 BY IDN CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT
IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis
BERLIN (IDN) - While China, Brazil, South Africa and India say they will disclose by January 31 the voluntary steps they would take to help reduce global warming, an intergovernmental policy think-tank is asking developing countries to observe caution when considering how to respond to the Copenhagen Accord.
The agreement was brokered by the United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa at the UN conference on climate change last year.
Caution is needed, says the South Centre, Geneva-based think-tank, because of the controversial manner in which the Accord was presented on December 19, 2009, to the plenary of the fifteenth conference of parties (COP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was not adopted by the COP but merely “taken note of”.
The South Centre is advising caution also because, in its view, the contents of the Copenhagen Accord are imbalanced and in many ways have negative implications for developing countries. It is also far from consistent with the principles of the UNFCCC, especially of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
The Copenhagen Accord also effectively denies the historical responsibility of developed countries for anthropogenic global warming, argues the South Centre headed by Martin Khor.
A denial of historical responsibility for climate change could also imply a denial by developed countries of their obligation to provide financial resources, transfer of technology and meeting costs of adaptation to developing countries, altering the whole balance of differentiated responsibilities warns the South Centre.
Further, “associating” with the Accord may have serious political and legal implications for developing countries.
These include the taking on of international political commitments to undertake mitigation actions and be subject to more stringent measurable, reportable, and verifiable (MRV) modalities without corresponding benefits such as full and effective implementation of developed countries’ UNFCCC obligations to provide financing and technology.
The South Centre further argues that association with the Copenhagen Accord would imply association with inconsistencies to the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol that the Accord contains.
This in turn would also imply “agreement that such principles and provisions will not be fully and effectively implemented or may in fact be derogated from, especially by developed countries”, maintains the South Centre.
OPTIONS
In this context, the developing countries are advised to consider the following options:
- Unconditional acceptance or association with the Accord;
- Association subject to specified conditions, interpretations, reservations, and understandings on the extent, parameters and meaning of such association;
- A “wait and see” approach, especially to consider whether Annex I (industrialized) countries specify their emissions reduction targets by January 31 and what the contents are;
- Non-association with the Accord; and
- Explicit rejection of the Accord.
“It would not be wise for developing countries to take the first option of an unconditional association with the Accord,” states the South Centre.
At the least, developing countries should not be in any hurry to write in to associate with the accord. A “wait and see” approach should at least be taken. For example, in the event that the emission reduction figures to be submitted by Annex I Parties (to fill in Appendix I) are not adequate, this may play an important part in determining a judgment on the value of the Accord.
To agree to associate with the Accord before seeing its entire contents would be to grant a “blank cheque” to the proponents of the Accord, by accepting a document before some of its most important components are revealed.
Further, developing countries will do well to weigh the serious consequences of whether to associate with a document that in practical terms does away with the Kyoto Protocol and its most essential elements, and which contradicts and undermines key principles of the UNFCCC, including that of common but differentiated responsibilities, and which will disadvantage developing countries in many ways.
INAPPROPRIATE
The South Centre takes exception to the fact that in late December 2009, the Danish Presidency circulated a note verbale to UN Member States’ missions in New York inviting UNFCCC Parties “to inform the UNFCCC Secretariat in a written form at their earliest convenience of their willingness to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord.”
The note verbale also indicated that “in completing the report of COP15, the UNFCCC Secretariat will list the Parties to the Convention that have expressed their willingness to be associated with this Accord.”
The legal authority of Denmark as COP15 President to invite UNFCCC Parties to “associate” themselves with the Copenhagen Accord is questionable as nowhere in the COP’s Rules of Procedure does it allow the COP Presidency to invite Parties to undertake any proactive actions in relation to any document or instrument that is external to the COP process, maintains the South Centre.
In a separate notification January 18 UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer asked countries to sign up to the Copenhagen Accord by January 31. But this was a “soft deadline”, by no means a “deadly deadline”, he explained.
The fact that Copenhagen did not deliver the full agreement the world needs to address climate change “just makes the task more urgent”, he said in his first briefing to the media since the December-end Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
According to De Boer, Three key things that Copenhagen produced were: (i) It raised climate change to the highest level of government; (ii) The Copenhagen Accord reflects a political consensus on the long-term, global response to climate change; (iii) The negotiations brought an almost full set of decisions to implement rapid climate action near to completion.
De Boer said that “we’re now in a cooling off period that gives countries useful and needed time to resume their discussions with each other”.
“If countries follow up the outcomes of Copenhagen calmly, with eyes firmly on the advantage of collective action, they have every chance of completing the job,” he added. He envisaged the political agreement hammered out at the talks would form a basis for future cooperation and become “a living document that tracks action that countries want to take”.
The UNFCCC Executive Secretary noted that “Copenhagen didn’t produce the final cake, but it left countries with the right ingredients to bake a new one in Mexico.”
Mexico City will host the sixteenth conference of parties to UNFCCC from November 29, with a mid-year meeting planned for Bonn in May/June. De Boer said the secretariat was in talks with countries about scheduling interim meetings, possibly before Bonn, but more likely between the Bonn and Mexico City sessions.
He stressed that the Copenhagen Accord would not open up a third track of negotiations. Instead, he said the talks would continue with two existing tracks, on the future commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and the long-term cooperative action (LCA), which includes the U.S.
But he made no commitments about whether a legally binding deal would be agreed in Mexico. (IDN-InDepthNews/26.01.2010)
Copyright © 2009 IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters
Related IDN articles:
http://www.indepthnews.net/area2.php?key=CC
|
