Sergio Zelaya, Coordinator of the Policy Advocacy and Global Issues Unit (PAGI) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Secretariat, answers Karsten Schulz’s questions on the role of social sciences in UNCCD processes, revitalization of the UN body, land management or local governance.

Sergio Zelaya

KS: How do you perceive the role of the social sciences in the UNCCD process? Especially in regard to the view that the natural sciences predominate in programmatic and information sharing processes?

SZ: I think that, from a theoretical point of view, social sciences should play a larger role in the programmatic process of UNCCD implementation. The nature of the text of the convention that was negotiated by Parties twenty years ago reflected the need to include the priority issues on the social and economic fronts that the countries had. And I think, even though the scenario has changed a lot since then, the priorities for the developing countries are still economic development: poverty reduction and economic growth. In addition, one of the objectives of the developed countries in the international community is to provide cooperation for the alleviation of poverty and for sustaining economic growth. So there is a coincidence among the developed and developing countries in regard to the long-term objective of human well-being. In the convention, this is also included theoretically. In practice, it hasn’t been like that. Now, the role of social science in these programmatic processes has been very weak in comparison to the natural sciences. Both of them have been weak. But the weakest is still the role of the social sciences.

KS: My second question regards the dynamics between developed and developing countries, especially at COP meetings. From your point of view as a negotiator, do you think that there is a divide in the interests of those two country groups, or do you think that interest groups are rather related to issues than geographical location? Or is there a combination of both?

SZ: A combination, yes. I think that the UNCCD as well as the other Rio conventions are a manifestation, a spillover of the United Nations system as a whole. There is a dialogue between developed and developing countries. And the structure of the United Nations, with the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the cooperation partners etc. reflects this idea. And, as I said, the UNCCD is also a reflection of this. This is one point. It is supported by the Articles 5 and 6 of the convention that indicate the obligations of    affected country Parties and developed country Parties. So different responsibilities are given to different groupings of countries. The same can be said for the issue of climate change for example. There are the Articles 2 and 3 of the UNFCCC, where it is said that reduction of greenhouse gas emission concentrations should take place without causing damage to social and economic growth and the countries that have caused these emissions should be responsible. For them, this is the same principle. So, that is one side, the side of the United Nations. But there is another side, the side of the local, the national governments. In developing countries, and even in affected developing countries, DLDD is not a priority. This set of issues is yet to be a priority. For them, as said, the priority is economic growth and poverty reduction. Only if combating DLDD is perceived as helping to achieve poverty reduction and economic growth, it will be part of the package that they can submit to their own governments and to the cooperation partners. The same can be said about the developed country Parties. They don’t have DLDD as a priority issue. There are other priority issues in their frameworks of cooperation and one can see very easily in an empirical study that on a country by country basis desertification is included at a very low priority level. So, none of these two groups have DLDD as a priority.

KS: Ok, thank you. This directly leads to my third question. The question concerns the paper “Revitalizing the UNCCD”. In this paper it is said that the interest in DLDD issues has been relatively low among climate negotiators.

SZ: I agree completely. But can I ask you one question before? What do you think about this paper?

KS: Well, I think that some of the judgments that are made in this paper are relatively harsh, because there are different political dimensions that have to be taken into account. For instance the position of the Parties. One cannot simply say that UNCCD negotiation capacities or policies alone are responsible for this lack of interest. It must be clearly said that even the best negotiators can not shift a country’s priority just like that. Many developed countries also do not like to see themselves just in a donor role. They expect to get something back for their engagement. So I think this paper is …

SZ: Biased?

KS: In a way.

SZ: Well, I agree with your assessment. But let me add one thing on the issue of politicization. The instrument of the convention was politicized since the beginning. So many developed and developing Parties saw this instrument on a different level vis-à-vis climate change and biodiversity, because the UNFCCC and CBD were negotiated based on sound scientific studies. This convention, however, was more of a political manifestation or declaration. Even though there were highly technical preliminaries.

For instance in 1974 there was an international meeting on desertification and another one in the 1980s. In the 1990s, when the convention came to life, twenty years of research needed to be integrated. But it wasn’t like that. So since the beginning, the convention has been seen as politicized. There is evidence for this, institutionally and on the negotiation side. Institutionally, in developing countries the convention is either negotiated by ministers of the environment, or by those of agriculture or foreign affairs. In the developed world, it is very easy to see that many countries have allocated the responsibility for this convention to their ministries of foreign affairs. The ministries of foreign affairs by their own nature are political instruments.

