by Lubomir Mitev

Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Benin: most Bulgarians hear these names for the first time. In fact, these are countries in the world. Most Bulgarians would probably not be able to point them out on a map. Yet, all of them made high-level statements, held press-conferences and held negotiations at the CoP 16 in Mexico. The Bulgarian delegation did not.

Nona Karadjova, Minister for Environment and Water, was nowhere to be found at the high-level conference in Cancun. To be fair, her Greek counterpart, Tina Birbili, was not present either. Yet, the Romanian Minister for Environment, László Borbely, was not only there, but also held strong opinions on several of the topics being discussed.

It is difficult to imagine a forum where members of the European Union do not send high-level officials to defend their national positions, despite the existence of ‘common positions’ within the Union. Bulgaria and Greece might not be ‘big’ political players, but neither are Vanuatu and Benin (or Cape Verde for that matter). And, even if one does not get the opportunity to speak to the Presidents of these states, 2celsius managed to have an interview with Mr. Borbely. At the same time, all attempts made to contact the Bulgarian delegation were met with bitter disappointment.

Perhaps it was the sunny beaches of Cancun, or the idea that Europe should speak with one voice, or the famous Mexican cuisine, which made the Bulgarian delegation shroud themselves in mystery. The lack of Bulgarian media covering the conference, or even publishing a single story about it (which could be borrowed from AP, the most active media organization at the CoP 16), is a simple fact of life.

From all this, one can infer and state the following: Bulgaria does not care about the environment or whether negotiations succeed or fail. Seemingly, it is the EU who makes Bulgaria act on the subject, or in other words, “I don’t really care, but my boss told me to do it”.

As one Bulgarian journalist in Cancun, it brings me great pleasure to leave the conclusions to you!

Romania’s position in the climate negotiations held at the COP16 – Cancun was a cautious one. The uncertain global context in which important players such as the U.S., Canada, Russia or Japan showed a stagnant or reluctant attitude and the EU continues to be the biggest spender in the emissions reduction cause, made Romania skeptical about cutting emissions by 30% or signing a binding agreement at the present time.

Laszlo Borbely, the Romanian Minister of Environment, leading the Romanian delegation in Cancun, tells us more on these matters.

Interview carried out by Raul Cazan

Translated and edited by Cristina Mircea

2C: The hottest topic at the COP-16 summit in Cancun was the “Fast Start Funding” for helping developing countries to deal with climate change. We know that the EU has already given 2,2 billion euros in 2010 and has a target of 7,4 billion euros by 2012. We also know that decisions on how funds are allocated will be taken at national level. What is Romania’s contribution in this context?

There are voluntary commitments at the present time, to be developed by 2012. And it is very important for us this year to have at least somewhat a compromise on what will follow after 2012. As for Romania’s position on this matter, we have pledged to give 15 million euros by 2012, of which 5 will be allocated next year, and the remaining 10 million, in 2012.

Last week we passed a note to the Government to allocate these funds to the Republic of Moldova, to be invested in projects such as emissions reduction, infrastructure, energy rehabilitation of buildings. I even talked to my counterpart in Moldova, Mr George Salaru, and he pledged to come up with those specific projects until next month. These projects are going to be monitored and achieved by 2012.

2C: What was Romania’s position regarding the climate negotiations in Cancun?

We have to be very cautious, because so far the discussions clearly showed that the U.S. hasn’t taken a single step in signing a legally binding and other countries such as Russia, Japan, Canada are reluctant too, because they accuse the fact that the U.S. , responsible for a quarter of the global emissions, hasn’t properly involved in any of the negotiations.

China on the other hand, even though it hasn’t assumed any commitment, has invested a lot in the green economy, during the last two years.

Personally, I am very skeptical about delivering any spectacular results, or signing  a legal agreement at the moment, but, nevertheless, we have to carefully analyze which way we go from here. Even if the EU has a commitment of up to 30% reduction, we requested an analysis on what that means for every member state, because this means more money and we don’t want to commit ourselves before seeing what happens globally.

This emissions reduction requires a lot of money and affects the economy as well.  The energy prices will be more expensive if you rely more on renewable energy so we have to stay cautious and observe first how the rest of the world approaches this issue, before committing ourselves to some expenses, especially now, during recession time.

Therefore, we have a cautious attitude in terms of reducing emissions by 30% until 2020.

For now let’s see what 20% means in financial terms and what happens in South Africa, at the COP 17 and we’ ll take a decision by 2012. This is Romania’s position.

