I have listened to so many divergent ideas about what is really happening inside BC. It is surprising to see some official delegates not understanding the real game being played here. Unfortunately, some African delegates, especialy from Francophone, Africa, fall into this category.
In Thursday’s negotiations of the proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, small island developing states were supported by China and other G77 parties. This has made evident that the reported ‘developing country’ split has been overstated.
The real deadlock in these negotiations is that developed countries are refusing to commit to the necessary emission reductions required by science and their historical responsibility in causing climate change. Developed countries are refusing to enshrine these responsibilities in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Russia’s withdrawal of its emissions targets from a new commitment period under Kyoto provides clear evidence of this.
Instead of the procedural differences among developing countries, we should understand their common cause for ensuring developed countries take the legal cuts they are bound to, as well as ensuring new and additional finance is made available to support the necessary emissions reductions and adaptation in developing countries.
Wednesday’s suspension of negotiations at the second meeting of the Conference of the Parties reflected a difference between countries on one procedural issue.
This week Tuvalu proposed to form a new contact group to discuss its proposal for a new ‘Copenhagen Protocol’ under the Convention. The difference of opinion on this procedural issue has been mischaracterised by the media as a “split” in the G77. This is inaccurate for a number of reasons.
First, Tuvalu is not a member of the G77 but is an active member of the Alliance of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS) which cooperates with G77 and China.
None of Tuvalu’s proposals include mandatory binding emission targets (Kyoto Targets) for any developing countries (including China and India).
Secondly, the issue is principally one of process and its implications. Some members of the G77 and China expressed concern that Tuvalu’s proposed process could endanger the survival of the Kyoto Protocol.
India, China and many other G77 countries fear a formal contact group will give rich countries a forum to discuss the removal of Kyoto and to start a new protocol. These countries do not want this door officially opened and thus opposed formal discussions in the LCA.
What Wednesday’s dispute was about was the way in which developing countries can ensure that Kyoto stays in tact and is built upon.
The replacement or termination of the Kyoto Protocol would allow rich countries to shed their existing legally-binding obligations to implement a second commitment period (from 2012) for binding emission cuts.
As developed countries came to this conference with very low pledges on emission cuts and finance, this concern is an understandable and legitimate one.
The US does not want any international system for setting science-led targets or any legal penalty system for failure to comply with their obligations, which would severely weaken the international climate regime, which has the Kyoto Protocol at its core.
Thirdly, developing countries remain united in the key substantive issues at the negotiations: to achieve an ambitious, fair and binding Copenhagen outcome, including the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. Differences on some issues do not imply a split or a breakdown in their cooperation.
The deadlock in these negotiations is developed countries refusing to honour their commitments under Kyoto, their promise to negotiate a second commitment period under Kyoto in good faith and their refusal to commit to an agreement based in science, equity and justice
Keep that in mind, dear colleagues in CPH. The world is watching. The children of Togo, Negal, China, Bangladesh too…
Hi Senaalouka!
I do not share your point of view. It is truely a problem if the violation of the Kioto Obligations have no consequences. This should be indeed a discussion between the cop 15 negotiators.
Regarding the outcoming treaty however it should be a new Copenhagen one because of different reasons.
We have to have the US in the treaty. And the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocol and chances that they will are absolutely unrealistic.
Even if indeed the emissions per person are much lower than in industrialised countries, and that indeed the historical responsibility also lays in the industrialised countries, because of the number of people China plays an important role in the emissions of the future and India could also. Already now, China is responsible for 20 % of worldwide emissions. Instead of refusing binding targets China should push for financial aid. Industrialized countries have the historical responsibility. That’s why they have to finance measures that allow develloping countries to fulfill binding targets. China is now building lots of new coal power plants. We have to stop coal all over the world immediately. Develloping countries have to learn from industrialised countries. Their devellopement should be much more sustainable than ours was. The develloping countries should push hardly and with one voice for important financial transactions from north to south for them to allow them a clean devellopement. I’m disappointed, that instead they use up all their negotiating munition for asking a new kyoto treaty.
Another important reason is the aplication of CDM measures. CDM measures in the past resulted in grotesque things such as financing new coal power plants. The argumentation was, that because of new and cleaner technology parts of the emissions were saved. This difference between old technology and new technology emissions were accounted as CDM savings. This is grotesque. Reasonable interactions and “trades” of all kinds between countries should only happen between two countries which both have binding reduction goals. This would prevent CDM projects or others of the kind of creating emissions instead of saving them.
Write me, if you want to answer:
florianbetz@gmx.net
Flo