KS: Of course, and not environmental.

SZ: Not environmental, and not agricultural or energy-related like the ministries responsible for the other conventions. In Germany, for example, the ministry for the environment is responsible for the Convention on Biodiversity. The UNCCD is associated with the ministry for economic and development cooperation. Of course, these are different ministries by nature. This is the institutional side. On the negotiation side, since I was a negotiator in the 1990s, I reckon that the environmental community, in the developed as well as in the developing countries, came with their hands full to the conventions on biodiversity and on climate change. They didn’t care much about if this convention was going under the ministries of foreign affairs, because they already had a vision for these huge issues to be dealt with in the biodiversity and climate change conventions. But now, the issue of DLDD has been gaining interest and gaining profile.

KS: I have another question in this context. Was it also difficult for the UNCCD to initiate institutional cooperation because there is a focus on ecological issues on the one hand and on sustainable development on the other hand? Was that hard to combine?

SZ: Yes, it was hard to combine and I think there was not enough clarity from the side of the Parties and the Secretariat that services the Parties. From the Secretariat and other bodies, like the Global Mechanism. Is this a sustainable development convention or an environmental convention? If you say sustainable development convention, you have to have the guidelines for sustainability that guide and influence the decisions and must emanate from them. But COP after COP, the issues of sustainable development and the environment are still mixed together and not very clear. So more guidance and vision is needed.

KS: I see.

SZ: So we need a more strategic vision. And the Executive Secretaries that we have had so far had their own vision. But regarding sustainable development and the environment, a vision has yet to be provided to the Parties.

KS: A vision for combining both?

SZ: Either combining, or going this way or the other way. But some sort of vision.

KS: But by definition, one could say that the UNCCD is an environmental convention in regard to the Rio process as a whole. Do you think that has been prioritized or neither of it?

SZ: Exactly, neither of it. So how can we articulate this issue in a way that can help the affected countries, mostly developing, to address their priority issues? As I said, those priorities are poverty and economic growth. So how can we say: we assist you in your strategic vision, policies or guidelines regarding poverty-reduction and economic growth, including sustainable development in dryland ecosystems, and in view of the livelihoods of the affected communities? This governance is something that is still needed. Raising the awareness for the need to have an institutional focus in developed and developing countries has to be continuously addressed and clearly addressed by the Executive Secretary, the Secretariat, and the bodies of the convention.

KS: Thank you for these interesting insights. Now, there are some issues that have been identified in order to combine climate change and land issues. For instance sustainable land management and land rehabilitation. Do you think that these issues will be included more clearly in future climate agreements? Because right now, they are more or less incorporated in the issue of deforestation.

SZ: Well, sustainable land management is included expressively in the decision 3 of COP 8 of the UNCCD, where is says “DLDD/sustainable land management”. So what the Parties did on the one hand, in my interpretation, is that they identified the negative side, desertification, land degradation and drought, and the positive side, the forward-looking approach. On the other hand, the Bali meeting agreed upon the Bali Action Plan. This plan has building blocks and one of the building blocks is land and agriculture. So land is a building block of climate change adaptation and it is already included in the Bali Action Plan as part of long-term cooperation, action and shared vision.

KS: And why do you think it has not been addressed that much recently?

SZ: Well, in the last 20 years, since the convention on climate change appeared, for negotiators – and I was one, so I know exactly – the idea was to focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Of course there are other issues, like ecosystem resilience for instance. The terrestrial ecosystem, the marine ecosystem, the economic services provided by these ecosystems and social issues like gender, migration and so on. Now these issues were not specifically included, because the idea was to negotiate an instrument to address the ultimate goal of the UNFCCC: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So at that time it was a milestone to say: we have the climate convention and we have instruments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto-Protocol. Then, in Bali, the inclusion of the building blocks was the second milestone. So, from Bali until today, it is only two and a half years. In these two and a half years, much has been done to include the terrestrial and other ecosystems into the negotiations.

