No Breakthrough in UN Climate Negotiations

From June 1 to June 12, representatives of the world's governments gathered in Bonn, Germany for the second round of international climate change negotiations in the run-up to Copenhagen. The first round took place in Bonn in March (Bonn 1) and subsequent sessions are scheduled for August (Bonn), September (Bangkok) and November (Barcelona).

The Bonn meeting was important for two reasons:

• For the first time, negotiating texts for the two main negotiating tracks Kyoto Protocol (KP) and Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) were discussed for the first time. They were released in May and need to be finalized before Copenhagen in order for a deal to be struck
• The meeting was mandated to agree overall emission targets for industrialized countries (known as 'Annex 1).

Working with the Global Campaign for Climate Action, Oxfam helped run the adopt a negotiator' program, which saw youth activists from various Annex 1 countries becoming negotiator trackers, and literally tracking their home country delegation throughout the intercessional. Informal feedback suggests that many delegations took this process seriously, and made an effort to read the blogs of the trackers and meet them regularly. Oxfam also organized two photo stunts.

On the Wednesday of the second week, Oxfam launched its latest briefing paper Hang Together or Separately? which called for Annex 1 countries to take on a double duty to cut emissions at home and finance mitigation in developing countries. Read Oxfam's press releases from the talks here and here.

What happened in the negotiations?

Adaptation

Oxfam and other NGOs have been supporting the call for rich countries to inject US$2 billion into the Least Developed Countries Fund. This fund was set-up in 2001 and LDCs have since identified US$2 billion of urgent adaptation actions. Such a pledge would make good on previous rich-country commitments to support adaptation in the most vulnerable countries and would represent a gesture of goodwill within the current negotiations. No new contributions to the LDC Fund were announced. And there was no progress on the really key issue of financing commitments from rich countries for post-2012. See Finance section below.

Mitigation

The meeting was supposed to agree aggregate Annex 1 targets for 2020. It did not even come close. The reluctance of rich countries to agree collectively what they will cut, or even to volunteer cuts that are consistent with what the science says is necessary, has become a major source of frustration and distrust for developing countries. In their closing remarks, the G77+China, the Africa Group, the LDC Group and the small-island states (AOSIS) were highly critical of Annex 1 countries' inertia and lack of action. Many rich countries have voluntarily adopted targets for 2020 but none of them are consistent with avoiding 2 degrees of warming. And some rich countries have yet to make any commitments for 2020 whatsoever notably Russia and New Zealand. See the last appendix of Hang Together or Separately for a summary of rich country commitments so far.

One rich country that had yet to set a mid-term target was Japan one of the richest and historically most polluting countries in the world. There was much consternation in Bonn when Japan announced its 2020 target to be a 15% cut on 2005 emissions worth a meagre 8% below 1990 levels, only 2% better than its current commitment under Kyoto to reduce its 1990 emissions by 6% by 2012.

Canada too was condemned for refusing to budge from its weak 2020 target of 20% below 2006 levels, equivalent to 3% below 1990 levels and only half of what it promised under Kyoto to achieve by 2012. Canada and Japan insisted on keeping the option of 'x% reductions by 2020 on the table, leaving open the possibility for a target weaker than the minimum agreed to by Canada and over 170 other Kyoto countries when negotiations were launched (25% below 1990 levels by 2020).

Canada also stated that it will not account for emissions from its forests unless countries agree to rules that are more favourable to Canada. The EU-27 and the 42-member Alliance of Small Island States both rebuked Canada for lacking ambition and for playing with the numbers to make its 2020 target look better than it is.

While rich countries continued to drag their heels, momentum among developing countries continued to build from Bonn 1, where both the Philippines and South Africa tabled proposals for Annex 1 country emissions reductions. Bonn 2 saw a new proposal from South Africa, this time supported by 37 developing countries including China, India and Brazil, for Annex 1 countries to take on an aggregate cut of 40% with individual targets based on share of cumulative historical emissions since 1850. Meanwhile AOSIS highlighted the inadequacy of existing rich country commitments by estimating their worth to be in aggregate only a 6-13% cut on 1990 levels a long way from the 40% identified by Oxfam as a minimum requirement.

Financing

Finance remains a large bottleneck, with no rich country making an adequate offer or commitment for either adaptation or mitigation post-2012. Oxfam had hoped the European Union might break the impasse (see here), but it remains paralyzed over internal budget-wrangling. Another important opportunity to push for commitments from rich countries will be the G8 in Italy in July.

A crucial aspect of a post-2012 financing framework is how the money will be raised. The two foremost proposals are from Mexico and Norway. The Mexican proposal is a contributory approach in which all countries (rich and poor) would pay into a fund based on certain criteria. The Norwegian proposal is a market-based approach which would raise money through the sale of 'allotted auction units (AAUs), carbon emissions permits, as Oxfam has proposed in our policy papers, Turning Carbon into Gold and Hang Together or Separately?. Oxfam supports market-based approaches as these offer greater predictability by making funding independent of political decision-making.

Unfortunately a swell of support for contributory approaches began at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) meeting in Paris last month where the 25 biggest emitters came out in support of the Mexican proposal. They argued that the problem of predictability can be solved through the use of assessed contributions the means by which countries fund the UN which are supposedly mandatory. Nevertheless, the UN remains woefully under-funded, with many of its most important donors in significant arrears. Rich countries also pushed for the governance and delivery of adaptation finance to take place through the World Bank and regional multilateral development banks, rather than under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

Canada submitted new texts related to adaptation, technology and mitigation, but these have not been made public. Canada also committed to provide its 'fair share of financial support for climate action in developing countries. However, Department of Foreign Affairs briefing notes obtained through Access to Information legislation indicate that Canada 'seeks to leverage financial and technological assistance to extract binding emissions reduction commitments from the emerging economies, a position that runs counter to Canada's legal obligation (under the UN climate convention) to provide this financial support. The briefing notes date from 2008.

What next?

The entire text now weighs in at well over 300 pages a result of many submissions from different parties, containing a lot of potentially good things and also a lot of bad. The process by which the text is consolidated will be critical. An informal understanding was reached that the chair of the working group will bring a consolidated text to the next session in Bangkok.

Conclusion

• Inertia on the part of rich countries is unacceptable. Yet again, rich countries brought nothing new to an international negotiating session. They were supposed to agree overall emissions cuts for 2020, but all that happened was Japan announced a woefully inadequate national target. Crucially, there has been no movement on post-2012 financing commitments, without which a global deal will be neither fair nor safe.
• Lack of progress risks undermining the process. Unless things start moving quickly, the UNFCCC process is unlikely to deliver by Copenhagen. Potential dealmaker countries may seek to agree terms outside of the process possibly at the MEF which could come at the expense of the most vulnerable countries that have no seat at that table.

But the elements of a fair and safe deal are there. Although progress is glacial, the elements of a fair and safe deal are contained within the negotiating texts on the table. But the reality of the negotiating process is that everything remains at risk, and many good proposals may be sacrificed to make headway in other areas.