COP12: The last two days, a plea for action

-by Juan

Decisions of different working groups are being forwarded to the supreme body of the convention, the Conference of the Parties (COP) for final approval. Most of the decisions are fancy words plastered on paper, and the ytouth delegation refuses to let minister leave Nairobi without hearing our concerns. These mediocre decisions will affect us, it is our future they are negotiating. For the next two days the youth at COP12 will approach every country member of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change, and express our disappointment and suggestion on each of the issues neglected at COP12. 48hrs, more than 150 countries, our last chance…

In addition to approaching them, we will be handing them out a letter with our views on this meeting and our demands for action for next year. Please find a copy of the letter below, and wish us luck!

Read the letter

Dear Ministers at the COP12/COPMOP2:

As the negotiations of the high level segment of COP12/COPMOP2 come to a close, we, the youth, are concerned that little has been accomplished. The decisions agreed to by this body concern all of us; it is our future you are negotiating. Over the past two weeks, we have been presented with varied excuses for inaction. You made a step forward in Montreal, but that does not justify the stagnation of the past two weeks. The outcomes of this COP must, in the very least, result in a compromise that leads to a tangible, time-bound, and effective decision for a post-2012 mandate at COPMOP3.

Over the next year, action is required on the part of all parties. The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ must guide the efforts of the UNFCCC while ensuring a long-term vision encompassing short-term goals. Several issues need to be addressed and put into operation.

This conference in Nairobi, in sub-Saharan Africa, has the severity of impacts on vulnerable regions. We know that some impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are unavoidable, that human populations will suffer immediately and that natural disasters will be compounded and have lasting effects. We applaud the efforts of delegates to define the principles and modalities of the Adaptation fund that will eventually deliver some of the resources needed to adapt to these effects, but this is just the baseline and greater work lies ahead.

We need an operable fund by COP/MOP3. This requires undertaking a great deal of work in a very restricted amount of time. We ask that you give your negotiators good direction and spur on their efforts. Delegates require the autonomy to move beyond heavily politicized rhetoric to create a strong fund with clear priorities, managed by a fair and transparent institution.

Parties are committed to protecting forests under Article 4.1(d) of the Convention, however this commitment is not enough. Domestic and unilateral initiatives in the conservation and sustainable management of forests have shown progress and provide insight into best practices; yet much more action is needed. Trees are falling, biodiversity is disappearing, ecosystems are failing, access to water is decreasing, the climate is changing: people are suffering.

Tropical forests have repeatedly failed to receive the protection they require. Correspondingly, we now must resort to assigning economic value to the carbon-storing capacity of trees. Compensation for the environmental services of forests must be provided through carbon credits within the Protocol as well as through financial incentives outside of the Protocol. Developing countries already conserving their forests must be rewarded. The integrity of current efforts through the CDM must not be compromised; they must be protected against incentives that would perversely increase deforestation. It is imperative that we take into account socio-economic factors and local variability; we must support communities that rely on forest services and we must compliment other IEAs. In order to create the demand and generate the funds necessary to protect forests, we require immediate, deep and far-sighted emissions reductions.

The decisions of the ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Parties are of utmost importance to us. The post-2012 period not only represents a major challenge for the international community, but also an enormous opportunity – a chance to improve and build upon the Kyoto protocol in order to meet the real and pressing need for climate stabilization. For us, these challenges and opportunities are not abstract. They are very real.

