While welcoming
delegates to the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), President Felipe de
Jesus Calderon Hinojosa of Mexico said that climate change has been
driven by changes in human behaviour, and that a shift in another
direction is needed to reverse the trend.
He intoned that the
world must embark on the pursuit of “green development” and “green
economy” as the path to sustainable development. He also stated that
some of the steps to be taken to attain this ideal include progress on
the negotiations on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), as well as development of
technologies to reduce fuel emission.
These were nice
words. These were also very contentious ideas. There are several red
flags and concerns about REDD by indigenous groups and forest dependent
peoples, as well as mass social movements across the world. The idea of
canvassing the extension of financial assistance to the poorest and the
most vulnerable countries is also seen by critics as a possible way of
dividing them and making them pliable to suggestions and decisions that
may actually be contrary to their best interests.
Even before the
Cancun conference opened, there were concerns that efforts may already
be afoot to rig the outcome, as was the case in Copenhagen in 2009. One
concern is about a text for negotiation that is emanating from the
chair of one of the working group through an opaque process.
Another concern has
arisen from a decision of the Mexican president to invite selected
heads of states to the conference. The list is not openly available,
but already it is becoming clear that some uninvited presidents intend
to be in Cancun.
Last year in
Copenhagen, the COP began and ended under a cloud of doubts and
perceived undemocratic actions. At that meeting, many delegations from
developing and vulnerable nations believed that drafts of what would be
the final outcome document were being discussed and circulated within
privileged circles, away from the standard practice where such
negotiations took place on the open conference floor.
In Copenhagen,
there was a steady flow of leaked documents allegedly prepared by the
president of the COP. The anxiety in Cancun is being raised by the
texts prepared by the chair of the ad hoc working group on Long-term
Cooperative Action (LCA). The other major working group under the COP
is the one that deals with the Kyoto Protocol and another text is being
expected from the chair of that working group, also without a mandate
from the working groups, according to analysts.
The year between
conferences is spent in technical negotiations and preparations during
which delegations review texts prepared by chairpersons of the working
groups on the basis of the submissions made by the delegations or
members.
Variation in documents
The document
produced by the chair of the LCA appears to be something quite at
variance with what many delegates expected would be the outcome of the
negotiations and work done since Copenhagen. The document that
delegates are to debate is allegedly based on the ‘Copenhagen Accord’,
which some delegates insist was not an agreement at the end of COP15,
but was merely taken note of by that conference.
Questions are being
asked why such a document would now be legitimised and made the
foundation for serious negotiations expected to produce a fair and
ambitious agreement at the end of the conference in Cancun.
After the
Copenhagen conference ended without an agreement, the government of
Bolivia hosted a first ever World Peoples Conference on Climate Change
and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba in April 2010. The outcome
of that conference was the Peoples Agreement that the government of
Bolivia then articulated into a formal submission to the UNFCCC and the
secretary general of the United Nations.
The essential fault
line between those following the path crafted by the Copenhagen Accord
and those who do not accept it as the way towards fair agreement that
recognises the principle of common and differentiated responsibilities,
are quite serious, and the resolution has deep consequences for the
future of our planet and the species that inhabit it, including
humankind.
The draft text
circulated by the chair of the LCA puts forward the ambition that may
lead to an aggregate global temperature increase of up to 2 degrees
Celsius, as opposed to proposals made by a number of delegations that
the target should be between 1 degree and 1.5 degrees temperature rise
above pre-industrial levels. A 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase
would mean catastrophic alteration to some parts of the world, with
Africa being particularly vulnerable.
The text in
question has also disregarded the demand by vulnerable nations that to
ensure urgent and robust technology transfer for the purpose of
mitigation and adaptation, such transfers should not be governed by
subsisting intellectual property rights regimes.
Another sore point
in the text is that the financial commitment proposed does not step up
to the level of ambition needed to tackle the climate crisis, and is
even less serious than what was suggested by the so-called Copenhagen
Accord.
The immediate past
chair of the COP in her final statement indicated that the conference
must move in a way that would show that Cancun can deliver a good
outcome for tackling climate change.
At the end of the first day, the clear question on many minds was, can Cancun?
