The final day has certainly been the oddest in my time in Poznan. In any fundamental way we are no nearer getting a just climate agreement by the end of 2009 than last year in Bali.
As I write, we are still to have the final wrapping up sessions, but it has been clear for a while that developed countries have come here with no intention of advancing the talks. Australia, Canada, Japan and the US have made no offers on cutting emissions by 2020. And no rich country has meaningfully engaged on developing country proposals for finance and technology.
Meanwhile in Brussels, the EU has reached an agreement which drives a dagger through the heart of negotiations. They have agreed to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 on 1990 levels (40 per cent is needed), and around two-thirds of this can be met through offsets rather than cutting emissions in the EU. And one mechanism in the package actually subsidises new coal power stations – the kind that will be ‘ready’ for carbon capture and storage rather than actually having any.
We enter 2009 without the leadership from Europe so urgently needed.
Inevitably the story of Poznan will be written-up as ‘Waiting for Obama’. But what a much better place we would be waiting in if Europe had lived up to its rhetoric of wanting to lead the world in tackling climate change.
Al Gore earlier used a climate change statistic that I am most scared by. Around 1.4 billion are dependent for more than half their water supplies on glaciers in the Himalayas. Those glaciers will be gone if we carry on our current path.
I am a stats person. I like the big picture they give. But ultimately it is stories that move us. I wish the thousands of delegates could meet not here in a sanitised conference centre where stories are so few, but on the shores of Legaspi City in the Philippines, where hundreds of people have to rebuild their homes every time a supertyphoon passes through.
They could stop talking and listen. Listen to those who have already had to move home because of the increased strength of typhoons. Listen to those who live on the beech and watch the sea-level risen. Listen to Virgilio Perdigon from the local university, who works so hard to help people adapt to climate change, but fears what the future could bring.
A tear falls down my cheek. Today has been a day of anger. 2009 has to be a year of hope.
Friday, 12 December 2008
Stop talking, take action!
Guest blog from Esther Neuhaus, Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and Development
The last day at the COP in Poznan is when Ministers have to hurry to take any decisions with respect to the outcomes of negotiations. This is usually the moment when pressure to take decisions increases. When no one really assumes leadership, then the bad and evil appear.
In this COP, Canada, Australia and Japan played this role, not encouraging any person wishing to contribute with a successful outcome of the discussions in Poznan and in Copenhagen. They opposed the targets of 25 to 40% of GHG emissions reductions for rich countries, simply ignoring the footnote in the Bali Plan of Action, which has to be transferred to the main agreement text.
If we do not reach half way here, then the efforts in 2009 have to be huge. Canada and Australia, together with New Zealand and the United States opposed the inclusion of indigenous rights in the text on reducing deforestation, provoking many negative reactions.
Last but not least, the President of the Conference, the Polish Minister for the Environment, declared that the event will be closed with a declaration of the President. Everything indicates that there will be no negotiating text at this COP and that the chair of the Meeting will get the mandate to produce a negotiating text in 2009, considering submissions by the parties which can be made until the end of April.
On Thursday Brazil officially launched during this COP its National Plan on Climate Change, a 129 page document which highlights the main strategies the country pretends to adopt during future years and decades to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The Brazilian Government is convinced that its plan is much better than the one of China and other countries, mainly because it was elaborated during a process of public consultation, which counted with the participation of the Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and the Development. The event was well prepared and organized and very well attended. At the same time the Government introduced the Amazon Fund, destined to help to reach the target of a 40 per cent fall in deforestation between 2006 and 2010, and a further 30 per cent cut in the subsequent 4-year-period. It is a private fund with public administration and a steering committee.
We recognize the initiative of a developing country to set any target to reduce deforestation, which accounts for 75 per cent of emissions in Brazil, but are also conscious that the Plan should not remain just a sheet of paper and that a strong governance and monitoring structure is needed to help implement the actions of the plan. At the same time proposals for Brazil to become a leader for carbon capture and storage technologies, as made by Lord Nicholas Stern who participated in the panel of this side event, have to be evaluated in a very critical way. The Clean Development Mechanism should be free of any nuclear and CCS projects, which should only be seen as complementary market mechanism, not substituting for strong public policies to tackle the challenges posed by climate change.
Meanwhile, the climate is changing faster than the negotiations advance. The financial crisis should not be used as an excuse not to take actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as the Norwegian minister said at the Plenary session. The climate crises is far worse than the financial one. Developed and developing countries need to listen to each other, understand and build more confidence to take effective actions. Stop talking, take action.
The last day at the COP in Poznan is when Ministers have to hurry to take any decisions with respect to the outcomes of negotiations. This is usually the moment when pressure to take decisions increases. When no one really assumes leadership, then the bad and evil appear.
In this COP, Canada, Australia and Japan played this role, not encouraging any person wishing to contribute with a successful outcome of the discussions in Poznan and in Copenhagen. They opposed the targets of 25 to 40% of GHG emissions reductions for rich countries, simply ignoring the footnote in the Bali Plan of Action, which has to be transferred to the main agreement text.
If we do not reach half way here, then the efforts in 2009 have to be huge. Canada and Australia, together with New Zealand and the United States opposed the inclusion of indigenous rights in the text on reducing deforestation, provoking many negative reactions.
Last but not least, the President of the Conference, the Polish Minister for the Environment, declared that the event will be closed with a declaration of the President. Everything indicates that there will be no negotiating text at this COP and that the chair of the Meeting will get the mandate to produce a negotiating text in 2009, considering submissions by the parties which can be made until the end of April.
On Thursday Brazil officially launched during this COP its National Plan on Climate Change, a 129 page document which highlights the main strategies the country pretends to adopt during future years and decades to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
The Brazilian Government is convinced that its plan is much better than the one of China and other countries, mainly because it was elaborated during a process of public consultation, which counted with the participation of the Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and the Development. The event was well prepared and organized and very well attended. At the same time the Government introduced the Amazon Fund, destined to help to reach the target of a 40 per cent fall in deforestation between 2006 and 2010, and a further 30 per cent cut in the subsequent 4-year-period. It is a private fund with public administration and a steering committee.
We recognize the initiative of a developing country to set any target to reduce deforestation, which accounts for 75 per cent of emissions in Brazil, but are also conscious that the Plan should not remain just a sheet of paper and that a strong governance and monitoring structure is needed to help implement the actions of the plan. At the same time proposals for Brazil to become a leader for carbon capture and storage technologies, as made by Lord Nicholas Stern who participated in the panel of this side event, have to be evaluated in a very critical way. The Clean Development Mechanism should be free of any nuclear and CCS projects, which should only be seen as complementary market mechanism, not substituting for strong public policies to tackle the challenges posed by climate change.
Meanwhile, the climate is changing faster than the negotiations advance. The financial crisis should not be used as an excuse not to take actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as the Norwegian minister said at the Plenary session. The climate crises is far worse than the financial one. Developed and developing countries need to listen to each other, understand and build more confidence to take effective actions. Stop talking, take action.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
The pace of the game
Ed Miliband made his speech to other government ministers now gathered here in Poznan on Thursday afternoon.
I won’t surprise you by saying it contained lots of good rhetoric. This is a “Crossroads moment”. “We all need to raise our game.” It is time to “Up the pace.” Sometimes it was difficult to know which sport we were playing.
As a knowledgable campaigner, I hear you ask: “But what did he commit to?”
To say the cupboard was empty would suggest that there was a cupboard to start with.
Maybe that’s a bit unfair. He did state that the UK now has a law to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. A pat on the back to everyone who dragged the UK government - kicking and screaming - towards that 80 per cent target.
Yesterday I set out three things the UK needed to say (See ‘The 69th day’ below). This is how Ed faired:
1) Mr Miliband said that “A challenging target for 2020 will be adopted.” But not in Poznan? Not sure that’s really upping the pace in the way Usain Bolt would.
2) There was no reference to proposals by developing countries for finance and technology to support actions to curb emissions in developing countries. Ed maintained the EU’s silence on this, referring generally to the need for money. Earlier, the Netherlands did manage to refer to developing country proposals by name.
And despite talking about the UK’s challenging target, Mr Miliband failed to mention that these targets can be met through huge numbers of dodgy offset credits. Maybe the crossroads moment is from spinning around working out how an offset can meet UK targets and reduce developing country emissions, all at the same time.
