COP-upy

by Nathan Thanki and Trudi Zundel

Last week the people marched past the UNFCCC meetings with trucks, horns and speakerphones blasting political messages for the delegates inside negotiating over the future of the planet. No one inside blinked an eye. A crowd of maybe 50 people gathered by the gated walkway to see them march, and horsed policemen barred every potential entrance. We were left wondering why the energy didn’t penetrate the gates, why people inside didn’t seem to feel the same urgency. But yesterday, as the negotiations were heating up instead of coming to a close, accredited members of civil society finally carried the voice of dissent from the streets to the corridors.

Civil society had been quiet, cautious, wary during the first week, but as week two began and the negotiations remained largely closed, there was no way the pressure couldn’t build. The UN has learnt that the best way to silence someone is to engage with them, but sometimes they forget. It began with the Stand with Africa flashmob, to test the waters.  Then the brave Canadian Youth Delegation  turned their backs on the Canadian government, literally rising together in the plenary to defy the shameless Peter Kent. Soon after that, Abigail Borah of SustainUS took it up a notch; shouting over Todd Stern as he attempted to give his plenary speech. “You do not speak for me!” There were sporadic walking flashmobs of I <3 KP shirts, and rumblings of a large action for Friday. When Anjali stepped away from the podium and did a call and response with 50 youth, the message to governments had become clear.

You have denied us a voice too long. We do not need your microphone, we have our own. You will hear us.

By 3pm on Friday, it was now or never for civil society. Up to now only the youth had been raising their voice. But finally the rest of civil society joined us as we carried the demands of the many to the halls of the few. An initial rallying cry mic check went out, and suddenly hundreds of people were marching through the ICC towards the plenary. Delegates from Egypt and Maldives were joined by Kumi Naidoo and other NGO leaders. Banners and placards appeared from nowhere. Jubilee South and La Via Campesina had been protesting the World Bank’s inclusion in climate finance and quickly joined the march through the hall. The UN guards were quick to respond. They had been expecting us. Frankly, it was rude to keep them waiting for 2 weeks. They put on their serious faces. One was in the crowd, stealthily taking badges without asking. That’s how we lost three. Some people (some from earthinbrackets) took their badges off and pocketed them. The march reached a blockade and could go no further. The singing began. Shosholosa, mostly. Cries reflected the fundamental values that all of civil society could agree on: urging governments to negotiate on behalf of their people; respecting the principles of the convention, like historical responsibility; urgent action; and of course the broad cry for climate justice. And although the divides among civil society still showed–some falling into the EU trap of calling for a new treaty that would kill Africa and blame China/India, and some not wanting to get thrown out for protesting–it was still a show of unity.

The protest yesterday may have boosted the energy in the negotiating room for a little while, but the new draft decisions that came out this morning certainly don’t accommodate civil society’s demand for climate justice. I think of it as baby steps, though. Corporate lobby still has more say than us, the villains are still not getting the blame and shame they deserve, polluters are still being protected, and our future is still being sold for profit… It will take a lot more than a peaceful march at a COP to dislodge such a deeply-ingrained, corrupt system. Until it ends, the struggle continues.

Yields of the Night Vigil

by Anjali Appadurai

I started this post at 4am, and worked on it intermittently until now – 9:30am. No new LCA text, no sleep. These ministers worked through the night, and through the documents they released from their “indaba” at a couple of different intervals, we have some meagre updates.

The indaba high-level consultations convened at midnight and are still going strong, with three draft texts produced thus far. They took a short break at around 2:30 but are back to work. Tonight, three new indaba texts were produced, plus an options table, a KP document and a “big picture” text. Discussed below is the “big picture” and the KP text.

Big picture:

The final LCA text was supposed to have been released at 6am, but it’s 7:30 and we’re still waiting. Basically, leaked documents show this “big picture” for the texts so far:

-          The text would end the AWG-LCA at COP18, or at least render it irrelevant because it would set up a parallel track under the Convention

-          The Bali Action Plan will be incomplete by COP18 but LCA will end anyway (ie – a broken commitment)

-          The LCA would be replaced with a new body of the name [XX] thus far

-          This new body would be the framework for creating a new treaty or protocol to address the same concerns as the LCA

-          The new treaty would include the major pillars of the Bali Action Plan (references to finance, technology transfer, capacity building, adaptation), but would not be the same in terms of content

-          There is no reference in the text to the principles of the Convention (common but differentiated and historical responsibility, equity)

-          The text would “call” for a process to develop a legally-binding agreement. Simply being legally-binding is not sufficient to ensure action. There needs to be substance.

