A predictable failure, Copenhagen II, a step in the right direction, a lifeboat adrift for multilateralism. Never before this time groped to provide an unambiguous assessment of the outcome of the Cancun Conference appears to be complex exercise, given the different tracks of analysis possible. What could be the result of low profile that was now certain. It was enough to read the "text of the President" of the Working Group on Cooperation in off the end (dedicated to define the lines of work on the issues of adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer, finance) to note that in the plethora of verbs used to define the final decisions, there were few verbs that define some kind of commitment.
Among these ones - then confirmed in Cancun - definitely to launch a comprehensive program for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD - Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), a green background for the climate, a center for technology transfer, an institutional framework to manage the adjustment programs. The rest was given to what engineers call "rolling process " an ongoing process in which you decide not to decide, and to replace certain commitments, the option to keep open channels of negotiation.
The Mexican presidency had in fact opted for an alternative strategy to that implemented until then. Rather than thinking you can approve a comprehensive package of commitments and actions, it was decided to work on so-called " building blocks". A game in which the Lego brick by brick you rebuild the negotiating framework and called themselves piecemeal policy commitments and spending. Starting from the base, the bricks on which it was recorded in Copenhagen already a sort of consensus. Cunning diplomacy and delicate balancing acts have so characterized the management of the conference by the Presidency of Mexico. Already in Tianjin, the "vulgate" official pointed to a possible failure of Cancun in the coup de grace to a multilateral process already strained in Copenhagen, thanks to the nefarious management of the Danish Presidency and the coup carried out by Barack Obama and others countries that imposed a non-binding agreement in fact contradicts the most elementary rules of consent.
Then the "Copenhagen Accord "was" noticed "by the Conference of the Parties, it is not the official text of the negotiation, nor shared by some countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador. ALBA then seemed to be a new important player in global negotiations. Today, the final count of the post-Cancun, Bolivia is more isolated than ever. Ambassador Pablo Solon - with a few demonstration in support of fact made by the traditional allies (Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador) - has been left alone, like a David against Goliath, to reiterate the inadequacy of the final agreement, possible accomplice " genocide and ecocide "(as in his words). Today, the "Agreements of Cancun" ("Cancun Agreements") are accepted by all, to a greater or lesser extent, as a lowest common denominator needed to keep open the multilateral negotiation to the next Conference of Parties to Durban 2011.
What will be the scenario in the coming months is difficult to predict, but surely you can already guess who will be the issues on which negotiations will focus. First of all on the support of the second period 's implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the Protocol severely tested in the crossfire of Canada, Japan, the United States, and finally from Russia who had announced his own in Cancun decision not to sign the second commitment period. Reflecting the unexpected opening of India and China are prepared to accept commitments to reduce emissions, in exchange for support for the Kyoto Protocol has helped to reshape the balance of power bargaining, providing the basic groups (Brazil, China, India and South Africa ) a leading role, leaving the U.S. and the corner, nestled between the revival of China and India and a Republican majority in Congress that can not tear it forward. If you can find a similarity with the negotiation of 2003 Cancun World Trade Organization is perhaps precisely that on increasing the role of countries BASIC which then gave the coup de grace to Doha Round, and now instead of a breath of fresh air to the Conference on Climate Change.
The Kyoto Protocol is so up, but tried hard: just read the parts related to emissions reduction commitments accepted in Cancun to understand his destiny. In a game of joints between the various documents needed to maintain a balance between the needs of developing countries and industrialized countries, has in fact confirmed the contents of the Agreement of Copenhagen. Stabilization of the growth temperature to 2 degrees above pre-industrial (which many believe still lethal, for example for small island states) but subject to revision in 2015 with a view to a possible reduction to 1.5 degrees. Some observers have taken this decision with satisfaction for the first time since the limit of 2 degrees would be included in an international agreement.
