ENDS Copenhagen Blog

The Copenhagen Accord: the beginning of a beginning

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:42:04 PST

Earlier this week I called my fellow US journalists cynical when they refused to entertain the notion that US president Barack Obama might announce a US contribution to long-term financing here in Copenhagen.

They were right. I was wrong. But who's cynical now? With an accord that from the European perspective looks so much like failure and the more than 12 hours that were needed even to adopt this flimsiest of declarations, it's hard to be optimistic about the future.

But my American friends feel differently. What did you expect, they ask me? Did you really think Obama would show up and announce a 30% emission reduction target? Does Europe realise to what extent he is already sticking his neck out just by proposing a 17% cut below 2005 levels?

This proposal is at the very upper end of the reduction range in a draft US climate bill currently stuck in the senate. It needs 60 votes to go through and it's got about 42 right now. Many of those other 18 wouldn't necessarily vote for it even if the economy was breezing along, I'm told. The Washington journalists are not at all sure it'll get through.

But Obama's been given some fresh ammo here in Copenhagen they say. He's got an accord to which he can point and say "look, China's committing to action too". Look at the US environmental NGOs, the journalists say to me and see how they've reacted.

And, much to my surprise, when I go to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of America's leading conservation groups, I find a press release dated to yesterday in which NRDC president Frances Beinecke says:

"We have taken a vital first step towards curbing climate change. For the first time in history, the US is joining with other major emitters to take real action against global warming. Real cuts in carbon pollution. Real American jobs at home. Real measures to make clear which countries make good on their vows. And real help for the world's most vulnerable people exposed to droughts, famine and storms made worse by climate change."

This reads quite differently from Friends of the Earth Europe's reaction from the same day:

"Copenhagen has been an abject failure. Rich countries have condemned millions of the world's poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life as climate change accelerates. The blame for this disastrous outcome is squarely on the developed nations. We are disgusted by the failure of rich countries to commit to the emissions reductions they know are needed, especially the US, which is the world's largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases."

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer, who has just delivered the final briefing of the Copenhagen climate summit, didn’t welcome the accord with outstretched arms but didn't dismiss it as a disaster either.

His main criticism is that it is not an agreement that is legally binding. It is "a letter of intent". But this he hopes to fix at COP16 in Mexico City a year from now. The American journalists here are inclined to be more patient. This is the beginning of the beginning, they say, and while it may take time, the important thing is we've got going.

IT'S OVER AT LAST - now the road to Mexico City

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Schoon) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:39:29 PST

"What we've got to do in Mexico is to achieve all the things that we should have achieved here in Copenhagen," said Yvo de Boer, the Dutch civil servant who runs the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. He was speaking at the final press conference of the COP 15 climate summit.

The 16th Conference to the Parties of the UNFCCC takes place in Mexico's capital just under one year from now. As I type, the last plenary session of the conference is finally ending after an often fraught but mostly extraordinarily dull, nit-picking, procedure-fixated session of almost 12 hours. Yes, IT'S OVER.

Mr de Boer looked dour, but that's usual. He put the best possible face on things. "I would not agree this conference was a disaster." The Copenhagen Accord was "politically incredibly significant" because, for the first time, it had involved dozens of world leaders in the real detail of intensive negotiation over climate change issues.

He himself had spent hours in a stuffy room with the likes of Obama, Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel dealing with "the nitty gritty of drafing the final text" of the accord.

The Copenhagen Accord's biggest defect was that it was not legally binding, he said. Such a legally binding treaty was still necessary, hopefully to be negotiated within the year. Those who have followed the two years of snail paced negotiation since COP13 in Bali will realise what a tall order that is.

As well as being a non binding agreement, it has not been adopted by the Conference. Instead it has been 'noted'. That, said Mr de Boer, meant "taking note of something that is there but not necessarily associating yourself with it." So only countries which sign up to the accord need feel bound by it, and then only on a purely voluntary basis.

A few more essential points about this two and a half page accord, which will be analysed fully in Monday's ENDS Europe Daily and the next issue of the ENDS Report.

