Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say
Ministers from 189 countries wrapped up climate change discussions in the early morning hours of 13 December having made unexpected progress on the terms of the UN Adaptation Fund and marginal movement towards an agreement on technology transfer. Nevertheless, many observers have criticised the meeting for yielding exactly what was expected going in: very little.
As the half-way point between Bali and Copenhagen, the 14th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), or COP-14, was expected to provide delegates with a venue to reflect on 2008 and make solid commitments for the next 12 months leading up to COP-15. With a less-than-expected presence from US president-elect Barack Obama’s delegation and global economic uncertainty still casting a shadow over negotiations, significant progress hoped for by environmentalists remained elusive.
Nevertheless, planning for 2009 was fruitful, with widespread agreement that regular meetings should be held throughout the year, with a possible major conference being held in September.
Negotiators Clinch Deal on Adaptation Fund
Delegates finally agreed to provide the UN Adaptation Fund board with the capacity to grant developing countries access to funds earmarked for climate change adaptation. The Adaptation Fund is, essentially, a pot of money meant to protect developing countries against the potential impacts of climate change. The funds have been accumulated from a two percent allocation from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - a market mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol that allows industrialised countries to receive credit by investing in emissions reduction projects in developing countries - and voluntary contributions.
Heading into Poznan, developing countries were generally unhappy with the prospect that the World Bank would be fingered to manage the Fund. Developing countries subsequently submitted a proposal to allow them to access the funds - approximately US$80 million - by applying directly to the Adaptation Fund Board. Developing countries will be able to apply for funding for projects in the course of 2009.
While some observers are calling this boost in the legal capacity of the Adaptation Fund Board an important achievement, others say they are disappointed by governments’ inability to reach a consensus on using proceeds from other flexibility mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol (i.e., emissions trading and joint implementation) to aliment the fund.
Furthermore, countries such as India and Colombia were outspoken critics of the blocking of an emissions trading tax proposal that could have seen as much as US$7 billion released immediately for adaptation.
According to the UN, US$86 billion are required annually for adaptation in developing countries. Further funding streams for adaptation are expected to be decided in Copenhagen 2009.
Poznan Leaves its Mark on Technology Transfer
Technology transfer, which was widely expected to monopolise the COP-14 agenda, saw some progress when Parties endorsed the Global Environment Facility’s “Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer.” Originally called simply the “Strategic Programme,” consensus last week allowed the initiative to take on the name of the host city.
The programme seeks to scale up the level of investment in technology transfer in order to help developing countries address their needs for environmentally sound technologies to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
But despite this progress, some green groups expressed their concerns that developed countries made no specific proposals detailing how much finance they will provide for technology transfer. The G77 and China have called on developed countries to divert as much as 1 percent of their gross national product (GNP) to help finance emissions reducing technology projects in the developing world and many observers say finding this still-elusive magic formula will be key to reaching consensus in Copenhagen.
In a related issue, longstanding divergence between developed and developing countries remained on issues related to intellectual property rights (IPRs). The Contact Group on “Delivering on Technology and Financing, Including Consideration of Institutional Arrangements” discussed the matter in depth, but failed come to any meaningful convergence.
Developing countries stressed the need to depart from a business as usual approach in the treatment of IPRs in addressing the climate change emergency, and some countries made a parallel with the case of access to affordable medicines. Developed countries emphasised the importance of IPRs in order to promote innovation for technology development and deployment.
Shared Vision Remains Elusive
Establishing a “shared vision” has been stressed as an essential foundation for moving forward toward consensus. The ministerial roundtable was convened in Poznan to address this topic, but despite an expression of commitment to advance the process by both developed and developing countries, there was little movement forward.
During the conference, developed countries stressed the importance of medium and long-term targets for 2020 and 2050. Meanwhile, developing countries insisted on the need for developed countries to first demonstrate their implementation of existing targets under the Kyoto Protocol and give a strong sense of future commitment by agreeing to reduce their emissions by a minimum of 40 percent by 2050.
Referring to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), several developed countries called for developing countries to undertake a “substantial deviation from business as usual” in the path of their emissions growth. There now appears to be some sort of convergence that developing countries’ future mitigation efforts will be discussed in a way that recognises a substantial shift away from current practice, and perhaps not in terms of capping of their emissions.
Mitigation Agreement in Principle
Under the Ad hoc Working Group under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) Parties agreed that commitments of industrialised countries post-2012 should principally take the form of quantified emissions limitations and reduction objectives, in line with the type of emissions reduction targets they have assumed for the first commitment period of the protocol. The AWG-KP has adopted conclusions on its work programme for 2009.
Meanwhile, European Union leaders meeting at a concurrent conference have unanimously agreed a deal on tackling climate change, with the objective of reducing EU greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (see related story, this issue). The Europeans have however made their agreement conditional to the successful conclusion of a global agreement on climate change next year in Copenhagen. A review clause that members agreed to would allow a review of the EU climate package in March 2010 to reflect the outcome of the Copenhagen conference.
Under the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWGLCA) under the Convention, Parties agreed to shift into full negotiating mode in 2009 on all elements of the Bali Action Plan - namely a shared vision, mitigation, adaptation, development and transfer of technology, and financing - in a comprehensive and balanced way.
Deforestation, Obama Fizzle
Widespread expectation that some movement would be made on deforestation issues - such as the UN Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Programme (UN-REDD) - was not realised at Poznan.
No agreement was reached about whether to include forests in a proposed carbon market scheme and much hubbub was made over a report from environmental group Friends of the Earth which charges that a loophole in the UN-REDD system would allow governments to buy up forests and use the land for monoculture cultivation.
Many environmentalists were similarly disappointed when the high expectations from the upcoming US administration under president-elect Obama produced little. The US envoy in Poznan, led by Senator John Kerry, made it clear that while recognising the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, large developing countries such as China will have to have some kind of target before ratification will be possible.
Moving Forward
Parties agreed to step up their efforts in 2009 to create the necessary momentum for consensus in Copenhagen.
When addressing delegates on 11 December, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed his concern that Parties would need additional stimulus to reach consensus and suggested that a high-level pre-Copenhagen meeting be convened in September. Ban has been quick to point out that current global instability should be used as an opportunity to move climate change negotiations forward.
“We are going through unprecedented multiple crises starting from global financial crisis, food crisis and also climate change crisis,” Ban told BBC News during the conference. “If we take action today it may not be too late. But if we take action tomorrow, we may have to regret it for not only us, but for coming generations and even for planet Earth.”
But critics have expressed their concerns that the lack of progress seen in Poznan is indicative of the lack of commitment, particularly from developed countries. “The climate talks fizzled out with no progress on the big decisions,” said Andy Atkins, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth. “There’s now a plan to make decisions in 2009 but a radical quickening in pace is urgently required.”
ICTSD Reporting; “Ambitions For 2009 U.N. Climate Pact Fade In Poznan,” REUTERS, 9 December 2008; “Carbon Trade In U.N. Climate Spotlight,” REUTERS, 10 December 2008; “Slow Progress in Poznan While Climate Threats Mount,” ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 13 December 2008.
Add a comment
Enter your details and a comment below, then click Submit Comment. We’ll review and publish the best comments.