Instead of so-called MRV ( Monitoring Reporting and Verification ) the real irritant in the negotiations in recent months, was replaced by a system of verification "light", "non-intrusive" and "respectful of the sovereignty." In Cancun it was then finally fixed 1990 as the base year for calculating the level of emissions reductions, even if it leaves wide discretion for countries to decide on a different date. The real key to the tangle the relationship between reduction commitments and national mitigation plans, which - according to countries' s industrialization - are likely to be prohibitively expensive in relation to their growth prospects. Then the first node that the negotiations will have to dissolve to Durban this is what still holds the fate of the Kyoto Protocol for the mitigation plans. The Kyoto Protocol and on the "legal form" of the new binding agreement, the game is still open.
has extended by one year the mandate of the working group, with the goal of continuing to discuss the instrument to be adopted, namely whether to propose a new protocol, or a 'Appendix the old man. Or, if you follow the system - in fact entitled to Cancun - the so-called "pledge and review " proposed by the U.S. and the Copenhagen Agreement which is soaked: we are committed on paper to reduce emissions and from time to time and we verification. No penalty, no clear commitment. Under these conditions, the protocol would remain standing yes, but as a "sine imago King", an image without substance. On the issue of funding for programs on climate, was finally launched the Green Fund for Climate, whose structure will be defined by an ad hoc working group within the Durban Conference. This
fund will be under the authority of the Conference of the Parties, but for the first three years given to the World Bank that will act as trustee. A blow to a circle of the barrel for those who wanted the World Bank central player in funding for the climate and those who wanted it out. Too bad that you forget not indifferent to two details: first that the World Bank is the institution most involved in the development of public support for fossil fuels and the second that its role as trustee is found to be questionable and of limited effectiveness as attested by several internal reviews in progress. And how much money we talking about? In Cancun it reaffirms the commitment to allocate 30 billion dollars a year until 2012 and thereafter $ 100 billion, but where to find this money is still unclear.
On the one hand it should be noted that you have not taken any commitments on support for market mechanisms for financing mitigation programs, or for the construction of a global market in emissions permits, although it stressed the centrality of mechanisms flexibility required by Kyoto. Other hand, however nothing has been decided on spending commitments on public funds, and additional new and not recycled from development cooperation, that should be the main source of support for adjustment programs and mitigation.
The report drafted by the ad hoc working group consisting of Ban Ki Mun then identifies some assumptions such as a global carbon tax, or even a possible tax on financial transactions but did not have a major impact in the negotiations. Of course that is part of a clear signal from Cancun to the private sector, which can be seen in the "green economy" and in the transition towards a low carbon content an important opportunity. To read the final document of Cancun is clear that the whole issue of climate change remains firmly anchored to a paradigm of economic development and continues to see economic growth ("high growth") the major parameter of reference. This is perhaps the single biggest limitation of the negotiations: that of not envisage a real change of direction, a new model that can bring together environment, understood as environmental justice, and economics understood as the progressive disengagement from the myth of growth. On this work to be done is still a lot especially to create and strengthen the political demand from "below" that can contribute to diminish the misplaced confidence in the market model and growth. Leave all the destinies of the planet exclusively to international negotiations between states is likely to justify a race to the downside, if these negotiations are the only two driving forces behind the interest national states, or those of positioning in global governance, business opportunism. Because if
from Cancun, it was decided to keep alive the multilateral process, hours will be worth the trouble to ask what they are talking about multilateralism, as the role of civil society movements, municipalities, the non-state actors other than States was severely eroded. Who was in Cancun has not been observed to be very difficult to influence and follow the negotiations, nearly all in camera, and also take note of the fragmentation of the movements, gathered in a 4 coordinations and different initiatives that have certainly diluted the ability of political impact.
Beyond the specific issues related to climate and the energy model, which today more than ever need to be addressed mainly at national and local levels, Cancun and then leave us a clear message about the urgency of building new alliances between social movements and environmental, small and medium-sized businesses dedicated to renewable energies and energy saving, communities that already apply methods of adaptation and mitigation of climate change, indigenous and peasant organizations, local governments 'virtuous' unions. Without this convergence of political actors, the way to Durban is likely to remain a path between states, then guided exclusively by the urgency of reconciling a general national interest with the categorical imperative of economic growth. And as difficult as it will be difficult to derive a sharp reversal of direction.
Francesco Martone
0 comments:
Post a Comment