Copenhagen Accord

The 193-nation Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (Dec.7-18) failed to come up with what the world had long expected, a legally binding Treaty, or even a Declaration with promise of Kyoto Protocol-II being drawn up in 2010. But its near collapse was averted with a five-nation "Copenhagen Accord" brokered by President Barack Obama - his probable first victory in the international arena - taking along China, the largest polluter, India, Brazil and South Africa. This has been acclaimed as a great breakthrough by these countries which held fast to their rigid positions and struck a last-minute compromise, which will be severely tested in the coming years. Both China and India joined the chorus of welcome.

The Accord, which was not endorsed by the most acrimonious UN Conference of recent times, has been promoted as laying the foundation for a binding agreement in the coming years. It does not refer to the UN proposal for a new Treaty under its Framework Convention in 2010. Overall, though both India and China have welcomed the Accord as significant and positive, the 12-day Copenhagen Conference merely "took note" of the development with a sense of betrayal of the interests of scores of countries under threat and most vulnerable to climate change.

The Obama Administration did come up with some new ideas to facilitate an understanding, other than any binding commitments, such as in the matter of financing and importantly found ways breaking the logjam over China’s objections to international verification as infringement of sovereignty. The Accord did not record any targets beyond the need to keep increase in global temperature below 2 degrees as dictated by science. While calling for cooperation in achieving peaking of global and national emissions "as soon as possible", it recognised that the time-frame for peaking would be longer in developing countries where social and economic development and poverty eradication are over-arching priorities.

The Accord has acknowledged the need for short-term financing of the order of 30 billion over the three years 2010-12 as well as for an international effort to mobilise 100 billion dollars by 2020. The financing with strings attached would be both for mitigation and adaptation and forestry in the context of assessments of national actions at both domestic and international levels.

The Accord omitted the earlier demand that all countries should accept 2050 as peaking year as developing countries did not have any firm commitments from the richer countries on their medium and mid-century targets. The big question now is how far the Obama Administration goes on the path laid out by the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012 whereas the Accord puts off an assessment of voluntary mitigation actions in 2015.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a qualified welcome, noted "finally there ia a deal". The ‘Copenhagen Accord’ may not be everything everyone had hoped for, "but this decision...is an important beginning.". He hoped the Accord would pave the way for a binding treaty as had been mooted till now at the next conference in Mexico in 2010. But the Accord does not set any date for a new Treaty and it remains an open question whether the Obama Administration would stand by the Kyoto Protocol, which the Bush regime had rejected. President Obama, who had talked of a "planet in peril" in his campaign for the Presidency, seized a role for American leadership in this 21st century challenge.

Significantly, the Accord talks of assessment of implementation of the Copenhagen Accord to be completed by 2015 including consideration of strengthening the long-term goal taking into matters presented by the science including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius. As of now, the targets on emission cuts by 2020 set at the country level are: European Union 20 per cent over 1990 levels, Japan 25 per cent and USA 3 to 4 per cent. (The US legislation pending in the Senate provides for 17 per cent cut over 2005 levels by 2020,42 per cent by 2030and 80 per cent by 2050). China has said it would reduce energy consumption per unit of output by 40-45 per cent by 2020 while India has indicated around 20 per cent by then.

US officials said the Accord which involves other leading economies would help in getting the climate legislation through Congress early in 2010.For President Obama, the Accord was "meaningful and unprecedented" as for the first time all major economies had come together to "accept their responsibility" to take action to confront the threat of climate change. It recognised the necessity of listing national actions and commitments in a "transparent way". USA had stuck to "transparency, mitigation and financing" as the essential elements for any deal and the President felt "the consensus will serve as foundation for global action to combat climate change for years to come".

China says the Accord recognises "common but differentiated responsibilities" set by the UN Framework Convention and the Bali Action Plan, binding cuts by developed countries and "voluntary mitigation actions" by developing countries. It lauds the "constructive" role of its Premier Wen Jiabao, notwithstanding the tensions generated and US insistence on "transparency" on which the other countries had to yield grudgingly.

The Accord omitted the earlier demand that all countries should accept 2050 as peaking year as developing countries did not have any firm commitments from the richer countries on their medium and mid-century targets. The big question now is how far the Obama Administration goes on the path laid out by the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012 whereas the Accord puts off an assessment of voluntary mitigation actions in 2015.

