Three Tracks In Copenhagen
By Liam Phelan
11 December, 2009
New Matilda Blog
Day 3, and hang on to your hats coz this update is somewhat technical. It’s a story of two tracks, or maybe one. The guts of it, again, is about what’s fair and what isn’t.
Some things are moving both in and out of focus at the same time. I think this is what’s happening. If other folks have errors to point out or things to add please do so. It looks like industrialised countries are pulling a swifty and trying to wriggle out from the Kyoto Protocol. This could well mean walking away from long-standing commitments they made to cut emissions – and to lead by doing so. Industrialised countries are supposed to lead emissions reductions because they’ve contributed far and away the most to climate change, because they’ve benefitted by doing so (i.e. industrialized, got rich, whatever), and because they’ve more capacity to respond (again, they’re richer, so they can more easily afford it).
TRACK 1
Industrialised countries are now in the first ‘commitment period’, and it ends in 2012. Negotiations about what rich countries legally binding targets will be in a second commitment period since Bali two years ago have been happening on one ‘track’, and there’s an ‘ad hoc working group’ on the Kyoto Protocol for this (the AWG-KP) for countries to thrash out a deal on this side of things. The intended outcome for the AWG-KP negotiations is pretty straightforward: spell out what industrialised countries’ legally binding targets for emissions reductions will be in a second commitment period (i.e. from 2013).
TRACK 2
Meanwhile, and again since Bali, on a second ‘track’, there’s separate negotiations about ‘Long-term Cooperative Action’ between countries, i.e. industrialized AND low income countries - everyone. The ad hoc working group for this is called the AWG-LCA. These negotiations are about working together, etc, etc, in the long term. These negotiations are under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC). The possible outcomes from this ‘track’ are less clear. It could be anything from an agreement here at Copenhagen, or even eventually a new Protocol (a Copenhagen Protocol?) under the UNFCCC, to complement the existing Kyoto Protocol.
Now: here’s the rub: an important principle in the Convention is ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. This means all countries have a responsibility to cut emissions, but some countries have more responsibility to do so (i.e. the industrialized countries, coz they’re mostly responsible historically, currently, and better placed to fix things).
Mostly, low income countries want industrialized countries to live up to their commitments to take a lead in cutting emissions, as per the Kyoto Protocol: through the current first commitment period, the anticipated second commitment period, and subsequent periods.
BUT… mostly, the rich countries instead seem to be pushing to ditch the Kyoto Protocol, in favour of creating something else from scratch. A new ‘single’ agreement would be negotiated through the AWG-LCA. This would not be additional to the Kyoto Protocol, but replace it. The industrialized countries say it would be more ‘comprehensive’, more ‘inclusive’. In plain language, it means treating industrialized countries and low income countries the same, i.e. de-emphasising ‘differentiated responsibilities’. It also makes industrialized countries’ emissions dependent on low income countries cutting emissions too. This way, industrialized countries can walk away from the responsibilities they’ve long ago agreed to. So, as I see it, not fair.
And it may well not be effective either. The other downside is that it gives industrialized countries the chance to ditch legally binding targets altogether. Instead of internationally binding targets, as the Kyoto Protocol spells out, countries could set their own national targets. Australia has been banging on about countries setting their own targets, and the importance of monitoring, reporting & verification, blah, blah, blah. And suddenly, there’s a shift from a collective global approach to cutting emissions, to individual states making their own arrangements, without any reference to anything anyone else is doing, and without reference to what the science calls for.
So, it’s a sneaky move: ditch the 2 tracks, start a brand new single track, and give yourself the chance to rewrite the rules more in your favour. The low income countries are jacking up, and it’s forcing countries to reveal where they stand. Day 1 was all about general introductory statements. Day 3 has a harder edge to it. There’s lots of shenanigans here. This is a key one.
One more thing: Lunch time means a dull roar – thousands of people eating and talking. I sat at a table with some Canadians, including a fella, just 16 yrs old, who decided this climate thing is important and he’d come over, get his head around it, and get active on it. He hasn’t got much of a budget: the food here in the COP is surely subisidised (veggie lunch is around $6-7), but even so, he’s surviving on a loaf of bread and jar of peanut butter. He’s been sitting in on sessions, making notes, comparing notes with other activists, making sense of things and strategizing. Incredible.