2C: There is another aspect of this emissions reduction issue, regarding its reference year, which should be 2005 and not 1990. What can you tell us about that?

What these Western European countries have to understand is that after 50 years of communism Romania has made substantial efforts. That is the reason why we insist on 1990 to remain the reference year. We have a number of 300 million AAU’ s allocated, meaning about 1,5- 1,8 billion euros for investments  in the  green economy segment in Romania, by 2012.  We also had a success at the Environment Ministers Council in Luxembourg, concerning the carry-over of the emissions certificate issue, after the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.  The developed countries of the EU don’t approve the carrying forward of these units after 2012, but our country has been very firm about finding a way to make this carrying possible and the money to be used for internal compliance, which means reduced emissions for Romania.

2C: You had a bilateral meeting with Poland in Cancun. Did you have any discussions about this issue?

We had many bilateral meetings and the one with Poland was indeed a significant one.

We continue to support Belgium, Hungary and Poland to be stronger and have a say, as they will be the ones holding the EU’s presidency. We also need to correlate because Romania can obviously relate to some point of views regarding the cooperation with these countries. They hold the EU presidency and must have an attitude as a mediator so that we can better negotiate the matter of  these units and the reference criteria to be discussed after 2012.

We also have signed agreements with some of these countries and we support each other, because we have common interests related to big power plant polluters, the possibility of using other fuels than natural gas and also related to the issue of allocated AAU’s.

So we have many ways in which we can make ourselves heard and have an attitude that can influence decisions taken at EU level.

Six months since Bulgaria was banned from the emission trading scheme, the UN body in charge of administering the Kyoto Protocol has stated that the country has corrected its problems. The administrative procedure for re-accreditation has begun and should be completed before the end of 2010.

The question was raised by the Bulgarian delegation to the UNFCCC CoP 16 in Cancun. The UN body replied that the visit by experts to the country in the autumn had produced positive results.

Bulgaria’s accreditation to the ETS was suspended in June 2010, due to problems with the national system of measurement of annual greenhouse-gas emissions in 2007 and 2008. It has come to light that, due to ignoring a message from the UN, the state had not measured emissions from certain sectors, such as waste. Apart from municipal and regional waste depots, the country had a large number of illicit landfills, whose ecological impact was not assessed.

Also, the validity of the data was brought into suspicion due to the lack of communication between the Ministry of Environment and Water, which is responsible for measurement and reporting, and the Ministries of Economy, Agriculture and Interior Affairs, as well as the National Statistical Institute. Nona Karadjova, Bulgarian Minister for Environment, explained that the visiting commission from the UN in the autumn of 2010 had reported that these problems have been resolved. As a result, the country should be allowed to resume trading its quota of 200 million ‘carbon credits’ in the beginning of 2011.

Nevertheless, the Vice-Chairman of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Dimitar Brankov, explained that the EU had allowed Bulgaria to trade its allowances only in April 2010, which resulted in only 9.4 million credits being sold before the suspension of the accreditation. Since the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the CoP 16 did not reach an agreement on a second commitment period, the fact that the country can begin trading again is not going to prove as fruitful as expected, added Mr. Brankov. Also, demand for credits is very low at the moment, which greatly limits the possibility of selling allowances.

Success and failure in Cancun! With the end of the CoP 16 working-group negotiations, a draft document was released, and to be discussed and endorsed by the plenary. The mixture of agreement and disagreement becomes evident from the first sentences of the document: “Seeking to secure progress in a balanced manner, in the understanding that, through this decision, not all aspects of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention are concluded…”. [N.B. Please note that this is a draft document and has not been agreed upon! Yet, it is close to the final version to be accepted by the CoP]

Yet, there are several highlights in the document, which stand out. The issue of adaptation has been recognized to be just as important as mitigation, requiring the appropriate institutional arrangements to enhance adaptation action and support. In this respect, the Cancun Adaptation Framework is established, with the objective of enhancing action on adaptation. The main institution to take care of this being the Adaptation Committee, which would provide technical support, information, and promote synergy, remains to be created, with a clear step-by-step process laid out.Furthermore, a Green Climate Fund will be established to manage funding for developing countries. Its immediate establishment, and the high-level of agreement between the parties, can be found in the detailed institutional set-up described in the document. Also, the World Bank is invited to act as an interim trustee (or administrator of assets) for the first three years, pending review – a much expected outcome, nevertheless disliked by some civil society organizations.