It recognises the scientific view that the increase in global temperatures caused by man -made greenhouse gases should be below 2 degrees C, and that deep but unspecified and untimed cuts in global emissions are required to achieve this. Humanity's still-rising emissions should peak "as soon as possible", though no time period is specified.
Developed countries should file their emission reduction pledges for 2020 to the UNFCCC by the end of January 2010. How much, and how defined, is up to them.
Developing countries should also take action to reduce their (generally rising) emissions. There is a long and convoluted paragraph about their obligations to report these reductions, resulting from the battle between the USA and China over "transparency" versus national sovereignty.
There is a short paragraph recognizing "the crucial role" for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation - (REDD); this is all about wealthy nations paying poor ones to protect their forests and stop their stored carbon escaping into the atmosphere. That would be good, says the accord.
The document also favours "various approaches, including opportunities to use markets" to promote cost-effective emisson reductions. That keeps the door open for carbon trading, including taxes or cap and trade schemes for international aviation and shipping.
There are promises of big new flows of money from rich to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change and reduce their emissions. There will, it says, be new and additional fast track funding "approaching" $30 bn over the period 2010-12, with the most vulnerable and impoverished nations - such as small islands and African countries - being given priority.
In the longer term, developed countries "commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 bn a year by 2020 to address the [climate change related] needs of developing countries." But this funding depends on those developing countries taking "meaningful" actions to reduce their emissions, and "transparency on implementation" - i.e. showing that they are delivering these reductions. The funding will come from private and public sector sources, possibly including carbon markets.
"New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries." This is something developing nations have long demanded - they do not want funding bodies dominated by wealthy nations, like the World Bank, to control the climate purse strings.
Much of this money will flow through a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, controlled collecively by UNFCCC member states. A new 'Technology Mechanism' will accelerate technology development and transfer from developed to developing nations, to help them adapt to climate change and reduce emissions. Very little is said about either the fund or the mechanism.
There will be a review of the implemenation of the accord in 2015. This will include considering strengthening the long-term goal of the accord and the convention: preventing a dangerous rise in global temperatures "including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees C."

But the pledges from developed and developing nations announced so far will not keep the temperature increase below 2 deg C. By 2015, it will be extremely hard to lower emissions fast enough to keep to a 1.5 deg C increase.

And there's a basic howler in the accord - it does not mention that these temperature increases are from a 'pre-industrial baseline'. For temperatures are already some 0.6 deg C above this baseline, thanks to a couple of centuries widespread use of fossil fuels.

As we come to the conclusion of COP15 and MOP5...

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:06:45 PST

Yes we're still here. The plenary debate lasted throughout the night followed by a "short" 3-hr adjournment requested by the UK's Ed Miliband when the debate hit a wall.

It resumed and continues as I write. Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen has disappeared - the poor man has collapsed into bed we suspect - and someone else has taken over.

When this morning's session resumed at around 11am the new chair - he looks familar but we have yet to place him in our tired brains - read out proposed wording for a COP decision which said parties would "take note"of the Copenhagen accord of 18 December 2009. Attached to that accord would be a list of parties that chose to subscribe to it. Its provisions would only apply to them. The gavel slammed down.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon held a press conference where he said: "Finally we see a deal and it is a real deal. Bringing leaders to the table was worthwhile."

Assistant secretary general for policy and planning at the UN Robert Orr said: "If there had not been a deal, the momentum of the recent months... could have been lost." Involving leaders made it work but also made it a lot more complicated, he added. He went on to describe the "beauty of a multilateral negotiation", and called it the "most genuine negotiation I've ever seen".

Perhaps so, but has it delivered? Many have said no, but it's hard to answer definitively since coming back from the press conference at 12:30 there still appeared to be unsolved issues - the plenary debate continues.

New final draft texts available at the document distribution centre make no mention at all of a "legally-binding instrument" to be signed at COP16, but they have re-inserted a reference to the 1.5 degrees goal in the context of a 2015 review.

Are these texts the final, final ones? The people at the document distribution centre couldn't tell us.

Copenhagen countdown starts to count up

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Schoon) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:25:44 PST

The 'Countdown to End of Copenhagen' clock which has dominated the Energy and Climate Change Department's website for months has gone into reverse, now that Copenhagen has gone beyond its timetabled end without an outcome.

Now, each passing second the quantum of time grows higher, rather than lower. It stands at more than 1 day and 10 hours. And still no end to this summit.

