Jessie Dennis | Policy Director | Project Survival International Team | New Zealand | 1st December 2011 |
We will start with the bad news. Let’s not beat around the bush. Three days into the COP17 climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa, and things are looking, well, pretty darn bleak. For those whose survival depends on the outcome, we cannot downplay the dire situation in which we find ourselves in Durban. Why am I so somber, you ask?
As COP negotiations started, civil society groups made opening demands of a global climate deal based on the science; a pathway to achieving the emissions reductions needed to limit temperature rises to 1.5%. For most civil society groups, and for most Developing Countries and Small Island States, this means a number of things are needed in Durban. Here’s the very modest wish-list:
1) A commitment to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire at the end of 2012. At this point, the Kyoto protocol is all the world has in the way of a binding deal to reduce emissions for developed countries. The Kyoto protocol is deeply flawed, some would say to a point which renders it useless, but most still agree that securing a second commitment phase is the only way to ensure developed countries do not back out of their previous commitments altogether.
2) Increased ambition, progress and cooperation for securing a global climate deal which will replace Kyoto or work alongside it, and bring in other non-annex1 parties. This deal must be binding and it must take into account the historical responsibility of developed countries for greenhouse gases. The market mechanisms which are riddled with loopholes which are included in the Kyoto Protocol must be, depending on who you talk to, removed completely or reformed extensively to remove loopholes. Ideally this would have been agreed upon two years ago in Copenhagen. Many civil society groups are now left hoping, optimistically, that it could be achieved by 2015; the date when emissions must globally peak according to scientific reports by the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
3) A fair, equitable and quick implementation of the Green Climate Fund. The Green Climate Fund must be governed by the COP itself, and be financed publicly, not by the private sector. At present, the involvement of the World Bank and the private sector in the governance and funding of the Green Climate Fund is causing significant concern, as it leaves the fund open to corruption, and makes transparency and accessibility for those in need of the funds difficult.
A view of the dais during the opening plenary of COP17 in Durban on 28th November 2011. Photo Credit: International Institute of Sustainable Development
In the first three days of COP, the Kyoto Protocol appears to be on a lifeline, with many predicting it will be history by the end of COP17. This process started in Cancun a year ago, with Japan formally backing out of the Protocol, and Russia and Canada signaling their intention to. On day one of COP17 in Durban, Canada announced it would withdraw formally from the Protocol. Other developed nations which were previously still signally support for the second commitment phase are now showing signs they will follow suit and drop out, such as the European Union nations.
Ambition for the deal to replace Kyoto has taken a massive drop too, according to statements made by developed nations saying they don’t expect a deal to be reached before 2020. This attitude seems to be being pushed by the US, whose head of delegation Jonathon Pershing stated, to the outrage of many, that reaching a deal in 2020 would leave many options open for still keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees, which the US has committed to in both the Copenhagen and Cancun talks.
In Finance, a text around the governance and plan of implementation is being tabled this week. Civil society is somewhat divided here, with some saying we need to adopt it quickly so that progress can be made, and others saying that the involvement of the world bank, lack of transparency in governance and high involvement of the private sector makes the current proposal unacceptable.
The least developing countries, small island states, and civil society are now in a position of accepting the crumbs being offered by rich states in order to make any kind of progress, if you can call it that, or demand more before engaging in talks which would secure a global deal: More ambition, more transparency and commitment by developed countries. With the US leading a path of falling ambition and reneging on existing commitments, some developing countries, such as India, are adopting a harder line of negotiation. ‘If they won’t play ball, why should we?’ appears to be a new mantra for some developing states. China, Brazil and India have now joined the chorus of countries saying no deal will be reached before 2020. But it is the behavior and attitude of the richest countries of the global north which have lead us to this point. It is those nations with the most power which, like bullies in a playground, are so used to getting their way that any kind of compromise is simply unacceptable to them. A new report It is the poorest of nations who are now left more isolated, as they continue to demand a science based approach, while the negotiations stray further and further away from this.
So what’s the good news? There is plenty of courage and hope to be found in Durban. Some of it is inside the negotiating rooms, and a lot of it is outside, in the streets. I will be focusing on these acts of courage and hope and the groups and individuals who are in Durban speaking truth to overwhelming power in my next blog. So don’t lose hope in the meantime, we can’t afford to.