Also, a registry will be set up to record national mitigation efforts. This will effectively standardize the recording, modelling and reporting of the parties to the convention. The introduction of these standards to the Convention was a much-needed step towards a balanced record-keeping.

The final decision is on transfer of technology, which was much expected. It also entails the creation of a Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Center and Network – two bodies which will administer the Technology Mechanism under the CoP.

As a separate part, the countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol have come out with a document mired in disagreement. No second commitment period has been agreed upon, but the hope remains that it could be, since it is mentioned several times. The statement that the CoP “agrees that further work is needed to convert emission reduction targets to quantified economy wide limitation or reduction commitments” portrays the lack of change to the status quo.

It was expected that, under the UN’s proposal, the base-year for measuring greenhouse-gas emissions would be changed from 1990 to 2005. Yet, this has not taken place. The document specifies that, in the event of a second commitment period, the base-year will remain the same. This is of no significant impact, since the existence of a Kyoto II remains a nearly-impossible possibility.

On the whole, the working document produced by the CoP 16 in Cancun is comprehensive and balanced, without major surprises. The issues agreed upon coincide with the UN Secretary-General’s expectations, as stated on Dec 7th in his opening speech to the high-level part of the conference. Now this text is up for negotiation in the plenary.

Prof. Gwyn Prins, London School of Economics

The failure of the CoP 15 in Copenhagen to produce a comprehensive and legally binding agreement with commitment targets like those in the Kyoto Protocol has been labelled a “necessary evil for a new beginning”. Professor Prins of the London School of Economics presented this theory at the CoP 16 in Cancun on Dec. 8th.

“We need to change the terms of the conversation,” stated Prof. Prins. Since the beginning of the negotiations in Cancun, Japan and Russia have provided strong opposition to the negotiations of a new emissions reduction commitment period. Instead, they have been pushing for a new and better mechanism: one based on human dignity, and not on human sinfulness.

This new mechanism includes three objectives, as described in the Hartwell Paper: a new direction for climate policy, co-authored by  Prof. Prins:

1. Access: allowing people access to energy
2. Sustainability: eradicating emissions of black carbon, reducing tropospheric ozone, protecting tropical forests, and accelerating energy efficiency.
3. Resilience: making poor nations able to combat climate change.

This road-map for a new, post-Kyoto mechanism is strongly supported by the Japanese negotiators at CoP 16. Yet, in the negotiations with the global leader in the fight against climate change, the European Union, Japan has had to face the option of compromising.

Joke Schauvliege, the Belgian Minister for Environment, Nature and Culture and representative of the current Presidency of the Council of the EU stated on Dec 10th that “We had a lot of contact with the Japanese and the Russians, and we tried to find solutions”. She elaborated that “Kyoto as such is not enough” and that “it is possible to find something in between”.

This was supplemented by EU Commissioner Hedegaard’s concerns that a comprehensive legally-binding agreement rests on a new Kyoto Protocol or similar mechanism. She stated clearly that it is “not likely to get a second commitment period”. Yet, as the final day of negotiations began, all parties were “excited” to find out what is in the agreement to come out of Cancun.

Joke Schauvliege (left) and Connie Hedegaard (right) at CoP 16 Press Conference, 10 Dec 2010, Cancun

It is a crucial day for the UNFCCC process, but it is also a crucial day for climate change. As the final negotiations at the CoP 16 in Cancun began, EU Commissioner Connie Hedegaard stressed the urgent need for the Parties to agree on a “balanced package”. While this is supposed to include all tracks being negotiated, there are some issues where progress has been slow.

So far, the parties have been negotiating in small working groups on the different topics such as funding, mitigation, adaptation, market mechanisms, accountability rules and transparency. On this final day, all these texts have to come together and be agreed upon by the Parties, which is where the sought-after balance has to be found.

“Everybody is still on speaking terms,” stated Commissioner Hedegaard. “We have to get some good balances,” she emphasized, and added that the pledges made by the Parties in the Copenhagen Accord are only the beginning of the story. Everyone has to find a way to improve what they have already pledged. Also, the EU has recognized that even if the measures listed in the Copenhagen Accord are introduced into the UN process, this will not be enough to avoid the dangers of climate change.

“We want this conference and the text to come out of it to state the obvious: what has been pledged already is not enough to keep us below 2 degrees Celsius”.