Environmentalists are angered by the meagre outcome of the Copenhagen Conference which concluded with what looks like a messy road map of future. It marked a dismal end to years of work so far under the UN Framework Convention with the expectation of Copenhagen providing the foundation for a legally binding Treaty being concluded in 2010. The Conference did not yield a credible action programme with operational targets and brings the curtain down on the historic responsibilities of industrial countries for the global warming. Developing countries are now brought into sharing responsibilities and would be required to go much farther than they are capable of at present in the face of a common danger for humanity.

Brokenhagen?

I must admit, COP15 was a grave disappointment. I left Copenhagen mid-way in the negotiations feeling frustrated and incredibly angry with the lack of progress made with so many hitches and delays. I agree that an agreement will be difficult to make under pressure in 2 weeks by all the nation of the world, but why is it easier to send soldiers to their death at war then to save millions of lives now and in the future?

Even President Barack Obama did not sound convinced and satisfied when he delivered his speech at his arrival in Denmark. In fact, it was one of his poorest attempts compared to all his other pledges. While it is not fair to expect President Obama to make or break the deal, it is disappointing how other world leaders think just that. When the US President officially announced that he would be attending the COP on the final day, other leaders such as Russian President Medvedev jumped on board.

I have been following my Climate Change Secretary of State, Ed Miliband, and he admitted that the process was incredibly frustrating, albeit long. Of course, we must be hopeful that all nations are responsible for formulating their own nation climate change plan, however an international accord must be implemented by 2011. The need for a climate change policy has been lobbied for over 15 years and we are running out of time to save small island states like the Maldives without it diminishing forever. Copenhagen is now deemed "Brokenhagen" instead of "Hopenhagen" which is such a shame.

Here is a summary video from UK Channel 4 News with the outcomes of COP15.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1529573111?bclid=57829472001&bctid=58184749001

Meeting Mayors and Governors

While I was reluctant that COP15 will be closed with a substantial agreement even before my arrival in Copenhagen, I at least hoped to meet a few established people in the world of politics. With a keen eye and acute hearing, I managed to meet ministers, governors, members of press and a small handful of Heads of States, including Danish Prime Ministers Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Swedish Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.

However, it was a great surprise to catch just before he fled to give his first speech at COP15. I also met with the Governor of California Arnold SchwarzeneggerMayor of London Boris Johnson at the main centre, asking him what his role in the negotiation is. His answer was something I expected, simply saying he was the Mayor of London and that was it, but he had high regards for his colleague Martin Powell, who I met in my very first side event at the Bella Centre.

It seems to me that the people I met all had distinct expectations from COP15, however even they themselves felt powerless in driving the negotiations forward. Whether you are an MP, Mayor or Governor, there was only so much they could do, other than rue the media for a pres conference about where the negotiations stand. It was surprising that they were almost in the same position as I was at COP15, which is not comforting.

[Top: Talyn Rahman with Boris Johnson]

A Copenhagen Accord has been instituted but members in developing countries are angered that nothing more concrete had been formulated during the conference. Nonetheless, I hope that all that participated in COP15 were able to take back valuable contacts and information to their home countries and build on Accord from a national level.

Oxfam International Climate Hearing

Copenhagen, Tuesday 15 December

At COP15, it is very easy to forget that climate change has a human moral aspect, affecting lives and killing people now. To bring light to climate devastation, Oxfam International brought together live testimonies from individuals living in Peru, Uganda, Bangladesh and Tuvalu.

[Top: Talyn Rahman with Archbishop Desmond Tutu]

I had the pleasure of meeting Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who congratulated us all for being present at COP15. “All of us are seeking to be heard,” he said, “Wherever you turn, wherever you walk, you are going to hear from people from every country on Earth and all have one simple goal - persuading people to listen to their story, listen to what to tell and having listened, act appropriately”. People throughout the world are in the frontline of climate change, and COP15 is a chance for them to amplify their voices in hope that leaders will make the right choice.

Listening to climate witnesses filled the audience with raw emotions. With melting glaciers, water everywhere is being contaminated by too much salt which is dangerous to drink and difficult to cultivate with. Cyclones destroy villages and unpredictable switches of drought and flood make it impossible for local communities to harvest. The indigenous people of Peru “beg industrialised countries to commit or diminish (our) emissions” with at least a 40% reduction starting from now. “COP15, never be afraid”, said Tuvalu, who is looking for leaders that cannot be bought or sold. Bangladesh wants to be compensated for the destruction climate change has caused on people who did very little to cause this.