The plenary adjourns, the accord is in trouble

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Schoon) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:38:37 PST

After some four hours of talking in which representatives of dozens of countries have spoken, the plenary session has adjourned to try to sort out what happens now. It's 8.30 am in Copenhagen, and many delegates have been up now for two whole nights.

The Copenhagen Accord - the brand new, much reviled, non-legally binding draft agreement to tackle climate change, has NOT yet been agreed to by the 192 nations attending. It is clear that the great majority of nations here support it, but UN decisions require no nation to object to them. It doesn't work through voting.

So the exhausted, beleagured president of the conference, Danish PM Lars Lokke Rasmussen, has agreed to a short break for talks to try to sort things out. At the request of the UK's Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband, who has made several interventions (and is also looking shattered). The 'short' adjournment has already lasted for nearly half an hour.

The vast press hanger, with room for more than 1,000 journalists, is starting to fill with journalists again after becoming strangely empty - but plenty of journalists and delegates are now leaving Copenhagen. As have most or all of 118 presidents and prime ministers who attended.

7:30am: And still the plenary rolls on

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:30:36 PST

The end was in sight we thought. But no. It's Saturday morning and at least one delegate has told the plenary he needs to leave at 8am to catch a flight out of Copenhagen. He does not want to leave without a deal, he said.

A deal is still not forthcoming however. A "COP decision", which is the format the Copenhagen Accord currently takes, requires unanimous support from all nations to be adopted. Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela, Sudan and Tuvalu all oppose it.

The first four said they would withdraw their objections if the accord was re-tabled as a "MISC" document, a "for your information" document rather than any kind of declaration. They also originally wanted COP15 to be suspended, with its work to continue into next year, but later appeared to withdraw that request.

Danish prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen wearily agreed there could be no COP decision without consensus. It was 5:30am and it seemed like the conference might finally draw to a close. But the Sudanese leader Lumumba Di-Aping took the floor and launched into a virulent attack on the accord, saying it threatened the "existence of the African continent and her people".

He spoke of a "gross violation" of the right to exist of Africans and, in a statement that drew expressions of outrage from countless delegations after, made an analogy to the Holocaust. A 2 degree global temperature rise would equate to a 3.5 degree African temperature rise and Africa was therefore being asked "to sign a suicide pact".

He also took the opportunity to accuse the Danish PM of being biased and "violating all the rules of procedure and transparency". A stony-faced Mr Rasmussen said "thank you very much".

Since then over twenty countries have taken the floor, some of them in passionate defence of the text in question not as a perfect accord but as an essential starting point. Two that stood out for me were the Maldives and Grenada.

The Maldives delegate applauded Mr Rasmussen's work. "We have a danger of the UNFCCC going the same way as the WTO," he said. "But science suggests in climate change it's not possible – we have a window of seven years." The Maldives wanted reference to a 1.5 degree maximum temperature rise in the accord he said, which was "blatantly obstructed" by large emitters.

But, he added:

"This is a beginning and we can migrate from this document to many aspirations. If we cannot have a basic understanding of the parameters we will never have a fruitful conclusion to the talks. I beg all nations to please back this document and do not let these talks collapse."

The woman speaking on behalf of Grenada and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) began with "good morning Copenhagen". It was after 6am by then. AOSIS was part of the Friends of the Chair group that developed the document she said, and "fought for everything we came out with and as you can see we didn't come out with much." A murmur of tired laughter.

She continued, close to tears:

"I cannot sit here and see the work of my government, my prime minister, and my long tired self be discredited. I call on my brother, my brother from Sudan to rethink his conclusions and get hold of his emotions. We need to help each other, not condemn each other."

The speaker from Papua New Guinea suggested some of the flaws in the document also emanated from the G77 themselves. At least some developed countries pushed for commitments to deep long-term emission cuts, he said, and the G77 blocked this. Many G77 countries sent public servants rather than leaders to the talks, he added.

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Union, said it fully backed the document. A postponement is "not in the interests of people who will be affected by climate change," it said.

The UK and US were two of few nations who explicitly urged the conference to adopt the document, which they stressed had been developed in a transparent manner, as a COP decision. It does a limited number of things but important things, said Ed Miliband from the UK: "We can get the money flowing and maintain the credibility of this conference."