This is our future. As such, we insist that our voices be heard. For the security of our livelihoods, environments and cultures – and those of our brothers and sisters around the world – we demand the following from the immediate post-2012 process:

1. That a firm goal be agreed upon by all parties to remain below a 2˚C rise above pre-industrial temperatures. This level is not without its dangers, but surpassing this point will bring with it significant and irreversible damage. In keeping with this target, we believe that atmospheric concentrations of GHGs must be stabilized at 450ppm CO2e.
2. In order achieve this goal the AWG must complete its plan of work by no later than 2008 to assure that a mandate for the second commitment period can be adopted at COP/MOP5. This will require substantial and sustained efforts commensurate with the task at hand.
3. It is crucial that the review under Article 9 be conducted in a comprehensive and timely manner. The review of Article 9 must allow for the AWG to draw on its conclusions and have a post-2012 mandate by 2008 in order to ensure the absence of a gap between the first and second commitment periods. Therefore, we insist that a broad Article 9 review be concluded by COP/MOP3. To this end, the COP must leave Nairobi with a strong and effective work plan capable of delivering on this rigorous timeline.

The effects of climate change are severe and demand immediate international cooperation to avoid humanitarian and economic crises. We worry that the lack of direction and leadership at COP12 negotiations will delay a timely response to the climate crisis. We urge you, Minister, and your delegations to adopt a spirit of goodwill and cooperation in order to establish a post-2012 mandate. The ongoing process of the Kyoto mechanisms, such as the CDM and the emissions trading system, demand market certainty, made possible by a strong mandate to develop effective tools to mitigate GHG emissions and fund adaptation projects.

The world wants and needs a strong plan to stabilize our climate. We ask that you consider this request now, at the negotiation table next year and in the interim, with of the goal of creating a mandate for a post-2012 regime. We uphold the international youth declaration signed in Montréal 2005.

The world has learned a lot since COP3, and those lessons should help us expedite the process for further action for a regime post-2012. We must avoid getting caught up in politics and rhetoric. The science is clear; we have learned from our mistakes and triumphs, and we know what needs to happen.

The costs of inaction will fall upon your children, it will fall upon us.

This is our future – the time to act is now.

Do not turn your back on us.

-The International Youth Delegation at COP12/COPMOP2

Post-2012 & AWG Conclusion: Many words, little meaning

-by Virginie

Last Tuesday evening, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments (AWG) convened for the 3rd and last time of the Nairobi negotiations. Created under Article 3.9 of the Kyoto Protocol, the AWG was set up in order to discuss further commitments by Annex I parties (industrialized nations) for the post-2012 second commitment period—Since the Kyoto Protocol is to be effective from 2008-2012 (first commitment period), the AWG’s role at this point is to create a framework and timetable capable of guiding such discussion and ensuring that there is no gap year(s) between the first and second commitment period.

Any positive outcome? Well, parties reached a general agreement to move forward, which, being such a time sensitive issue, is a good thing. However, the decision agreed upon by parties unfortunately has little substance. Firstly, the adopted conclusion (decision FCCC/KP/AWG/2006/L.4, for you policy wonkees) fails to include any long-term vision capable of “beefing up” the post-2012 climate regime.

For some time, the EU (supported by other parties) had been pushing for the adoption of “global pathways” that were in line with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings: these included ensuring that global atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations stayed below 450 ppm (parts per million) and that we do not allow for a temperature increase above 2 degrees. Unfortunately, the AWG decision merely recognizes the IPCC’s recommendation that :

“global emissions of carbon dioxide have to be reduced to very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000, in order to stabilize their concentrations in the atmosphere” Decision FCCC/KP/AWG/2006/L.4

The AWG conclusion does provide somewhat of a schedule for following meetings but it ultimately fails to provide an end date for the mandate that will formally initiate the crafting of the post-2012 regime. Furthermore, much remains to be discussed as far as what the work plan will look like and how will parties conduct and incorporate the Kyoto protocol review under Article 9 (which is another highly contentious issue. For more info on this, see blog “Going Canadian on Article 9”).

Kyoto the bride
To sum up: lots of words, little meaning, and this is not really getting us anywhere. However, we could say that the dynamic present within the last AWG working groups was indicative of an outcome of the type. Earlier Tuesday, India illustrated its frustration in a rather creative way, comparing the Kyoto process to a traditional wedding where the bride does not show her face until it is time to consume the wedding. India was alluding to Annex I Parties revealing what they are willing to accept and discuss (in terms of future commitments) on the eve of the coming into action of the Kyoto agreement, wishing they “could have known the bride earlier”.

