justice

The Bangkok talks were focused on setting the agenda for the negotiations for the rest of the year and were setback by divisions between countries over the scope of international climate talks. In Bangkok some rich developed countries insisted on limiting the negotiations to implementing the narrow range of issues agreed at Cancun; in contrast most countries supported continuing under an agreed workplan from 2007 (the Bali Action Plan).[1]

Read our Bonn blog

The Bonn talks are to be based on the broad agenda advocated by most countries in Bangkok, but the clash in the 'paradigm' for the negotiations will underline further disagreements in Bonn. 

These fault-lines include:

1. Setting binding emissions reduction targets through the Kyoto Protocol
2. Insufficient emissions reduction targets currently on the table
3. The Green Climate Fund
   

1. Setting new binding emission reduction targets in 2011?

The Kyoto Protocol represents the current model of international climate law – it requires developed countries to set binding emission reduction targets and to meet them over a 5 year period. The first five-year period ends in 2012 and time is running out to agree on targets for the next ‘commitment period’ (2013-2017/2020) in accordance with the mandated negotiations, which have been running since 2005.

Developing countries, particularly the Africa Group, have made clear that a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol is essential, as it provides a paradigm of legally binding emission reduction targets. Some developed countries, including Russia and Japan, have indicated they will walk away from their international legal obligations to agree commitments for the period after 2012. The United States is similarly opposed to binding emissions reduction targets. Instead of negotiating science-based targets reflecting their fair share of the global effort, they are now proposing a “pledge-based” system in which each country does whatever it determines domestically.

Bonn represents a pivotal moment for the future of the Kyoto Protocol. The Bonn climate talks need to pave the way for agreement in Durban on the next phase of legally binding emission reduction targets. Durban is the last chance to agree, as the first phase of commitments ends in 2012. If there is no agreement in Durban, the world may be faced with climate anarchy, without an international regime in place.

2. Will those new pledges be enough?

The latest science shows that negotiators at Bonn will be out of touch with what the latest science clearly requires if the world is to avert dangerous climate change. The current pledges risk warming of 2.5 to 5 degrees according to the United Nations Environment Programme. The problems with developed countries’ proposed targets are manifold: they are too low to meet what the science requires but they are also accompanied by ‘creative accounting’ proposals which result in emissions reductions only on paper. Furthermore the extensive use of offsets will see rich countries shift the burden for reducing emissions to developing countries – while doing almost nothing at home.

Analysis revealed in Bangkok showed that when emission reductions were converted into gross amounts – rather than percentages – it was clear that developing countries’ pledges for emission reductions were even higher than those from developed countries (3.6 Gigatonnes to occur in developing countries with only 1.9 Gigatonnes to occur in developed countries).[2] Together, these pledges fell well short of the 14+ Gigatonnes the UN says is necessary to be on path to remain below 2 or 1.5 degrees C.

In addition, the emissions reduction targets proposed by developed countries are ridden with loopholes. The rules currently being considered do not take into account emissions from shipping and aviation, overestimate emissions reductions by forests and land use in developed countries and allow the carry-over of unused pollution permits and offset credits . This means that the total emission of developed countries could actually increase even if their ‘official’ targets say they are making reductions[3].

The debate over these rules, how they shift the burden of reducing emissions to developing countries and whether they are in line with the science will be of central importance in Bonn – particularly as the agenda sets particular time for addressing this issue.[4]

3. Creating a ‘Green Climate Fund’

In Cancun one of the few areas of agreement was the establishment of a ‘Green Climate Fund’ (GCF) to oversee the collection and disbursement of ‘climate finance.’ Currently the details of the GCF are being negotiated by a ‘Transitional Committee’ (TC) which has already met in Mexico in April and again in Bonn from May 30.

Flashpoint issues in the negotiations of the GCF have already included the role of the World Bank as its trustee, given concerns regarding its potential conflicts of interest due to its role in financing fossil-fuel based projects, and its practice of mixing roles as a banker, financial advisor and project implementer (known as the “Arthur Anderson syndrome” following the financial crisis). This conflict may be compounded by proposals relating to secondments and staffing of the new fund, which draw heavily on the World Bank as a source.

Similarly, many observers are concerned that the process of the GCF is off-track. It is currently heavily focused on technicalities and structure – without having agreed to what the priorities of the fund should be or the actual scale of public funding. In Cancun, countries agreed to a “goal” to “mobilize” $100 billion by 2020 from “a wide variety of sources”. However, developed countries are yet to commit to any specific level of public funding.

