Conclusion

THE United States was deemed as a “stumbling block” during the Bangkok talks on climate change—the second to the last of run-up forums leading to Copenhagen—in early October as it was unable to present concrete figures in terms of financing and emission-reduction targets.

  US negotiators were constrained by a pending climate-change bill in the US Congress that is not expected to be passed in time for the Copenhagen talks.   Amid such criticism, US chief negotiator Jonathan Pershing asserted that “the United States is committed to a deal in Copenhagen”—a comforting assurance, since no deal could prosper in Copenhagen without the superpower.

“We’re working hard both here, as well as at home in Washington, to line things up so this is a decisive step toward meeting the objective of the UNFCCC,” Pershing told reporters.

He enumerated what he called an “impressive array of measures” of the Obama administration, among them, the US Environmental Protection Agency announcement that it will work toward regulating emissions from stationary sources that emit at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Another is an executive order that sets sustainability goals for federal agencies.

Among the US proposals in Bangkok is a fund “that would serve as an operating entity under the convention as part of a broader financial mechanism, an approach that would allow us to substantially scale up US support and international support in ways that would also continue to provide both efficiency and accountability.”

It also proposed “a new entity to actively match the actions that countries want funding for with sources of finance, a new matching function” and a “hubs-and-spokes technology arrangement” that would provide developing countries with a new level of expertise and assistance and help them accelerate the uptake of technology.

“For developing countries, we are proposing to fully finance these arrangements. These proposals would contribute to what we believe to be the core of the deal,” Pershing said.

From the US perspective, the deal would be for developed countries to lead in the global effort by committing to national major emissions reductions in the near term, and largely decarbonizing their economies by 2050.

He said major and advanced developing economies—a term that applies to China and India—are expected to undertake quantifiable national emission reductions that are below business as usual in the midterm, and stressed that smaller and less advanced developing countries are not expected to have specific emissions-reduction commitments  in the near term.

Pershing added that there must be “arrangements that enable the most vulnerable countries to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and we must make adaptation an inherent part of their broader strategies.”

He stressed the need “to find a balance among the diverse perspectives and the interests of parties, and we must be respectful of the legitimate constraints that every party brings to the table. This is going to require a great deal of work, but also pragmatism and creativity.”

The US, he said, has an “alternative vision which I think will do a great deal to  answer the  questions of how you solve a global problem but we have made a determination that we won’t be able  to become a party to the Kyoto Protocol.”

Bernardita de Castro Muller, a climate-change advisor of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and coordinator for the G77 and China Group in the climate-change talks, said the proposals of developed countries so far “are really way too inadequate for what they should do according to science, given their historical responsibilities.” While they account for only 20 percent of the world’s population, developed nations are responsible for 80 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions.

“This is a science-based convention.... This is not the global market. This is a convention where science has defined the problem, assessed the problem and said you must address it,” she said.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global emissions must peak in 2015 and be reduced by 50 percent to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the catastrophic impact of climate change.

Muller said that in her view, the US proposals are “not in accordance” with the convention “because they are not meeting their commitments for providing the financial commitments under the convention.”

She stressed: “The global fund they are talking about is only going through some kind of traffic policeman. You want money? Go there. He [Pershing] called that ‘matching.’ You need technology? I know where you can get a loan. He is just a traffic policeman. That is what he calls a ‘hub,’” she said, adding that the US-proposed hub-and-spokes technology arrangement is also accompanied by conditionalities such as performance standards.

She added that US negotiators used the term “lenders” to refer to financing sources for developing countries in adapting to climate change.

“There is no donor money in a convention. There is no development aid in a convention. There is no bilateral assistance in a convention. These are all commitments because they are responsible for this problem. Some call it climate debt. I would not go so far. But I would say that there are responsibilities for helping the people,” she said.

Muller said that under the convention, “the extent to which developing counterparts will effectively implement their commitments depends on the effective implementation by developed counterparts of their commitments under the convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology, and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first.”

That is clear, according to her. “We will do what we must do. We are not running away from our commitments. But they should do what they should do: Deeper cuts, provision of new and additional financial resources and not ODA.”

In the negotiations on finance, negotiators of developed countries asked her, “What about the money of our taxpayers?” to which she retorted, “You want to give them to the CEOs?” referring to government bailout packages at the height of the global economic crisis.

Muller also noted that developed countries have been undertaking “divide and rule” tactics. She said some of their negotiators went to the Philippines and told her that her country is “vulnerable” to climate change.

“I said, why are we vulnerable? I wasn’t told that I will be helped because I’m very vulnerable. What I was told is that if there are many countries that are vulnerable, China and India should be pushed to commit to targets,” Muller said, adding that she was enraged by the suggestion as she is a coordinator for G77 and China.

South Centre executive director Martin Khor also noted a similar attempt by developed countries to split developing countries by creating new categories such as “advanced developing countries,” which are to be subject to emission-reduction targets and would get “little global public funds”; and “especially vulnerable countries,” which are to be promised global funding. Khor said the criteria for such categories are arbitrary and have not been agreed upon.

With just five negotiating days left in Barcelona next month, and with such a wide gap between developed and developing countries, is there reason to hope for success in Copenhagen?

Executive Secretary Yvo De Boer of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said, “All the ingredients for success [in Copenhagen] are on the table, and what we must do now is to step back from self-interests and let common interests prevail.”

“In Bangkok negotiators have shown rapid progress on concrete ways to implement  the mandate but there are still some long-held differences. And now it’s urgent that governments bridge the disconnect and raise ambition,” he said.

Malta’s Ambassador for Climate Change Michael Zammit Cutajar, who also chairs the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, said he felt that developed countries need “to make clearer what they are looking for out of the agreement,” but, at the same time, noted that “there will be no deal unless it’s clear what the developing countries would be prepared to contribute in terms of mitigation action, subject to availability of enabling support.”

Despite obstacles in the negotiations, Ambassador Lumumba D’ Aping of Sudan, chairman of the G77 and China Group, said, “We will do our best to advance and make progress in the negotiations in Barcelona and we ask developed countries to live up to their commitments and their leadership role, which is necessary if we are going to make any progress in addressing climate change.”

Civil-society representatives in the Philippine delegation said it is frustrating that there were no actual negotiations in Bangkok on key issues, but are looking forward to the Barcelona negotiations leading up to Copenhagen.

“These negotiations have closed with a sad note in the plenaries but with the hope that in Barcelona, the G77 and China and the Philippines will remain strong in [their] unity to defend their positions and to push for the fair and ambitious deal that would press the developed countries to be faithful in their commitments to help the developing countries and to significantly reduce their emissions at the appropriate time,”  said Myke Magalang, executive director of the Marinduque Council for Environmental Concerns.

Andres Tionko, executive director of the Panay Rural Development Center Inc., said the Barcelona talks would test the strength and unity of the G77 and China Group.

“For sure there are bilateral negotiations that are happening and will happen on the way to Copenhagen and during Copenhagen and from there, you can test whether the G77 and China would resist that diplomatic onslaught,” Tionko said.

Muller said developing countries continue to “hope for the best because we have no choice. We are going to put concrete proposals on the table to adaptation and mitigation, financing, technology. We have put them out already a year ago. And at least in Bangkok we have started to negotiate it, identify our options. When we reach Barcelona, let’s negotiate. We are not afraid to negotiate. We are in the right,” she said.