"It's extremely disappointing and extremely disturbing for the ongoing health and existence of this body [the UNFCCC]," said the US delegate. "We should adopt a decision and not let this work go to waste."

It is 7:30am and there are still another 15 speakers or so on the Danish PM's speakers' list. Another delegate has just asked the UNFCCC secretariat about re-arranging flights. That is not proving easy he was told because 8,000 people have planned to leave Copenhagen today and the holiday period is starting. But the UN is seeing what it can do. In the meantime, on rolls the plenary.

The end is in sight – and a miserable one it is

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:24:00 PST

Two years down the line from that uplifting moment in Bali when a deal was signed after blood, sweat and quite literally tears, the same strange mix of exhaustion and ecstasy is sadly lacking. There is only exhaustion. And a feeling of impending doom.

The Copenhagen climate summit is ending in failure. Country after country is taking the floor to reject an accord that is already largely meaningless. Nicaragua is the latest to accuse the US and others of riding roughshod over its rights by going behind their backs to announce a deal when there was none.

It is the death blow to an accord that European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso earlier said "will not solve the climate threat". The EU press conference was a depressing affair. Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and commission president Barroso looked tired and defeated. The commission president said:

"I will not hide my disappointment. Our level of ambition has not been met. There is no agreement on the need for a legally-binding agreement."

The EU had pushed hard for a reference to the need for a new legally-binding climate agreement in the main accord, but it was eventually relegated to a COP decision extending the mandate of the UNFCCC negotiating track, a commission official said. And now the whole package is being rejected.

"We have not risen to the challenge collectively tonight," one EU environment minister told journalists.

Mr President, I regret to inform you that Tuvalu cannot accept this document

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:30:40 PST

It is 3:25am and the "Copenhagen Accord" is being put to the COP15 plenary. Tuvalu, Venezuela and Bolivia have already said they cannot accept it.

Any temperature rise above 1.5 degrees spells the end of Tuvalu, there is no guarantee the Kyoto protocol will continue and a review in 2015 is "too late for our future and our people", said Tuvalu.

It is a document "of a small group of countries that believe they have the political authority to impose a document on us", said the Bolivian delegation. The plenary is packed and there is much applause.

Now Cuba is taking the floor.

EU backs the US-BASIC Copenhagen accord

noreply@blogger.com (Nick Rowcliffe) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:09:09 PST

Top EU officials backed the Copenhagen accord agreed by the US and major emerging economies at a press conference ending at 02.40 CET.

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso and Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt also publicly acknowledged that Europe has withdrawn its offer to raise from 20% to 30% its unilateral emissions cutting target from 1990 to 2020. “Others’ offers were too low,” said Barroso.

All countries will now be invited to put national emission pledges in an annex to the Copenhagen accord. Reinfeldt reiterated the EU’s established position that it would prefer to go to 30% if others’ offers permit. The EU would therefore be putting its – still conditional - 30% pledge in the agreement annex, he said.

Both men said they were disappointed at the lack of ambition in the painfully won accord. When it came to money, Barroso said, “there was not a commitment to ambition, but to the lowest common denominator”. “We’ve agreed with this text to avoid a rupture and to show solidarity with poor countries,” he added.

Barroso hinted at EU frustrations with various negotiating partners who torpedoed its attempts to insert higher environmental ambition into the agreement.

The accord includes a reference to the goal of limiting global temperature increases to 2 degrees C. But other parties wouldn’t agree to also including a goal of reducing global emissions by 50% by 2050 – which scientists say is the prerequisite of meeting the 2 degree target.

No country pushed the EU to increase its 2020 emissions pledge from 20% to 30%, Barroso added. Moreover some parties resisted any reference to an 80% emissions cut by 2050, fearing that this would result in pressure on them to follow suit.

Not a great night's work

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Schoon) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:45:01 PST

It remains to be seen if the draft agreed by leaders is accepted as the outcome of the COP15 conference, when all the remaining delegates gather together in plenary to decide on it - hopefully very soon.

But if this political, non-binding Copenhagen Accord is it, it will be roundly condemned, not just by green NGOs but by many business groups pushing for a rapid transition to a low carbon economy. Indeed, Friends of the Earth International has already written Copenhagen off as "an abject falure".

