What was hoped for in Doha? What was accomplished?
Early on in Qatar,
we didn’t yet have a good sense about what would or wouldn’t happen at the
high-level negotiations this time around – a full two decades after the
development of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. However, there was growing consensus on a
wish list of outcomes being discussed over coffee and in the hallways, showing
up in NGO publications being distributed at the convention center, and in
various online blog posts. Since I now
have some time between semesters to reflect on the conference and read details
of the Doha agreement and several analyses, I will summarize the outcomes for a
few of the key issues from that wish list.
Keeping
the U.S. engaged in the UNFCCC process:
A little
over a week before COP18 commenced, The
Guardian reported that the U.S. was considering shifting climate change policy
discussions into the Major Economies Forum (MEF). In reality, that shift had already
begun. Formed in March, 2009, the MEF is
comprised of 17 countries and “…is intended to facilitate a candid dialogue
among major developed and developing economies, help generate the political
leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the annual UN climate
negotiations, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint
ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas
emissions.” I was surprised to learn that dialog amongst
the MEF members actually began under the Bush Administration through the Major
Economies Meetings on Energy Security and Climate Change.
While many
see the MEF as an attempt to undermine or circumvent the UNFCCC process, the countries
represented account for about 85% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Significantly, the U.S., China, and India –
none of which are parties to the Kyoto Protocol – are at the MEF table. Many countries look to the U.S. for
leadership in forging a global long-term agreement aimed at significantly
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing to innovative new
technologies, and providing funds for adaptation. Thus, they also hope that the U.S. will continue
to work within the U.N. framework for negotiations instead of initiating a
parallel (or rival) track of multilateral discussions with only select
countries. Some of the concerns about
the MEF process are discussed in The Guardian article (see reference 1). Interestingly, the UNFCCC process of
operating by consensus has been formally challenged at the last to COP
meetings. The author of article in The Guardian, Arthur Neslen, noted that this alternative forum
could “demote the UNFCCC to a forum for discussing the monitoring, reporting
and verification of emissions reductions projects.” But the reliance on consensus of all UNFCCC
parties has been a significant hurdle in developing formal agreements that
would yield the type of policy changes needed to address global climate
instability and its associated problems.
The term
“demote” used by Mr. Neslen is a strong word to choose, and his remark focuses
only on mitigation. There were other key
issues on the table at COP18 (and previous COP meetings) that are also within
the U.N. framework including adaptation, promoting sustainable development with
low-carbon/green technologies, and compensation for loss and damage related to
climate change. Not surprisingly, the
question of who is liable for past emissions and the concomitant problems these
greenhouse gases can cause around the planet is one that is more likely to be a
U.N. issue than an MEF one.
Financing
“clean” development and adaptation:
We already
have seen that the developed and wealthiest nations have been slow to
contribute to the climate finance fund (Fast Track Finance) agreed to at the
2009 climate conference (COP15) in Copenhagen.
By May of 2012, less than 80% of the $30 billion goal had been met, and
the U.S. and European Union, both major economies participating in MEF, had
committed half or less than half of their fair share. Only about one-fifth of this amount supports
adaptation in developing countries, despite the major emphasis on adaptation-related
topics in Doha (a sign of the acceptance of the lack of timely progress in the
negotiations process). And despite the
agreements, much of these funds are in the form of loans rather than debt-free
grants, and only about one-third of the contributions represented actual new
money.
Despite the underwhelming
record on Fast Track Finance, there was hope that COP18 would yield increased
financial contributions and commitments for the Green Climate Fund and
Technology Mechanism, but again, little progress was made. This concept was developed at COP16 in Cancun
and some details about the funding mechanism clarified in Durban last
year. The goal for this adaptation fund
is to have $100 billion contributed per year beginning in 2020. A bit more than $10 million was committed for
operational costs and some logistics of
managing the fund were discussed, but questions and inconsistencies related to
measuring, tracking, and reporting climate finance remain unresolved. A major concern is that the Fast Track Finance
program expired at the end of 2012, and there is no clear plan for interim
funding over the next eight years until the implementation of the Green Climate
Fund in 2020. A few countries did agree
to continue to provide some financing for developing nations through 2015.