The problem is that in Copenhagen, the final document to be negotiated was actually not negotiated and something else came up. Now, during the last two years and for financial purposes the UNCCD has been focusing much more on its linkages with mitigation and the carbon contained in soils, in order to bring resources to the affected developing countries. But this has yet to be seen and under the UNFCCC the negotiations on mitigation will go on. But also on adaptation there are policies and measures that are taken, so that we can be included into the negotiation process. I would like to mention that the last document that is on the website, about a shared vision on adaptation and forests, talks about sustainable land management. And this is because of the advocated approaches of this convention. Actually, I have been participating in many meetings throughout 2008 and 2009 in order to include in the negotiations at least sustainable development or rural development, agriculture, water and land etc. Of course the UNCCD cannot claim the whole success, because other relevant actors, such as many country negotiators, the FAO, lots of NGOs, and institutions like IFAD are joining forces to achieve this. But we are a part of this and have been raising awareness among the focal points. Now, there are two more things I would like to mention on sustainable land management: on the conceptual side, for the functioning of an ecosystem, sustainable land management is a prerequisite. For instance, there is land degradation, a solution to land degradation is sustainable land management and these will address climate change. And in this way it should be advocated by the UNCCD. The second aspect is the population, the livelihoods, the human well-being. Whatever we do has to take into consideration the nature and the livelihoods of the people. That is what has been called human well-being. It is included in the rights that all humans have, today, and for future generations. These two long-term objectives can be achieved by concrete action on sustainable land management. Now, what is the prerequisite of sustainable land management? It is governance, empowerment, awareness, information at the local level. So we have to tackle those issues.

KS: How do you think the UNCCD can strengthen the role of local governance?

SZ: As an example, what we have been doing on this issue is choosing a rights-based approach, for instance regarding food security for the populations. In addition, we have the security approach. There is a natural expectation on what the land provides for you. And the government, the communities and the political as well as institutional environment have to enable people to produce on their land, give them the security, assurances and guarantees that they can use the land. Taking decisions from the bottom to the top is also important, as the text of this convention mentions. This is governance, the bottom-to-top approach. And I think this kind of governance is the obvious solution to DLDD.

KS: So while the UNCCD is naturally an instrument of global governance, one could say that through this approach and by its own definition it is also an instrument of local governance?

SZ: Yes, exactly. If we have global solutions on the one side and local solutions on the other, the convention has to advocate globally while being based on a solid local base and actions. Local solutions can help to achieve global solutions. It is an interaction. You used the word dynamics before. This is a dynamic system, and the nature of research in the social sciences is dynamics. I see different dimensions: first, create global awareness. This means training, retraining and all the derivatives like information, technology transfer, manuals, documents, materials etc. The second: act on the legal framework. How can this convention help to develop certain legal frameworks, for instance regarding anti-desertification and pro-sustainable land management? Not only at the national level. Large countries like Brazil and China must also act locally. Even an island needs action at the local level. The third one is the improvement of technology. This is different from education and training. It is learning by doing. How can we help people to achieve their goals on their own and with new technologies? Science is only the input. Science per se has no value. You can produce the best scientific result and put it in a closet. That helps no one. So we need scientific research as an input through which people can improve their own technologies. This is something that can be done and it would mean that research has not only to be done in the developed world, but also at the local level, with the local communities in developing countries. We need to provide the tools and improve the capabilities. Physical tools and also enabling tools, for instance infrastructure like roads and information services like radio or computers.

KS: So as a whole, this approach is about policy, capacity building and physical tools?

SZ: Yes, capacity building, instruments like policy, governance, infrastructure like roads to gain market access, and financial resources. This has to be considered initially. Just take the Marshall Plan for example. There was a lot of money initially. For the earthquake in Haiti, there are a lot of financial pledges initially. You cannot expect affected countries to come all the way from the distant position in which they are now in comparison with other countries regarding human-well being, and come up with all of this by themselves. There are many constraints that they have. So financial resources are important, mostly at the beginning. And this convention has to ensure that some of these resources are allocated for desertification and sustainable land management.

KS: And how do you think this could be achieved?

