PACIFIC TOLD TO BRACE FOR A ' NO DEAL ’

*Samisoni Pareti

NOVEMBER 2009

With the clock ticking closer to the final round of the world negotiations for a new treaty on climate change in Copenhagen next month, the signal is becoming stronger that there will be a ‘no deal’.
“Will there be a strong legally binding agreement in Copenhagen in December? It is not looking that way,” Fei Tevi told a panel discussion on climate change negotiations in Suva last month.
He looks after the Pacific office of the World Council of Churches and is a strong advocate for strong global action against global warming and sea level rise.
Deputy head of the United Nations Development Programme in Fiji, Toily Kurbarnov, agrees. Speaking at the same panel discussion that featured Tevi, Kurbarnov said indications from the second last round of climate change negotiations in Barcelona suggested there could be a no deal in Copenhagen.
“There could be only three likely outcomes; the talks will be successful, the talks will be a failure, or in United Nations lingo, the talks neither succeeded nor failed,” said Kurbarnov.
“We should be prepared for the possibility of a no deal in Copenhagen.”
Pessimistic: Even the word from the Pacific’s chief adviser on climate change, Espen Ronneberg of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, was not good.
Contacted via electronic mail in Barcelona where he was advising Pacific islands negotiators, Ronneberg was pessimistic about a good deal. “Copenhagen needs to provide a strong agreement, both in terms of mitigation targets and support for adaptation,” said the SPREP expert.
“A bad deal is harder to define as we have elements in all negotiation tracks that we have identified as very important. But it is of great concern that we may have an agreement in Copenhagen that merely sets us up for further negotiation.”
The three gentlemen were merely echoing sentiments that were earlier expressed by the man who is leading the negotiations for a new climate change treaty, which needs to be in place before the term of the Kyoto Protocol expires by 2012.

‘We are one,’ says Tuiloma Countries that are members of the Pacific Islands Forum are united in their position on climate change, says Secretary-General Tuiloma Neroni Slade. In the 2009 Cairns Forum communiqué, Forum Leaders recognised climate change as the great challenge of our time and adopted the Pacific Leaders Call To Action on Climate Change,” Tuiloma said in response to questions sent to him by this magazine. “Leaders also acknowledged and welcomed the resolution adopted in June 2009 by the United Nations General Assembly entitled Climate change and its possible security implications. The UN resolution, an initiative of the Pacific small islands developing states represented at the United Nations in New York, was a joint Pacific effort and was strongly supported by all Forum States represented at the United Nations.” Tuiloma’s comments were sought following a divergence of views—the position of Forum leaders at their Cairns summit to that they endorsed in New York at the meeting of AOSIS (the Alliance of Small Island States). But the Samoan retired ambassador and judge of the International Criminal Court denied the contradicting positions of Pacific leaders. He argued there is no valid basis to equate the work of the Forum to that of AOSIS. Below is an abbreviated version of our questions to Tuiloma and his responses: The Alliance of Small Islands States (AOSIS) at their meeting in New York last September called for a target of 1.5ºC by 2020. What is the view of the Pacific Islands Forum on this given that 14 out of 16 of Forum members are also members of AOSIS and given the Forum leaders’ position of 2ºC by 2050 that was reached at the Cairns Forum in August? “It is important to understand and appreciate the sense of international responsibility and unity of purpose among Forum Leaders and the message of urgency and concern that lies at the heart of their Call to Action on Climate Change. “In its essence, it is a message that finds resonance among many small islands developing states and other vulnerable developing countries that are represented in the AOSIS grouping. It is also important to reflect correctly the fact that the Call to Action seeks to limit the increase in global average temperatures to 2ºCelsius “or less”. Furthermore, to ensure the security and the future survival of small islands states, there is an associated call to both developed and developing countries to embrace the possibility of going beyond the 2050 targets contained in the Pacific Leaders Call to Action.” As Secretary-General of the Forum, are you disturbed at the lack of unity in the positions of the Pacific Islands to that of AOSIS? “There is no valid basis to equate the Pacific Islands Forum with AOSIS.They are different and distinct bodies, in every substantive way. “As elaborated above, there is much more to the Pacific Leaders Call to Action that binds Forum members together, in terms of the common effort to generate an effective global agreement and ambitions for the control of the climate change threat. “By the terms of their Cairns Communiqué, Pacific Leaders are clearly united in their call on all countries of the world for far greater ambition and effort in tackling global climate change. There is, therefore, no ground to assert lack of unity; and the secretariat would reject such an assertion.” Since most Forum leaders were also at the AOSIS summit, how should the international community read as the true position of the Pacific islands regarding emission reduction targets; is it 1.5ºC or 2ºC? “The Pacific Islands Forum is possibly unique in its regional and political make-up and the well-known characteristics of comparatively larger and highly developed economies working together with smaller developing islands states economies for the benefit of all Pacific communities. The Forum is not AOSIS; and the Forum cannot be accurately or fairly assessed by any one aspect of the climate change challenge. “The reality is, in times of stress, including times of climate-related impacts, it is the Forum that reacts first and fast to assist and sustain livelihoods and security among all Forum member countries. “On that score, there cannot be a scintilla of doubt of Forum unity and solidarity. It might be noted though, that the ForumSecretariat is a secretariat; and that the national position of Forum member states on any detail of the climate change debate would need to be checked directly with member states.” Some critics including some in the Fiji interim government seem to link the AOSIS position as proof that the Forum leaders were pushed into accepting the positions of Australia and New Zealand at the Cairns Forum. What is your view on this? “The Forum Secretariat can far better respond to queries or propositions supported by credible evidence and not assertions of this type trotted out ad nauseam.”