[Top: Mary Robinson with COP15/UNFCCC Secretary-General Yvo de Boer and climate witnesses]

Climate change is not a numbers game but even developed countries are getting this wrong. Climate change, as viewed by Mary Robinson (Former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner), is undermining human rights, and failure to act by industrial countries will be catastrophic. As the Archbishop said, “no fair system will ever punish the innocent,” and vulnerable countries look at CO15 with hope which they can bring back with them when returning home.

The COP15 circus

Copenhagen, Tuesday 15 December

I am angry, frustrated and very disappointed. The restrictions being applied to entering the Bella Centre is becoming ludicrous to the point where 'real people' will no longer be able to participate. Since yesterday, delegates with accredited badges have struggled to enter Bella, queueing up for 4 hours before being turned away. Today, only 7000 Non-governmental (NG) participants have been given the all clear for entrance. Tomorrow, only a pitiful 1000 will be let in the final two days. NG delegates include members from businesses, civil society and, non-government organisations which make up the biggest percentage of delegation. Other badges include UN Observers, Inter-government, Press and Party Delegates. However, NG badge-holders will be completely cut from participating in the final day of COP15.

Climate change is a global problem effecting every individual from every nation, yet there seems to be no sense of solidarity within the COP itself. As I stated in my first report for COP15, I felt that side events hosted by NGOs had no correlation to the actual UN negotiations, ignoring work done on ground level and separating those with great expert knowledge from 'leaders' from both developed, developing and least developed countries from engaging in true dialogue. Wasn't the whole point of COP15 was to agree on an agreement upon a global discussion? Even party delegates are limited in entering the plenary consultations. UK MP Ed Miliband, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger all urged that world leaders are not left to their own device in punching out an agreement. Nonetheless, this exactly what is happening here. COP15 President, Connie Hedegaard had stated earlier that negotiations could not be done without civil society participants but we are being ushered back to our designated countries!

Having spoken to part delegates, it is a dismay to hear how slowly negotiation rounds have been. A delegate from Zambia was ashamed to say that no progress had been made yesterday and were forced to 'catch up' this morning. The feeling within the Bella Centre is that of anger, doom and gloom, and I am saddened that I will be leaving Copenhagen with such negative feelings. I only hope that developed industrialised nations lift their sleeves and finally act responsibly but I won't hold my breath.

Security tightened at the Bella Centre

Copenhagen, Tuesday 15 December

I woke up at 6am this morning knowing how much of a struggle it would be to enter the Bella Centre. Over the weekend, word went out that NGOs will be restricted and only those with special “observer status” passes would be through. Unfortunately, only 40% of NGO participants will have access in the remaining days of COP15, however I was lucky to get my hands on one, thanks to my executive member status in an international women’s organisation.

The queue for entrance at the Bella Centre was divided into 3 lines: NGO with badges, Press and Party, No . With a badge and pass, I was waiting approximately 40 minutes out in zero degree weather until I was finally let in. I sympathise with those with no badge at all. Some have been waiting since 6am and it seems that they will be waiting until all NGO, Party and Press with passes are through. The queue for no accreditation was the longest I have seen and I can imagine the line will only get longer. The Bella Centre is incredibly quiet, and side events rooms are almost vacant even with talks resuming this current moment.

Gender at COP15

Copenhagen, Tuesday 15 December

Overall at the COP15, it was very encouraging to see so many female delegates participating at all levels. Some had even brought their baby’s to the conference, proving that women can play a lead role in society while committing to her motherly duties. As an executive member for an international women’s organisation, I was particularly thrilled that the gender dimension in climate justice had been highlighted by so many delegates.

Effectively, women are agents of change in the fight for climate change. In the developing world, women represent two-thirds of people living in extreme poverty who are highly dependent on natural resources. In Africa, 80% of food is produced by women using resources harvested in local areas. Women also have duty of collecting water and firewood for cooking and heating purposes, yet due to drought, uncertain rainfall and deforestation, women have to travel further to meet their needs which leaves them vulnerable to rape or attack. Furthermore, women have little or no decision-making power in developing areas, therefore have no say within their communities.