The emission cutting targets are unchanged - they remain the same as they did before the conference began two weeks ago. Unless the EU does indeed shift to 30% from 20%.

US President Barak Obama, looking exhausted, conceded that the science demanded bigger emission cuts than had been agreed. But, he said, if a compromise had not been reached in Copenhagen, "there might have been such frustration and cynicism that instead of taking one step forward we would have taken two steps back." He said he would press for a binding treaty "but it was not achievable at this conference". He left for Air Force One before the final draft emerged.

A really weak deal

noreply@blogger.com (Nick Rowcliffe) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:25:34 PST

Bill Kyte writes re the four-country "meaningful agreement":

This is a really weak deal. The 50%, 80% and 1.5 deg have been droppedand the US target is -14 to -17%. I'm not sure that it will fly in the COP (full Conference of Parties to the UN Convention).

An update on where we stand

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:23:24 PST

The EU has still not held its press conference. It is currently on hold because the latest (final?) text is not completely, totally final.

It's nearly there and the text of the "Copenhagen accord" seems unlikely to change much, if at all, since US president Barack Obama has already left the Bella Centre. His press conference, recorded earlier today, has just been broadcast.

But India is now objecting to a "legally binding" instrument, which the text says would be agreed at COP16 in Mexico City next year, a source told ENDS. A meeting of EU environment ministers has been postponed while this point is resolved.

EXCLUSIVE: the accord in full

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Marshall) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:03:23 PST

The text of the agreed 'accord' is here. Get reading.

Initial overview of the US, India, China, South Africa text

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:23:37 PST

It extends the mandates of both the UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol negotiating tracks. The former is due to present the results of its work "in the form of a legally binding instrument" to the next Conference of the Parties (COP) in Mexico City a year from now.

The text does not promise a second commitment period under Kyoto, but this track is called on to deliver its results "for adoption" in Mexico.

Developed countries "commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 as listed in appendix 1 before 1st February 2010". Parties to the Kyoto protocol will "thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions" under that protocol. Appendix I lists the targets developed countries have either pledged or are considering to date. For the EU this is a 20% to 30% cut below 1990 levels, the text says. For the US is it a 14 to 17% cut below 2005 levels.

The text does not commit developed countries to reduce their emissions by at least 80% by 2050 nor does it set out set out an aggregate emission reduction target for developed countries for 2020.

Developing countries "will implement mitigation actions, including those listed in Appendix II before 1st February 2010". Appendix II lists the actions countries like Brazil, China and the Maldives have pledged to date. Interestingly there is a footnote saying "this information has been obtained from media outlets and hasn't been confirmed with the Government of the countries listed above".

The monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) rules for developing countries' mitigation actions are as per the second draft, with "provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected".

Deforestation is awarded the importance it was in the second draft – it is "crucial" to tackle and "positive incentives" must be provided to mobilise financial resources from developed countries.

The language on financing is unchanged from the second draft – "developed countries set a goal of mobilising jointly US$100bn a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries". Developing countries are therefore not called upon to contribute, something the US and EU had pushed for.

This funding will come from "a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance".

The text notes the collective commitment by developed countries for US$30bn in new and additional "fast-track" funding for 2010-12. But only three pledges for fast-track funding are listed: EU – US$10.6bn, Japan – US$11bn, and the US – US$3.6bn.

The text recognises the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature should be below two degrees and refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment report.

But it sets a long-term goal of holding the temperature increase to two degrees rather than halving global emissions by 2050.It has also dropped a reference to potentially strengthening the long-term goal to limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, saying only that a review in 2015, not 2016 as previously stated, would "include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal".

False alarm? EU press conference postponed

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:14:29 PST

The EU press conference has just been postponed. They are still working on the text after all we've been told.

A quick analysis of the latest version will follow nonetheless since we're certainly closer to the final document than a few hours ago.

It also needs pointing out that this text will still need to be approved by the plenary. Which includes the likes of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.

We have a final text - very similar to the second draft

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:05:39 PST

A very kind man I will be eternally grateful to just passed me a copy as he was on his phone - I was hanging around the EU pavilion after having been told the room where the EU will be holding its post-summit press conference is already rammed.