Extreme
weather events in 2012 in the U.S. alone provide stark reminders that the
dollar amounts discussed for adaptation (or used as reasons for not reducing
greenhouse gas emissions) pale in comparison to current and future costs of
loss and damage resulting from storms, droughts, fires, and other such events. In late November, New York alerted Washington
that it needs over $33 billion for damages and cleanup from Hurricane Sandy and
$9 billion for adaptation to protect transportation systems, the power grid,
and sewage and water supplies when future storms strike. New Jersey’s needs are likely to be around
$29 billion. And this price tag of over $70 billion
represents only two of the states that were impacted by the historic
storm. As of January 9th
(more than 2 months after Hurricane Sandy), only $9.7 billion in aid has been
approved by Congress.
A short news
piece from New Year’s Eve indicated that there were 11 weather/climate
disasters in 2012 in the U.S. This number seems low given the recent winter
storms that spawned record numbers of December tornadoes in many different
southern states, but regardless, disasters in 2012 other than Hurricane Sandy
and the extreme drought in the Midwest cost the country more than a billion
dollars. And this doesn’t begin to put a
price on suffering and loss of human life. Predictions are that the costs for disasters
will continue to climb as discussed in an earlier post. The price mechanisms for fossil fuel
extraction, processing and use do not take into account the full social and
environmental costs of these operations. The COP18 discussions on loss and damage
perhaps represent small steps in putting such externalities on the negotiations
table. Not surprisingly, the U.S. is
strongly opposed to compensation for climate change-related loss and damage,
and in Doha, reportedly blocked all language that implied compensation or
liability.
Keeping
the Kyoto Protocol alive:
The Kyoto
Protocol is the only existing legally binding international agreement
pertaining to climate change policy. Going
into COP18, there was particular concern given to this agreement given that the
first commitment period would expire at the end of 2012. Civil society wanted foremost a second
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, but also an agreement that included
more aggressive GHG emission reduction targets, would remove loopholes, and
included all developed countries.
According to
UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres:
A key achievement of
COP 18 was the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. This means that the
important accounting and environmental rules of the only existing
international, legally-binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are
preserved.
Indeed, a second commitment period (KP2) was agreed to;
however, the key parties that signed on to this only contribute 15% of global
emissions. Canada, Japan, Russia, and New
Zealand did not recommit to a second period, and of course, the U.S. was not a
signatory of the original KP agreement. China, India, Russia, and Brazil, were not
originally designated Annex I countries, so were exempt from the greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets of the original Kyoto Protocol. Given their
collective contribution to carbon emissions and their growing population and
economies, omission of these countries has been a particular point of
contention for the United States.
The non-KP2 parties can participate in Clean Development
Mechanisms, but cannot trade “units” or emission allowances within KP programs. The 2012 agreement features an “ambition
trigger, which requests that KP2 Parties revisit and increase their commitments
by 2014 (rather than 2015) in line with the 25-40% emissions reductions called
for by the IPCC 4th
Assessment Report.” Many feel that the reduction goals should be
more aggressive, but were relieved that some form of an international agreement
was salvaged in Doha.
Building on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP):
A new
negotiated long term agreement that built on the Durban Platform from COP17 was
a major goal going into Doha, even though much concern has been expressed that
any plan that delays implementation until 2020 is problematic. A goal of ADP is to limit global temperature
increases to less than 2∘C, but currently models are suggesting that
we are tracking toward a 4∘C increase. Given the urgency suggested by the latest
scientific data, many believe that aggressive mitigation actions are needed now. In
the first post I wrote immediately prior to leaving for Qatar, I mentioned the
World Bank report entitled Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4 Degree Centigrade Warmer World
Must be Avoided. This report, from an unlikely source, was
mentioned many times during COP18.
