Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

Opinion Editorials, December 2011


Al-Jazeerah History


Mission & Name  

Conflict Terminology  


Gaza Holocaust  

Gulf War  




News Photos  

Opinion Editorials

US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)




The Shame We All Share For Failing to Take Action on Climate Change

By Curtis F J Doebbler

Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, December 20, 2011

For twenty years the nations of the world have been trying to conquer climate change that otherwise is likely to make our planet uninhabitable. The past week two weeks, from 28 November to 12 December, more than 15,000 delegates from almost two hundred countries had gathered in Durban, South Africa for their annual meeting to try to progress on these negotiations.
The meeting known as the Conference of the Parties (or COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (or UNFCCC) held in Durban, South Africa marked the first time in recent years that States had come together in Africa to discuss this important issue. This was significant because as Ambassador Lumumba Diaping had lamented in the failed COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark back in 2009, we know from irrefutable science that if the world does not act soon more than 100 million Africans will likely die due to the adverse consequences of climate change during this century. Most of these preventable death will come from Sub-Saharan Africa.
As the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Mr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri explained to the COP17 delegates, fortunately we know the action that needs to be taken to be able to protect our atmosphere. Pachauri was speaking about action to ensure that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is kept under 350 parts per million or in terms more user friendly for laypersons keeping the average global temperature from rising more than 1.5 or a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The action that is required means changes in lifestyles, especially of people living in rich industrialized countries. It will require a sharing of technology, know-how, and financial resources by the rich with the poor. And it will require the will of the international community to act.  Unfortunately, unlike P..'s arguments which are based on the best available science. the action that is needed by the international community requires political will and a sense of community.
The last is perhaps the most important. As former multi-time South African Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel told said in the first days of COP17 in Durban, "it is the will that is the most crucial and it is what is lacking the most."
Coming into COP17 there was an expectation that maybe that would change now that the representatives of almost every planet on earth, rich and poor, large and small were meeting in the mist of the African people, the people who were worst effected by the adverse effects of climate change. May thought how could the international community fail to act responsibly? How could the South African hosts with the leverage of their fifty-three African neighbors not force the hand of their guests? How could their guests not succumb to the friendly African hospitality and the smiling faces of the South Africans of Durban?
During the first week there was cautious optimism. "Argentina, African governments, and the (136 nation) G77 are working for a substantive outcome that allows us to leave town with our heads high," said Egyptian negotiator and Deputy Assistant Foreign Minister Ahmed Ihab Gamaleldin, taking a break from the almost around the clock negotiations that were taking place.
For the African hosts, Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs Ms Bomo Edna Molewa said, "the goals are clear we want a second commitment period, operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and real pledges by Annex I countries to cut their emissions."  She was referring to three goals that had featured center stage in the negotiations since the failure at COP15 in Copenhagen.
Where the African goals achieved at this African COP?
A New Commitment Period
Perhaps the most widely publicized decision was the COP decision to agree to a new commitment period. In fact what was agreed was that States would agree to consider a new commitment period. Even this future consideration is conditioned on starting negotiations towards a treaty that, according to the description of its provisions given by developed countries, will violate the fundamental principles of the UNFCCC. This is because the European Union and the United States are attempting to require developing countries to give up the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that is central to the UNFCCC by calling for a new treaty, apparently to replace the UNFCCC.
Developing States were threatened that if they did not accept to negotiate a new treaty with commitments for all States, the EU and its allies would not agree to a new commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. The threat worked.
The motivation behind the European action is questionable. Although always off the record, European negotiators made it clear that what they most wanted preserved in the Kyoto Protocol were the Clean Development Mechanisms and other carbon trading provisions. This is not surprising given the investment that European has put into carbon trading and the fact that it hosts the largest carbon market in the world. Nevertheless, to only call for the carbon trading provisions to be maintained would appear obtusely selfish and insensitive to the global  problem of curbing emissions.
It is troubling that the EU’s threats were made with a legally binding treaty regime in place. Every major country in world has joined the Kyoto regime, except the United States, the world's second largest polluter behind China. The Kyoto Protocol, based on principles greed to in the UNFCCC, sets down legal obligations for States to cut their emissions.