SZ: Well, my belief is that if what is said about money follows a good idea is true, then this has to be put in practice. But you have to have credibility and you have to have a vision. If you have good idea and you don’t have a long-term vision and your vision is not deducted from the demands of the local populations, it is just another idea put in a closet. So the idea has to be effective and it has to be borne by the people. You need empowerment. You cannot say: “I have an idea and I am going to implant this idea for you!” The idea has to be their idea. This is ownership and for sure it has high transaction costs. The UNCCD has to be aware of these costs. For two decades the UNFCCC has been raising awareness and been investing money in climate change awareness. And I think that is what we need to do. Passing from knowledge to action.

KS: Mr. Zelaya, I thank you very much for this interview.

SZ: You are very welcome.

This interview has been originally published in:

Schulz, Karsten: Linking Land and Soil to Climate Change. The UNCCD in the Context of Global Environmental Governance. Tectum: Marburg 2011, p. 162-171.

The paper is available for sale at Amazon UK as well as Amazon Germany.

If one wants to make a political link between Canada pulling out of Kyoto and also being the main producer of tar sands, he or she would not be wrong. Currently, Canada is viciously lobbying together with the oil industry to weaken the EU proposal on fuel quality and delete the value for tar sands.

Beyond closed-doors “comitology” meetings, there will be a debate in the EU’s the environment council about the fuel quality directive (FQD) and values for unconventional fuels, including tar sands. The issue is under the “Any other business” chapter.

Canada’s confirmation that it will withdraw from the Kyoto profile is regretful, according to UNFCCC Chief Christian Figueres.

Figueres also called on the country to act on its “moral obligations”.

“I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing,” said Figueres. “Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort.”

“Industrialised countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions,” she said.

The country had pledged to reduce its Greenhouse Gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990 levels by 2012 and instead has seen them rise by 17 percent.

“For Canada, Kyoto is in the past,” said Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister both on the rostrum in Durban on December 6 and in Toronto on Monday.

He denied that Canada was not doing its part for the climate and said that “Canada is carrying its weight, and proud to be doing its share”.

Kent has said that the Protocol is meaningless as it does not include major emitters such as the US and China.

An agreement in Durban to pursue negotiations for a legally binding deal that incorporates all nations will take force by 2020 at the earliest, leaving a gap of eight years without legal emission pledges. The terms for a second commitment period of Kyoto will be agreed upon at COP18 in Qatar.

Background

Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, one day after an update was agreed on, saying the accord won’t work.

The Canadian environment minister, Peter Kent, said Canada was invoking its legal right to withdraw. Kyoto did not represent the way forward for Canada or the world, he added.

Canada, Japan and Russia said last year in Cancun, Mexico that they would not accept new Kyoto commitments, but Canada is the only country to repudiate it altogether.

The UN climate talks in Durban have been hailed an ‘historic success’ after agreement was reached on Sunday.

COP17 looked in trouble just before 2am, after India and China protested at the lack of equity in proposals put forward by the European Union (EU).

But a dramatic 15-minute ‘huddle’ in the centre of the plenary hall resulted in a form of words all parties could agree on.

COP17 President Mashabane called the agreement: “truly historical”, adding “You were prepared to show the required political will to move this process forward. It is without any doubt in my mind that we have worked together to save tomorrow, today”.

The deal should mean that every country in the world is committed to reducing its carbon emissions, although the fine details are still unclear.

Parties have signed up to an EU-sponsored roadmap that will see a new variant of the Kyoto Protocol negotiated by 2015, and come into force by 2020. A second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which does not include the US, China or India, will be finalised at COP18, in Qatar.

Talks on this new, more-inclusive document, which must have “legal force”, will get underway in 2013.

The roadmap was further developed by the EU, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries bloc (LDCs).

The Green Climate Fund has also been approved, although sources of funding are unclear, and states such as Bolivia appeared to reject the idea the private sector and carbon markets could be used to source finance.

The Durban talks were the longest in history, running almost 36 hours longer than the original cut-off point on Friday afternoon.

And at 0140 local time, COP17 looked close to collapse after an impassioned plea from India’s Jayanthi Natarajan, who accused the EU bloc of ignoring ‘equity’ in the text.

With the belief growing in the BASIC bloc that the EU timetable was overly legalistic and too tight, she directed her anger at COP17 President Mashabane, declaring “India will not be intimidated”.

