FOEI Political Assessment Bonn II
(Friday 12 June 2009)
What we needed to happen in Bonn for the negotiations to move forward:
1. Movement on the Bali Action Plan to tackle the oustanding implementation deficits by rich industrialised nations, including action on meeting the targets (based on the science) and finance, technology, and adaptation.
2. The Kyoto Protocol process - on the 2nd commitment period - Annex 1 countries had to come to Bonn ready to make a decision at the COP because of the 6 month rule for text to be circulated before Copenhagen. Annex 1 countries were required to put aggregate number of emissions cuts and what individual developed countries would do
3. The USA also needed to put comparable targets on the table
Key Issues
No Progress on Annex 1 Targets
There has been no movement on new binding targets for Annex 1 countries in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations because the USA has claimed it is not ready. The negotiations on A1 targets as a whole have literally been held hostage to US domestic legislative process. Even worse is the fact that when countries have acted on binding commitments, these commitments have been completely inadequate:
US: Has proposed a 4% target by 2020 compared to 1990 level in the Waxman-Markey Bill a worse target than what was being proposed by George Bush.
Japan: Announced in Bonn a target of 8% cuts by 2020 based on 1990 levels.
No Progress on Annex 1 Support
There has also been very little progress on the question of the provision of finance to developing countries by developed countries, including on sources, delivery mechanisms and scale. The US made clear before Bonn II its very poor offering in terms of finance, and the outcome of the meeting of EU Finance Ministers which took place in Luxembourg at the same time as the Bonn II talks was worse than expected, with Ministers failing to put any figures on the table, and announcing that they intend to count offsetting towards the EU financial contribution to developing countries.
Annex 1 Pressures on Developing Countries
Annex 1 countries are united in trying to push differentiation on developing countries in order to lock them into binding targets and the provision of finance from advanced developing countries. For example, there has been a suggestion of $2 billion in loans from Japan to its regional neighbours.
Key Political Dynamics
Stronger Developed / Developing Country Divide
Escalation of developed and developing country differences: they are much more aligned in opposing directions than was previously the case:
Developed countries: dont want to move on their own progress until the US makes further progress on its own commitments, and there is further progress in the LCA.
Developing countries: want to see the A1 targets before they will move on other issues like LCA legal issues, mechanisms and LULUCF.
Why the strengthening of group interests? This dynamic has a lot to do with the technical briefing on historical responsibility that was presented by the delegations of Bolivia, Brazil, China and India on 4 June, supported by academics from the Hadley Centre, the South Centre, and the University of Oxford. This new information and the attention it received significantly strengthened the hand of developing countries to push back on developed countries on the question of Annex 1 targets. the significance of this was in addressing the concept of unfair use of atompheric space and need for aknwldegin the climate debt and fair shares of environmental space for sustinable development of ddeveloping countries
Developing countries called for climate technology not to be patented. Bolivia called for revocation of existing patents. Developed countries opposed to this and called for strong intellectual property protection.
Future of the Kyoto Protocol Under Threat
At Bonn II certain Annex I countries have made more clear their intention to kill off the Kyoto Protocol walking away from this legally binding treaty and to seek a new treaty outside of the mandate of the Convention. This in turn would necessitate a rewriting of the Convention.
Japan indicated a very clear unhappiness with the protocol, stating that they couldnt swallow it, and other countries including Canada and US have indicated that they want something else. Many Annex 1 countries are holding up the special treatment the US is receiving as unfair and are likely to use this as an excuse to scrap Kyoto, weaken their own targets and push binding targets on developing countries. Such moves would face strong resistance from developing countries and would threaten an unraveling of the KP.
Obamas Climate Leadership in Question
The weak aspirations of the Waxman-Markey Act, combined with the performance of the US during the Bonn talks, has raised significant question marks over the possibility of a major improvement in Americas position on climate under Obama.
Implications for Negotiations Going Forward
Possibilities for a Fair & Just Deal
Can we get a fair and just deal by Copenhagen with these delaying and obstructing and destructive tactics? It could be that this exactly the strategy that Annex 1 countries have in mind. Faced with a unified block of the G77 and China in the UNFCCC process, then the priority becomes pushing as much out of the process and into the margins where the tactical advantage of the Annex 1 countries can be best utilised.
For example by slowing down any chance of progress in the COP process this appears to necessitate other processes and fora in order to give the 'negotiations a push', for example: the MEF in Italy and the MEF/ G20 in the USA. These meetings are therefore likely to have a significant impact on the negotiations.
Attempts to Divide & Rule G77 + China block
What is clear is that there is an intense political game going on of trying to divide the G77/China. The framing of the failure of the climate talks will be that the most advanced developing countries are to blame for the lack of progress. The decision by the USA to send its negotiating team to China in the middle of the Bonn talks was an example of how that framing is taking place. The suggestion to the LDCs etc is that China and USA will make a deal on the sidelines so they had better accept what is on offer now or they risk getting even less later on.