Women are keepers of traditional knowledge and trainers to their children. Their responsibility to their household and community make them ideal stewards in adapting strategies in environmental measures. The active participation of women in the development of funding criteria and allocation of resources for climate change initiatives is critical, particularly at local level as women share information and influence female community processes.

At its 46th session in 2002, the Commission on the Status of Women took up climate change issues when it addressed environmental management and mitigation of natural disasters. Action was called to mainstream a gender perspective into ongoing research on the impact of climate change, which would be implemented in policies and programmes.

Just as the poor are not responsible for solving poverty, women are not alone in solving gender justice. It is crucial to identify gender-sensitive strategies in responding to environmental and humanitarian crises caused by climate change, and such vision should be promoted at national and international. Women continue to be underrepresented in decision-making on sustainable development including in climate change, thus gender must not be dismissed.

Women in Copenhagen, including myself, are fighting for gender justice in climate change areas, and empowerment to women must be given by enabling women to gain access to information, training, credit nd skill development through international program that ensures full participation in climate change initiatives.

Meeting Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chair

Copenhagen, Monday 14 December

At the COP15, youth delegates had the chance to ask the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who has a key position in the overall climate change negotiations at the conference. Dr. Pachauri informed that he should have been in Norway at President Obama's Nobel Prize ceremony, however decided to stay in Denmark to speak at events like this to encourage youth leadership for climate change, stating that "youth can bring change."

[Top: Talyn Rahman with Dr. Raj Pachauri]

Dr.Pachauri defended the work of the IPCC, in light of private emails - "Climate Gate" - being leaked into the press which could have potentially overshadowed the negotiations. All publishable statements are reviewed by experts line for line, including comments on websites and official reports such as the IPCC 4th Assessment addressing the scientific background on climate change. He highlighted concerns that the negotiations are losing focus on scientific evidence of climate change, as nations are close to sealing a 'politically binding agreement' as opposed to a 'legally binding agreement'. Nonetheless, developed countries are collectively agreeing on target emissions that are to be met by 2015.

He encouraged youth to keep on working and to be active back home, urging that politicians continue to work on climate change beyond election days whether or not the outcome of COP15 is satisfactory. Dr. Pachauri affirmed that hope is "what keeps us going. Hope is what brought you and other civil society groups here and created unprecedented awareness on climate change. We might not get a great deal, but let's not lose hope."

Chaos at the Bella Centre

Copenhagen, Monday 14 December

As we approach the final dates of the UN COP15, demand to enter the Bella Centre where the negotiations are taken have increased by triple amounts. This morning at 8.30am, queues to get into the centre was swarmed by delegates beyond the exit points of the train station. Delegates with no badge for entrance have been denied access, however even those with badges are finding it difficult to enter. As of tomorrow, only delegates with extra security passports will be allowed through. The number restrictions on NGOs have been applied due to high attendance of official governments and Heads of States like President Barack Obama, who will be present on the final day of the negotiations.

Luckily, I have been accredited extra security pass and will be able to report from within the centre tomorrow, however this scene is unfortunate for those who have been denied access today.

I have spoken to a party delegate from Mauritius who confirmed that negotiations for a two track agreement to safeguard the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Plan is well underway. The final days of COP15 will be crucial in agreeing at least a politically binding international treaty. Whether or not it will be legally binding is a concern to be followed, however official party delegates seem hopeful to secure something substantial.

Voice of the Indigenous People

Copenhagen, Saturday 12 December

Being at the COP15 has given me a great chance to meet people from countries that are truly suffering from the effects of climate change. As part of networking, I approached a few interesting looking people to ask what they think of the COP15. I met Hanak Tading and Santosh Patnik, who are representing indigenous people from the state of Oaissa in India.

They explained that 26% of the population belong to indigenous communities but are no longer unable to rely on resources in local villages due to the drastic change seen by climate change over the last 20 years. With globalisation moving into India, indigenous people are now forced to migrate to the city because corporations are destroying villages to make space for their work units. 327 villages have been destroyed and with the expansion of global consumerism, the numbers are feared to grow. Hanak and Santosh said they feel positive about COP15 as there is dialogue between developed and developing nations, however they blame very stringently on developed country in causing climate change.

Hanok and Santosh inspired me to learn more about indigenous rights, which invited me to attend a side event named “Indigenous and Community engagement in REDD”. REDD stands for the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD Programme) which aims to protect natural forests, restore degraded natural forests and support the rights and livelihood of indigenous people and their communities.