3) There was no commitment on any new immediate money for adaptation in least developed countries. Raising the game in a “would love to pay for a round but my darling credit crunch card is a bit maxed out at the moment - sorry for trashing your house and forcing you out of your home though” kind of way.
Spleen venting accomplished, I’m off for a beer.
I won’t surprise you by saying it contained lots of good rhetoric. This is a “Crossroads moment”. “We all need to raise our game.” It is time to “Up the pace.” Sometimes it was difficult to know which sport we were playing.
As a knowledgable campaigner, I hear you ask: “But what did he commit to?”
To say the cupboard was empty would suggest that there was a cupboard to start with.
Maybe that’s a bit unfair. He did state that the UK now has a law to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. A pat on the back to everyone who dragged the UK government - kicking and screaming - towards that 80 per cent target.
Yesterday I set out three things the UK needed to say (See ‘The 69th day’ below). This is how Ed faired:
1) Mr Miliband said that “A challenging target for 2020 will be adopted.” But not in Poznan? Not sure that’s really upping the pace in the way Usain Bolt would.
2) There was no reference to proposals by developing countries for finance and technology to support actions to curb emissions in developing countries. Ed maintained the EU’s silence on this, referring generally to the need for money. Earlier, the Netherlands did manage to refer to developing country proposals by name.
And despite talking about the UK’s challenging target, Mr Miliband failed to mention that these targets can be met through huge numbers of dodgy offset credits. Maybe the crossroads moment is from spinning around working out how an offset can meet UK targets and reduce developing country emissions, all at the same time.
3) There was no commitment on any new immediate money for adaptation in least developed countries. Raising the game in a “would love to pay for a round but my darling credit crunch card is a bit maxed out at the moment - sorry for trashing your house and forcing you out of your home though” kind of way.
Spleen venting accomplished, I’m off for a beer.
Bangladesh in the negotiations
Guest blog from Farjana Akter, VOICE, Bangladesh
Climate changes have massively influenced the life of millions of people all over the world. In South Asia Bangladesh is the most affected country. Increased rainfall, droughts, changes in the monsoon pattern, recurring floods and warm winters are all obvious syndromes of climate change. In the past year terrible cyclone Sidr damaged 8.9 million peoples life in Bangladesh. Sea level rise over the last ten years has already eroded 65 per cent of the landmass of the islands of Kutubdia (250 square kilometers), Bhola (227 square kilometers) Sandwip (180 square kilometers) (NCCB).
In the negotiations Bangladesh has been trying to play a vital role as a disaster prone country. Bangladesh demanded to set-up an International Adaptation Centre in Dhaka under the UN framework. The main objective of the centre would be research on how to adapt to climate change.
Bangladesh has asked for a climate change fund, under the UNFCC, which must be in addition to the existing official development assistant commitments made by rich countries of 0.7 percent of gross national product. Bangladesh also demanded that contributions to the Fund must be mandatory not voluntary. Such funds are needed as compensation from rich countries for the climate damage they have caused.
The Bangladesh delegation also asked for developing a mechanism, with the help of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to create an index on the vulnerability of people in each country to climate change.
Bangladesh included the "international migration issue" on the agenda of one of the contact group discussions. They sought to get countries to agree that climate change victims will get the chance of international migration if their homes are destroyed by climate change.
Developing countries are less responsible for climate change but are suffering most from the adverse impacts. All countries must agree to an international cap on emissions. Developed countries have to commit to take the lead in making technology cheaper and transferring it to developing countries.
We have to wait a few more days to see the final outcome of the Poznan convention. Developed countries must show support for climate justice and a fair negotiation within the convention framework.
At Poznan, we call on Parties to ensure equity and justice for all the people in different countries who are already displaced from their homes and livelihoods due to climate change.
Climate changes have massively influenced the life of millions of people all over the world. In South Asia Bangladesh is the most affected country. Increased rainfall, droughts, changes in the monsoon pattern, recurring floods and warm winters are all obvious syndromes of climate change. In the past year terrible cyclone Sidr damaged 8.9 million peoples life in Bangladesh. Sea level rise over the last ten years has already eroded 65 per cent of the landmass of the islands of Kutubdia (250 square kilometers), Bhola (227 square kilometers) Sandwip (180 square kilometers) (NCCB).
