The atmosphere at the UNFCCC conference in China seems to be quiet and subdued, compared to the chaos at Copenhagen. Delegates comment that the negotiations are “slow”. One Kenyan delegate commented with frustration that the room full of lawyers had spent 45 minutes arguing about the definition of one word. He said that there were too many lawyers, and not enough scientists in the negotiations.
In addition, the Great Chinese Firewall has blocked access to many NGO websites (including this one!) which may hinder the access to information. Although the UN conference is supposed to be international and independent, even the UN conference computer room is subject to the firewall!Initial results from the ‘Filling Information Gaps’ Survey have found that some country delegates did not know that the ‘webcasts’ of meetings were provided on the UNFCCC website. It seems that access to information is clearly unequal.All delegates interviewed so far have been extremely interested in this project. Some different suggestions have been made for making the UN fairer; one suggested that there should be a limit to the number of delegates that are allowed, and a few suggested there needs to be more translations in the smaller meetings.
Transparency is still an issue, too. Most of the meetings are closed to observers. That means that only government delegates and the observer states are allowed in. Actually, there seems to be more meetings labelled with ‘CLOSED’ than there was at the previous talks in Bonn in June. I do hope this is not a growing trend. Unfortunately, at this crucial stage in the talks, with so many closed meetings it is still difficult to work out exactly what is going on.
Only one day to go before myself and Isabel hop on the coach to Cologne then grab the train to Bonn. Its going to be a long one but flying’s an absolute no brainer, not going to happen. Still plenty of time to read and write and get up to date. I’m looking forward to getting there and getting stuck in. Also to meeting all the other youth delegates doing inspiring things.
It seems like there is allot for us to document when it comes to this idea of an information gap. We have been following the talks in a variety of ways. The Climate Action Network newsletters are helpful and give a good feel for the trend of the negotiations, the Earth Negotiations bulletin emails are more informative about actual negotiations but are much more technical in their language and often require some background knowledge (especially of all the acronyms commonly used!). To really get an idea of what the ENB are talking about it’s really worth having a quick gander at the UNFCCC website where beginners guide documents all the way up to the negotiating text may be found. The guides can be found here. I guess its like anything though, if you want to put in some reading you can do it and get up to speed. It’s just knowing what to read and where to get the latest updates when not there personally. At the moment we are trying to create a list of all the different websites that follow and report on the negotiations. There must be hundreds. We think its worth finding them and evaluating their use when it comes to keeping on top of negotiations both for civil society like us and for delegations. We can then hopefully create a guide to getting started, and staying informed.
There was another interesting piece in yesterdays Earth Negotiation bulletin that caught my eye. During the subsidiary Body for Scientifica and Technical Advice ( see http://tiny.cc/04fdn for explanation of SBSTA) RESEARCH DIALOGUE session:
“John Padgham, Global Change SysTem for Analysis,
Research and Training (START), discussed science policy
dialogues aiming to foster better communication between
scientists and policy makers in developing countries, stressing
the importance, inter alia, of: addressing capacity and
knowledge gaps; improving access to data; using integrated
inter-sectoral planning; and enhancing communication pathways”
Remember our project Filling Information Gaps? Well its all about finding out where countries are disadvantaged by lack of information. Yesterday we heard from Kiribati that small island states feel that information is not getting to them fast enough. Today this statement highlights that fact that information gaps are not just related to negotiations, they are also scientific. Different countries have access to different mitigation technology, or different regions may have higher resolution climate models (i.e. rich regions such as UK – Hadley Centre, and the US – NASA) the list goes on. Knowledge affects not only the negotiating position of parties but also their capacity to adapt to climate change. For this reason technology transfer is a big part of these negotiations (more on this in a later post).
Another year, another set of climate negotiations and much has changed over the last few months. Firstly Yvo de Boer as many of you will know has stepped down as Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. His commitment to constructing a deal was evident and his passion at times thinly veiled, especially during negotiations where little sleep is had by anyone (the famous crying incident in Bali). In a leaked letter to the Guardian today, Yvo is quoted as saying;
“[The Danish text] destroyed two years of effort in one fell swoop,” De Boer wrote. “All our attempts to prevent the paper happening failed. The meeting at which it was presented was unannounced and the paper unbalanced.”
