> home > News
The climate summit fails to deliver for the world’s poor
14 January 2010
On December 7th to 18th last year, 197 governments met in Copenhagen for the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15). Instead of agreeing on a fair, ambitious and binding agreement, the meeting ended in disarray with a much diluted “Copenhagen Accord” as the main outcome.
The final accord, which includes no binding targets, includes only a weak commitment to keeping the increase in global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius- an increase which, according to scientists, still risks causing significant environmental damage. It also falls short regarding financial support provided by rich countries to developing countries to adapt to and mitigate climate change: there is only a vague promise to provide short term finance of USD 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012 and of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries, with little clarity on sources, additionality and other key areas. In response to the accord, Tuvalu's lead negotiator said "Can I suggest that in biblical terms, it looks like we're being offered 30 pieces of silver to sell our future. Our future is not for sale." Similarly, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, heading the G77 plus China group, criticized the proposal stating that "The promise of $100bn will not bribe us to destroy the continent." (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8422031.stm
)
As well as being insufficient in content, another drawback of the “Accord” is that it is non-binding, as the Conference of the Parties has not approved it, agreeing instead to simply “take note” of it. This is due to the fact that developing countries present expressed their discontent with the undemocratic nature of the document. In fact, the document is the outcome of a closed doors meeting by 26 countries (which took place with the silent approval of the Danish presidency during the second week of negotiations) and was presented to the working group on the Kyoto Protocol towards the end of the week. The similarity between this procedure and the “Green Rooms” of World Trade Organisation negotiations is unsettling. As observed by the Southern think-tank Third World Network, the Danish government has yet to release the participant list for this closed door meeting. However, it is known that the small group comprised the top leaders of the world’s most powerful countries, including the US, Russia, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and others such as Ethiopia, Grenada, and Saudi Arabia.
The two weeks of intense negotiations revealed tensions between the rich industrialized Annex 1 countries and developing countries in the G77 plus China group. The latter were unfairly accused of obstructing the process as they insisted in keeping the Kyoto Protocol (KP) on the agenda, the only existing binding international agreement on emissions reductions. Developing countries called for negotiations to respect the UN Climate Convention and the Bali Action Plan which stipulate a common and differentiated responsibility to act, and thus for rich countries to take the lead in tackling climate changed based on their historical responsibility for emissions. Rich countries, including the EU, insisted on a single treaty agreement merging the Kyoto Protocol and the Long Term Cooperative Action (LCA), which threatens to kill off the Protocol all together.
The blame game after Copenhagen is already underway. The weak commitments to emission reductions and financing on the part of rich Annex 1 countries increased the trust gap between rich and developing countries and contributed to the failure in Copenhagen. The US failed to take any responsible actions, committing to even less significant emission reductions than China on a national level. While more action by the Asian giant would have been welcomed, the fact remains that China’s per capita emissions and historical responsibility for emissions are very small in comparison to those of the US.
Equally, the EU failed to deliver on much needed leadership and trust building. The EU’s emission reduction target of 20% cuts in greenhouse gases by 2020 was far below what scientists and developing countries were calling for (at least 40% by 2020). Furthermore, its tactic of conditioning a 30% emission target on comparable efforts by other developed countries (US and China) was too low, and also failed to mobilise action. The EU financing packages announced before the COP 15, and in particular the use of ODA by member states to finance climate actions, which breaches the Bali Action Plan agreement on additionality, has further undermined effective collective action.
Developing countries also complained about the summit’s lack of transparency, and said that their concerns were not taken into account. The biased position of the hosting government did not help to bring a positive outcome for what will go down in history as the world leaders' greatest failure of 2009.
In short, the Copenhagen Summit leaves much to be desired. Civil society organisations and movements carry the responsibility of encouraging action and mobilisation across the globe to push governments to move beyond the weak accord and deliver concrete actions, both on emission reductions and financial commitments. The challenge is also to make Annex 1 countries accountable for their historical responsibility in global emissions, by acknowledging the ecological and climate debt which developed countries owe to governments of the South. Southern countries are already paying the price for increased global temperatures which they mostly did not cause.
These are the key areas that groups fighting for social and environmental justice are focusing on ahead of the next negotiator meetings scheduled in Bonn at the end of May. The next meeting of the Conference of the Parties is scheduled for December 2010 in Mexico. Looking ahead, development finance experts and experts on climate issues need to come together to analyse and put forward concrete proposals for a fair, ambitious and binding agreement on climate change. The battle has not yet been won.
The COP 15 and the role of the World Bank
The arrival of World Bank President Robert Zoellick in Copenhagen and the launch of the Scaling up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries Programme (SREP), a 260 million USD initiative managed by the World Bank, was smoke in the eyes of the general public following the negotiations. The funding made available for the initiative is insignificant compared to the resources needed globally by the Non-Annex 1 countries for technology transfer and mitigation. Also, the amount is insignificant if compared to the several billions that the same donors have channelled into the Clean Technology Fund, another trust fund that was set up by the World Bank in 2008 and which is being used mainly to finance so called "clean coal" in developing countries. The SREP is a donor led initiative, outside the framework of the UNFCCC, and the financing made available by the donors cannot be considered as in compliance with the financial commitments on which Annex 1 countries should have agreed on during the Copenhagen meeting.
Civil society groups from around the world have been vocal about their support for the G77 request to set up a mechanism for global climate finance in Copenhagen under the framework of the UNFCCC and under the governance of the Conference of the Parties. Several hundreds of civil society groups from the South and the North have stated that the World Bank should have no role in the management of global climate finance. This is due to several reasons:
- The World Bank continues to invest the large majority of its energy and infrastructure budget in polluting sectors like the extractive sector, including new coal power plants which have extremely negative impacts on the environment and global climate.
- The Bank continues to support large scale export orientated projects which do not promote energy security for poor people or the reduction of emissions in poor countries.
The World Bank is also one of the major promoters of the expansion of the carbon market, managing 11 carbon funds with a budget of about 2 billion USD. Favouring the expansion of the carbon market, the Bank is not only failing to contribute to the reduction of global emissions, but it is also putting global financial stability at stake. The large majority of carbon trading happens in secondary markets; a shaky derivatives market where speculation by large financial traders is already taking place. If a new speculative bubble originating from the carbon market explodes, which according to carbon market monitors could be likely in the near future, the World Bank would be considered at the top of the list of those responsible, in particular for the devastating effects that this would have on the economies of the poorest countries, which are already suffering the impacts of climate change.
Article by Penny Davies, Diakonia, and Elena Gerebizza, CRBM
Other analyses of COP15 by Eurodad members:
Oxfam International: http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2009-12-21/un-climate-negotiations-overhaul-avoid-4-degrees
(See report
Climate shame: get back to the table: Initial analysis of the Copenhagen climate talks
at the bottom of the page)
Alliance Sud: http://www.alliancesud.ch/en/policy/climate/copenhagen-failure