Chief Almir Surui from the Brazilian forest said that having watched the forest disappearing the last 40 years, they have taken matters into their own hands. The forest provides them with all resources to survive but its destruction is killing their “destiny”. In Bolivia, there are 34 different indigenous communities who have their own language and culture. 10 years, the Chief Surui had brought out dialogue to retain their rights but before engaging in dialogue with the outside world, they had to obtain scientific knowledge of their way of living. The partnership with science had shown his people ‘climate change’ and the effect it was having on them.

Using REDD, the chief was able to form partnerships with developed nations as part of a carbon project. Over 980,000 inhabitants are part of the international context on Bolivian indigenous rights protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN-DRIP). Successful implementation of REDD shall strengthen local capabilities on integral management territory, promote local management, obtain a fair and equitable mechanism, compensate funds to promote adaptation and local development, and monitor/control the situation.

Google and the Carnegie Institute of Science have joined force to developing a program that shows the process of deforestation and monitoring illegal logging on Google maps. The program highlights areas affected by deforestation via satellite imagery and visual log-books from local indigenous people. The Google program most certainly empowers indigenous communities as it allows them to share their information to the world, which may decrease illegal logging of the forest. The launch is yet to be set but people within these communities have already been trained with the program.

Carbon Storage and Nuclear Energy is NOT the answer

Copenhagen, Saturday 12 December

Having attended two events related to potential solutions to carbon emissions, I am feeling more determined that vast financial investment is being burnt ineffectively. Lund University hosted “Carbon capture and storage” looking into new research directions on the politics, promises and pitfalls of this new technology, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) made the case of “False promises of nuclear energy”.

An important component of mitigating climate change is finding solutions to replace fossil fuels to help reduce carbon emissions. Carbon storage and capture technology (CCS) is an emerging technology to capture carbon in the air to stabilise CO². The technology is not fully developed and has high costs not only in its initial R&D but in building and implementing the technology. CCS is put forward as a possible solution in developed countries that are locked in the fossil fuel system, however the views panellists presented had convinced me that developing this technology is eating away precious financial resources. CCS will only encourage developed countries to stay locked in a fossil fuel system and cannot benefit society until as late as 2030. Moreover, there is already public concern and scepticism to CCS and transparency of negative aspects of the technology may further drive a gap between public discourse and CCS discourse.

Panellists argued that CCS could be coupled with bio-CCS to help prevent reinforced fossil fuel lock in. In Dr. Asbjorn Torvanger’s (CICERO) point of view, carbon price is more important than the cost of CCS but phasing in CCS will take time. CCS is not a competitive mitigation policy and while the technology is not fully developed, financial resources could be steered towards renewable energy projects. Prof. Philip J. Vergragt (Tellus Institute) stated that out of 1200 scientific articles written on CCS, 40-50 articles mentioned fossil fuel dependency with no mention of renewable energy. Therefore, is there any point in developing a highly expensive technology that doesn’t capture even 90% when money could be going to projects that develop renewable technology for long-term potential?

Nuclear energy is another hot topic discussed by Heads of States as a latent source to replace fossil fuels. Panellists invited by WILPF made compelling arguments for the human aspect of nuclear energy, exploring health issues transmitted from nuclear radiation. It is a concern that the UK government is considering nuclear energy in order to move away from French energy dependency. However, the negative health implications from using nuclear energy are highly unforeseen. Panellists from Russia, US, Kazakhstan and Kurdistan shared stories of how women are giving birth to mutated children, and these genes are being passed on from generation to generation. No-one is taking responsibility for these defects and no legislations are in place to ensure safety or provide benefits beyond $2 per day to those who are already affected. It is worrying that the President Sarkozy of France is touring around the world to promote nuclear energy as a climate change solution. Civil society must take a stance to address issues felt by people and we must ensure that nuclear energy is approved in the COP15 negotiation.

Following the WILPF event, an argument broke out between women who presented these cases and a representative from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who argued that nuclear energy is a way forward. Public opinion raised from this outbreak showed consensus against nuclear energy, however I fear that COP15 holds a high number of nuclear energy lobbyists that could potentially encourage the use of nuclear as a mitigation tool.

As a UK WILPF delegate, I was interviewed by a journalist from Belarus to give a statement on WILPF’s view on nuclear coupled with climate change, the UK stance on nuclear energy and the work I am doing in London.