Suzanna on COP15, Copenhagen

This week I thought it’d be a great chance to give you all a bit of context to this blog. Every week, a delegate will be submitting a post about what’s on their mind that week. Last week, we had Kirk, one of our great co-convenors with his fabulous discussion of Grassroots Environmental Action for the 21^st Century (Thanks Kirk!). This week it’s up to me …

As you may already know, the New Zealand Youth Delegation is split into three essential teams: Communication, Engagement and Policy. Each team has their own goals and key performance indicators (KPIs) and are made up of individuals with their own unique and fairly awesome talents. I’m a member of the Policy Team alongside Jessie and Rachel. One of our key goals is to create resources to inform NZYD and any others interested as to how UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) negotiations operate, their history, and where negotiations are currently up to. So that, dear friends is what this post is going to be about today. In order to understand the possibilities of COP16 in Cancun, we need to take a step back and think about what happened at the last Big C, Copenhagen, and what it meant for the world, New Zealand and me, and where it fits in with the Bali Roadmap.

Drum roll please – Taking into account I wasn’t there, and have a overwhelming fear of acronyms, the following is an attempt to equip both you and I with that information…

COPENHAGEN 2009 The 15^th Conference of the Parties (COP15)

1. 1. What was MEANT to happen in Copenhagen ?

The purpose of COP15 was to create a comprehensive, legally-binding international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol was made in 1997 and aims to reduce the total greenhouse gas emissions of developed countries (and countries with economies in transition) to 5 per cent below the level they were in 1990. Different countries have different targets to achieve (Want more on Kyoto? Check out: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf for the full text and good luck to you).

THE PLAN:

In December 2007, The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali resulted in the adoption of the Bali Road Map, which outlined the progress required in replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new post-2012 agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.

“The Bali Road Map divides the negotiations into two tracks: the Ad-hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA). The AWG-KP works on future commitments of Parties listed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol, while the AWG-LCA works on a broad negotiation under the UNFCCC involving all countries (developed and developing) on matters relating to the Bali Action Plan. The Bali Action Plan includes developing a shared vision, including a long-term global goal and looks at ways to enhance mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance in the context of addressing climate change.”

Cheers to NZ’s own Ministry for the Environment for that information, and for also providing a really good summary linking Kyoto to the Copenhagen Accord to the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Ooh wait but what are Annex I parties right? (that’s what I said anyhow). Well, the United Nations Convention on Climate Change divides countries into three main groups according to their differing commitments:

Annex I

Parties include the industrialized countries that were members of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) in 1992, plus countries with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), including the Russian Federation, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States.

i.e. those parties already committed to the Kyoto Protocol are under the AWG-KP. A list can be found here: and we’re one ! Yay us !

Annex II

Parties consist of the OECD members of Annex I, but not the EIT Parties. They are required to provide financial resources to enable developing countries to undertake emissions reduction activities under the Convention and to help them adapt to adverse effects of climate change. In addition, they have to “take all practicable steps” to promote the development and transfer of environmentally friendly technologies to EIT Parties and developing countries. Funding provided by Annex II Parties is channelled mostly through the Convention’s financial mechanism.

Non-Annex I Parties are mostly developing countries. Certain groups of developing countries are recognized by the Convention as being especially vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, including countries with low-lying coastal areas and those prone to desertification and drought. Others (such as countries that rely heavily on income from fossil fuel production and commerce) feel more vulnerable to the potential economic impacts of climate change response measures. The Convention emphasizes activities that promise to answer the special needs and concerns of these vulnerable countries, such as investment, insurance and technology transfer.

i.e. The Annex I, Annex II, and Non-Annex I countries are all working together under the AWG-LCA.

SO back to what was expected from COP15: a comprehensive, legally-binding international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.  This, however, seemed less and less likely to happen as COP15 got closer and closer. As the Climatico Post-Copenhagen Report so excellently puts it:

“It has been clear for some time that such an agreement would not materialise in Copenhagen as a result of the ongoing contention associated with many of the issues on the negotiating table.

Widely disputed aspects of a deal include:

• Levels of climate finance and its long-term governance
• Discussions around targets for emissions reduction
• The threshold at which to limit average global temperature increase
• The introduction of a brand new treaty, or upgrade of the existing Kyoto Protocol

Early negotiations in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference highlighted the lack of progress in reaching a unanimous agreement on how to tackle climate change, suggesting that the negotiations in Copenhagen may instead provide us with a strong political agreement or framework, which could then be turned into a legal treaty by mid-2010. With the expectations for a legally-binding agreement lowered, Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, outlined five essentials for success in Copenhagen.