A further critical question here is what a “balanced” allocation of finance between adaptation and mitigation really means.[5] It is to be expected at Bonn that developing countries, who are the most vulnerable to climate impacts, will push the GCF to identify the needs and priorities of recipients before designing structures to best meet those needs.

Finally there is concern that the GCF is too focused on ‘private finance’ options (through loan guarantees, publicly-provided insurance, or other risk sharing instruments) and thus risks putting too much power into the hands of profit-driven interests. Market failures and distortions by private interests are a significant structural cause of the climate crisis and many countries fear a continued focus on the ‘private market’ could have the effect of financing projects that are ineffective at confronting climate change but are very effective at transferring public monies into private coffers. These countries and observers will be pushing for the GCF to be primarily funded through public sources (including innovative mechanisms such as Special Drawing Rights and the ‘Robin Hood Tax’).

1] See recent affirmation of the importance of the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol at the India-Africa forum, 25 May 2011, (para 7), http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=72319

[2] Stockholm Environment Institute, “The Implications of International Greenhouse Gas Offsets on Global Climate Mitigation” (March 2011), www.sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-WorkingPaperUS-1106.pdf

[3] Stockholm Environment Institute, “Assessing the current level of pledges & scale of emission reductions by Annex I Parties in aggregate, AWG-KP In Session Workshop, Bonn, 2. August 2010; and, Kartha, S. “How Accounting Tricks, Loopholes, and Strategic Carbon Banking Could Negate Developed Countries’ Copenhagen Pledges”, Tellus Institute Brown Bag Lunch Series, 10 November 2010.

[4] On Thursday 9 June 2011 according to preliminary schedule.

[5] This is a reference to the objective of the fund from the Cancun outcome document – see Annex III of 1/CP.16, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2.

Read our final speech to the delegates and direct reports from Poznań on our blog

news: what did friends of the earth say

• Rich nations to blame for climate inaction and rejection of rights [Dec 12]
  
• Young people meet EU ministers to demand they 'wrap up' climate change [Dec 11]
• Climate change talks standstill: a human rights threat [Dec 10]
• World Bank unfit to manage climate funds [Dec 8]
  

The Climate negotiations in brief

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992 at the Rio Summit and provides a principles of equity for a multilateral agreement on addressing climate change including the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. This reflects the rich, industrialised nations’ overwhelming contribution to historical emissions and therefore their responsibility in acting first to bring down their national emissions.

After a number of years of intense negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11th December 1997 and it the Protocol attempts to implement the principles of the Convention agreement. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 and governments are currently negotiating the second commitment period of the Protocol as well as addressing the 'implementation gap' of other Convention commitments for finance, technology transfer and adaptation.

These talks are scheduled to be completed in December 2009.

Kyoto comes into force

The Kyoto Protocol came into force on 16 February 2005 after the Russian Parliament ratified the treaty in 2004. Kyoto commits industrialized countries who have ratified it to individual, legally binding targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to and average of 5% from 1990 levels in by 2012.

Climate negotiations continue in Poznań

Each year the UNFCCC holds negotiating sessions known as the "COP" (conference of parties). The most recent one was COP14, that took place in Poznań, Poland in December 2008. Delegates continued their work on the "Bali Action Plan" which was agreed at COP 13. The purpose of the Bali Action Plan is to commence implementation on Convention obligations that have not been met thus far, and also design the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to start after 2012. 

Read the reports from the conference on the Friends of the Earth International blog

Friends of the Earth International believes that for the outcomes of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol under the current negotiations to be deemed as legitimate, any agreement reached must be socially, politically, economically and ecologically just and compliant with human rights. Only with a radical global change which is based on climate justice we will be able to prevent the worst consequences of climate change which would hit the poorest people hardest in a sustainable way.

A post-2012 agreement must commit developed countries (Annex I) to make immediate steep emission reductions, support for the respect of land rights and the conservation of the world’s last remaining forests. In addition Annex I countries must make large-scale financial transfers for developing country appropriate adaptation and mitigation with arrangements for appropriate and fair multilateral mechanisms to distribute funds.

Such an agreement should also ensure that the human rights impacts of climate change are taken into account and that the public and civil society have rights of information; public participation and access to justice to ensure that its provisions are developed and applied in an open, fair, transparent and just way.

