Source : LEAD Africa
Hope in Copenhagen?
Hopenhagen is the ‘new’ name for Copenhagen this December for COP15, and for the related ovement that are organising a variety of COP15 activities. One such is the powering of the traditional Christmas tree in Copenhagen's City Hall Square by means of a series of bicycles hooked up via generator equipment to its festive lights. The tree's decorations usually produce an estimated 9 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which this year is ‘saved’ through the Hopehagen arrangement. This amongst many other events represents some of the hope that has been placed in the Conference of Parties starting today and continuing until the 18th of December.
The statements and declarations during the last weeks from many of the key players involved in the negotiations, have however left the sense that the ‘hope’ in Hopenhagen will remain only symbolic and that an agreement will not be reached. Yvo De Boer, who is the Executive Secretary on climate hange, recently stated that the summit may not reach an agreement, but governments may agree around the structure of an agreement that will be negotiated and completed in the near future. Before him Achim Steiner, the executive of UNEP, expressed similar sentiments when he outlined what the
majority of industrialised countries had announced as targeted reductions.
All of these declarations are another way of signalling that Copenhagen is already behind us as a arget and that we should start thinking of Mexico where the next COP will be held and maybe think as far as 2011. Whilst these talks go on then climate change will continue to be a reality, and its effects will be seen across the world. To get an understanding of why the agreement is hard to reach, one needs to look at the key players and interests that are at stake.
‘Negotiating’ groups
Countries have come together in groups, which have the same objectives and hopes for the new agreement. These can be seen as follows:
• The first group is composed of what can be called the ‘condemned’. These are such as the alliance of small state islands (Maldives, Bahamas etc) who has no other alternatives and who’s future are not in their own hands. This group also include many African countries that are in the same situation, and are facing food security issues and lack of resources to adapt to climate change. All these countries cannot accept that industrialised countries agree to a less than 40% reduction of emissions at 1990 levels, and that they meet their obligations for supporting the non-industrialised countries.
• The second group is what the Courier International calls ‘it is not my fault’ countries. These include countries like China and India who go against targets for developing countries, even though they are open for discussion of emission reduction. They advocate for the Kyoto protocol to be maintained because it symbolises and clearly outlines the responsibility of the industrialised countries, and also for binding targets for industrialised countries. OPEC countries also fall into this group.
• The third group includes European countries, which have a tendency to place themselves in the ‘middle’, between US policy and the rest of the world. Only a few of them, like the UK, talks formally about the responsibility of the industrialised countries, but they put ahead concepts of the carbon market and liberal economy to achieve this.
• The US is leading the fourth group, which is being called by the Courier International the ‘Pledge and review group’. This group supports a new framework that is in favour of the industrialised countries, thus a framework without binding targets. Other countries like Canada, Australia, Russia etc, are not in a hurry and not at all in favour of any binding agreement for industrialised countries in the near future.
6 countries alone represent close to 50% of the emissions (US, Japan, Brazil, China, India, Russia). If you do another combination and put together the European Union countries and the ALENA countries then it is close to 70% of emissions. This evidence shows that what is really needed is not as much an agreement between all the parties including the small countries with little power, but a strong greement between the countries that represent 2/3 of the emissions.
Africa: 53 countries – one voice
Africa is this time coming to the negotiations with one voice, thus with a comprehensive and strong position, which represents the vulnerable countries whose position is for very clear commitments and binding targets. They demand no less than 200 billion US in support for developing countries to deal with climate change and adaptation. To support this NGOs in many African countries have come together and asked their heads of states, many who will attend Copenhagen, to support the work carried out by negotiators and to refuse any sort of political agreement instead of binding treaties.
In that dynamic LEAD Africa is playing a leading role through recent publications such as ‘Leading the way: a role for Regional Institutions’ and ensuring awareness of the African position in ‘Hopenhagen’.
Hope in Copenhagen?
Hopenhagen is the ‘new’ name for Copenhagen this December for COP15, and for the related ovement that are organising a variety of COP15 activities. One such is the powering of the traditional Christmas tree in Copenhagen's City Hall Square by means of a series of bicycles hooked up via generator equipment to its festive lights. The tree's decorations usually produce an estimated 9 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which this year is ‘saved’ through the Hopehagen arrangement. This amongst many other events represents some of the hope that has been placed in the Conference of Parties starting today and continuing until the 18th of December.
The statements and declarations during the last weeks from many of the key players involved in the negotiations, have however left the sense that the ‘hope’ in Hopenhagen will remain only symbolic and that an agreement will not be reached. Yvo De Boer, who is the Executive Secretary on climate hange, recently stated that the summit may not reach an agreement, but governments may agree around the structure of an agreement that will be negotiated and completed in the near future. Before him Achim Steiner, the executive of UNEP, expressed similar sentiments when he outlined what the
majority of industrialised countries had announced as targeted reductions.
All of these declarations are another way of signalling that Copenhagen is already behind us as a arget and that we should start thinking of Mexico where the next COP will be held and maybe think as far as 2011. Whilst these talks go on then climate change will continue to be a reality, and its effects will be seen across the world. To get an understanding of why the agreement is hard to reach, one needs to look at the key players and interests that are at stake.
‘Negotiating’ groups
Countries have come together in groups, which have the same objectives and hopes for the new agreement. These can be seen as follows:
• The first group is composed of what can be called the ‘condemned’. These are such as the alliance of small state islands (Maldives, Bahamas etc) who has no other alternatives and who’s future are not in their own hands. This group also include many African countries that are in the same situation, and are facing food security issues and lack of resources to adapt to climate change. All these countries cannot accept that industrialised countries agree to a less than 40% reduction of emissions at 1990 levels, and that they meet their obligations for supporting the non-industrialised countries.
• The second group is what the Courier International calls ‘it is not my fault’ countries. These include countries like China and India who go against targets for developing countries, even though they are open for discussion of emission reduction. They advocate for the Kyoto protocol to be maintained because it symbolises and clearly outlines the responsibility of the industrialised countries, and also for binding targets for industrialised countries. OPEC countries also fall into this group.
• The third group includes European countries, which have a tendency to place themselves in the ‘middle’, between US policy and the rest of the world. Only a few of them, like the UK, talks formally about the responsibility of the industrialised countries, but they put ahead concepts of the carbon market and liberal economy to achieve this.
• The US is leading the fourth group, which is being called by the Courier International the ‘Pledge and review group’. This group supports a new framework that is in favour of the industrialised countries, thus a framework without binding targets. Other countries like Canada, Australia, Russia etc, are not in a hurry and not at all in favour of any binding agreement for industrialised countries in the near future.
6 countries alone represent close to 50% of the emissions (US, Japan, Brazil, China, India, Russia). If you do another combination and put together the European Union countries and the ALENA countries then it is close to 70% of emissions. This evidence shows that what is really needed is not as much an agreement between all the parties including the small countries with little power, but a strong greement between the countries that represent 2/3 of the emissions.
Africa: 53 countries – one voice
Africa is this time coming to the negotiations with one voice, thus with a comprehensive and strong position, which represents the vulnerable countries whose position is for very clear commitments and binding targets. They demand no less than 200 billion US in support for developing countries to deal with climate change and adaptation. To support this NGOs in many African countries have come together and asked their heads of states, many who will attend Copenhagen, to support the work carried out by negotiators and to refuse any sort of political agreement instead of binding treaties.
In that dynamic LEAD Africa is playing a leading role through recent publications such as ‘Leading the way: a role for Regional Institutions’ and ensuring awareness of the African position in ‘Hopenhagen’.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire