Climate showdown at COP 17

Eleven days of intense negotiation about the future of the planet are scheduled for 28 November to 12 December 2011 in Durban. The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP 17) of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change is a critical moment in a 20-year multilateral negotiation process that, perhaps inevitably, has been characterised by successive crises of consensus.

 Two years ago, in Copenhagen, the international community stared down the twin gun barrels of climate catastrophe and political crisis as negotiators, in the face of a high level of international expectation, failed to reach sufficient consensus on the rules for a second period of commitment to global emissions reduction targets.

The ball was passed to Cancún, Mexico in 2010, where the second deadline was missed, and now Durban has become the arena for the world’s most important climate showdown.

This overview, the first in a series of articles on the background to and significance of COP 17, is provided by the science and policy research team at OneWorld, a Cape Town-based firm specialising in climate change and development solutions for the African continent. (A glossary of essential terms and concepts appears in the sidebar.)

The COP story begins in 1990, when 400 international scientists called together by the UN produced a report that showed the world that climate change is a scientific fact – one that we ignore at our peril.

Two years later, this report led to the establishment of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the famous Earth Summit in Rio.

It took five years for negotiators to thrash out a set of binding targets on carbon emissions reductions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, and another eight years before these were finally given teeth in 2005.

The Durban meeting, taking place one year before the end of the first period of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, represents another crisis moment for this crisis-plagued process as negotiators come face to face with the very real possibility that they may fail to agree on the rules of engagement for a second period of implementation. A failure of consensus in Durban could mean the demise of the multilateral process and legally binding global reduction targets.

For South Africa, as for all other developing countries, the Durban meeting represents an important opportunity to address the world’s development needs in the context of climate change, from the point of view of the developing world.

High hopes have been expressed that the Durban meetings will deliver political clarity on how to achieve a strengthened multilateral climate change regime that balances both mitigation as well as adaptation priorities.

Addressing the recent COP 17 preliminary meeting in Bonn, Germany, Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, chairperson of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN), said: “We start today with great pride, knowing that we must conclude our work in the African City of Durban in December. We intend and stand ready to make the African meeting one of the milestones in the multilateral climate change process.”

Reflecting the spirit of optimism that has characterised the AGN’s approach to the process, he continued: “We expect an outcome that is comprehensive and balanced, which operationalises the institutional elements of the decision agreed to in Cancún, as part of our goal to enhance long-term co-operative actions to deal with climate change.”

The AGN holds the view that a strengthened multilateral climate change regime is required if the challenge of devastating climate change impacts in the not-too-distant future is to be met.

Developing countries have a leading role to play in the evolution of sustainable and equitable development solutions across the world. Such solutions are the only way that economic development, competitiveness and growth can be achieved in a manner that enhances social well-being and environmental protection at the global level.

Underpinning the optimism of the AGN is the belief that it will be possible to solve the global climate problem only if this project is undertaken in the context of Africa’s need for development.

Providing such solutions in the current political and economic atmosphere will not be a simple task, and South Africa’s ability to leverage its diplomatic clout will be tested to the limit.

At the core of Durban’s success will be an agreement on the respective weightings, in terms of climate finance, to be given to the two central pillars of the global response to climate change – mitigation and adaptation.

Up until recently, mitigation of climate emissions, primarily of concern to the developed world, has dominated the agenda. In last year’s Cancún meetings, however, the need to foreground adaptation by strengthening the resilience of poor countries to climate impacts was strongly promoted.

In terms of UNFCCC policy, adaptation needs to be supported in three main ways: through finance, capacity support and technology transfer.

Another key issue on which negotiators representing the developing world are likely to focus, will be “the emissions gap”. The current reduction ambitions presented by developed countries are regarded by the developing world as very low, and their negotiators will be looking to secure agreement on a road map of emissions reductions by developed countries, both in the short- and medium term.

Tied to this, developing world negotiators want it to be recognised that the efforts of the countries they represent will depend to a large extent on the level of financial, technological and capacity-enhancing support they receive from the developed countries.

It is hoped that such a road map could lead to a future legally binding agreement under the Convention. However, without agreement on a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, this road map will remain out of reach.

The current political deadlock on this issue, which became sharply evident at Copenhagen in 2009, and remained unresolved at Cancún in 2010, demonstrates the very real gap that exists between the positions of the developed and developing worlds.

The Durban negotiations can be expected to focus heavily on the need for effective adaption strategies, particularly in the world’s poorest and most vulnerable economies; and how these are to be implemented.

For the African negotiation team, the adaptation debate is at the top of the agenda, and the urgent need to make significant progress on adaptation will be a key demand.

It is hoped the Durban meetings will effectively ‘kick-start’ a range of implementation strategies, extending the work begun last year through a set of policy recommendations known as the Cancún Adaptation Framework.

However, as has been mentioned, this cannot happen unless the present political stalemate concerning the sources and scale of long-term climate finance is unlocked. Fundamentally, this is a political challenge, complicated by glaring gaps between promises, needs and delivery.

The World Bank has noted that “mitigation in developing countries could cost US$140 to US$175 billion per year by 2030, with associated financing needs of up to nearly US$600bn.

“Developing countries are also predicted to face adaptation costs in the range of US$75 to US$100bn per year over 2010–2050.”

Furthermore, the Bank notes that current climate funding covers less than 5% of the anticipated needs of developing countries.

Negotiations at Cancún sought to jointly mobilise global funds of US$100bn per year by 2020, but commitment to this intervention was lacklustre.

In this context, a decision on long-term finance becomes even more crucial. Such a decision would reflect the commitment of developed countries to support developing countries to achieve the global goal, as outlined by the UNFCCC.

As important would be the assurance of adequacy and predictability that such a decision would provide, allowing the developing countries to assess the levels of financing support they can expect to receive, so that they can effectively plan low-emission development strategies and ensure climate resilient development.

The developing world thus looks toward Durban as a crucial opportunity to secure an open and honest dialogue on how the international community intends to close the finance gap. The proposed Green Climate Fund (to be addressed in a forthcoming article), the design of which is guided in part by Minister in the Presidency Trevor Manuel, may well reinstall public confidence and legitimacy in the work of the multilateral system.

Andy Mason

OneWorld Sustainable Investments