Day 2 CDM Plenary

The second plenary session on the CDM made interesting watching with developing nations nations lining up to argue that the CDM is great but that it can only exist with a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol.  These nations included Congo (on behalf of the African Group), Venezuela, Ecuador, Jamacia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Peru, Benin, Ghana, Algeria and Kenya all arguing such.

I don’t know if this is anything other than a case of “no, you do it, but we still want the money” by the developing world.  I’m not saying that’s a problem.  The principle of common but differentiated responsibility is absolutely central to this process. 

The biggest applause of the session was for the final speaker – from an NGO whose name I didn’t catch who said:

• ·         CDM projects causing human rights violations in many poor nations.

• ·         Especially against indigenous people.

• ·         There are projects that have been found to be using illegal seized land.

• ·         In both these cases the CDM board says it has no mandate to address human rights, the responsibility lies with the host country.

• ·         Human rights are important in all climate change action though.

• ·         When confronted with these reports, the CDM board stated that its mandate did not allow it to decertify projects based on these reports.  As such the mandate of the CDM board must be reassessed to include this in its assessment of projects.

• ·         Regardless of the KP2 or CDM negotiations, the CDM must remedy its technology bias and protect the rights of affected communities.

That was a fascinating and cutting rebuke of the CDM.  I would dearly like to know who it was applauding - if it was the developing nations I mentioned above it suggests they are aware of these issues and want action on them but are more concerned with receiving the funding from the CDM.

Europe’s hardline stance.

EU talks hardline stance at UN climate talks

Fiona Harvey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/30/europe-hardline-un-climate-talks?CMP=twt_gu

 

This article was tweeted by fed whose excellent blog I can recommend here http://fedindurban2011.blogspot.com/

 

The guardian is rapidly firming as the leader for main stream media coverage of the COP 17 talks and this continues with this article, although Juliet Elperin from the Washington Post is making a solid run for the title.

It suggests that the EU is taking the most hardline stance it has ever held to the Durban talks this year by stating that its ‘dovish’, consensus building, smooth over rough edges and keep everyone happy stance of the past has not worked and that the time has come for a change in position at the Durban talks.  The EU position now is that it demands ‘legal parallelism’.  That is, it will only sign up to a binding second commitment period to the KP of developing countries do likewise, while China is pushing for differentiated agreements – nationally binding or voluntary targets.

Fiona Harvey suggests that this change has come about both due to the Poland holding the EU presidency and as such leading the EU delegation.  Harvey further suggests that the Polish position may come from a relatively high level of climate change scepticism within the polish community.

My thought is that it may also be contributed to by a desire not to lose competitiveness during the Eurozone financial crisis.  Perhaps the EU was happy to take a position of moral leadership while its economy was in good shape but the fear of causing any shock that triggers another credit run out of the EU may well be forcing the hand of the negotiating party.  This might just be the first evidence of the EU domestic  troubles forcing the hand of the negotiating team.  

The ongoing questions are twofold.  How will this changed role for the EU play out in the overall negotiations and will this breathe renewed life into the KP?  I'm not optimistic  - indeed I still think a regional, piecemeal solution will be the eventual outcome - but it is a fascinating development.

Congress disinterested in CoP 17

I’ll be looking at an article today that relates to my academic project (and be blogging more about the live issue reporting shortly).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/climate-change-battle-framed-in-moral-terms-by-environmental-coalition/2011/11/30/gIQA4NhADO_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

Climate change conference lures no congressmen

Juliet Eliperin

This article claims that CoP 17 is the first CoP talks in many years not to draw the attendance of a single US congressman and only a handful of congressional aides.  This contrasts to Copenhagen where Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of over 20 congressional delegates and some republicans, John Kerry for example, attended separately, as did over 50 congressional aides.  It is telling that John Kerry (who has attended 6 CoP talks to date including Kyoto) could not attend because of his work on the Deficit Reduction supercommittee, as this shows that the domestic economic concerns are overriding the international issue of climate change.

The question here is: to what extent does the same apply to the EU?  I hope to find out more about that shortly.

Munich Climate Change Insurance Initiative

The Munich Climate Change Insurance Initiative is the peak body looking at this issue.  It has finally released its full program of side events and it is becoming clear that it has a strong focus on Africa and LDCs.  The four side events being held by the MCII are titled:

1. ·         Relevance of loss and damage for LDCs 
2. ·         Making Risk Management and Insurance Solutions Work for Vulnerable People in Africa 
3. ·         Insuring the Uncertain: Microenterprise Demand for Weather Related Insurance and Risk Management 
4. ·         MCII side event.

This shows that the climate change insurance initiative is focused on those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change and is looking at the most vulnerable enterprises (small, medium and micro) in the most vulnerable nations.

It also shows, through other links who the other organisations that are participating in this effort are, including the Red Cross, WFP, ICCCAD among others.  There are also representatives from several at risk nations participating.

Full program here: http://www.climate-insurance.org/front_content.php?idart=3458

The death of Kyoto?

A second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has been a very public aim of CoP talks, particularly since Copenhagen.  Indeed it was this hope(enhagen) and ultimate failure to develop a second commitment period that led to the CoP 17 talks being described as an unmitigated disaster.  

Ever since Copenhagen, the media and the public has become increasingly disillusioned with the CoP process.  I don't think this is a fair reflection of the work being carried out by the body, but thats a discussion for another time.  The domestic policy problem here is that if the body for negotiating international efforts on climate change is not able to match expectations then what legitimacy does domestic action have?  Indeed, the continuing failure to reach a second commitment period to the KP begins to rob the UNFCCC of legitimacy.

So the question is: are we seeing the death of the Kyoto Protocol?  Canada is about to become the first country to ratify it and then later pull out - possibly because they weren't going to meet their target of 94% on 1990 levels and has indicated they have no interest in a second commitment period.  The US has never and, with its current domestic political climate, will never ratify it.  Japan and Russia have also indicated they have no interest in a second commitment period as long as transitional nations like Brazil and South Korea don't have targets.  And of course there is China, who has now eclipsed the US to become the largest net GHG emitter.  This  leaves Europe and a few others like Australia and New Zealand meaning that only 17% of global emissions would be covered.

Connie Hedegaard has said even said that the EU is only open to a second commitment period on the condition that the environmental integrity of the KP is improved.  Given the situation I wrote about above one could say that the EU is backing away from a second commitment period too.

Its hard to see where the leadership will come from to drive for the second commitment period in this global climate.  Perhaps Kyoto was a reflection of the post Montreal world - a world in which coordinated action on all environmental problems was thought possible.  Perhaps the world is a different place today or perhaps the diabolical nature of this problem makes CFC's look like a matchstick in a bushfire. 

I increasingly think that the future of mitigation is going to be one of piecemeal national efforts being stitched together into some kind of global whole, not a global whole leading national efforts.

Because of that, I think we are watching the death of the Kyoto Protocol happen before our eyes.