At the moment, negotiations are slightly stalled. The working groups are evading commitments on the individual topics until they have seen the overall text. Patricia Espinoza, President of the UNFCCC CoP 16, stated:

“Parties requested the guidance of the Mexican Presidency so that they had a better understanding of the overall and complete package of decisions that we are all constructing together. This is a necessary step for taking difficult decisions that ensure balance within each track… Parties have just received these drafts. We have very limited time to make a last push to improve them. The issues under consideration are complex and informal consultations have been running virtually without stop for many hours”.

The EU Commissioner further underlined this pressing sense of obligation: “We stated clearly that everyone who has ambitions for the future must also realize that if we do not get things done here in Cancun, it is difficult to see how we can come from A to B.” In a sense, the whole process is at stake, and the future of the planet together with it.

The EU’s role in the process continues to be that of a deal-broker. Joke Schauvliege, the Belgian Minister for Environment, Nature and Culture and representative of the current Presidency of the Council of the EU, stated that “We [the EU] build bridges between extreme positions”. With the negotiations entering their final phase, she urged everyone to “always keep in mind that [the EU] are here to save the process, but also climate”.

Giedre Steikunaite, blogger with the New Internationalist in London, has joined the protesters and reported on the unique demonstration in Cancun. Her full article is available on the New Internationalist blog.

‘This day is not for a party, it’s for struggle and protest!’ went one popular chant. And so it began at around 9 am in downtown Cancún, led by Via Campesina, the international peasants movement, with around 1,500 participants from more than 40 countries – Latin American farmers, grassroots activists, indigenous peoples, and the ‘hippies’ from the alternative Klima Forum.

Marcha: Protesters caused traffic problems in downtown Cancún.

The message from the bus with loudspeakers: ‘Repressive politics destroy natural resources and violate the rights of indigenous peoples. We are calling for the unity of social movements and organizations, both national and international. We cannot allow our environment to be continuously contaminated. We are marching to tell the governments that we don’t agree with them. It’s a struggle of all of us.’ Struggle is one of the most repeated words of the day – people are determined, and creative.

The March

Wrapping up posters, flags, and other marching equipment, protesters get on buses which would bring them closer to the Moon Palace, an extravagant place where the COP 16 negotiations are being held (a 30 minute ride from the city center). They would then march and present their demands to the world leaders.

Nevertheless, they were stopped long before their final destination.

Silent dance. Their unmoving presence is the perfect stage for a silent dance.

A local guy. ‘[COP 16,] Why did you all come here? To contaminate even more?’

He comes from Cancún. Addressing COP 16 which doesn’t listen, he asks: ‘Why did you all come here? To contaminate even more? All those planes, hotels and waste… For 16 COPs you’ve been doing this.’ It needs to stop. Just like REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, one of the points COP 16 is expected to agree on). ‘No more REDD! No more REDD+, REDD++ and REDD+++!’ he says. ‘They are all pure corporations. I am here to tell you that we, the indigenous people, defend nature. We want to bring conscience to all people.’

Back at the assembly, speakers highlight the power of the people. ‘I am here to show your strength [to save the environment], the strength that they at the COP 16 don’t have.’ Tom Goldtooth, from North America’s Society for Threatened Peoples, denounces the negotiations: ‘Over there, at the UN meeting, there is a lot of confusion and darkness.’ He adds, ‘It’s business there.’ Pure business.

Hammer and wall. A floating hammer, a symbolic crasher of the corrupt processes of international climate negotiations, is passed to the other side. There are no plans to try to bring down the barricades. The protest remains peaceful.

The march didn’t reach its destination.

“Cut fossil fuel subsidies in developing and emerging economies”, demanded A. Gurria, Secretary General of OECD. Agriculture is no more the highest subsidy as in the EU. “Now we see that subsidies go to fossil fuels. We are talking finance, here – we encourage other countries to consume more fossil fuel.”

A. Gurria

“Eliminating subsidies will cut emissions by 10% until 2050. This an instant measure, it is not a process. Just eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and apparently the whole world will economize and reduce emissions.”

Market based instruments are first best choices, he stated. Carbon schemes, they raise money and we can support the pressing needs like health and education.

Background info:
The OECD has been working on climate change economics and policy since the late 1980s. The OECD works closely with governments to assist them to identify and implement least-cost policies to reduce GHG emissions in order to limit climate change, as well as to integrate adaptation to climate change into all relevant sectors and policy areas. As OECD countries are the major international donors, OECD has a critical role in tracking climate finance, and in examining how public finance can be scaled-up and best targeted to help leverage private financial flows.