So the world entered COP15 with HOPE that the outlined areas of dispute could be resolved and agreement made on the following: the method of governance for an agreed level of climate finance could be chosen; a new target for emissions reduction set; and a critical threshold of average global temperature rise selected; such that a new international treaty could be signed off on in mid 2010 (perhaps at a 2010 Bonn Conference).

1. 2. What actually HAPPENED at Copenhagen?

Basically: not much. Skimming over the negotiations themselves – which seem fairly chaotic and very complicated – COP15 resulted in the Negotiations under the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA tracks being extended from COP15 to the COP16 in Mexico in November 2010. Compared to the criteria for success we’ve outlined, this means that none of the disputed issues were fully resolved, and no international political framework, agreement or agenda for reaching a new treaty was made. The one thing the delegates did agree to take note of was The Copenhagen Accord (Drum roll please).

The Copenhagen Accord was formed by a last minute, behind the scenes negotiation between Brazil, China, India, South Africa and the United States, and is considered to be a step towards a new international agreement to replace the Kyoto protocol. There was some controversy over the last minute and ‘back-room’ nature of the Accord, however all parties present at the conference did agree to it. The official report on COP15 by the UNFCCC (United Nations Forum for Climate Change) is here and includes the full text of the Copenhagen Accord.

The Accord is broader than the Kyoto Protocol as it is supported by countries responsible for around 80% of the world’s emissions. The accord recognises that a maximum of 2 Degree Celsius is the maximum allowable average global temperature rise, but does not identify an accompanying emissions reduction. The Accord is not legally binding and establishes no framework on which to develop the Kyoto Protocol in t he future. The accord does provide for assistance to developing countries of US$30 billion over 2010-12, and commits to a “goal” of US$100 billion a year by 2020. This translates to a little under $200 million for NZ. This money is intended for mitigation, adaptation and climate financing to “enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention”. An assessment of the Accord is not required to be completed until 2015.

NOTE: From our No Acronym Left Behind Education Program (NAL-BEP, The full document of which will be released at a later date), REDD+ is an acronym for a mechanism discussed at COP15 which calls for reducing emissions from deforestation, land degradation, through conservation, sustainable forest management, and forest carbon stock enhancement.

But wait, I want to know more…

There are a number of opinion blogs out there on COP15, the Accord, and both of their successes and failures. Here’s a few choice ones:

NZ’s own Stuff with a message of hope and a good break down of AWG-KP and AWG-LCA without actually using an acronyms at all: http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/3196724/The-Christmas-lesson-from-Copenhagen

Geoff Keey with a breakdown on the negotiations preceding the Accord and more:

http://www.signon.org.nz/blog/anatomy-of-failure

Already mentioned – decently long report, with a really good intro into COP15 from Climatico Analysis: http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/post-cop15-report52.pdf

Thomas Spencer on the good and bad aspects of the Accord and the issues it doesn’t resolve:  http://www.upi-fiia.fi/en/blog/247/achievements_and_failures_of_copenhagen/

Gareth Renowden on COP15: http://hot-topic.co.nz/copenhagen-closes-too-little-too-late/

Cimate Finance and COP15 from the International Institute for Environment and Development: http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/17071IIED.pdf

1. 3. What does this mean to NZ ?

New Zealand has signed on to the Copenhagen Accord signifying that it is “prepared to take on a conditional responsibility target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. A ‘responsibility target’ means that it is expected that New Zealand will meet its target through a mixture of domestic emission reductions, the storage of carbon in forests, and the purchase of emission reduction units in other countries.

The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) is the principal tool to help New Zealand meet its international obligations in the most cost-effective way. The NZ ETS introduces a price on greenhouse gas emissions to provide an incentive for people to reduce those emissions and plant forests to absorb carbon dioxide.

For more on the ETS: http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/index.html

1. 4. Are we done yet?

NO. The climate negotiation proceedings in Bonn have just been brought to a close and will have a great impact on the COP16 (more on Bonn in an upcoming post). The cry for a meaningful international agreement at the next COP16 just keeps on getting louder. All you, NZYD, and I can do is keep on hoping, agitating and empowering others with our knowledge and our need for a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change in Cancun.

I hope you have a wonderful week.

Cheers, Suze.x