Charting Cancun and Beyond:
Could there really be a climate deal?
By Nina Somera
MANILA/BONN, 19 Jul 10 -- “Cancun has the potential to complete what remained incomplete in Copenhagen.”
Despite the failure to reach an ambitious agreement on climate change last year in Copenhagen, Denmark, Yvo de Boer insisted on a positive reflection on the process as well as forecast on the next conference of parties (COP 16) slated this year in Cancun, Mexico.
In his last speech as Secretary General of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), de Boer cited three major implications of last COP. COP 15 brought together 120 heads of states, some of them bringing pledges of emissions reduction and money. He also believed that the process indicated “advanced negotiations in the essential infrastructure needed.” Thirdly, it resulted in the Copenhagen Accord that signified “political intent.”
Primarily pushed by the United States, the Copenhagen Accord has been generally seen as a watered down version of what was expected to be an ambitious but necessary agreement that would effectively curb greenhouse gas emissions and allocate public money especially for adaptation. Although the Accord intends to raise US$30 billion from 2010 to 2012 and US$100 billion per year by 2020 and to keep temperature from rising by two degrees, the document is not binding. Moreover, its pledges are inadequate to stop the aggravating impacts of climate change, much less repair the earth.
For Jürgen Maier of the Forum on Environment and Development, there are more reasons to keep expectations lower in Cancun. “Is a UN treaty a consequence of a national action or a precursor of a national action.” He pointed out that the US might not be able to introduce and insist on any action as long as its climate change legislation remains
pending. This is also why some activists are poised to believe that a more concrete agreement would only be reached in COP 17 in Johannesburg in South Africa. Nonetheless, he asserted, “Not expecting too much does not mean lowering our expectations on what is needed.”
Imme Scholz of the German Development Institute added that the negotiations would have to be determined by national policies. Nonetheless, she noted the “moving alliances such as those among the G77/China. “India, Brazil and South Africa are holding regular meetings. China is also able to issue joint statements,” she observed.
Christoph Bals of German Watch likewise cited as an example the emerging dialogues between China and the European Union without the US. “We don’t know where this will be heading but nonetheless a taboo has been broken.”
Meanwhile, Halldor Thorgeirsson, Director of the Bali Roadmap of the UNFCCC expressed optimism on the possibilities of “cooperation without consensus.” Asked about the viability of the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), which international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and others are managing outside the UNFCCC, he cited the sunset clause that would put the CIF under the UNFCCC once the latter has finalized a financial architecture.
“A new green fund would have to be established in Cancun, fast-tracking finance in adaptation. Banks would have a role to play. The interim situation will not be a threat to the long term,” he assured. He admitted though the continuing uneasiness among key stakeholders in the process, judging from the current commitments: “The pledges that we have now are not enough to get us where we have to be. Governments and industries are still defensive.”
Despite the sunset clause, civil society organizations (CSO) are even more apprehensive. CIFs meant to primarily produce profits rather than prevent the adverse impacts of climate change on communities. They further digress from the very idea of reparations.
As Milo Tanchuling of the Freedom from Debt Coalition previously asserted, “We demand reparations from these polluters, not loans.” Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South – Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development likewise questioned loans as resources. “Climate finance must be provided as an obligation of developed countries who are primarily responsible for the problem [of climate change],” she said.
The NGO Forum on the ADB also fears that with the sustained operation of the CIFs, the mechanism might be institutionalized in the UNFCCC’s financial architecture.
Meanwhile, Brazilian ambassador to Germany H.E. Dr. Everton Vieira Vargas affirmed the common but differentiated responsibilities among countries. While Brazil is seen as among the more progressive governments in the negotiations, he clarified that “a small group cannot substitute a process.”
“Financial resources and technology are an obligation of developed countries. We cannot simply apply a one size fits all. We need to understand a redistribution of power to move to a new international order. Climate change is not an environmental issue. It is a developmental issue,” he insisted.
Attended by some 1,500 participants from 95 countries, the Global Media Forum 2010 was organized by Deutsche Welle from 21 to 23 June 2010 in Bonn, Germany.
Could there really be a climate deal?
