This year’s UN Climate Change conference in Durban, South Africa kicked off on November 29 with the usual mix of pessimism and optimism. Pessimism because last year was the hottest ever recorded and countries are no closer to an agreement on global warming. Optimism because, well, at least countries are still talking, even if it is only to gather in a beautiful seaside town and hear that Canada might withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.
In the week of negotiations thus far, there has been little hint of a breakthrough. But the real show on the negotiations begins this weekend when key delegation leaders, ministers and heads of state begin arriving. Over the next week, delegates from over 180 countries will seek to find common ground for a climate agreement beyond 2012. They are unlikely to succeed.
THE DISCONNECT
At least the UN selects the dates for these events wisely. The annual conference always occurs just a few weeks before Christmas, as if the disappointment of failing to arrive at an agreement can then be quickly eclipsed by the festivities of Christmas and the merriment of New Year. It does help soften the pain. But then we have to start the New Year yet again on the same rhetoric that has prevented a long-term global climate agreement: developed countries wanting emerging economies to make firmer commitments on emissions reductions; and emerging economies wanting developed countries to bear the entire burden for emissions reduction.
Technically, all countries are equally represented at the UN climate talks. Technically, agreement in the UN climate talks can be forged only through consensus. In reality, though, a handful of developed countries and emerging economies, possibly no more than the members of the G20, hold the real key to a solution. The G20 countries account for approximately 80 percent of global GHG emissions. They produce 90 percent of the world’s output (Gross Domestic Product). They have the political capacity to negotiate a global climate pact and the resources to implement it.
On the other hand, poorer countries and small island states remain the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The poor lack the resources and capacity to protect themselves against erratic climatic events like floods and droughts. Small island states can do little to protect against rising sea levels that could ultimately drown out their land. Some three billion people, without any real leverage over the talks, will disproportionately bear the impacts.
Perhaps the first step in steering the climate talks out of its current stalemate is simply to recognize this disconnect.
FIRST CRISIS
The on-going economic crisis has taken much of the focus away from Durban.
The coalition of LDCs and small island states could simply walk out until developed countries and emerging economies arrive at a firm agreement on emission reduction.
A plume of gloom hangs over Europe. European leaders have been desperately trying to save the Euro zone, in what they dub the worst crisis since the Second World War. The Americans are embroiled in their own polarized discussion about deficit reductions. Next year’s presidential election is beginning to further colour things. Foreign policy adventures, particularly on climate, are unlikely for a President expected to face an unhappy electorate. Emerging economies have been focused on ensuring that the contagion of the economic crisis does not dampen their own growth. Many of them are being called upon to bail out developed countries.
Faced with the economic crisis, climate has become a sidebar conversation. Durban has been left bereft of any expectations. Very little movement away from entrenched positions is expected. If negotiators from developed countries and emerging economies so much as get up from their seats to use the toilets, it may very well be considered a breakthrough of sorts. In difficult times such as these, countries retrench further into narrow self-interest. Hard times leave little room for generosity.
Some of the earlier convergence on climate is already eroding. Several key negotiators have begun calling for unilateral domestic action by countries as precondition to a multilateral framework. Some have begun to suggest that we start preparing towards a framework that offers binding emissions reductions targets only after 2020. China’s supposed offer to accept binding targets by 2020 could have brought some cheer. But its closest climate allies—Brazil, South Africa and India—in the BASIC bloc have yet to endorse the offer.
India appears to have reversed the flexibility it had demonstrated over the last two years. The Japanese have hardened their position on the need to junk the Kyoto Protocol. The EU, which for a long time was seen as seeking to bridge dissenting positions, appeared to be conceding that a binding emissions deal prior to 2020 was unlikely. The US has shrunk back significantly, demanding stronger action from emerging economies.
The longer that climate remains in shadow of other crises, the longer it will take to reclaim lost ground on the negotiations. Poor countries and small island states must find a way to put pressure on key negotiating powers.
One way to keep up pressure is to separate what’s important from what’s not. Six different bodies, each with 8-10 agenda items, will be meeting in Durban. Some areas will no doubt see progress, but the real deal is on emissions reductions—commitments that move us firmly towards achieving the required reductions in emissions. Everything else is a bit secondary.
Financing is likely to be one of those areas of progress. Arrangements for the Green Climate Fund— the institutions that will move the billions of dollars promised by developed countries—will likely be agreed in Durban. On this achievement alone everyone will go home claiming progress. Poor countries and small island states must learn to look beyond such illusionary achievements. In the absence of legally binding commitment on emissions reductions, the financial transfers may not be adequate. The costs that poor countries and small island states will have to bear will easily outweigh the proposed financial transfer. A solution for climate must start with legally binding commitments that deliver the required emissions reductions. Everything else, including financing agreements, will follow.
Poor countries and small island states should jam progress on all other agenda to retain focus on long-term emissions reduction. There is no point in allowing the gains on secondary issues to be hijacked as progress.
CONVERGING ON CLIMATE
Poor countries and small island states have attempted to draw attention to their plight. Two years ago, Nepal’s government held a working cabinet meeting at Everest base camp to highlight the climate impacts on the Himalayan glaciers. A few months prior to that, the government of the Maldives had held a cabinet meeting at the bottom of the sea to highlight the impacts of rising sea levels.
These governments made one mistake—they came back. They should have stayed there, remained in Everest base camp and under the sea till developed countries and emerging economies came to an agreement on reductions. The two events were spectacular but did nothing for the climate negotiations.
Poor countries and small island states must do more to exert pressure on climate negotiations. They must stop thinking of themselvesas a ping pong ball in the endless table tennis match between developed countries and emerging economies.
They could start by dumping the G77, a broad coalition of non-developed countries. The G77 is too diverse to represent a point of view. It has lost much of its relevance in climate negotiations, though it does occasionally surface. When it does, it is nothing more than a political stooge, a buffer for emerging economies against developed countries.
The voice of the real climate victims could be better represented by a stronger coalition between the group of least developed countries and alliance of small island states. The two groups already exist. Together they account for almost 100 countries. Exercised correctly, they could force meaningful progress. After all, this coalition holds the ultimate trump card: they could simply walk out of the talks until developed countries and emerging economies arrive at a firm agreement on emissions reductions.
For the poor at the frontlines of climate impacts, the brinkmanship between developed countries and emerging economies isn’t helpful beyond a point. We may be dangerously close to that point.
bishal_thapa@hotmail.com
Related story
Antarctica is melting faster
_20220508065243.jpg)