In the negotiations Bangladesh has been trying to play a vital role as a disaster prone country. Bangladesh demanded to set-up an International Adaptation Centre in Dhaka under the UN framework. The main objective of the centre would be research on how to adapt to climate change.
Bangladesh has asked for a climate change fund, under the UNFCC, which must be in addition to the existing official development assistant commitments made by rich countries of 0.7 percent of gross national product. Bangladesh also demanded that contributions to the Fund must be mandatory not voluntary. Such funds are needed as compensation from rich countries for the climate damage they have caused.
The Bangladesh delegation also asked for developing a mechanism, with the help of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to create an index on the vulnerability of people in each country to climate change.
Bangladesh included the "international migration issue" on the agenda of one of the contact group discussions. They sought to get countries to agree that climate change victims will get the chance of international migration if their homes are destroyed by climate change.
Developing countries are less responsible for climate change but are suffering most from the adverse impacts. All countries must agree to an international cap on emissions. Developed countries have to commit to take the lead in making technology cheaper and transferring it to developing countries.
We have to wait a few more days to see the final outcome of the Poznan convention. Developed countries must show support for climate justice and a fair negotiation within the convention framework.
At Poznan, we call on Parties to ensure equity and justice for all the people in different countries who are already displaced from their homes and livelihoods due to climate change.
Guyana
An old acquaintance of WDM was speaking at the opening of the ministerial part of the talks on Thursday morning: Bharrat Jagdeo, the President of Guyana. In 2003, WDM and a group of penguins successfully campaigned for the supermarket chain Iceland to cancel £12 million of illegitimate debt ‘owed’ to them by Guyana. President Jagdeo personally thanked two WDM staff somewhere in Heathrow airport.
The heads of government of Poland, Sweden and Tuvalu are here as well. Apisai Ielemia, President of Tuvalu, said: “Recent scientific evidence suggests that we must move rapidly for the future existence of countries like Tuvalu. Our future is in your hands. We must not sink by the problems caused by the big and industrialised countries. It is our belief that Tuvalu as a nation has a right to exist forever.”
Bharrat Jagdeo stated that “as an international community our efforts are woefully inadequate to the challenge we face”. With a message straight to European heads of government meeting in Brussels on Thursday and Friday he said: “If Europe sends a signal they can commit to deep cuts in emissions only in prosperous times, what are developing countries supposed to think?”
The heads of government of Poland, Sweden and Tuvalu are here as well. Apisai Ielemia, President of Tuvalu, said: “Recent scientific evidence suggests that we must move rapidly for the future existence of countries like Tuvalu. Our future is in your hands. We must not sink by the problems caused by the big and industrialised countries. It is our belief that Tuvalu as a nation has a right to exist forever.”
Bharrat Jagdeo stated that “as an international community our efforts are woefully inadequate to the challenge we face”. With a message straight to European heads of government meeting in Brussels on Thursday and Friday he said: “If Europe sends a signal they can commit to deep cuts in emissions only in prosperous times, what are developing countries supposed to think?”
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
The 69th day
Members of the European Parliament held a press conference on Wednesday. They wanted to make clear that if the EU’s climate policy is weakened over the next couple of days it will be nothing to do with them.
Of course not. They are only elected representatives.
EU Heads of Government will be meeting on Thursday and Friday to agree the final package on reducing emissions within Europe up to 2020. At the moment it looks like between half and two-thirds of the target for reducing emissions by 2020 could be achieved through buying offsets rather than cutting emissions in the EU.
MEPs want a limit on offsets, but governments are not listening. The UK has supported half of the EU’s reductions being made through offsets.
On Thursday environment ministers arrive in Poznan and the pace is expected to quicken. Ed Miliband will be here for the UK, fresh faced just 69 days into his new job of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
There are three things Ed could say in his speech on Thursday to inject a bit of life and leadership into Poznan, something which has so far been invisible from rich countries.
1) Accept the advice from his own Committee on Climate Change, given last Monday, that UK emissions need to fall by 42 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020.
2) Say that the UK will offer money to support cuts in emissions in developing countries, in addition to cuts at home. The EU has failed to engage at all with developing countries on this issue in Poznan, saying it will be working on proposals in the first three months of 2009. An opportunity for Ed to take a lead.