Natarajan was backed by lead Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua, who delivered an angry rebuke to parties who he said had not fulfilled their current commitments.

“Look not what is said but what is done,” Zhenhua shouted, “We have been talking about this issue for the past 20 years. We are doing things you are not”.

But with support for a deal growing around the room, together with an intervention from US negotiator Todd Stern, Mashabane decided to call an impromtu ‘huddle’ for the main parties to come to a solution.

On agreement of the roadmap, the rest of the package was agreed with bewildering speed, Mashabane banging the gavel at regular intervals to speed the meeting along.

A framework for the Green Climate Fund – which could generate finances of $100 Billion a year by 2020 for developing countries – was adopted, although a venue for its Headquarters is as yet unclear.

There also appears to have been progress on REDD+ and deforestation measures.

Speaking to RTCC in the Plenary Hall, the UK’s lead climate diplomat John Ashton said the talks had been a success, adding the roadmap and accompanying measures “represented closure” after Copenhagen.

Chris Huhne, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, warned there was still work to do but was enthusiatic about the deal. “There are still many details to be hammered out, but we now need to start negotiating the new legal agreement as soon as possible and there are still many details to be hammered out,” he said.

Adrian Macey, Chair of AWG-KP, the track of the talks dealing with Kyoto said: “We’ve got a package with clarity on the Kyoto Protocol, and importantly we also have clarity on the long term too, and it’s quite momentus I think looking at this longer term agreement. Better than people expected.”

Norway’s Climate Change Minister Erik Solheim told RTCC they were “very, very pleased, it’s in the upper range of what we hoped for. We’re pleased both with the substantive outcome and also the agreement on this process.

“For us this is a great outcome. The key aspect is that it is crucial, when you have a Kyoto Protocol with limited scope…[it's] crucial we get a legally binding framework for all major emitters and that’s the core here. It’s also important the deadline for the negotiation process is not too far into the future. So it’s the ambition level and also the urgency. We have somethig to take climate action forward and we now have an ambitious pathway to go forward,” said Solheim.

“It’s been a long two weeks and also the months leading up. Very tough for all parties,” he added.

NGOs were less pleased, with Greenpeace branding the deal “grim news”.

“Blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding,” said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.

“If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak.”

RTCC

As COP17 moves into its second week, heads of states and ministers join their delegations and the talks intensify, is the voice of women being represented sufficiently in the process?

Making up over 50% of the population – and 60% in some of the world’s poorest countries – the effects of climate change are more acutely felt by women.

With women also being at the heart of many households in the most climate vulnerable areas – both as care giver and as decision maker – there is a huge potential for them to act as agents of change.

Ahead of COP17 women’s day, where the Climate Change Studio will be joined by Christiana Figueres, head of the UNFCCC, Winnie Byanyima, Director UNDP Gender Team and Cecilia Njenga, from the UNEP, to name a few, we took at look at why gender and climate change is so important.

Climate Vulnerability

While in most communities both the men and women, particularly in the developing world, are either already experiencing or will experience climate change vulnerabilities, research has shown that this impact is being felt worse amongst women.

Women farmers account for around 45-80% of all food production. As droughts, flooding and other natural changes put their agricultural livelihoods at risk – both limiting the food for the household and for selling – work becomes much harder and research by the UN found that it is the women and the girls who experience the most noticeable health decline.

In most communities it is also the women who predominately collect the fuel for the home for example firewood and agricultural crops, and water. With women travelling further distances to find these sources of energy, they have less time for domestic tasks, less time to earn money and are also more at risk of injury or sexual harassment.

Finally with many climate impacts – flooding and drought – disease and illness spreads and with the traditional role of women as mother and caregiver, this puts even more stress of their daily lives.

When Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and founder of the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice spoke at the Climate Change Studio last week, she said: “It is an issue that is fundamental to climate justice, to the idea of putting a human face on climate, the importance of both food and nutrition security and women for agents for change who are going to bring about the changes on the ground.

“They will be the ones who will have to adapt to the climate shocks that we have so they need to be empowered, they need to be valued and they need to be at the table at decision making. They are not there enough.”

Read more on RTCC.