 KP

The KP outcome is grim.

-          No second commitment period this year.

-          Rather, the mandate of the AWG-KP is pushed back

-          The text “invites” KP Parties (which now excludes Canada, Russia, Japan, in addition to the already absent US) to “offer” their pledges in an annex to the decision

-          In order for there to be ratification of the Protocol for a second commitment period, Parties must amend and ratify the original Annexes and full text. The text of the Annex B is totally different, and a 2CP cannot be achieved if this Annex B stays.

-          Does not include any text to say that Parties should start to apply the rules laid out in the document before it enters into force officially

-          There is no shared vision; ie, the text allows Japan, Canada and Russia to escape their obligations under KP. Aussie and NZ are only “considering” offering pledges.

-          This text provides a perfect backdoor with a red carpet for Annex 1 countries to make the Great Escape from their commitments

-          Loopholes and weak wording allows A1 countries to increase emissions.

 

 

 

 

The last night draws on

by Samuli Sinisalo

The texts just presented were not accepted by the Group of 77 and China. Later EU also denounced the documents.

Canada had called more ambition from China and India. This was done by name, which is not very politically correct – especially from a country like Canada, which has notoriously low ambition. They were just awarded the fossil of the year award from being the biggest obstructor in the negotiations in 2011.

So new text went into drafting, we’ve been waiting in the conference centre. Now the latest update just came out – the ministerial Indaba will convene again at midnight (in 1 hour). There will be a new text, and there are promises for improvements in the time-frames, ambition and the legal form in that text.

The COP will not reconvene before 10 tomorrow morning. Seems that if the COP is going to be decided in the wee hours of the night, those meetings are either closed to us, or they will happen tomorrow night.

I just hope that the first drafts that were circulated around the conference centre relatively widely, were not just laying down the groundwork for a compromised deal. Circulating bad drafts like that might prepare the crowd for a deal that is an improvement over the first round, but still far from ideal. But this might be just the skeptic in me speaking.

As of now, the security wants to empty the whole conference centre. We are trying to negotiate to have the right to stay. Might be that everyone is thrown out. Ministerial negotiations are just about to begin and civil society is pushed out on the streets. Does not look good in terms of transparency…

BASIC makes Room for an Elephant

by Joe Perullo

BASIC (the group of Brazil, South African, India, and China) gave a rather uncomfortable press conference the other day.  China, the leader of the group, started the talk on the defensive, denying the major “rumor” floating around that BASIC is splitting up. The other countries complied and also denied the allegations. An elephant walked into the room.

The EU and the US have successfully divided and conquered developing countries with their proposal on the table (see “A New Adaptation Framework: Don’t hold your breath for this empty shell” by Graham Reeder).  China is against the new treaty, but took a heroic leap of faith by saying they were willing to take on legally binding emissions reductions (unfortunately not until 2020); the EU recently exposed Brazil’s willingness to sign on to their proposal; India is vehemently against any new treaty that rejects the core principles of the convention, and will unlikely sign on to LCA pledges like China; and South Africa, while coming to the COP with some of the most strict and realistic demands, is willing to sign on to a new sell out deal that keeps Durban and South Africa from appearing as a failure to deliver “results.”

There’s no denying that BASIC is split over these issues, but the moment of truth is only getting closer.  The big question is where India will stand at the final hour. The country has been under severe heat for opposing the EU road map. If it courageously blocks the tabled mandate, it risks ruining its reputation in the international political economy. India’s colleagues have abandoned their partner, leaving the country with the weight of the world and the contempt of other parties on its shoulders. India’s negotiators have not been informed of the back room informal meetings, and thus lose their voice in the real negotiating arena.

Almost as depressing as the mandate itself is when heroes are seen as villains, and villains as heroes. Too much of civil society and too many NGOs have been tricked into believing that the only hope to keep the mandates from Kyoto and Bali alive is with some new treaty. This of course leads them to the conclusion that India is is the bad guy.  India will lose everything if this mandate passes. Having a country who has one of the smallest per capita emissions take on even more responsibility is NOT climate justice. India is not the enemy of progress. The EU is not delivering a just “solution.” The division of BASIC is a great loss for the climate justice movement. Without BASIC, India will fall, as will the rest of them in due time.