At the end
of COP18, two negotiations tracks (working groups) – Kyoto Protocol and the
Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) – came to an end. Moving forward, negotiations will now take
place within the ADP track. Later, I
note a few perspectives on the overall outcomes of Doha, but for now, I include
a comment from the ever-optimistic Christiana Figueres about the progress on
the Durban Platform:
Significant
groundwork was laid for the universal 2015 agreement that will enter into force
in 2020. At the same time, governments agreed to work intensively to find ways
to curb emissions before 2020, which is crucial for the world to be able to
stay below the agreed maximum 2°C temperature rise. ….Much work remains to be
done, but the conference achieved what it set out to do. Now it is a matter of
accelerating the pace of climate action on the part of governments and by all
of society.
The
fate of forests and oceans:
Over the
past four years, I have been surprised at the relative lack of consideration of
the ecological impact of climate change at COP meetings. Some ecological issues are raised by civil
society in side events and at NGO booths in the exhibition halls. This year, however, the representation from
conservation groups was noticeably reduced.
I realize that there are other forums where the focus is on
conservation, biodiversity, and the status of the key ecosystems. But it seems to me that protecting the planet
(and not just people and economies) should also be a major part of the
discussions on climate change policy.
The
protection of forests is discussed because of their role in contributing to
greenhouse gas emissions and because of the carbon sequestration role that they
play. Deforestation is believed to
account for somewhere between 15 to 20% of global carbon emissions, thus, the
topic of reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)
continues to be discussed in negotiations.
But, as with many other topics, the unresolved technical issues and need
for clarification of financing programs remain unresolved after Doha. A major disagreement, that publicly appeared
to be between mainly Brazil and Norway, is whether monitoring should be
conducted by external groups or by representatives from the country where a
forest in a REDD+ program is located. Interestingly, Norway has spent close to a
billion dollars to develop REDD+ as a carbon market mechanism. As I have written about previously,
REDD+ has been controversial, especially for indigenous groups who view carbon
markets (i.e. “protection” of their forests as carbon sinks) as a new form of
colonialism.
But as was
the case for conservation groups at COP18, there was relatively little
representation from the NGOs representing the indigenous voices in Doha. There was one notable speech on the topic that
came from Bolivia’s Minister of Environment and Water, Jose
Antonia Zamora Gutierrez:
We denounce to the whole world
the pressure from some countries for the approval of new carbon market
mechanisms, although these have shown to be ineffective in the fight against
climate change, and that only represent business opportunities. This is a climate
change conference, not a conference for carbon business. We did not come here
to do business with the death of Mother Earth betting on the power of markets
as a solution. We are here to protect our Mother Earth, we came here to protect
the future of humanity.
Yesterday forests were turned
into carbon markets businesses, and the same was done with the land, they tried
to oceans and, worse, to agriculture. Agriculture is food security, employment,
life, and culture. Agriculture is along with the land, mountains and forests,
the house and the food of our indigenous and peasant communities.
We will not allow the replacement
of the obligations of developed countries with carbon markets. The planet is
not for sale, nor our life.
A slightly
more positive post-COP18 spin on the status of REDD+ was written for REDD-Net
by Emily Brickell, Senior Research Officer, Forests and Land Use, ODI.
As the Doha negotiations took
place, news broke of Norway depositing a further $180 million into Brazil’s
Amazon fund in response to a drop in Brazil’s deforestation for the third year
running; while the UK, Norway, US, Germany and Australia issued a joint
statement reaffirming their commitment to working together to achieve REDD+.
She goes on
to note that
…there has been increasing
recognition of the need to focus on the
drivers of deforestation to deliver REDD+ and, with that, recognition that
this means looking beyond the “forest sector” to consider forests as part of a
wider landscape (as can be seen in the shift from CIFOR’s forests day to the
future focus on landscapes). And this shift in thinking reflects the paradigm
shift needed in countries to deliver REDD+. Rather than a discrete project with
clear boundaries, REDD+ requires a change in mindset about the role of forests
and wider land use to meet development needs and achieve environmental
sustainability [emphasis
added].
