Copenhagen - Roundup & Road Ahead

Ecoal, March 2010, Volume 70

Despite the Copenhagen climate talks ending two months ago, the dust has yet to fully settle on the controversies, criticism and calamities of the talks.

The end of two years of negotiations aimed at providing either an extension to, or a replacement for, the Kyoto Protocol resulted in a 'Copenhagen Accord', which has seemingly satisfied few and angered many. The Copenhagen talks did succeed in raising climate change to the highest level of government. There was also a political consensus on the long-term, global response to climate change. However, Copenhagen also demonstrated how unwieldy the mechanisms created through the UN to address global warming have become. It is not without significance that the 'Copenhagen Accord' was essentially struck outside these mechanisms by only five of the 192 Parties to the Copenhagen Summit.

Cold Outside

An issue that continued to create problems and tension in the second week of the talks was access to the Bella Center. A "safety limit" of 15,000 for the Bella Center, combined with an uncontrolled registration of 40,000 delegates prior to the event (of which over 20,000 were NGOs) plus various extensive demonstrations, meant up to nine hour queues for registration in sub-zero temperatures and what was disorganised chaos.

The access situation actually worsened as the fortnight progressed; for the final four days no new registration badges were issued to NGOs and for the final two days - when Heads of State and Government were in attendance - only 300 NGOs were allowed to enter the Bella Center itself to observe the meeting. Clearly a major review of attendance at such meetings is required. NGOs, including business, are allowed to attend these governmental meetings as observers but they are not participants in the negotiations.

Copenhagen Accord

As frosty as conditions were outside the Bella Center, inside the atmosphere wasn't much warmer. Negotiations were, on many occasions, openly hostile and lack of trust between Parties became one of the defining characteristics of these talks. The leaked 'Danish Text' early in the talks shattered trust between developed and developing countries and much of the discussions that followed focused on repairing the fissure.

After a bitter and turbulent final plenary session, the Conference of the Parties "took note" of the "Copenhagen Accord" that had been negotiated by Heads of State and Government. The aim of the COP presidency had been for the Accord to be adopted; however, there were strong objections to the "non-transparent" manner in which it had been negotiated (i.e. by a few Parties and not all of them) and criticisms over items that had been omitted from the text, such as no limit to temperature increases to 1.5°C. The opposition to the Accord led to the Plenary 'taking note' rather than agreeing or endorsing it. The Copenhagen Accord:

• Enshrines the goal of limiting global - warming to "below 2°C";
• Commits Annex I Parties (developed - countries) to "implement individually or jointly" targets for 2020 to be submitted by them to the secretariat by 31 January 2010. (At the beginning of February, the UNFCCC made available the list of countries who had, to date, submitted their targets - see table for Annex I Parties commitments);
• Commits non-Annex I Parties (developing - countries) to implement mitigation actions, "including those to be submitted to the secretariat [by them] ... by 31 January 2010 ... in the context of sustainable development";
• Allows "least developed countries and small - island developing States to undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support";
• Nationally appropriate mitigation actions - (NAMAs) seeking international support will be subject to registration and "international measurement, reporting and verification";
• Establishes a new mechanism to support - action on deforestation and forest degradation;
• Commits developed countries "collectively" - to provide "new and additional resources ... approaching US$30 billion for the period 2010-2012";

• Commits developed countries jointly to a - goal of US$100 billion a year to address the needs of developing countries "in the context of meaningful mitigation action and transparency on implementation". A significant portion of this should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund;
• Establishes a Technology - Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer;
• Establishes that an assessment of the Accord will be completed by 2015.

The Accord does not contain any:

• commitment to make the Accord - legally binding;
• date for global emissions to peak;
• agreement on 2020 emissions targets;
• reference to a base year for targets;
• aspirations to cut 1990 emissions by 50% - by 2050.

There is no deadline to convert any of this into a legally binding treaty. Neither is there a process elaborated by which the two track negotiations (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP)) can be managed to coalesce onto a single track.

None of the above commitments are legally binding. A number of developing countries have submitted plans for nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), some of which include emissions or energy intensity reduction targets. Full details on all commitments by developed and developing countries can be found at: http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php

CCS - Any Progress?

The treatment of whether to allow CCS projects to be included in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was a specific instance of the power of individual Parties to postpone progress. Contact groups and discussions on the issue reiterated all the arguments heard previously, set the same countries against each other, and resulted in no substantive movement.

The operative decision essentially calls for submissions from Parties to the Kyoto Protocol to make submissions to the secretariat on various issues related to CCS by 22 March 2010 with a view to discussion of those issues in mid-2010 and a decision at CMP-6 in December 2010. However, there is no particular reason to believe that CMP-6 will make any other decision again in December 2010 (see excerpt on CCS in the CDM taken from the Decision dealing with "Further Guidance Relating to the Clean Development Mechanism").

The New Road

The question of how to move the process forward and to reach a successful conclusion looms large in 2010. Copenhagen clearly demonstrated the difficulty in crafting an international agreement on climate change, with the involvement of so many world leaders.

The issue of achieving progress has been hit by yet another complication with the announcement in February that Yvo de Boer would be stepping down as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC with effect from 1 July.

It is unfortunate that the lack of a firm agreement will continue to create uncertainties for businesses and their investments over the next decade. It is particularly disappointing that there is still no agreement on CCS as CDM project activities. Tackling climate change requires huge investments in clean energy technologies, such as CCS. Governments need to establish a policy framework that will allow businesses to make these investments are quickly as possible.

With the re-start of the negotiations under the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA this year, many of the existing issues that remained unresolved after Copenhagen will re-emerge. Mexico, the host country of the next COP at the end of 2010, has already called for two additional meetings this year (in addition to the Bonn meetings in June and the end of year meetings) to help move negotiations forward. Clearly the 'road' towards a new climate change agreement did not end in Copenhagen and has instead become much longer and much more complicated.

Photo courtesy: Leila Mead/IISD

Excerpt on CCS in the CDM, taken from the Decision dealing with "Further Guidance Relating to the Clean Development Mechanism"

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol:

29. Recognizes the importance of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as a possible mitigation technology, bearing in mind the concerns related to the following outstanding issues, inter alia: (a) non-permanence, including long-term permanence; (b) measuring, reporting and verification; (c) environmental impacts; (d) project activity boundaries; (e) international law; (f) liability; (g) the potential for perverse outcomes; (h) safety; (i) insurance coverage and compensation for damages caused due to seepage or leakage;

30. Further requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to continue to work on the possible inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations in the clean development mechanism by working on the issues listed in paragraph 29 above, with a view to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol adopting a decision on this matter at its sixth session;

31. Invites Parties to make submissions to the secretariat, by 22 March 2010, on their views on the issues listed in paragraph 29 above;

32. Requests the secretariat to compile the views submitted by Parties in accordance with
paragraph 31 above into a miscellaneous document for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice at its thirty-second session.