(Foto: Metrix X/Flickr)
Recent negotiations on climate change have shown that most developed countries are unwilling to repay their ecological debts.
By Francesco Martone, translation by Sarah Potter.

From 9-11th April this year, official workgroups met in Bonn to resume discussions on climate change after the Copenhagen debacle: a complex task that demands acute awareness of the urgency of the situation. In spite of this, the outlook does not look promising. Recent communications on the subject of climate debates from the European Commission give the impression that they do not expect a definitive result from the meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16) that will take place in Cancún, Mexico, and that a binding agreement on emission reductions will only be possible during COP 17, held in South Africa in 2011. The air is also heavy within the United Nations as indicated by a recent long-distance disagreement between the secretary of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, and the UN Special Envoy on Climate Change, former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland, who has put forward the need to separate the negotiation process from the United Nations. For a better understanding of what is at stake over the next few months it is worthwhile reconsidering the events leading up to the failure in Copenhagen. COP 15’s inability to produce a significant result was clear to all those who had the opportunity to follow the negotiations and talks taking place during 2009.

The decision taken last June by the now outgoing secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Yvo de Boer, to add two more dates to the already dense agenda of meetings leads us to suppose that there is a large divide between different countries’ stances and that it will be difficult to reach a legally binding agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In short, an already complex situation was forced to conclude in a disappointing manner. To better understand the significance of this, it is helpful to summarise what were and still are the most controversial topics. The first concerns the Kyoto protocol on reduction of greenhouse gases and what will be the next steps from the pledges made by signatory countries from 2012 onwards. Pledges that are for the most part cast aside by industrialised nations nonetheless developing countries are calling for clear acceptance of responsibility, recalling the environmental debt that the rich North has accrued with respect to the South. The main issue of this debate was and will remain to be real commitments to restrict future emissions to a level that will limit the increase in temperature. In this case, the figures are crucial: the difference of half a degree (from 2 to 1.5 degrees) could mean disappearance of entire countries, such as the Pacific islands. The second controversial topic is related to the initiatives to be undertaken for a new binding agreement on the climate. Negotiations have developed around the so-called “common vision”, referring to the values and founding principles for action by the international community to deal with the climate emergency and support economic and productive models with low carbon content, as well as adaptation measures and transferof clean technologies.

The main issues under discussion are the amount of financial resources - with developing countries asking for at least $100 billion per year towards climate change adaptation and easement programmes, and insured access to clean technologies. Without a clear commitment to reduce emissions made by rich countries and an equally clear pledge dealing with financial resources, every agreement will be judged unacceptable by developing countries. In the middle of 2009 it was fairly obvious that the USA’s reluctance to approve binding pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the hardening of the developing countries in supporting the significance of the Kyoto protocol- rather than approving its progressive weakening aimed at satisfying Washington’s requests, and the total absence of the European Union would eventually create the conditions for a low profile outcome in Copenhagen. The “Copenhagen Accord” was concluded without the consent of all governments, and was therefore not ratified as an official result of the Conference. Among other things, the document does not contain binding agreements on emissions reduction but only a series of voluntary pledges to be verified as time goes on, with no clear proposals on how to source the necessary funds for these climate policies without resorting to financial markets or “recycling” the already scarce funds for poverty alleviation. In an attempt to find a solution to this funding problem, in March this year Ban Ki Moon created a working group, headed by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the Ethiopian President, Meles Zenawi. Apart from the already disappointing outcome of the COP 15 negotiations, the current risk is that the United Nations will be gradually abandoned as a base for talks in favour of parallel negotiations, a risk made all the more present by the recent disagreement between Ban Ki Moon and Brundtland.

It is not a coincidence that soon after Copenhagen complaints were made about the excessive complexity of the United Nation’s regulations which clash with the urgent need to take immediate measures to save the planet. In light of the fact that most developed countries are unwilling to repay their ecological debts due to the rest of humanity, such arguments appear to be nothing but excuses. Nonetheless, the USA has reaffirmed its intention to view the Copenhagen Accord as the only basis for continuing negotiations, leading to loud protests from developing countries. The route to the conference in Cancún, Mexico at the end of November is therefore an uphill slope. One of the many approaches being considered is to proceed with separate working groups to reach an agreement on less important matters, in order to then be able to concentrate on more complex ones, such as the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In this vein, other informal meetings are taking place that run parallel to the official negotiations, such as one organised in Mexico in mid-March and another planned for May by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. The Bolivian government has called a “World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth” - held in Cochabamba on 19th-22nd April - with the intention of helping to revive the global initiative of social movements on the subject of climate justice. According to the aims of its participants, the Conference should provide a work schedule and a common platform for discussions on ecological debt, the rights of Mother Earth, indigenous populations and climate refugees, proposing among other things the formation of an international tribunal for climate crimes.

Other meetings are being held on specific topics, such as protection of the rainforest, dubbed “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation” (REDD). The first meeting of REDD was held in Paris in March, behind closed doors and without the inclusion of representatives from indigenous groups, to launch a rainforest partnership that will be formally sanctioned in Oslo shortly before the Conference on Climate Change due to take place in Bonn at the end of May. In the aftermath of Copenhagen, the only programme that seemed to be making progress was precisely the one for protecting rainforests, for which pledges of $3.5 billion - that could reach $8 billion - were announced in Copenhagen.

The plan is to give money to tropical countries to protect forests, stop deforestation and ensure that the trees saved are able to absorb greenhouse gases - the ideal solution for countries wishing to continue burning petrol and coal, but a potential threat for the millions of indigenous people who live in rainforests and are asking respect for their own fundamental rights as a condition of any agreements. The subject of human rights and the climate has been briefly touched on in official negotiations, but has not yet managed to lend a “cultural” or political face to talks that are still overly concerned with figures and science and not enough with justice and equality.

Written for the site Sinistra, Ecologia e Libertà (The Left, Ecology and Freedom)