On the closing day of the COP14 negotiations Friends of the Earth International were invited to give their verdict on the conference. Read it here

reports

REDD myths: A comprehensive critique of a new scheme intended to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries.

Read the press release
Download the executive summary [PDF]

Download the full report  [PDF]

blog

Read updates from the conference on the Friends of the Earth International blog

audio

Listen to Interviews and news from Real World Radio

news

• Rich nations to blame for climate inaction and rejection of rights [Dec 12]
  
• Young people meet EU ministers to demand they 'wrap up' climate change [Dec 11]
• Climate change talks standstill: a human rights threat [Dec 10]
• World Bank unfit to manage climate funds [Dec 8]
• Climate talks pressured by global day of action [Dec 5]
• UN climate talks: clash on climate goal [Dec 4]
• Giant loophole in forest plans [Dec 2]
• Forest carbon trading exposed (REDD) [Nov 27]
• Read our climate position paper for the talks [pdf]

further reading

• Read Friends of the Earth International's analysis of COP13 in Bali (2007) 
• Find out what happened at the intersessional negotiations in Accra, Ghana (2008)
  
• The World Bank and climate change

Friends of the Earth International came to Poznan hoping for progress. We had hoped industrialized countries would commit to steep emission reductions - without offset loopholes - and would announce their willingness to support developing country mitigation and adaptation actions.

However, we remain thoroughly disappointed with the outcomes of the talks thus far.

The distinct lack of achievement here in Poznan falls squarely on the shoulders of the rich industrialized Annex I countries who after 16 years, and despite the rhetoric we have heard about urgency, are still failing to take the climate crisis seriously and realize their obligations under the Convention.

Most Annex 1 countries have spent the majority of this precious negotiating time crafting get-out-clauses and offsetting schemes at the expense of genuine reductions.

These delaying tactics do not set an encouraging tone for the intense year of negotiations to come.  Here in Poznan, we have seen, yet again, the same obstructionist, business-as-usual approach of developed countries. 

Looking forward, we must not ignore the science and the reality of what needs to be done.

For any reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous climate change, Annex-1 countries must by February 2009 commit to at least 40% emission reductions by 2020.  But even this level of reduction may not be enough for many vulnerable nations, so why are we discussing anything less?

To achieve necessary emissions reductions globally, finance and clean technology must be urgently delivered to allow developing countries to make a just-transition towards low-carbon development.

Further, negotiations under REDD:

• are failing to ensure the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities are genuinely protected,
• are failing to distinguish monoculture tree plantations from natural forests,
• are failing to recognize the biodiversity benefit of forests,
• and are risking the privatisation of forests through market-based schemes.

We are not approaching a cliff; we are hanging dangerously over the edge.  We must see a radical shift in the focus of this process.

Anything less with be a failure for all people and the planet.

Workshop on campesino forest use, Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica.

One of the main topics at the United Nations climate talks in Accra from 21– 27 August 2008 was Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD).

What was at stake? The proposed inclusion of forests in carbon markets would enable developed countries to avoid real carbon emissions reductions at home. Furthermore, any proposal that increases the financial value of forests may trigger a vast increase in land rights abuse. This would be the result of a rapid expansion of state or corporate control over forests without regard to the rights of Indigenous Peoples and other forest-dependent communities.

In Accra, Friends of the Earth International presented its positions and proposals in various official workshops, side events and discussions with country delegates.

learn more

Listen to Real World Radio: UN climate talks end amid scrutiny

Download our new briefing as PDF: Forests are More than Carbon

Read regular updates from Kate Horner of FoE US here

Our latest press releases

A selection of FoEI in the news

Read climate talks updates from Third World Network

Watch videos from the conference at the United Nations web site

...and visit our climate finance campaign pages!

The FoEI team in the Accra Conference Center

Our Big Ask is that EU member states make legally binding commitments to cut emissions year-on-year. These cuts should be equal to at least a 30% reduction of EU-wide domestic emissions by 2020 and 90% by 2050. The Big Ask brings together Friends of the Earth groups from 17 European countries:

- Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, EWNI (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

- The Big Ask will engage hundreds of thousands of people across Europe. People will be empowered to take action against climate change by making this demand of their politicians – at the levels of both national government and the European Union.

- People will take action by visiting their local MPs, signing postcards and petitions and staging local actions. Friends of the Earth groups will organise concerts, exhibitions, and other events, and engage national celebrities to inform people about and engage people in the campaign.