3) More immediately, funds are needed in the next few years to help communities in poor countries cope with impacts of climate change already being experienced.
National plans in 38 least developed countries have identified ₤1 billion is needed over the next three years for concrete actions. Whilst tens of billions will be needed later on as the impacts of climate change get worse, the ₤1 billion is needed now.
Ed could come bearing a cheque with the UK’s contribution. Of course, it has to be additional to other aid funds, or its just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Of course not. They are only elected representatives.
EU Heads of Government will be meeting on Thursday and Friday to agree the final package on reducing emissions within Europe up to 2020. At the moment it looks like between half and two-thirds of the target for reducing emissions by 2020 could be achieved through buying offsets rather than cutting emissions in the EU.
MEPs want a limit on offsets, but governments are not listening. The UK has supported half of the EU’s reductions being made through offsets.
On Thursday environment ministers arrive in Poznan and the pace is expected to quicken. Ed Miliband will be here for the UK, fresh faced just 69 days into his new job of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
There are three things Ed could say in his speech on Thursday to inject a bit of life and leadership into Poznan, something which has so far been invisible from rich countries.
1) Accept the advice from his own Committee on Climate Change, given last Monday, that UK emissions need to fall by 42 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020.
2) Say that the UK will offer money to support cuts in emissions in developing countries, in addition to cuts at home. The EU has failed to engage at all with developing countries on this issue in Poznan, saying it will be working on proposals in the first three months of 2009. An opportunity for Ed to take a lead.
3) More immediately, funds are needed in the next few years to help communities in poor countries cope with impacts of climate change already being experienced.
National plans in 38 least developed countries have identified ₤1 billion is needed over the next three years for concrete actions. Whilst tens of billions will be needed later on as the impacts of climate change get worse, the ₤1 billion is needed now.
Ed could come bearing a cheque with the UK’s contribution. Of course, it has to be additional to other aid funds, or its just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Climate insurance for a dead man
Guest blog from Farjana Akter, VOICE, BangladeshThe adverse impacts of climate change are already threatening communities around the world. Over the last century the level of carbon dioxide has increased by 25 per cent. Developed countries are mainly liable for the climate crisis. And this problem is devastating environment and biodiversity, damaging people’s life and livelihoods around the globe. Climate change victims are increasing in number every day. It is alarming that there is no obligation for states to recognize the international and external displacement of people due to climate change and other environmental issues.
A study shows that 95 per cent of deaths from natural disasters in the last 25 years occurred in developing countries. And $100 billion has been lost every year due to these natural disasters. The communities of the developing countries are trying to cope with disasters. And the governments of developing countries are generating money for adaptation and mitigation programmes within their countries.
In the UNFCCC there is a vital discussion going on about adaptation and protection of vulnerable countries and people. The contact group on enhanced action on adaptation and associated means of implementation meeting was held yesterday. They were pushing the agenda of an insurance mechanism. The proposed insurance mechanism work to facilitate vulnerability reduction and adaptation. It means affected communities who die because of climate change will get insurance money! This insurance mechanism for vulnerable people is crazy - when people die, they lose their life. What will he/she do with the money!
First we need to think about reducing the risk of climate change – cutting emissions.
The other question is ‘who is going to pay for insurance’? There are many good proposals coming out from the discussion of the contact group. Most of the delegates emphasized an international disaster and management plan which would be integrated with national plans. The most vulnerable country in South Asia, Bangladesh, has had for ten years an Action Plan on Risk Reduction Management. Resource sharing, capacity building and food security reduce the disaster risk in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh asked for help establishing an early warning system about climate information so that they can reduce the risk of disaster in the community.
The meeting also discussed the need to address specific sectors. To manage disaster risk a rehabilitation center for developing countries needs to be established to help vulnerable people rather than insurance.
There is a need for North-South and South-South cooperation. South Africa emphasized the integrity and long term approach for risk management. Whereas Colombia urged for community based adaptation for risk management. Australia said national and domestic action as well international action was needed for adaption.
As the frequency and scope of major natural catastrophe losses continue to increase, there is a growing need to reduce the disaster risks associated with climate change. The market is pushing for insurance – but there are alternative ways developed countries can play their part in enabling disaster-prone countries to successfully manage the new climate risks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