Australia and Japan told delegates in Durban that they support a new legally binding deal, during an edgy meeting at the UN climate change talks yesterday evening. “The role of the forest is not for carbon stocks” said the head of the Bolivian delegation, as REDD+ talk’s progress at COP17.

The two countries, which have both rejected a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol after it expires next year, are willing to look at a new agreement encompassing “major economies”. Australia said a deal must set obligations for a broad set of parties.

They were joined in their calls by the Less Developed Countries (LDCs) and the EU during talks, which one delegate inside the room described to RTCC as “calm but tense”.

Colombia and the Marshall Islands demanded that work on the text of a deal should begin immediately. China sought to limit the conversation to the mere possibility of a deal, rather than its actual substance.

Grenada, representing the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said it preferred a second commitment period of Kyoto and accused some nations of having “a 2012 vision rather than a 2020 vision”. Venezuela went one step further saying that the failure to produce a second commitment period would represent “a wrongful act”.

There were also calls for a voluntary set of pledges, as suggested ahead of the Durban conference. These were dismissed by the representative of Bolivia as “untrustworthy”.

Bolivia: No to REDD+!

While REDD+ talks pick up speed at the negotiations in Durban, some delegations have suggested bringing forward issues that were intended for consideration at COP18, the Bolivian delegation spoke out in opposition of the scheme in its first press conference of the talks.

Rene Orellana, head of the Bolivian delegation said: “As people who live in the forest, we are not carbon stocks. We disagree with REDD because we oppose the commoditisation of the forest.”

“It’s a complex and dangerous situation to see forests as carbon stocks. The forest provides a role as food security, a water source and biodiversity for our indigenous population. REDD reduces the function of the forest to just one, carbon stocks.”

Currently the discussions around REDD+ are focussing on three main barriers to the implementation and scaling up of the scheme; how to monitor the carbon stored and saved in trees, how to safeguard populations in forest areas and questions remaining around the financial side – including how much finance will be available and where it will come from (i.e. market mechanisms, public finance etc).

Bolivia – a country which has 50% forest coverage – aims at putting forward a different proposal based on finding different sources of finance other than carbon credits, the recognition of multiple forest functions and methodologies for integrated forest management.

However, the Bolivian delegation said that no attention was being paid to the proposals they had put on the table.

Source: RTCC

The EU has declared that it will enter into a second commitment period of the Kyoto agreement, but only if the world’s other nations set down the path toward their own legally binding emission cuts.

Arthur Runge-Metzger, chief negotiator for EU

Speaking at the first EU press briefing in Durban on the eve of the UN climate change talks, the bloc said a new phase of Kyoto commitments would depend on certain conditions being met by developing countries not included in the protocol.

“We need to see other countries agree to a roadmap whereby a timetable of negotiations for a legally binding deal is drawn-up,” said Tomasz Chruszczow, head of the Polish delegation in Durban. Poland currently holds the EU Presidency. “A deal must be agreed by 2015 and it needs to come into force by 2020.

“We need a roadmap that brings 100% of global emissions under one umbrella. The legal framework can be the same for all nations. The commitments and the deadlines can be different,” he said.

In addition to the pledges from other nations, Chruszczow also called for new market based mechanisms and robust carbon accounting procedures before the EU would commit to a second period of Kyoto.

The group also clarified its position in other areas of the talks including its long-rumoured deepening of emission cuts to 30%.

“I don’t even think the 30% question will be asked here in Durban,” said Artur Runge-Metzger, lead negotiator for the EU. “Nobody else is talking about increasing their level of ambition.

“Kyoto is not dead. It will continue to run for those countries that have ratified it, even those that have said they will not sign-up for a second designated commitment period. The framework remains. It is a very useful legal instrument and it has shown it can work. It needs some improvement and hopefully we can make those decisions here. Voluntary action is not enough,” said Runge-Metzger.

“Looking for a new deal by 2020 at the latest is not the same thing as postponing Kyoto, we will continue to press ahead for a second period of commitment under the Kyoto agreement but a new deal should come as soon as possible,” added Runge-Metzger. “We are not ditching our commitments. Others are. The Bali roadmap included provisions for countries to make moves toward binding agreements. That was supposed to happen in Copenhagen but we are still waiting.”

The EU represents 11% of global emissions and has stated its reluctance to persist with Kyoto unless developing nations begin their own works towards binding deals.