Cracks are beginning to appear in the G77/China grouping and it maybe that civil society groups particularly in the South need to be aiming at strengthening their leaders from not signing onto a bad deal. This will require a construction that makes sense in justice terms from both South and North. The climate debt framing may provide this. Countries are starting to align on political allegiance lines, with Bolivia able to build a bloc of the left governments including Paraguay and El Salvador, whilst pro US parties are trying to encircle Bolivia.
Return of WTO-style tactics?
These dynamics mean that we could see the return of the WTO tactics of green rooms at Copenhagen, where individual countries are pulled into one to one meetings with the Annex 1 countries. Developing country leaders will be forced to discuss without their lead negotiators and can face real pressure to sign on to a deal that is neither fair nor just. The EU has brought its lead WTO negotiator into its climate negotiating team which gives an indication of the strategy to be adopted.
Legal Issues
The legal issue of how to get binding commitments for the US without opening up other Annex 1 commitments and the KP as a whole is a big issue going forward to Copenhagen. One proposal which has been put forward by South Africa would provide a legally binding commitment for the US under the LCA which would be comparable to A1 commitments under the KP. However, there are concerns about what would happen to other key parts of the LCA including NAMAs, finance etc. if there was an agreement focusing solely on the US.
MEDIA ADVISORY
June 12, 2009
Friends of the Earth International
US HOLDS U.N. CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS HOSTAGE
Rich industrialised Countries Offer Little Hope for Just Climate Agreement
in Copenhagen
BONN, GERMANY, June 12, 2009 --Throughout the United Nations climate talks
due to end today in Bonn, the United States administration blocked
progress to move negotiations forward, according to Friends of the Earth
International.
Rather than show global leadership, the Obama Administration failed to
live up to its responsibility as the world's largest historical greenhouse
gas polluter. This strategy damages the prospects for a just, equitable,
and effective outcome at the key UN conference planned in Copenhagen,
Denmark, in December this year.
"The election of President Obama created tremendous hope worldwide that
the U.S. would finally play a leadership role in solving the climate
crisis that - more than any other nation on Earth - it is responsible for
causing. Unfortunately for the survival of people and the planet, the
Obama Administration's position at these UN negotiations sounds
frighteningly similar to that of George Bush," said Karen Orenstein of
Friends of the Earth U.S.
Domestic greenhouse gas emission reductions by industrialised countries of
at least 40% by 2020 on 1990 levels - with no offsetting - are needed for
a reasonable chance of avoiding catastrophic global climate change.
The US administration, however, is still talking about zero per cent
reductions by 2020 on 1990 levels. Japan tabled a dangerously low
emissions reduction target during the talks of 8% below 1990 levels. The
EU remained unimpressive with their inadequate 2020 target of 20 % (30% if
other industrialised countries commit to similar efforts). Considering
that the EU is set to offset over half of its commitments, already weak EU
targets will be even further watered down.
Delegations from around the world repeatedly warned developed countries
that their refusal to set their own adequate targets is preventing any
progress in other aspects of the negotiations under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The Alliance of Small Island States called on developed countries to
commit to higher greenhouse gas reduction targets so that global
temperature rise stays below 1.5ºC. Bolivia demanded repayment of the
developed world's climate debt. El Salvador and Paraguay stood strong to
protect Indigenous Peoples rights.
Alarmingly, industrialised countries failed in Bonn to agree to the
substantial transfer of money and technology cooperation needed to enable
developing countries to tackle climate change.
"Industrialised countries need to assume their historical responsibility
and pay back their climate debt. Developing countries must stay strong in
calling for climate justice. By ignoring calls to repay their climate debt
and hindering progress in these talks, rich countries are jeopardising the
lives and livelihoods of millions of people." said Meena Raman, Honorary
Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia.
Industrialised nations owe developing countries a 'climate debt' for both
excessive greenhouse gas pollution over the past 200 years and to
compensate for the damage that pollution has and will cause. [1] Rich,
industrialised countries account for some twenty percent of the world's
population but are responsible for around three-quarters of historical
greenhouse gas emissions. But developed countries have so far refused to
repay this debt and continued to block progress in the negotiations.
For more information, contact in Bonn:
Meena Raman, Honorary Secretary of Friends of the Earth Malaysia: Tel: +
60 12 43 00 042 (Malaysian mobile number)
Karen Orenstein, Friends of the Earth US: Tel: +1-202-640 8679 (US mobile
number)
Sonja Meister, Friends of the Earth Europe (English, German): Tel:
+49-176-64 60 85 15 (German mobile number)
Asad Rehman, Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland:
Tel: +44 77201 47280 (UK mobile number)
IN BONN TODAY Press conference at 15.30 in Saal Reger, Hotel Maritime from
Friends of the Earth International and Third World Network, Pan African
Climate Justice Alliance, Friends of the Earth USA.
*Interviews available with Friends of the Earth campaigners from Japan,
US, Malaysia, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, UK. Media coordinator: +49 176
17368507
NOTES TO EDITORS
[1] For more information on climate debt, read the Third World Network
briefing paper:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/briefings/Bonn03/TWN.BPjune2009.bonn.02.doc