Plenty talk before Copenhagen, but no certainty about action {writer: Leon Alberts}

There are increasing signs that the critically important meeting in the battle to come to grips with the implications of climate change, to be held between 30 November and 11 December this year in Copenhagen, may be in trouble even before the first word is spoken.

The conference will be the 15th of its kind under the auspices of the 1994 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), being an annual meeting of representatives of all the signatory countries. It is generally known as the Conference of the Parties (COP).

To date, the most significant annual conference was COP3 in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol established legally binding reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the developed nations.

Kyoto’s time runs out in 2012, and the upcoming COP15 in Copenhagen is the final opportunity to come to an agreement on reductions of man-made GHG emissions for the period post-Kyoto Protocol in time for its expiry.

Copenhagen will aim to rope in developing countries, including South Africa, to also agree to emission-reduction targets.

South Africa’s Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs Buyelwa Sonjica made it clear recently that the government would not sign any deal in Copenhagen which would compromise South Africa’s economic development chances.

In early October South Africa, China and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) left an informal session in Bangkok where the shape of a new climate agreement that would bind all nations was under discussion.

Accusations were made that rich nations are attempting to kill off Kyoto, which binds 37 industrialised nations to emission targets during its first 2008-2012 commitment period.

The question with which negotiators were wrestling, is whether to extend Kyoto into a second commitment period for 2013, amend the pact, or create a new one – a step many developing countries are resisting.

Kyoto did not live up to expectations, and its integrity was suspect from the outset when the United Sates did not ratify the protocol.

In the 15 years since the UNFCCC entered into force, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere has continued rising. In fact, CO2 emissions have actually increased by 30% in the past 15 years.

This poses the question whether anything tangible has been achieved through all the international talks, and whether COP15 in Copenhagen will be any different in its ultimate outcome.

A substantial part of the problem is that there are considerable costs attached to reducing emissions.

Against this background, a document prepared by an expert group of the G20 countries for a recent meeting of the world’s finance ministers, said the world must urgently and substantially raise funds to fight climate change. It cited a World Bank study which found that the developing world alone would need, by 2030, more than $100 billion annually for this purpose.

Climate change funds are split into two categories – those needed to slow GHG emissions stoking the problem; and those needed for mitigation and adaptation to inevitable changes such as more droughts, floods and rising sea levels.

The paper claimed that there was a major financing gap between projected needs and current sources of funding. Resources for mitigation and adaptation will need to be scaled up urgently and substantially and should mobilise resources to support developing countries in taking action, starting in the near term.

Indications are that the best which can be hoped for in Copenhagen is a widely politically supported framework. The details would more than likely have to be filled in during further talks in the future.

In the meantime, the South African negotiation team for Copenhagen has indicated that predictable financial flows, technology transfer and capacity building for developing countries are the imperatives south from the talks.

Developing countries argue that they are not responsible for the large-scale GHG emissions. They want a grace period during which it can increase emissions, before using technological advances to ensure strong economic growth to deal with other pressing issues such as poverty alleviation, education, housing and welfare.

There is a precedent for this approach in the case of Kyoto, when increases were permitted for countries such as Australia and Iceland.

A recent report on “Breaking the climate deadlock: technology for a low -carbon future” by the Climate Group stated that the right agreements at COP15 could provide the spur for international collaboration which will bring down the costs and accelerate low-carbon technology diffusion and deployment.

It suggests that a comprehensive technology mechanism should be put in place, which sets the scale and pace of the market and direct financial support; defines areas where co-operation will take place; and establishes an institutional structure to measure, report and verify GHG mitigation actions and facilitate joint ventures.

After a recent meeting in London of ministers from 15 countries, including the United States and China – the world’s two largest producers of GHG – the British Energy and Climate Change Secretary of State, Ed Miliband said: “We need a mechanism which will at least provide the opportunity for developing countries to get help with financing some of the incremental costs of their projects”.

A promise of bid aid via technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), could encourage developing nations led by China and India to agree to more action on limiting rising emissions at COP15.

Real progress, however, is at this stage prevented by disputes between rich and poor nations about sharing the burden of curbs on GHG emissions.

Minister Sonjica said that while South Africa was committed to reducing its carbon footprint, developing countries could not be put on the same scale as countries such as the US. Also, the international community had made provision for developing countries, and such countries had no set targets such as developed countries have.

A deal should be reached which is favorable to both developed and developing countries, and money should be set aside to enable developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change, she said.

Australia, which is the world’s largest per capita carbon polluter at 20.58 tonnes per head per year, recently stated that developing economies should not be locked into carbon-lowering targets at COP15.

Putting a plan on the table, Australia suggests that countries register plans for lowering emissions, such as reducing deforestation, or setting renewable energy usage targets, linking them to a broader post-Kyoto agreement.

“In other words, commitments won’t be one-size-fits-all. They will be differentiated and the actions countries take to fulfill those commitments will be varied in nature, reflecting different national circumstances,” said Australian Climate minister, Penny Wong.

Former British prime minister Tony Blair, for his part, argues that 10 million jobs could be created by 2020 if developing nations agree to big cuts in greenhouse gases.

Looking at the overall picture of the process leading up to the meeting in Copenhagen, it is clear that national interest would be first on the agenda for the countries gathering around the negotiating table.

Since the US has never ratified Kyoto, the present uncertainties around the outcomes of legislative processes in that country do not aid the confidence of nations going into the Copenhagen conference.

To date, very few nations have made substantial investment in CCS technologies. If the uncertainties associated with the recession are added to the equation, not too much should be expected of COP15.