Speaking to London’s Financial Times on the margins of the Major Economies’ Forum hosted by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, last month, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under which negotiations are taking place, ruled out any substantial deal in Copenhagen.
“A fully fledged new international treaty under the [UN Framework] Convention [on Climate Change]—I do not think that is going to happen,” de Boer says.
“If you look at the limited amount of time remaining to Copenhagen, it’s clear. We have to focus on what can realistically be done and how that can realistically be framed.
“We need to concentrate on the political imperatives that make it clear how countries are committed [to tackling climate change] and engaging in cutting emissions, and what co-operative mechanisms they need to put in place.
Unacceptable: “That means an over-arching decision at Copenhagen that sets out individual targets for industrialised countries, that decides how major developing countries intend to engage [in curbing emissions by] 2020, and hopefully that puts that in the context of a long-term goal [of cutting global emissions by 2050].”
“Copenhagen should decide a deadline by which that architecture can be negotiated into something comprehensive, such as a legally binding international treaty.”
Kosi Latu, SPREP’s deputy director, said a no deal, even an “over-arching framework” is unacceptable to the small and vulnerable islands of the Pacific.
Copenhagen, he said, must deliver on an ambitious but legally binding agreement.
Latu’s boss, David Sheppard, in his monthly column in ISLANDS BUSINESS (see page 47), said: “Failure is not an option for us in the Pacific, or for the Alliance of Small Islands States. The Pacific needs an outcome that guarantees a firm legal and institutional framework for action now, and up to and beyond 2012.
“The negotiation process must deliver an outcome that is consistent in scale and substance with the urgency and ambition demanded by the science. With just one negotiating session left before the conference in Copenhagen, time is of the essence. The Pacific needs and deserves an equitable and sustainable outcome from the Copenhagen climate change conference.”
Enele Sopoaga, now permanent secretary in Tuvalu’s department of transport, said such an agreement must build on the successes of the Kyoto Protocol.
Tuvalu objects to the dropping of Kyoto in favour of a totally new agreement, he said.
For those following the series of negotiations since the Bali conference in 2007, the differences between the negotiating parties are so vast that chances for any agreement in Copenhagen are far remote.
For UNFCCC members that have announced their carbon emission reduction targets, a wide gulf remains between developed and developing nations.
G7 members that include the United States for instance would only opt for a 20% reduction in emission from 1990 levels by 2020. The same target is advocated by Australia and New Zealand.
Members of the European Union, on the other hand, want a 25% reduction, adding they could up this to 30% reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 if other developed countries and major developing nations notably China, India and Brazil accept “adequate” emission reduction targets.
Japan’s new government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is also advocating a 25% reduction, a target Waseda University professor Toshihiko Kinoshita believes would cause a huge dislocation in the Japanese economy if implemented.
“This target is perceived by many as too high,” Kinoshita told a group of journalists from Asia and the Pacific attending an Asian Development Bank Institute seminar in Tokyo last month.
“It would dislocate companies and many of them may relocate out of Japan.”
The most ambitious target, however, is those advocated by countries that belong to the Alliance of Small Islands States, AOSIS.
All islands of the Pacific belong to AOSIS with Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu playing influential roles therein.
AOSIS is demanding a carbon emission reduction target of at least 45% from 1990 levels after 2012 and 80% reductions by 2050.
Such a target although ambitious would ensure the global world temperature rise averages no more than 1.5º Celcius.
Kyoto Protocol: Another thorny point in the negotiations is what to do with the Kyoto Protocol.
While industrialised countries want a new protocol altogether, others in the developing world including AOSIS prefer using the current protocol as a building block.
“It is essential that we build upon and do not weaken the existing legally binding framework,” said AOSIS chair, Ambassador Dessima Williams.
She is the Permanent Representative of the Caribbean island of Grenada to the United Nations in New York.
“Now is not the time for backsliding. The failure to deliver ambitious legally binding outcomes in Copenhagen will threaten the survival of small islands states.”
She said in the previous round of negotiations in Bangkok that Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama and Sri Lanka had rallied behind the AOSIS targets. Countries which belonged to the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), she said, are also supportive of AOSIS’ position.
As was seen at the last UNFCCC in Poznan, Poland, last December, technology transfer from developed to developing nations and funding of climate change adaptation projects continued to be divisive issues. Poorer nations continued to complain that wealthier countries are not enthusiastic about sharing technology advancement in non-fossil fuel energy like solar, hydro, thermal and wind power.
By its own estimation, the EU believes that developing countries will need up to €100 billion annually for mitigation and adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
“The European Commission proposes that industrialised nations and economically more advanced developing countries should provide this public financing in line with their responsibility for emissions and ability to pay,” said a statement from the EC.
“This could mean an EU contribution of some €2-15 billion a year by 2020, assuming an ambitious agreement is reached in Copenhagen.”
For Ambassador Williams however, the final round of negotiations in Copenhagen must not fail. “We cannot afford to push negotiations on our two instruments into next year,” she said.
“There is no better time than now. We have a moral, political and generational responsibility to make Copenhagen the success the world expects.”

*Samisoni Pareti is also a  part-time media adviser for the Delegation of the European Commission for the Pacific.