Mixed feelings
Overall, there was a general sense of disappointment amongst the ENGO’s (Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations) while parties did express some contempt for having reached an agreement. Perhaps South Africa as the head of the G77 and China (the developing nations coalition), in congratulating AWG chair Michael Cutajar, best summarized the parties general feeling when noting that: “A good chair is one that makes everyone equally unhappy”.

For a naïve new comer to this process like myself, I can only see that we have missed a tremendous opportunity. Let us hope we catch up at COPMOP3.

Check out what the US is(n’t) doing!

This is an incomplete post salvaged from the internet archive.

-by Michael

A handful of people sat on black and maroon chairs, legs crossed, pens in hand. They were at the US side event on how the US is doing almost nothing in Africa considering they are the world’s superpower, but that almost nothing should be paid more attention to than the total lack of federal initiative domestically. Paula Dobriansky, US Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, opened the act. “We, the US, are doing lots of things to combat climate change,” she said, “in fact we are the leader, once again.” To the dissapointment of the crowd, she did not smile while she lied. “Doing lots in Africa,” she continued, “We’ve trained hundreds of thousands of teachers, given tens of thousands of girls scholarships, and distributed over two million books to children, all in Af-ree-kah.” The crowd, it so turned out, was mostly of African origin. Thus it surprised me that no one seemed to glitter at the mention of these statistics. Then Paula mentioned something that made me heart vomit with concern. “We are introducing new agricultural technologies to rural African communities,” said Paula. “Oh no!” I thought. I was afraid that by this she meant the USA was going into those communities and distributing nitrates, green revolution style high yield crops, and GMOs. But I had no time to dwell on these fears, as Paula was simply saying some impressive things before her colleagues gave the real presentations.

Emission Targets: please finish your sentences

-by Juan

The 12th Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC has shown the different ways in which numbers can be manipulated to comply with the Kyoto. Canada, for example, conveniently has spoken of achieving 60% reductions by 2050. The number alone will place Canada as a leader in meeting Kyoto-and-beyond targets, but they omitted the rest of the sentence. 60% reductions using a 2003 baseline, that is 13 years after the actual baselines followed by the rest of the world. At plenary, Canada sounds progressive, but this is an illusion created by twisted science and math. This, however, is only one example of the many ways in which reducing emissions can be interpreted. The past few weeks have been full of discussions on the different perspectives for post-2012 methods to stabilize the climate. Europe, for example, talks of following pathways to stabilize climate within the average 2 degrees Celsius change considered safe for living beings by the IPCC. This approach, however, has not echoed amongst other delegations. Not only an average temperature change would mean something different in every corner of the planet, but it also fails to recognize the variants affecting climate. Wind currents, natural temperature changes, and ocean currents, solar cycles, among other natural processes that we do not understand quite well, have an impact on climate. Thus, concentrating on 2 degrees variance makes sense in terms of impacts, but does not necessarily make things easier in terms of our impact on the climate. We know, however, that greenhouse gases have an impact, and we know we can control it. The natural factors mentioned before have affected the climate forever, thus the single factor we have influence over is the one that deserves our attention. Setting emission targets geared towards reducing GHG ppm (particles per million) allows us to set short, mid, and long reductions targets. When holding all natural factors equal, a number like 450ppm allows for modeling impacts on climate. Thus, targeting ppms can help us measure progress in controlling our contribution to the atmosphere. As the struggle to combat climate change continues, we need to base our work in what we know. Our concerns have been centered on one factor, our of many, of the total set of relationships that impact climate: greenhouse gases. Concentrating on the result of the equation can be useful to understand what would be required for adapting, but our mitigation efforts should be focused on controlling emissions and not degrees celcious