It also added,
“Inviting heads of state seemed like a good idea. But it seriously backfired”, ” Their early arrival did not have the catalytic effect that was hoped for. The process became paralysed. Rumour and intrigue took over.”
It has become clear that the outcome at Copenhagen was nothing short of a disaster for the UNFCCC process and in terms of emissions (See the Oxford Environmental Change Institute Podcast for commentary, and if you have the metal watch the closing session of COP15 for the late night drama). Scientists Rogelj et al (2010) in the respected journal Nature write a piece entitled ‘ Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry’ in which they summarise:
Nations will probably meet only the lower ends of their emissions pledges in the absence of a binding international agreement
Nations can bank an estimated 12 gigatonnes of Co2 equivalents surplus allowances for use after 2012
Land-use rules are likely to result in further allowance increases of 0.5 GtCO2-eq per year
Global emissions in 2020 could thus be up to 20% higher than today
Current pledges mean a greater than 50% chance that warming will exceed 3°C by 2100
If nations agree to halve emissions by 2050, there is still a 50% chance that warming will exceed 2°C and will almost certainly exceed 1.5°C
In short the consensus is that as things stand we are heading for a 3C plus world as currently world emissions are greater than those of the IPCC’s worst case (A1Fl) scenario (Raupach, 2007) and as yet, no sign of a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement is in sight.
In fact the political fallout of the botched Copenhagen negotiations is only just beginning to be understood. A recent paper produced from the discussions of experts brought together by the London School of Economics entitled ‘The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009′ attempts to assess the political aftermath of COP15 and how climate politics may move forward from here. The papers position is that the UNFCCC/Kyoto process has crashed and is structurally unworkable, rather it argues for a radical reframing “accepting that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic”.
In other words countries such as the US on purely ideological grounds may never pass domestic legislation to cut carbon emissions directly. This leaves multinational negotiations forever stalled without the world’s second biggest emitter included, similar problems exist for other countries. Therefore direct emissions reductions are unlikely to work, rather they should be achieved as a corroraly of three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be. In this way the secondary effects of a policy (i.e. carbon reductions from clean energy production in the developing world) may be considered one of its primary objectives in addition of development. Scientists have also suggested that focus purely on CO2 may be a mistake, easier gains for both worldwide health and warming may be initially gained by reducing black carbon emissions, (See: A Perspective Paper on Black Carbon Mitigation as a Response to Climate Change) or by considering the effect of differing green house gasses on ecosystem services (Sitch et al 2007).
Such an approach as advocated in the Hartwell paper will not be popular with many LDC’s, at COP15 the Kyoto track of negotiations was voraciously defended because legally it sets out the responsibilities of Annex I countries (even if many of them have reneged up it!). Ironically China, India, Brazil and South Africa blocked long term emission targets from being in the Copenhagen Accord on the pretext that they would soon be unable to argue that they shouldn’t be in Annex I also (See Mark Lynas’s article in the Guardian). Many believe that to enact emissions cuts necessary to achieve climate stabilisation (a moot point as to if such a thing exists) only a unilateral approach with interim and short term targets will come close. It seems that among the west and larger developing countries that political will is not there to do so. And so therefore the scene is set, where will negotiations proceed? How will climate politics be rebuilt before Mexico? Will it be rebuilt? What will it look like? Hopefully some insights might come from these intercessional negotiations.
Whatever happens now, the Costa Rican negotiator Christiana Figures (Yvo’s replacement as Executive Secretary) is really going to have her work cut out for her to try and wrestle multilateral climate politics back from the brink and find a way to cut emissions from countries where domestic political issues precludes direct legislation.
First of all, all of us who took part in UNfair play would like to say thanks for everyone’s lovely comments and support throughout COP15.
We have had a very positive response from everyone we supported, and also friends, family, strangers and campaigners; with everyone asking the same question: how can we get involved?!
The group of us at COP15 were a hotch potch of friends, and we all think that UNfairplay needs to continue in some form. To this end we have decided to keep the blog running so that anyone (and by that we mean any of you who gain access to the negotiations and wish to support under represented delegations) who supports country delegations in the UNFCCC. This blog is open to you as a platform, just get in touch.