Yes, dear people, it's all coming to an end. A quick analysis of the text to follow in a minute.

Rumours were that things might be wrapped up by 11pm but no one believed it. But less than half an hour ago a COP15 EU text message announced the EU'st post-summit press conference - this seemed a sign that things really were nearing a close.

Now I'm stood outside the EU pavilion where many, many people are frantically scanning the same document and small groups are hunched round laptops talking and typing. Journalists? Press officers?

EU environment ministers are reportedly holding a mini-summit as I speak. Oh, the Dutch environment minister has just left the pavilion. Nope, she's back and hanging round. A lovely green suit. Quick interview? No, she's gone back in.

The text will not be an easy one for the EU to sell since it makes few big decisions. It was reportedly thrashed out by the EU, China and the US in a final meeting that has just ended. No word so far on the EU upping its emission reduction commitment to 30% and it seems unlikely, on this basis of this text, but who knows?

Structure of the (eventual) Copenhagen accord

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kyte) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:05:30 PST

The draft agreements that are being produced here are essentially texts that are being produced by one or another of the various factions that are negotiating. This is the reason why key parts keep appearing and disappearing.

The architecture of the accord is now becoming clearer and it can be seen how the accord and the UNFCCC formal negotiations are being meshed together through extending the mandate of the two ad-hoc working groups (AWGs).

The key areas of the text are:

0. A formal decision to extend the AWGs mandates
1. A political mantra agreeing 2 deg
2. A weak 2050 global emissions target and words on peaking
3. Funding for adaptation
4. 2020 and 2050 targets for Annex 1 countries, which includes the US, with wording to state that this strengthens the commitment for Kyoto countries
5. Mitigation actions by non-Annex 1 countries with differential language on reporting depending whether it is internationally funded or not.
6. Recognition of REDD+ (actions to prevent deforestation)
7. Various approaches, including using markets
8. Funding for mitigation, REDD+, etc
9. Mechanism to assess funding
10. Mechanism to manage funding
11. Mechanism to transfer technology
12. Review of Accord

This shows how all the issues being discussed have been incorporated. The key issue will be is there sufficient there to satisfy everyone once the final text has been thrashed out.

Six drafts, but which direction?

noreply@blogger.com (Nick Rowcliffe) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:06:36 PST

Tejas Ewing writes:

The sheer number of draft Copenhagen texts mean that any rumours of an agreement, and any rumours of what is in that agreement must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Apparently, at least six draft texts exist, and it is impossible to know which of those six is the most current, and which has precedence at any given time. Therefore any suggestion that someone has seen a 'sixth', (the latest number to be quoted) 'seventh' or even 'eigth' version does not necessarily mean that it is the version that has been discussed most recently, or that it is the version most likely to be adopted.

Apparently the versions differ more in terms of strength of commitment than in the order they were presented, presenting a spectrum of commitments from strong to weak rather than a chronological order.

Whether this means the sixth version is the strongest or the weakest depends on whether you believe the discussions going on behind the scenes are leading to a stronger or a weaker agreement.

New draft text sees no end in sight

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:08:43 PST

The new draft text circulating at the Bella Centre no longer commits governments to a legal outcome from the international climate talks nor a date by which they should finish. It effectively sets up a new, interminable Doha-type process.

In the previous draft, circulating since last night, governments stated their "firm resolve to adopt one or more legal instruments" under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) "as soon as possible and no later than COP16".

The new draft merely proposes to extend the mandate of the UNFCCC and Kyoto protocol negotiating tracks, without specifying an end date.

In another significant change, the text suggests that developed countries alone should work to raise US$100bn a year by 2020 in climate finance for developing countries – "developed countries support a goal of mobilising jointly US$100bn a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries". The previous draft did not place the burden squarely on developed countries' shoulders.

In other changes, the new draft text reflects clear efforts to reach consensus on the issue of developing country mitigation actions and how they should be monitored, reported and verified (MRV). The paragraph dealing with this has become a bit of a mess.

It now clearly that proposes a list of developing country mitigation actions should be included in an appendix to the text. Any future mitigation actions would be added to this appendix after being communicated to the UNFCCC through national communications (although perhaps also through other means? – the text appears to introduce this option).

