Over the next two weeks, the world’s attention will be focused on Copenhagen, where delegates from 192 countries are meeting to discuss a climate deal. This meeting comes at a time when there is a misconception that is running riot saying the Kyoto Protocol (KP) is expiring in 2012, hence the need to negotiate a new agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever spin is put on the KP, the fact of the matter is that rather than ending the protocol, the climate talks should be about implementing it.

The KP does not expire in 2012. It is not milk that carries a ‘best before’ label. Ten years ago, 37 more or less industrialised countries and economies in transition (Annex 1 Parties) agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 per cent below 1990 levels over a period of four years, starting in 2008. It is this commitment of Annex I Parties under the protocol that is expiring in 2012. The rest of the provisions of the protocol remain intact.

Parties to the protocol have been in heated discussions on subsequent commitments, and this is where developed countries have shied away from making adequate reduction commitments. The climate talks reached fever pitch in Barcelona recently, when the African Group threatened to walk out because of the failure by developed countries to make a commitment on figures for emission cuts.

The KP is a legal binding document and a major problem of it is that the United States abandoned it in 2001. The US is not interested in an internationally legally binding document hence chances that it will sign to the second commitment period of the KP are between slim and zero. Slim has gone out of town while zero is very much around. At the Bali climate meeting in 2007, it was thought that if the US did not return to the protocol, then it would be treated separately and dealt with under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which it is a member.

Other industrialised countries are giving signals that they want to join the US bandwagon and are therefore not interested in doing a second period of Kyoto. This has angered the G77 members and China. This bloc of developing countries has over 130 members and has called for respect of the Kyoto Protocol. They have gone so far as to suggest that Copenhagen will be ‘a disastrous failure if there is no outcome for the commitments of developed countries for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.’

Mithika Mwenda, the coordinator of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), argues that the causes and consequences of climate change lie principally with the developed countries: ‘We call on developed countries to acknowledge that they have used more than a fair and sustainable share of the Earth’s atmospheric space. They must repay their debt through deep domestic emission reductions and by transferring the technology and finance required to enable us to follow a less polluting pathway without compromising our development.’

It is not surprising that there has been a lot of agitation in Africa about climate change issues. The United Nations has identified 49 countries as being least developed countries based on three criteria: Low income, high economic vulnerability and weak human assets. Thirty-three of these countries are in Africa. In his welcome address at the opening ceremony of the Copenhagen Climate Change talks, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri pointed out that: ‘In Africa, by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to water stress due to climate change, and in some countries on that continent yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 per cent.’

Given that such serious issues are at stack, it is surprising that the much respected UNFCCC has been circulating fact sheets to the media and the public that border on falsehoods. One of the fact sheets states that: ‘The international community, in drawing up the broad parameters for a climate change deal in Bali two years ago, acknowledged that industrialised countries must accept binding emission reduction targets.’ According to PACJA this is not correct because the industrialised countries ‘were already committed to accept binding emission reduction targets through a second commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.’

Another fact sheet states that: ‘However despite the fact that key developed country forums such as the G8 have recognised a 2 degree celsius limit, pledges for mid-term targets by industrialised countries fall woefully short of the IPCC range (25 per cent to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020).’ This too boggles the mind, not least because the IPCC does not make any recommendations. In fact, many developing countries are calling for emission reductions of more than 85 per cent by 2050.

PACJA quite rightly contends that: ‘The 25 per cent to 40 per cent is not an IPCC range. The IPCC lead author has confirmed that the range is not a recommendation by IPCC. It is simply a summary of a small number of studies on burden sharing between developed and developing countries (most of which were conducted by authors employed or funded by EU institutions), which reflect the assumptions of those authors and their models...’.

Climate change is a long struggle and it is not going to be resolved at Copenhagen. What is disappointing is that the shenanigans of the World Trade Organisation are spilling into the climate talks. Divide and rule tactics are being used. Experienced Philippine negotiator Bernarditas de Castro Muller who was the spokesperson of G77 and China was dropped by the Philippines government from its list of delegates to the Copenhagen talks. No clear reasons were given for this action, although speculation abounds that this was at the behest of the EU and US. Muller has been the Philippines representative in the UNFCCC since 1994.

His exclusion has raised alarm with civil society organisations. Chito Tionko of the Civil Society Organizations (CSO) Working Group on Climate Change and Development has been quoted saying: ‘The negotiators of industrialised countries are really afraid of Ditas Muller, because she keeps reminding them of their responsibilities. They want her out of the picture so that they can push their own agenda. There are many developing countries that depend on Muller to defend their interests.’ It is these steamroller tactics that are so characteristic of the WTO talks that have been perfected in the climate talks. The Danes also stand accused of organising small unofficial selective meetings in very much the same way of the much condemned WTO Green rooms.

A deal that works is very important especially for Africa and international cooperation is needed for this. This is where the key issues of mitigation and adaptation come into play. Mitigation is about reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to avoid the worst impact of climate change. Adaptation is about how people adjust and cope with climate change. As a result of climate change, millions of people will face water and food shortages as well as health risks.

Former UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson argues that ‘while mitigation policies encouraging bio-fuel production may decrease emissions and bring benefits to certain farmers, they also reduce the land available for food cultivation and increase conflicts over land. Land scarcity translates to decreased food production, which leads to higher prices for staple foods putting communities at risk.’

Robinson goes on to say: ‘Adaptation policies may also have unintended human rights consequences, particularly for traditionally marginalised groups. As communities face increasing food security brought on by climate change, women will bear the brunt of the burden as they struggle to feed their families often compromising their own health and nutrition to do so.’

Questions have been raised on the role that the World Bank will play in receiving and distributing climate change funding. Without finance, Africa will find it next to impossible to deal with climate change. It is therefore important that funds are channelled inside the UNFCCC rather than the World Bank, given the latter’s chequered history in dealing with the socioeconomic development of Africa. If the World Bank controls the money, there is a real fear that most of it will go to mitigation and there will not be enough for adaptation which is really what is urgent for developing countries as they are already struggling with how to cope with climate change.

There is also the issue of technology transfer. This is important because reducing greenhouse gas emissions poses technical challenges for developing countries. This is why there is talk of developing climate friendly technology for mitigation and adaptation. However this will not mean much if intellectual property rights (IPR) are left intact. Technology transfer is nothing if IPRs are maintained. There is therefore a need to push for the relaxation of IPR rules for developing countries to fight the climate battle. Currently there is no structure in the UNFCCC dealing with technology transfer. They merely have an advisory group. It is therefore necessary to set up a body with policy-making powers to handle technology transfer issues. This body should among other things recommend what policy is needed on IPR. The overriding goal should be to treat IPRs in a manner that allows access to technology at affordable prices.

In the gospel of Matthew, Pharisees and Sadducees are rebuked because they know how to read the face of the sky but cannot read the signs of the times. It is important that Copenhagen reads the signs of the times and responds appropriately. The only problem as aptly argued by Professor Ernst Conradie is that: ‘politicians will be inclined to accept ecological suicide later more readily than political suicide now by proposing a stringent environmental deal.’

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Percy F. Makombe is the programmes manager of the Economic Justice Network (EJN) in Cape Town, South Africa.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.