Sara Suwwan
A 'map'! I guess this is the best description I could reach over the course of two consecutive weeks of negotiations on climate change that were held in Warsaw in Poland. COP19 is the Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC), aiming to reach a binding agreement to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and mechanisms to adapt to the effects of climate change. Yes, all these together stand behind the climate negotiations.
The question, for us, is not whether the climate is changing or not. Science strongly proves that what is happening to this planet is manmade. In its last report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the scientific cubit of UNFCCC, states that climate change happens in an accelerated pace, thus everybody ought to be moving to mitigate climate change and start putting ambitious plans for the 'big year'. The 'big year' is the year of 2015 when all parties are expected to sign and abide to the agreement that will pave the way to mitigate the impact of climate change.
The climate negotiations in Warsaw coincided with one of the most tragic climate catastrophes, namely Typhoon Haiyan, that caused about 70 thousands deaths. The Philippines' negotiator Yep Sano said in his speech "I stand here and don't know yet if my family is safe or not". The climate catastrophes urge the need to find ways to support those affected by the climate change, and that is exactly the endeavor of adopting the 'loss and damage mechanism'; a mechanism that saw light after a two-decade struggle fought by developing countries, and only achieved this year. The question remains, however: will the adopted text in Warsaw rise to the hopes and aspirations of the affected? Of course not, because this new framework was adopted under what is called 'adaptation to climate change' rather than a new approach to compensation.
In 2015, the countries, especially the developed ones, should come with its contributions and commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions, plans to be put forward on the table and to be agreed upon in Paris in 2015, so as to be effective in 2020. Science says that bridging the gap between the current emissions rates and the ought-to-be rates in order to sustain the two-degree target requires the participation of all countries, developed as well as developing, for a chance to stop the escalation of climate change.
Maybe the most important of what happened in Warsaw was the pullout of the civil society, under the slogan of 'we will be back'. The organizations united under the “hashtag” '#VOLVEREMOS' were an inspiration, especially to me. A group of around 800 people showed their frustration towards what was going on in the conference lobbies by simply leaving the meetings saying "we will be back, strong enough to face the oil powers financing the climate change". What eases my annoyance and frustration with all that is taking place in this conference might be my adoption of a more journalistic approach towards the climate negotiations, thus having to closely observe rather than pressuring the world governments to reach an agreement.
In short, the main outcomes are:
- Advancing the Durban Platform: after a two-week struggle, a 3 page text was reached, including the two tracks of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Durban Platform (ADP). The first consists of a universal agreement in 2015 to be effective in 2020; and the second consists of putting ambitious plans for post 2020. The text did not appeal to anybody, for it was ambiguous and lacks any schedules for commitments. All notions of 'equity' were removed from the text, and credit for that goes to the LMDC (like-minded developing countries), the group of countries rich in oil and countries investing in fossils as primary source of energy (like Saudi Arabia, China, and Venezuela). The text only speaks of the need to put forward the commitments in preparation of Ban Ki Moon Summit to be held in September 2014.
- Loss and Damage: yes, the framework was adopted after two whole decades of contention. It has the minimum of what the poor countries and small islands have wished for, but at least it's there: a mechanism to compensate the climate change victims. This is new!
- Financing: The Warsaw meeting was supposed to be the 'money conference', but that money did never appear. 100 billion US dollars were supposed to fuel the Climate Adaptation Fund, but some countries donated what amounted to 100 million. The big promise of 100 billion is yet an empty one!
- REDD+: it's the Framework for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) – a text that protects forests and avoids deforestation was adopted, and some governments, including the UK, US, and Norway backed up the framework with a total of 280 million US dollars.
How can we reform the current model of talks? How can we work out the needed roadmap to a climate treaty in 2015? These questions need to be answered in the following months.
Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Palestine/Jordan supported the participation of two environmental activists and experts from Palestine and Jordan in the COP19 in Warsaw. The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors and do not reflect the official opinion of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.