As per the previous draft, developing country mitigation actions would be domestically MRVed unless they receive outside support. There is no longer any mention of developing countries clarifying their numbers if requested to do so.

The text introduces a long-term emission reduction goal for developed countries – "at least 80% by 2050". It doesn't yet propose any numbers for 2020 reductions.

But it does strengthen references to the science underpinning climate change – it explicitly refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it says the world should aim to halve global emissions by 2050 relative to 1990, and it says a review in 2016 should consider strengthening the long-term emission reduction goal to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees.

There is much stronger language on reducing deforestation– governments recognise this is "crucial" and agree to provide "positive incentives… through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus to enable the mobilisation of financial resources from developed countries". In the section on financing, it says "substantial finance" will need to go to deforestation. Forestry is also explicitly mentioned as a would-be recipient of fast-track financing.

The text states for the first time the need to recognise the potential impact of "response measures", such as border-tax adjustments, on other countries, especially the most vulnerable.

What is 'Business as Usual'?

noreply@blogger.com (Tejas Ewing) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:36:53 PST

The latest draft agreement apparently puts the issue of hard cuts for developing countries back on the table. This draft suggests that developing countries should commit to between 15% and 30% emissions cuts below a 'business as usual' baseline by 2050.

The question this raises is: how is such a target prefereable to the energy intensity commitments that China and India have already made? It seems that this could be a major sticking point for any further traction, as trying to define 'business as usual' is far more complex than energy intensity. After all, who can safely say what business as usual will be in 40 years time, when 2050 rolls around?

With China and India already stating that they will meet and aim to exceed the energy intensity targets that they have set, regardless of what happens at Copenhagen, it seems that replacing a clearly defined metric - energy intensity - with a completely arbitrary, and ill-defined metric is a recipe for disaster.

And, asking developing countries to commit to 30% below 'business as usual' in 2050, when we would presumably be living in a much more energy efficient world, could in fact be asking for a greater level of responisbility from developing countries than they view as being in line with the principle of shared but differentiated responsibilities.

Perhaps this explains the rumour that the Premier of China has sent an underling to the negotiations in his place.

The leaders' group photo is postponed

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Schoon) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:32:52 PST

A feature of these summits is that all the leaders gather for a group photograph. But the happy snap has now been postponed twice; instead the leaders prefer to concentrate on negotiation. Which suggests that, at the very least, lots of them are sticking around to try to reach a deal.

New draft text emerges and EU leaders meet

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:12:16 PST

There is a new version circulating of the 3-page draft text being developed by leaders at the Copenhagen climate summit. Full analysis to follow shortly.

In the meantime, EU leaders are meeting as I write, presumably to dicuss a potential increase in Europe's emission reduction pledge for 2020 from 20% to 30%. Again, we'll keep you posted.

Lost in limbo

sonja.vanrenssen@haymarket.com (Sonja van Renssen) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:04:48 PST

Speculation is rife and contradictory indeed, as Bill Kyte wrote earlier. The latest is that German chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso are blocking a unilateral EU move to 30%.

The EU has repeatedly insisted it will only pledge to reduce its emissions by 30% rather than 20% by 2020 if the US undertakes to do more to combat climate change than it has announced to date.

Many expected much of US president Barack Obama's speech today. But while he delivered a clear, concise overview of the American position he made no concessions, broke no new ground.

In this he followed in the footsteps of his fellow leaders. Premier Wen Jiabao of China reeled off China's climate achievements to date and emphasised the "tremendous" efforts it has committed to in future, but hinted at no compromises.

The entrenched positions relayed in these speeches are probably not a fair reflection of what's happening behind closed doors. But at the same time, the big question is whether without significant new input, there is enough here to close a meaningful deal.

I don't know. I read Alex Marshall's reminder of how we reported the signing of the Kyoto protocol with an uncomfortable feeling. The mood has again shifted to one of uncertainty and doubt here at the Bella Centre and with press conference and press conference cancelled, it feels like we are in for a bit of a wait before something new emerges from the talks.

What would an EU move to 30% achieve at this stage? It would have meaning only if it caused a move in the US position because it is this that China and the rest of the developing world is waiting for. But would it? I don't see why it would.

