Copenhagan Accord: Significant progress was made towards attacking climate change and adapting to the difficult road ahead

The COP15 climate change talks in Copenhagen were not a failure. Quite to the contrary, great strides were made in weaving the diverse cultural and political differences of our world into a cohesive whole to attack climate change. Having personally observed the many contact groups negotiating text in Bangkok, Barcelona and Copenhagen, it became apparent that the negotiators were trying to create a climate change document that would be legally binding while at the same time addressing the concerns of their individual countries and groups of countries.

For instance, addressing adaptation in neighboring nations that are experiencing cross-border desertification as opposed to an island nation that faces rising sea levels and acidification is complex and multifaceted. Choosing a certain text option proposed by one country group, as opposed to another option proposed by another group, could have devastating effect on the economies of the group whose option was not chosen for the final text. Therefore, the contact group chairs worked tirelessly trying to form consensus on bracketed text and agreeable options to the text.

To complicate matters more, there were two separate treaty tracks being negotiated, one under the further commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 5), and the other for long term cooperative action under the convention (COP 15). When negotiating text in the contact groups, it was often mentioned that a particular group needed to know the decisions of another group because those decisions would have significant impact on the text that the first group was negotiating. And, due to the need for consensus, before a particular option was chosen or brackets taken off text, the contact groups were constantly seeking information from the other groups negotiating text in order to ensure cohesiveness as the treaty documents developed.

It seemed that the flow of information and the arrival of the ministers from around the world, who became involved in the negotiations, became the biggest challenges during the last few days of the conference in Copenhagen. It was apparent by most that a legally binding treaty would not result from Copenhagen due to the complex differences on key elements of the text that still existed.

However, leaders from 193 countries meet, talked and negotiated in Copenhagen to address the reality of climate change issues. And, an Accord was reached on climate change with a deadline of next year to agree upon the legally binding text and to begin funding for adaptation and setting mitigation targets by major emitters around the world.

Yes, significant progress was made at Copenhagen. And, as a taxi driver told me, “The treaty will have a major impact in our lives so it is better to get it right than rush it.”

COP15 in Copenhagen: World Leaders Bring Hope to Talks

KIRF Co-Founder Mark Kirwin is attending the United Nations sponsored COP15 Climate Change Talks in Copenhagen as a volunteer mediator for Mediators Beyond Borders. Here is his update:

A truly tremendous event is unfolding here in Copenhagen. Amid all of the street protests, press summaries, security issues and vast numbers of NGOs (many of which have provided valuable information to the Parties), is a gathering of the leaders of the world. This is an historic gathering of world leaders who are here to address the catastrophic consequences of unchecked climate change.

As Gordon Brown just said, "It is no use saying we are doing our best, we must do what needs to be done."

This week I spoke with delegates from around the world at the COP 15 climate change talks in Copenhagen. I spoke about mediation being used as a mechanism to resolve climate change disputes as well as about the interpretation and implementaion of the anticipated treaty. I walked by world leaders trying to reach agreement on climate change policies. Yes, it is difficult and complex, with words and numbers having significant multi-level meanings and impacts to different nations. But the negotiators are working hard. (Mark Kirwin, volunteer mediator for Mediators Beyond Borders, and Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat.)

Let us continue with our hope that a positive outcome will be reached in Copenhagen.

P. Mark Kirwin, Esq.

COP15 Climate Change Talks, Copenhagen: Two Treaties

We are now halfway through the second week of the COP15, climate change talks in Copenhagen. It appears that there is general acceptance that there will not be one treaty. Instead, the parties are working on two separate tracks, one under Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the other under Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA). As a result, there are discussions of two separate treaties.

As one can well imagine, the negotiations are very tough at this stage. The ministers of the countries are arriving and now working in the negotiations. The negotiators must answer to their countries. And, the world expects results at COP15. There are strenuous objections to certain text to the proposed documents and also concessions so that no particular party is pictured as the one stalling the negotiations. The contact group chairs are working very hard to build the bridges necessary for consensus by the Parties to the text.

As I write, negotiations are underway for the contact group on other issues for the AWG-KP on further commitments for the Annex I Parties. The Parties are discussing greenhouse gases, sectors and source categories; common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks; and other methodological issues.

In the earlier session, the Draft decision -/CMP.5 for consideration of information on potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including spillover effects, of tools, policies and measures. This draft decision will now be sent to the Chair of the KP for consideration. This is one area where mediation can be used as a mechanism to resolve conflict under the potential consequences that will arise under the treaty and climate change from the local to international levels.

UNFCCC Climate Change Talks, Bangkok: Day 2

We are winding up the second day of the UNFCCC Climate Change Talks in Bangkok, Thailand. The delegates here seem to be either representing governments with an intent of influencing proposed climate change treaty text negotiations or they are from NGOs that are intent on influencing the governments. The past two days have consisted of closed sessions for the national delegations, such as from the G77, China, Africa, the EU, the Island States etc., and open sessions for general text negotiations. We have been attending the open sessions. Today, we attended sessions regarding Adaptation, Capacity Building and Mitigation as well as the Regional Briefing by the United Nations System Organizations on Climate Change Programmes in the Asia and Pacific Region.

The Regional Briefing was chaired and monitored by the Executive Secretary to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). The panel consisted of representatives from United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and ESCAP. In addition to discussing their programs, the panel was faced with difficult questions from the audience as to how various policies and procedures were being implemented by these organizations. There were questions such as: How to transition to a green economy? How to benefit the local populations? How are these programs benefiting children? How do these programs benefit the farmers who are facing increased difficulties as a result of extreme weather events cause by climate change? Why do the students in school in the developing nations not feel the effects of the project outcomes from these programs?

The proposed climate change treaty text negotiation open sessions were attended by the Parties and conducted by chosen chairpersons who facilitated discussions on certain proposed consolidated text that was discussed at the Bonn Climate Change Talks in August. However, as one Chair stated, the discussions were more about positions than actual content. During the sessions, each delegation’s chosen speaker put forth their positions on the proposed text, often combined with general statements supporting the delegation’s policy positions.

The Adaptation and Capacity Building sessions focused on different views regarding whether to focus on the guiding principles or implementation. The session on the mitigation portion of the proposed climate change treaty text regarding the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) program was directed at discussions of substance. For instance, India did not think that the paragraphs in question regarding scope could be discussed without first defining the proposed term “REDD plus actions.”

REDD, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.

Brazil led the counter to India by saying the Parties should not get bogged down with a "REDD plus" definition because it was adequately defined in the United Nations Climate Change Conference of 2007's Bali Action Plan. Brazil was supported by the United States and the European Union. Norway indicated that "REDD plus" was a results-based mechanism through Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable actions which are a part of National Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) for developing countries as mentioned in the Bali Action Plan. Thailand and other forest rich countries responded that for "REDD plus" to be a part of NAMA, there needs to be a definition for NAMA and clarification of "REDD plus". Tanzania wanted to make sure that the human rights of indigenous peoples were adequately addressed in the REDD discussions. Japan stressed that the REDD language was necessary to secure environmental stability.

Today I gave Mediators Beyond Border's Supporting Statement on the Importance of Mediation to Climate Change to the Parties. I had brief discussions with several party and NGO representatives about mediation during breaks and before and after the conference. The delegates I have spoken have indicated that they consider mediation to be a good option in resolving climate change disputes.