By Nina Somera
MANILA/BONN, 19 Jul 10 -- “Cancun has the potential to complete what remained incomplete in Copenhagen.”Despite the failure to reach an ambitious agreement on climate change last year in Copenhagen, Denmark, Yvo de Boer insisted on a positive reflection on the process as well as forecast on the next conference of parties (COP 16) slated this year in Cancun, Mexico.
In his last speech as Secretary General of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), de Boer cited three major implications of last COP. COP 15 brought together 120 heads of states, some of them bringing pledges of emissions reduction and money. He also believed that the process indicated “advanced negotiations in the essential infrastructure needed.” Thirdly, it resulted in the Copenhagen Accord that signified “political intent.”
Primarily pushed by the United States, the Copenhagen Accord has been generally seen as a watered down version of what was expected to be an ambitious but necessary agreement that would effectively curb greenhouse gas emissions and allocate public money especially for adaptation. Although the Accord intends to raise US$30 billion from 2010 to 2012 and US$100 billion per year by 2020 and to keep temperature from rising by two degrees, the document is not binding. Moreover, its pledges are inadequate to stop the aggravating impacts of climate change, much less repair the earth.
For Jürgen Maier of the Forum on Environment and Development, there are more reasons to keep expectations lower in Cancun. “Is a UN treaty a consequence of a national action or a precursor of a national action.” He pointed out that the US might not be able to introduce and insist on any action as long as its climate change legislation remains
pending. This is also why some activists are poised to believe that a more concrete agreement would only be reached in COP 17 in Johannesburg in South Africa. Nonetheless, he asserted, “Not expecting too much does not mean lowering our expectations on what is needed.”
Imme Scholz of the German Development Institute added that the negotiations would have to be determined by national policies. Nonetheless, she noted the “moving alliances such as those among the G77/China. “India, Brazil and South Africa are holding regular meetings. China is also able to issue joint statements,” she observed.
Christoph Bals of German Watch likewise cited as an example the emerging dialogues between China and the European Union without the US. “We don’t know where this will be heading but nonetheless a taboo has been broken.”
Meanwhile, Halldor Thorgeirsson, Director of the Bali Roadmap of the UNFCCC expressed optimism on the possibilities of “cooperation without consensus.” Asked about the viability of the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), which international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and others are managing outside the UNFCCC, he cited the sunset clause that would put the CIF under the UNFCCC once the latter has finalized a financial architecture.
“A new green fund would have to be established in Cancun, fast-tracking finance in adaptation. Banks would have a role to play. The interim situation will not be a threat to the long term,” he assured. He admitted though the continuing uneasiness among key stakeholders in the process, judging from the current commitments: “The pledges that we have now are not enough to get us where we have to be. Governments and industries are still defensive.”
Despite the sunset clause, civil society organizations (CSO) are even more apprehensive. CIFs meant to primarily produce profits rather than prevent the adverse impacts of climate change on communities. They further digress from the very idea of reparations.
As Milo Tanchuling of the Freedom from Debt Coalition previously asserted, “We demand reparations from these polluters, not loans.” Lidy Nacpil of Jubilee South – Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development likewise questioned loans as resources. “Climate finance must be provided as an obligation of developed countries who are primarily responsible for the problem [of climate change],” she said.
The NGO Forum on the ADB also fears that with the sustained operation of the CIFs, the mechanism might be institutionalized in the UNFCCC’s financial architecture.
Meanwhile, Brazilian ambassador to Germany H.E. Dr. Everton Vieira Vargas affirmed the common but differentiated responsibilities among countries. While Brazil is seen as among the more progressive governments in the negotiations, he clarified that “a small group cannot substitute a process.”
“Financial resources and technology are an obligation of developed countries. We cannot simply apply a one size fits all. We need to understand a redistribution of power to move to a new international order. Climate change is not an environmental issue. It is a developmental issue,” he insisted.
Attended by some 1,500 participants from 95 countries, the Global Media Forum 2010 was organized by Deutsche Welle from 21 to 23 June 2010 in Bonn, Germany.
© 2008 NGO Forum on ADB. | Content may be used freely if source is acknowledged.