The outcome in Copenhagen
South Africa is extremely disappointed with the outcome in Copenhagen as we had high hopes that these negotiations would finally produce an ambitious, fair, effective and binding agreement to urgently address the long term global challenge of climate change.
In reality, the international community was unable to reach a binding agreement on a future international climate change regime in Copenhagen. After two years of intensive negotiations under the United Nations (UN) Convention on Climate Change and its’ Kyoto Protocol, the final session of the Copenhagen Climate Change meeting closed on Saturday afternoon of 19 December 2009, without a final conclusive agreement.
However, the Copenhagen conference did note a political agreement reached among 28 countries on some of the major and extremely difficult issues that have divided the international community since negotiations began two years ago. The particularly difficult questions addressed in this non-inclusive agreement relate to how to share and reflect responsibility, commitment and action among developed and developing countries and how to verify and ensure compliance with respective commitments and linked to the question of “who pays.” Effectively, the conclusion reached in Copenhagen is to continue negotiations next year on the basis of the past two years work under the Kyoto Protocol and the convention.
South Africa’s expectations of Copenhagen
In Copenhagen, South Africa’s focus was on reaching an international agreement that would prioritise both mitigation of GHG emissions and the adaptation to climate change impacts equally; as well as balance both climate and development imperatives. In this regard it would equitably share the limited remaining carbon space in order to give developing countries a fair chance in the development space based on the convention principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
In line with these principles, our demand was that this agreement would be structured along the two tracks agreed to in Bali in 2007. First, developed countries would take the lead by making commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (with the United States of America (USA) taking a comparable commitment under the convention due to the fact that they have not joined Kyoto). Second, developing countries would commitment to national action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In this way, the future climate agreement would give real meaning to the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities by firstly, setting ambitious binding economy wide commitments to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions by all developed countries beyond 2012; with developed countries taking economy wide commitments through an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol and the USA taking on a comparable binding economy wide commitment under the convention.
Secondly, to record developing countries commitment to nationally appropriate action to reduce growth in GHG emissions relative to business as usual as well as action to adapt to the impacts of inevitable climate changes.
The Copenhagen process
During the negotiations it became evident that there was substantial disagreement on how to resolve the key issues under negotiation. To move forward, the Conference of the Parties (COP) Presidency (the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen) convened a small ‘commitment circle’ of Heads of State and government to develop a Copenhagen accord. Representation was drawn from the chairs of regional groups and key interests (e.g. OPEC, small islands, least developed countries), but notably excluded Latin American Bolivarian countries, ALBA group. With the direct involvement of South African President Jacob Zuma, African and other world leaders, Copenhagen did reach a political agreement on many of the issues preventing progress. Those countries central to critical disagreements were able to resolve some issues politically but without representation from ALBA. This political deal could not be agreed by the Conference of the Parties in the formal United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) process. In the end, the Copenhagen accord was noted in a separate box attached to a very short decision and the real decisions taken were to forward the negotiation text developed under the convention and its Kyoto Protocol to the next negotiators meetings and to the COP in Mexico next year.
From the meeting of 28 world leaders, the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen was able to get agreement on the Copenhagen accord which outlines political agreement among these leaders representing different regions and interest, on many of the major issues which have prevented the international community from reaching agreement for the past two years. In particular, these political agreements were related to the following issues:
* How to record economy-wide binding emission reduction targets for developed countries, including the USA
* While simultaneously, for the first time, creating a mechanism to record, at international level, the emission reduction actions by developing countries (and developing countries, such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea, as well as some small countries such as Philippines and the Maldives submitted information on their commitment to act at the meeting)
* How to internationally measure, report and verify this action; which will be supported by and transparently accounted for finance ($10 billion per year up to 2012) and $100 billion per year by 2020
* A broad institutional architecture for a technology development and transfer mechanism.
However, it is important to note that the Copenhagen accord lacks agreement on other key issues and that this prevented a consensus agreement by all 193 countries to adopt this deal. Outstanding issues include:
* Whether or not the Kyoto Protocol will continue beyond 2012.
* Acceptance of the low level of ambition pledged by developed countries (collectively these pledges add up to between 14 to 19 percent below 1990 level by 2020).
* Associated with this low level of ambition from developed countries is the inability to agree on global goals, which would include the equitable sharing of the remaining carbon development space and long term global targets to cut emissions.
* Currently there is still disagreement on a comprehensive international adaptation programme as a priority or whether it should be an adaptation framework.
The process taken by the Danish Prime Minister was about resolving issues between contending parties and bringing proposed solutions back to the larger international forum. The rejection of this outcome here in Copenhagen proved that this approach is extremely difficult.
Nevertheless, the political agreement reached on the sub-set of major elements may provide the international community with a foundation for reaching a comprehensive, fair, effective and binding agreement next year.
We have high hopes but there is still much to be done.
Issued by: Department of Environmental Affairs
20 December 2009
Source: Department of Environmental Affairs (http://www.environment.gov.za/)