Eastern Europe, a coal burner

Environment ministers from six eastern EU member states have called for caution and further research before the negotiating block increases its carbon emission ambitions.

The statement comes just days after Artur Runge-Metzger, director of the international and climate strategy directorate at the EU Commission, said a 30 per cent emission reduction was very much still on the table. The current commitment is 20 per cent by 2020.

Ministers from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Romania signed a declaration after the meeting in the Prague. The statement highlighted “the importance for working on a roadmap towards the transition to a low-carbon economy and stressed that any future steps need to be carefully assessed from the angle of all the potential costs, benefits and impacts on the level of individual member states”.

A statement from the Czech Ministry of the Environment called for further EU reductions to be accompanied by similar commitments for China, the US and other significant emitters.

Several of the countries that signed the declaration, particularly Poland, are heavily dependant on coal and wary of being pulled into EU commitments that would prove costly.

Poland and the Czech Republic use coal for 92 per cent and 60 per cent respectively of their electricity generation.

Source: RTCC

The EU is “pleasantly surprised” by China’s progress on Climate Change, chief negotiator Arthur Runge-Metzger said.
Source: RTCC

Arthur Runge-Metzger, chief negotiator for EU

While Beijing has made strides Runge-Metzger said the US was stuck in a difficult political position domestically that has thwarted its own headway in the climate negotiations.

“We are very much looking forward to seeing what other countries are doing about climate change and we were pleasantly surprised by China,” said Runge-Metzger. “It has already inserted its Cancun pledge in to its next five year plan. That is a very important step but there are many other countries that will have to follow suit. In some countries, the pledge is made, but the implementation is shaky.”

When asked if the United States had become an obstructive force in the process Runge-Metzger refused to criticise them too heavily.

“I think the United States is in a very difficult situation. The Obama administration is certainly committed to move on climate change but the situation in Congress and the Senate does not allow any movement forward and that is a huge problem because there are many other countries that can just hide behind that position,” said Runge-Metzger.

“Applying pressure to the US is something that we need to do collectively. It also important that those who hide behind the United States come out and are very clear out about being committed and showing sufficient political will to take this discussion forward towards real implementation.”

The US and Japan joined a chorus of objections to the $100bn GCF – Green Climate Fund’s proposed design during a heated session in Durban.

Issues over the use of private sector money and controversial fundraising mechanisms such as the financial transaction tax dominated discussions.

The US and Japan has stated categorically that they do not want to hold any discussions over a single source of funding, such as the so-called Robin Hood tax on banking transactions. Instead they insist that each individual country should be allowed to raise its share of the GCF. This national approach would also appear to rule out a system of international levies on shipping or aviation progressing in Durban.

Meanwhile a diverse range of parties including Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Egypt objected to the use of private sector money for the fund, which it is hoped will be worth $100bn per year by 2020. The current so-called fast start finance is worth $10 billion a year till 2012.

Less developed nations are also concerned that the use of private sector finance could see control and outcomes of projects farmed out to the corporations sponsoring them, rather than being in the hands of the governments on the ground.

“There’s a huge gap to close,” said Ilana Solomon, senior policy analyst with ActionAid USA. “The big question is whether discussions will continue productively or unravel.

“The good news is that despite their differences, all parties want to see progress,” said Solomon.

This statement was backed up by US negotiator Jonathan Pershing who has described the GCF as potentially “a major global institution for climate finance…if it is designed properly”.

The fate of the GCF will now be decided behind closed doors, although COP17 President Maite Mashabane sought to assure observers that this process would remain inclusive and transparent.

Source: RTCC online

The State of Qatar and the Republic of Korea have agreed to closely cooperate to make the next major UN Climate Change Conference at the end of 2012 a success.

Korea and Qatar to share the climate talks in 2012

The 2012 UN Climate Change Conference, COP 18/CMP 8 (the 18th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC, plus the 8th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol), will take place in Qatar from 26 November to 7 December 2012.

The Republic of Korea will host a ministerial meeting to prepare for COP 18/CMP 8. Such ministerial meetings are a tradition in the UNFCCC negotiations and are instrumental in clarifying, at a high-level, central issues in the weeks before a COP.