Find out more at thebigask.eu

.

outcomes from Bali

Bali delivered two main decisions which are the timetable for the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I, and the Bali Action Plan which is a collection of many different aspects of UNFCCC obligations of mitigation, technology, finance and adaptation. Both are really short on content, and negotiating timetables for the next two years. This is expected to deliver a final decision on Copenhagen in 2009 which will become the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bali Action Plan was the decision taken after a not-seen-before backlash against the USA in which the USA was forced to reverse their position and accept that they had obligations to reduce emissions and to take special consideration of the least developed countries and small island developing states who have comparative low emissions and are extremely vulnerable to climate change. This was widely reported as the 'Bali outcome' and by itself is a really weak decision because it has emissions’ reduction ranges of between 10-40% in a footnote.

The Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments of Annex I - which does actually have emissions reduction ranges of 25-40% by 2020 for industrialised countries, a global peak and decline of emissions by 2015 and keeping temperature below 2 degrees. This is a Kyoto Protocol decision so doesn't apply to the USA - but theoretically provides an 'in' for the USA once there is a change of administration and predicted change of policy on Kyoto.

In Bali there was an unprecedented civil society presence that highlighted the impacts of climate change and proposed solutions. Friends of the Earth believes that a global climate justice movement is necessary to ensure that the responses to climate change are socially and environmentally justice, and that demand a high level of ambition, commitment and action from political leaders.

Alliance-building work in Bali culminated in the establishment of a network called Climate Justice Now! - made up of organisations such as Third World Network, Via Campesina and World Rainforest Movement and Indigenous Peoples organisations. 

Friends of the Earth campaigners from around the world took photos of the event.

And all the latest press releases here

Read more about the Kyoto protocol here
Find out what activities Friends of the Earth International is organising.

Get all the latest coverage and podcasts from Real World Radio

Canada is second only to Austria, worldwide, in the staggering size of its failure to meet its Kyoto target, with its greenhouse gas emissions more than 34% above its 6% reduction target. Last month, the Canadian government set greenhouse reduction targets of 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, which would leave Canada about 39% above the Kyoto target for 2008-2012.

In October 2006, an international legal opinion was presented to the Canadian government indicating that Canada had failed to show “demonstrable progress” in achieving its Kyoto target, as required by 2005. This failure, along with others, activated a legal duty on the Environment Minister under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to act to prevent air pollution that violates an international agreement binding on Canada . The lawsuit is an application for judicial review, seeking enforcement of this duty.

“Because climate change is the most urgent crisis ever facing the planet, Friends of the Earth is resorting to the courts to require the federal government to respect its Kyoto promises," said Beatrice Olivastri, Chief Executive Officer of Friends of the Earth Canada, "We must see an end to important programmes being dismantled, terminated and slashed - all part of the pattern of Kyoto denial by the federal government.”

Sierra Legal lawyer Robert Wright  thinks that the Canadian government is letting its voters down.
“Canadians expect the Government of Canada to live up to its domestic and international commitments to combat global warming, and our environmental laws require it to do so," he said. "Our government shouldn't have to be asked to put on a credible and lawful climate change cap.”

The initiative is supported by  the Climate Justice Programme. “ Canada has become the first country to be sued for breaching the Kyoto Protocol. This is possible because Canada is so far off her Kyoto target that her own legal rules designed to prevent pollution in violation of international law kick in, " said Peter Roderick, co-Director of the Climate Justice Poregramme.  "Canada ’s Kyoto performance has been so abysmal that enforcement of her own legal rules is necessary to help stop her traditional reputation as a good international citizen from slipping further.”

Download the history of the case  http://www.foecanada.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=278&Itemid=113  the Application www.sierralegal.org


Friends of the Earth Canada is a voice for the environment, working nationally and internationally to inspire the renewal of communities and the earth through research, education and advocacy. It is the Canadian member of the 69 country strong Friends of the Earth International (www.foecanada.org).


 Sierra Legal  is Canada ’s largest non-profit environmental law organization, dedicated to enforcing and strengthening the laws that safeguard our environment, wildlife and public health (www.www.sierralegal.org)./

The Climate Justice Programme is an international collaboration of lawyers and campaigners encouraging enforcement of the law to combat climate change, hosted by Friends of the Earth International (www.climatelaw.org).