In the wake of the economic crisis, the OECD is also looking at how measures that governments are taking to spur economic growth can best be formulated so that they support – and do not work against – the objectives of moving towards a green, low-carbon economy. Given the global nature of the climate change challenge, and its widespread economic, social and environmental impacts, the OECD is in a unique position to assist countries put climate policy on a solid economic footing consistent with frameworks for development. Work on climate change is underway across the OECD, engaging government representatives from a range of Ministries. This brochure provides an overview of the recent OECD work on climate change.

[Video coming up]

Migration is going to happen anyway and it is not the solution, just an opportunity. Migration as adaptation is bringing a little difference – it is perceived on the long term and it has to be planned.

Photo: EJC

Jose Miguel Guzman with the UNFPA reassessed “migration and climate change are linked deeply. Rapid urbanization will occur in the next year in Asia and Africa, especially.  Two factors combined – high movement of populations and “plan for adaption” and consider that the cities are actually moving.
Mohamed Mijarul Quayes, foreign secretary of Bangladesh, stated that this is the deepest human dimension of climate change. “IPCCC cautioned in 1990 that population is the one of the most powerful effects of climate change,” he said.

“Migration is a choice, I would use the term displacement.”

Displacement

Yes it is taking place now – urbanization and the rest.

Quayes named the phenomenon the tadpole effect: metropolis is growing with people flooding in from the rural provinces.

Bangladesh has 25 milllion people. Displacement of 25 million – what are the effects? They will move in the contiguous areas of neighboring countries already populated. They become a burden on the host community – they lose social and economic value. Consequently, two or three generations will suffer consequences.

There will be cross boundary movement and nexuses will flourish: trafficking, smuggling etc.

“If you are not convinced that climate change is here and now, I am telling you: it is for the Bangladeshi. Vulnerability of mass scale displacement are going to draw new dynamics of migration.”

Back to adaptation

Migration has been referred to as a problem. It also is a solution. In the global community there are these propensities of building walls. Migration is part of ADAPTATION. Displacement however is a phenomenon that will have to have multiple levels of response. Adaption issues are extremely complex, but migration refers only to mobility.

Climate refugees; there is a hesitation to use this term.  It has been defined in international acts – it is encompassing asylum and conflict areas. It really does not matter how we call them, in the end. The term adaptation is used in the climate change context, therefore we should not extend it to other areas. Fast funding is a key element nowadays.

Thomas Loster with the Munich Re Foundation has taken Lester Brown’s theme that extreme poverty is a driver for migration and displacement. Obviously,  we need to tackle poverty in order to even offer the opportunity or the choice to migrate.

[Video coming up soon]

In her speech at the opening ceremony of the official segment of the CoP 16 in Cancun, EU Commissioner Connie Hedegaard stated: “Over the last years we have managed to mobilize the whole world and get people from around the planet to acknowledge the urgency of [the climate change] challenge”. The sense of urgency in her speech brought many to ask the question ‘who is on-board with the EU’s proposals?’.

The main partner that the EU would like to see join its cause is the United States. Yet, it has been known for the last months that the US will not come to Cancun with a constructive attitude and so far, the United States Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern has been typically evasive and obscure: “Look I do not have anything to say: We are seeking decisions”. He added further that the sought-after ‘decisions’ are not legally-binding, but important to the process.

Largest CO2 Emitters in the World

The second possible partner in the negotiations is the People’s Republic of China, also known as the world’s largest GHG emitter. The mystery surrounding the Chinese position in Cancun was unclouded when Huang Huikang, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s envoy for climate change talks, announced: “We can create a resolution and that resolution can be binding on China” and added that China supports a legally-binding decision under the UNFCCC.

This turn of events has created a ripple-effect at the CoP 16, since two of the world’s largest political players (the EU and China) are now in the same boat. With Brazil and India promising to join the EU in its deal-brokering, the US is quickly being sidelined from the negotiations.

At a press-conference in Brussels in October 2010, US economist Jeffrey Sachs stated that there is a gaping whole in the middle of the climate change negotiations, which has to be filled by someone. “If China stood up, and said, ‘We can’t wait for the US,’ that would be the kind of breakthrough that would work,” he said.

With two days of negotiation left at the CoP 16, the result of the conference remains uncertain. Whether China will step up and challenge the US in its global leadership role will become clear by the end of the week.