Obama does not have much scope for manoeuvre because his draft climate legislation is tied up in the Senate, he's trying to lift his country out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and public opinion will not tolerate him helping China.

It's understandable but it casts a long shadow over these climate talks. Apparently US deputy special envoy for climate change Jonathan Pershing was wandering the corridors this morning saying the circumstances weren't right for a deal, that this wasn't the arena for a deal.

But let's not jump ahead of ourselves. Right now, we are waiting for fresh information. Although I'm not sure where it will come from: EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas just walked by and upon hearing his name and with a question forming on my lips beat me to it: "what's happening?" he said with an easy smile.

All aboard for Mexico City

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Hatchwell) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:29:27 PST

A key problem is the way climate change effort is being conflated with international development. Yes, that’s a worthy cause, too, and it is obviously related. But we can’t solve all the world’s problems in one agreement. And we are probably close to the best deal likely on climate-related funding to judge by the draft text of last night.

But if continued special pleading channels effort and resources away from meeting robust emissions reduction targets, it will amount to a worthless piece of paper for everyone - unless a sizeable portion goes into verifiable clean technology investment.

Let’s face it, the text talks of avoiding 2°C, yet there is still no resolution on emissions reductions. Yet with current emissions reduction pledges, we are still on track for a catastrophic 3°C rise, wiping out 50% of all species. That’s where we need to turn our guns now.

It has been clear for a while that most of next year will be needed to resolve the many detailed issues outstanding. Let’s hope the looming failure at Copenhagen will shame leaders and their negotiators into a clear, business-like timetable for a robust agreement by then.

It won’t happen in Bonn at the next UNFCCC mid-year session. The time’s too short for that if we are going to do this properly. But it WILL have to happen by COP16 in Mexico City, as the text now finally concedes - with robust targets. In the meantime, a binding declaration on this timescale has to be the priority.

It's not looking good

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Schoon) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:06:38 PST

The Presidents of Bolivia and Venezuela have just given succesive fiery speeches at the Copenhagen summit which makes it seem extremely unlikely they will sign any political agreement negotiated here. And since such an agreement depends heavily on everyone signing up, that sounds ominous.

Venuzuela's Hugh Chavez said: "We are leaving - we reject any document that Obama will slip under the door or which comes out of the sky." Indeed, he said, an ageement in Copenhagen had never been possible because the USA would not fulfill its emission cutting responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol.

In a fiery speech peppered with personal abuse of US President Barak Obama, Chavez summarised the developing world 'ultra' position. It may not represent the majority of develoing countries, but this position has become very imortant in Copenhagen.

Chavez also voiced the intense fury at what many countries see as repeated attempts by rich nations to stitch up the climate negotiations through conducting negotiations among smaller, selected groups of countries.

Chavez seemed particularly incensed by the brevity of Obama's visit - having arrived in Copenhagen this morning, the US President slipped into the plenary hall through a little side door to make his speech.

"Obama came and went through that little, camouflaged side door - the emperor who comes in the middle of the night," said Chavez. He was engaged in cooking up "a document which we will never accept" - see earlier posting about a first draft of this document.

On and on he went, ranting about the doomed "Yankee empire" and the alleged exclusion of developing nations from the talks. America's support for $10 billion a year start up funding for mitigation and adaptation in the developing world was "ridiculous...laughable...a joke" because it was so tiny compared to US military spending and the size of the public funds used to rescue the banks.

Bolivia's Evo Morales also resented the way Obama had arrived in the final hours of the summit whilst he had been in attendence for several days. He, too, was angry at the way the Danish hosts had picked a small, select group of leaders to try to reach a poltical ageement. "Don't have a secret discussion in corners," he demanded. The first priority was for the USA to join the Kyoto Protocol.

His solution was diverting military spending to spending "on saving mother earth", and a global referendum of all peoples on what they thought should be done to tackle climate change.

Giving these two presidents the floor at the close of the 'informal high level event' today in Copenhagen (at which Obama spoke well, but offered nothing new) might have been seen as a way of trying to make COP 15 seem more democratic and transparent, more alive to the concerns of the south.

Morales and Chavez got quite a lot of applause. New European commissioner Connie Hedegaard, representing the Danish hosts on the top table, looked stony faced. It was not at all consensus building.