After some discussion we don’t feel that it is appropriate for us to spearhead some kind of ‘delegation’ and organised project that takes a set of people for this job to every meeting. We lack the capacity, and it’s so easy to do we don’t think it necessary. However, we are of course here for you to probe/question/sap of information so that you can get yourself there. Use us.
So, keep your peripheral on the blog, it will remain active according to the dates of intercessionals and COP’s and if you’re interested in getting involved further email Isabel at ikbottoms@googlemail.com
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.
Monday was the hardest day of the whole conference so far for us. We spent the day careering around from one place to the next trying to pull strings that we don’t have, and just generally being entirely at the mercy of the UN process. We joined the mass of a thousand or so people outside the main gate where the Danish and UN police simply weren’t letting anyone through.
When we finally got inside good news was waiting. We had started the week with a pie-in-the-sky aim of being accredited as official party delegates. Yesterday the 5 of us who have been helping Kiribati for the last week, officially became part of the Kiribati delegation. We got our Pink party badges.
This takes the Kiribati delegation numbers up to 20, a lot for a small developing island you might think….we don’t. We met with their lawyer who explained what roles everyone in the delegation has. So far Kiribati have been using us to cover negotiations and events they don’t have enough people to go to. Often the overly complex UN process means it’s not clear whether they need to be in a meeting or not – we often end up covering negotiation sessions if they don’t know whether they are relevant.
Just to illustrate their situation further, there are countries that have far fewer delegates. Mauritius have 4, El Salvador have 5. In stark comparison, the Chinese delegation has bought 232 party delegates, that’s almost one for each hour of the conference!
Either way, we know that Kiribati have felt supported in their best endeavours here at COP15. They have us when they get too tired, they have us to get to the smaller events, they have us to do research they need quickly, they have us to rely on. How must smaller delegations numbering less than 15 feel without fellow negotiators to prop each other up, and without a secondary support system like us? Alone and confused we can tell you. It’s difficult enough being out of the real world for 2 whole weeks, in a whole different country, with strangers, a lot of whom are pitted against you. It makes for a hostile, ‘every man for himself’ kind of situation on a grand scale. We realise that our pink badges are indicators of the success of UNfair play, but, and this is a big but, never has such a great and seemingly unreal moment been marred by such frustrating events.
Further to our team of 6 (now 5 as Tina has gone home) were to be 4 others who arrived at the weekend to attend the second week of negotiations, to- allow us to- achieve even more. Three of them got into the queue outside the Bella centre at 8.30 AM. Everyone inside was told that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) would be heavily restricted come Tuesday: 7000 NGO passes were issued for Tuesday and Wednesday; 1000 for Thursday, and only 90 for Friday. Yes that’s right, 90 people will represent the whole of planet earth who aren’t Government.
Our 3 new people weren’t victim to this yet. Instead they queued for eleven hours to register and get their passes.
11 HOURS in the (literally) freezing cold.
11 HOURS without access to water.
11 HOURS without access to toilets.
11 HOURS without access to food.
And even then not all of them made it: a typo in a database somewhere meant Katy’s name didn’t exactly match the name on her passport and she was turned away.
Between us we fought and fought to get her in. Having queued in the cold for eleven hours she could hardly speak. She’d come all the way to Copenhagen to help underrepresented countries – and now she wasn’t allowed in, because of a typo. As we were standing waiting for the verdict a woman working for UN, very eloquently and calmly put in a complaint about the abhorrent conditions under which people were subjected to that day, claiming she was “ashamed to be associated with the UN”. And she was justified in her complaint; when we walked in as free men, so to speak, past what can only be described as a cage keeping back the hoards of people needing and wanting to be registered, we unanimously felt sick to the stomach and red with shame. Those of us with party badges felt we didn’t want to be here if we were part of the elite, legitimising a democratic sham.
We eventually realised that any amount of persuasive tactics was not going to work; they had had their orders ‘from the top’.
The system inside here is no longer subject to subjectivity on the part of the person you’re dealing with, or the effects of your charm on their ego. The orders from on high remind us that we are about to be in the biggest summit of the world leaders possibly ever. This is security without exclusivity; the same man who turned Katie away had turned away ministers whose names also weren’t correctly spelled. This is no joke and we are not laughing.