The announcement was made at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban (28 November to 9 December), following agreement among the Asian Group of countries.

“I congratulate these two countries on their commitment to work together in the lead up to and during the COP. Both countries are leaders in their own ways, and can generate strong synergies to put the world on a more climate-safe path,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres. “All governments working together on the next essential climate steps can be inspired by this collaborative spirit,” she added.

The State of Qatar and the Republic of Korea will make joint efforts to globally promote and implement the green growth agenda at and in the run-up to the conference.

The Republic of Korea has championed the concept of the “green economy”, which links green growth to sustainable development and poverty eradication, and will be a central issue under discussion at the Rio+20 summit to be held in June next year in Rio de Janeiro.

The State of Qatar, as one of the world’s main energy exporters, expressed its eagerness in Durban to secure progress in the UN climate change negotiations, and support to the endeavours of developing countries, including small island developing States, in adapting to the inevitable effects of climate change.

The UNFCCCís annual Conferences of the Parties are rotated between the five UN regional groups, with the African Group this year hosting COP 17 in Durban, South Africa.

(REUTERS) Holder of the rotating EU presidency, Poland has been criticized for its environmental stance within the EU, which is seeking to lead the push for a new global pact to curb climate change.

Many have asked whether it is the right country to represent the EU in Durban, regarded as make-or-break for the Kyoto Protocol, the only global, binding pact to counter global warming.

Joanna Mackowiak-Pandera, undersecretary of state in the Polish environment ministry. Photo: WWF.eu

“We understand the different positions from different countries. We are also a kind of developing country,” Joanna Mackowiak-Pandera, undersecretary of state in the Polish environment ministry, told Reuters by telephone before her flight to Durban.

Winning confidence is particularly important for the EU when its sovereign debt crisis has left the rest of the world doubting the ability of the bloc as a whole to take a lead.

“It’s a fact that the current economic situation and uncertainty will affect the negotiations,” Mackowiak-Pandera said.

“We should really take a long-term vision. I know how difficult that is. The economic situation in Europe is critical. Many countries outside Europe look at the situation in Europe and maybe there is a lack of trust.”

The EU’s aim at Durban is to maintain pressure for a new deal no later than 2015, although that leaves a so-called blank period after the first commitment to carbon cuts expires at the end of 2012.

Mackowiak-Pandera said there had been progress in working groups in Durban this week ahead of next week’s crucial ministerial phase, but there was no “comprehensive text on the table for a second commitment period.”

Forging a new deal is a mammoth task.

“My assessment of the situation is very critical,” Mackowiak-Pandera said, citing Canada’s failure to deny reports it was preparing to abandon the Kyoto Protocol.

BOULDER NATIONS

Together with Russia, Japan and the United States, Canada has made clear it no longer supports the Kyoto Protocol, but formally abandoning it would be a bigger step.

In previous climate talks, China has also been grouped with the so-called boulder nations seen as barriers to progress.

The EU, however, has hopes China can break the deadlock between rich and poor nations, who want the developed world to carry on bearing the brunt of the financial cost of adapting to climate change.

As a developing nation, China was not included in the first round of Kyoto cuts agreed in 1997. Since then China has leapfrogged developed nations in terms of emissions and its economy.

Mackowiak-Pandera said the Chinese were “open to discussing a second commitment period” and had several meetings planned with them in Durban.

She saw a need for a realistic pace of progress to allow all nations to adapt.

“The tempo of increasing reduction targets has to be appropriate,” she said.

Poland drew sharp criticism when, earlier this year, it blocked EU plans to raise its goal for reducing carbon emissions. At 20 percent by 2020, it already exceeds the bloc’s commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.

“Poland is 90 percent dependent on coal. Everybody knows it. For us, 20 percent is ambitious,” Mackowiak-Pandera said.

“The 20 percent reflects the different positions of the different EU countries. It is a legally binding and realistic target. If some countries want, they will do more.”

Adaptation for all had to be a major discussion Mackowiak-Pandera said, as even European countries such as Poland coped with low river levels and water shortages.

In addition to adaptation finance, nations needed practical planning on measures including river basin management.

“Maybe in 10, 20, 30 years we will see the effects of a (carbon) reduction. For adaptation, that is something we can see in five years,” she said.