At last an official document for breakfast tomorrow at COP15

Climate change negotiators may have a new document to read over breakfast tomorrow.

Sergio Abranches

The chairperson and co-chairperson of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) will work overnight to finish a new version of a document that may serve as an official guideline for the climate change negotiations.

The Brazilian top climate change negotiator, ambassador Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, also co-chairperson of the LCA has said in a press briefing today that he hopes the document will be ready by the morning and helps to focus the negotiations, so that they can move forward toward the desired goal: a robust agreement. LCA’s chairperson, Malta’s negotiator, Michael Jammit Cutajar, has been apparently persuaded to table the document no later than tomorrow.

The Parties’ ministers will be arriving this weekend, and it is expected they could have working documents upon which to decide on further instructions to negotiators.  These instructions will be a crucial element of next week’s decisive tough talks.

This will very likely be the first encompassing formal document to reach the negotiation table. It can either help the process by pointing to constructive ways of dealing with the main gridlocks blocking an effective deal, or further contribute to the gridlock.

Right now, the corridors of Bella Center are vibrating with the repercussions of polarizing and divisive arguments. Some of them were brought to the fore by the so-called “Danish non-paper”. The leaked document was viewed as an attempt at “greenwashing” or a save-face solution to prevent Copenhagen from openly failing. Other extreme notions emerged from the “Chinese non-paper”, defending that the legal instrument for developed countries which have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol should be framed the same way as the Protocol when addressing mandatory emission reduction targets. It also exempts the advanced economies of the developing world, emerging powers such as China, Brazil and India, of any legally binding commitment. The document inspired and drafted by the Chinese government was partially endorsed by the other BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, and India).

Us top climate change negotiator Todd Stern added his own to the stockpile of extreme statements. He made quite an entry to Copenhagen, on his first press briefing, rejecting the idea that developed countries have an historical responsibility for greenhouse gases accumulation in the atmosphere. This is a central principle of emerging countries’ climate change politics.

I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like.

The notion of debt or reparations comes out of the principle of historical responsibility.

Stern argued that

the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect is a relatively recent phenomenon.

The challenge of the negotiators in charge of drafting these preliminary documents is to find a common ground that could persuade those parties now holding extreme positions to move to this more central point.

Contradictory ideas regarding some of the most divisive issues are still leading the conversations. On the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, there is the standard emerging countries view that the Protocol should be the single legal instrument. Hence countries which have not ratified it should abide by the same rules, even admitting a proper legal ad hoc instrument for them. A growing number of developed countries would like the Kyoto Protocol to be abandoned before it enters its second phase of commitment. They want an entirely new legal instrument.

Japan and Russia, for instance, have already declared that their new emissions reduction commitments are not meant to be filed under the Kyoto Protocol. They are intended for a new legal regime to be defined in Copenhagen.

There also is a compromise solution put forward by UN top climate change official Yvo de Boer, among others. This third way would maintain the Kyoto Protocol as the valid regime for the Annex I countries that have ratified it. A new legal regime would be defined for Annex I countries that have not ratified the Protocol, such as the US, and for the “advanced economies of the developing world”, meaning China, Brazil, and India, among others.

The emerging countries could accept this compromise solution, provided it maintained the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, by defining different levels of “measurable, reportable and verifiable” commitments for developed and developing countries under this new regime. It should also establish equitable commitments to the developed countries under the new regime when compared to those under the Kyoto Protocol.

The major question continues to be what degree of flexibility the US will show at the negotiation table. The US is expected to increase its commitment, so that it levels with those of the other developed countries. So far, the US delegation while admitting its commitment is not at the same level as EU’s by 2020, it does converge by 2050. The other parties will very likely ask for more.

The reaction of the other developed parties will very much depend on the final decision to be reached in Brussels tomorrow by the EU on what to bring to Copenhagen. The emerging countries fear the European Union will lower the bar, to fit the US into the climate change policy regime. I’ve heard from other sources it might actually raise the bar from 20% to 30% of unconditional emission reduction, and 40% under the condition the other large emitters also raise theirs proportionately.

The US could probably raise its target from 17% of reduction from 2005 levels to 2020, the House has already voted, to the 20% pending a Senate vote. But it is unlikely president Obama would feel comfortable to go beyond what Congress is about to approve. The alternative would be to present an estimate of additional emission reduction to come from new EPA rules. This number could not, however, be filed as a formal commitment under an international regulatory regime. There are some experts saying this additional reduction could be greater than what would be obtained under the new Climate change Act still to be voted by the US Congress.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson hinted that much on her presentation in Copenhagen, saying that the utility of the new act would be to eliminate any legal uncertainty. It would make it clear once for all to US corporations that there will be a cap on emissions no matter what.

If by tomorrow morning a meaningful document is served at the breakfast table of COP15 negotiators, the talks might definitely move forward. If it fails to provide the right directions towards a common ground, nervousness and turbulence will dominate the scene, heating up, once more, the cold weekend in Copenhagen.

Tags: climate, Climate Change, COP15, Copenhagen