Currently,
there isn’t a “carbon market” to help focus conversations on the protection of
our oceans. Despite serious concerns
related to ocean acidification and the implications of lower pH and higher
temperatures in the ocean on species ranging from corals to fish, I saw only
one organization in Doha trying to call attention to these matters – the
Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML). This organization
“undertakes leading international research to respond to societal needs and to
promote stewardship of the world ocean.” The absorption of excess carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere and the impacts of climate change are viewed as significant
threats to ocean biogeochemical cycles and species that depend on the oceans,
including humans. A major goal of PML is
to make science accessible to a wide audience.
The negotiators within the UNFCCC process should take note of their
extensive scientific reports, and more importantly, what those reports are
telling us. (A special shout out and
thanks to Dr. Carol Turley of PML for all the great materials she provided for
me to bring back to my students and her passion and sincere concern for the
fate of the oceans.)
Gender
balance and gender-smart policies:
I am not
sure that headed to Qatar, anyone predicted that so much attention would be
focused on women and gender-issues associated with climate change. I already wrote about the first COP Gender
Day and some of the issues of concern, so won’t repeat myself here.
But a quick update on what was dubbed the “Doha Miracle” by Christiana
Figueres: the language to strengthen
women’s representation within the COP proceedings was adopted. A good summary of why this is significant has
been written by Mary Robinson, whose foundation helped spearhead this
initiative. Having greater participation of women in the
negotiations process is a significant step in developing gender-smart policy
decisions that impact the people who aren’t in the air-conditioned convention
centers negotiating the climate change issues.
Moving
forward?
As always
seems to be the case after a COP meeting, there is much discussion amongst
analysts and within civil society circles as to the future of the UNFCCC
process. While little coverage of the
conference appeared in the U.S. media, commentary appearing in international
outlets was rather negative. One
representative comment came from an opinion piece in Outreach Magazine
published by the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future: “The Doha package is not controversial as it is devoid of
content.” A rather realistic assessment of the process
did appear in what I refer to as the “alternative press” from this country; in Yes magazine, Jim Schultz noted that
“A truly binding commitment on
carbon emissions would require that the major carbon polluting countries in the
world—the United States, China, India, and others – effectively surrender some
measure of their sovereignty (over energy policy, for example). To
believe that they will ever do so is, unfortunately, a fantasy.”
However, on a
more optimistic note, he also discusses the “importance of moving these fights
to the fields of battle where citizen action stands the best chance of winning.” It is on these local fronts that we must
continue to work – be it through education, pressure on politicians, or
activism of other forms. And despite
frustration with the lack of progress, I agree with Christiana Figueres when
she says that the UNFCCC process, while not perfect, is the best we have. And so I will continue to be a voice calling
for action to address climate change and to support a multilateral negotiations
process through the United Nations that addresses mitigation, adaptation, and
financial and technical assistance to the poor and still-developing
nations. How else can we begin to
consider a sustainable future?
Oh, and yes,
I plan to be at COP19 next fall in Warsaw.
International Institute for
Environment and Development Briefing (November 2012) The Eight Unmet
Promises of Fast-Start Climate Finance, available at http://pubs.iied.org/17141IIED.html.
New York Times editorial, “Hurricane Sandy’s Rising Costs”, 27
November 2012; available at
Profile: Christiana Figueres,
Interview in Outreach Magazine,
December 2012.
Profile: Christiana Figueres,
Interview in Outreach Magazine,
December 2012.
Smith, T. “What Next for REDD+
Following Doha Disappointment?” 21 December 2012, RTCC.
Robinson, M. “Lessons from a Gender COP”, Outreach Magazine, December 2012
MartÃn Murillo, L., “Doha COP 18: another example
of lack of responsibility”, Outreach
Magazine, December 2012
