here at COP15.
One reason why the idea of incorporating human rights into any outcome of COP15 is being heavily opposed by some countries is that human rights are legal rights – thus they would inevitably create a binding legal agreement (as opposed to a political non-binding one).
Yet the notion of considering human rights has also been praised, with many claiming that it shows the real life effect of climate change, directing attention to the most vulnerable-empowering and strengthening their voices.
The face of climate change is the people that are affected.
Yet these people have no power.
One stark example is the speed at which globalisation is negatively impacting indigenous people. Vast areas of land belong to indigenous people yet they are excluded from discussions regarding uses of this land. Indigenous people cannot be continually sidelined and made invisible. Human rights in the ‘Copenhagen convention’ are not optional – they are a necessity.
It is the only way for the most vulnerable people to get recognition and protection. The Doctrine of Human Rights brings together all people from all places. These are simple principles agreed by UN yet they are not getting into the documents in this UN process.
And even if these rights are recognised, how will those affected by climate change be able to enforce them? Inhabitants of island states cannot sue the rising sea levels! Yet it would be near-impossible for an individual from a developing country to hold a state responsible for their loss.
There is evidently a long way to go.
One thing which people should bear in mind is that an endangered atmosphere is common ground for all of us, but more so is our humanity.
You may be following the whirlwind of stories in the press that is engulfing Copenhagen. Unless you’re superhuman you’re probably confused, as are many delegates here. For a country that can’t send many negotiators, keeping up with the endless simultaneous meetings, working groups and documents becomes an impossible task. Kiribati, the island state we are currently working with, are in this position. So to keep us all up to speed on who is saying what we went to a useful briefing on the positions currently being advocated at Copenhagen.
We thought we’d share what we found out with you. Thank you to E3G Third Generation Environmentalism (http://www.e3g.org/) for providing the briefing.
China, the EU and the US are responsible for 50-60% of global emissions and India, Russia and Canada are also big contributors, so all need to be involved in any protocol that may be signed.
Conversely, there are 100 countries that account for less than 3% of global emissions. These are also the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and least able to deal with it without financial aid – these are the countries we are trying to help.
The big negotiating blocs are:
G77+China
This actually consists of around 137 developing countries. Within the group there are around 50 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and 30-40 Least Developed Countries (LDC). The SIDS form a united front and are becoming very vocal in negotiations, as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). LDCs have the same messages – 350 ppm (www.350.org), increased finance and technology transfer to developing nations and 1.5oC of warming – but are far less organised.
The emerging economies of China, India and similar countries are benefiting from the current finance structure of the Kyoto Protocol (which is ignoring less developed nations and not forcing richer countries to act) but are finding it difficult to fit emissions reductions into the current framework as well as being worried about having to increase transparency.
The African Bloc
This consists of all African nations in the process. There is a significant rift between the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), like Algeria who take the side of the Middle East, and LDCs like Botswana, Malawi and Burundi who are far more…ambitious.
US
The US rejected the Kyoto Protocol because they claim it’s not global and won’t work. The US want a treaty that brings in developing countries and will not sign Kyoto until Non-Annex 1 (non-rich) countries, namely China and India, commit to emissions cuts and making their actions more transparent. This arguably goes against the fundamental principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ which implies that all countries have a responsibility to act but that some need to do so more than others.
Currently the US is holding up negotiations because of a lack of commitment to targets. The current target is equivalent to a mere 3-4% reduction in emissions by 2020 (from a 1990 baseline – the important bit). Earlier this week the Obama administration could not have made any stronger commitments without Congress’ approval (which it won’t have a chance of getting until Spring) but the situation may have changed. This week the EPA gave the presidential office the power to put limits on CO2 (as it is a pollutant) without going through Congress or the Senate. Woop-de-doo?
EU
The EU concentrate more on the ‘differentiated’ part of the principle and recognise the historical responsibility of “developed” countries due to the fact that 70% of the man made CO2 in the atmosphere comes from them.
The EU target is 20% reductions by 2020 but have proposed 30% if the whole world signs up to a stronger deal. The scientific recommendations are around 40% globally. Countries like the UK are pushing for 30% but Italy and much of Eastern Europe argue that reductions of even 20% would diminish EU business to the extent that investors all leave.
Saudi Arabia:
They do not believe Climate Change exists and are trying to sabotage all negotiations by diverting conversation and making constant interventions. Thanks guys. Really responsible of you.