The Kyoto obligations only apply to developed countries or the almost forty most developed counties in Annex I of the UNFCCC. These greater obligations for developed countries are based on the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities. These principles in turn are based on the realization that for centuries the most developed countries have benefited greatly from their over exploitation of the planet's atmosphere. To compensate the developing countries who did not have these advantages, at the UN's Rio Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, developing States agreed to cut their emission to  greater extent than developing countries to help promote more equal development in the world while protecting our atmosphere.
Most importantly, an agreement to a second commitment period is not a discretionary act, it is a legal obligation that is found in article 3, paragraph 9 of the Kyoto Protocol. All European States are party to the Kyoto Protocol and are bound to implement this obligation. The EU was therefore merely offering what it as already legally bound to achieve.
They get away with this because in recent In recent years several developed countries have tried to renege on this legally binding agreement. Canada, for example, publicly announced during the opening days of COP17 that it would not agree to a new commitment period. After 2012, unless a new commitment period is adopted there will be no legal binding obligations requiring States to meaningfully cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
Failure to agree to a new commitment period is very likely to create a planetary disaster because States have not shown the voluntarily will to cut emissions. In fact voluntary pledges made by some States in Copenhagen point towards a world with an average temperature rise of 4 degrees Celsius, a murderous prospect for Sub-Saharan Africans.
“A second commitment period,” said Mr. Pa Ousman Jarju a Gambian negotiator and the chief negotiator of the group of 47 least developed countries, “is fundamental.” But despite its importance a second commitment period was not agreed in Durban.
Speaking after the final decisions of the COP where adopted, Mr. Pablo Solon, the former chief negotiator for Bolivia said, that "[i]t is false to say that a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has been adopted in Durban." He described the Kyoto Protocol as being on "life support" after Durban. The COP decision contains no legally binding commitments for any country. Instead States agree to consider agreeing to a new commitment period sometime in the future without specifying the level of ambition that would be contained in any subsequent agreement.
Financing Action to Address Climate Change
The African hosts appear to have come closer to achieving their second objective, the Green Climate Fund (or GCF). The Green Climate Fund was operationalized in a COP17 decision that seemed to enjoy broad consensus.
South African Foreign Minister and COP17 President Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane described the creation of the GCF as "the key outcome of the Conference."
The GCF is expected to be the main source of financing for global mitigation and adaptation action by developing countries. Again, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities the fund is part of a series of UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol provisions that require developed countries to provide financing to developing countries to empower them to meet the challenges poised by climate change.
After days of negotiations Ms Bernarditas de Castro Müller, a negotiator from the Philippines delegation who played an instrumental role in arriving at the compromise that led to the establishment of the GCF said, "we did it," but then quickly cautioned that "now I have to explain it to my delegation," the G77.
The outcome arrived at, however, looks very much as if States may have built a bank, before having much money to put in it. Commitments made by Denmark and Germany and a handful of other countries provide only a small percentage of the 100 billion US dollars that fund is suppose to start dispensing in just over eight years' time.
Director of Environmental Finance and Executive Coordinator of the United Nations Development Programme Mr. Yannick Glemarec estimated that the amount of money needed for mitigation and adaption by developing countries is likely to be “more than two trillion a year by 2020.” Oddly , however, the COP decisions adopted in Durban removed almost any reference to long-term financing. The issue has apparently been deferred to a future COP.
So where will the money come from?
Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg led a host of of developed countries in arguing that the need money can be raised from the private sector. 
The developing countries have a different view. Mr. Pa Ousman Jarju a Gambian negotiator and the chief negotiator of the group of 47 least developed countries said, "such faith in the private sector is wrong, it is contrary to what we see in practice ... markets are in crisis now."
A policy brief by the Stockholm Environment Institute indicates private sector finance is not equally distributed nor “new and additional” as the UNFCCC requires. It is also likely that the private sector can only provide a small proportion of the 100 billion USD amount that was arbitrarily agreed upon in Copenhagen two years ago.
In Copenhagen developed countries led by the EU and the US also promised to provide 30 billion USD for fast track financing by 2012. A report by African Climate Policy Centre that was released during COP17 showed that with one month to go less than 2 billion USD of the promised 30 billion USD had actually materialized and that even unpaid pledges amounted to less than a quarter of the total promised.
Creative suggestions based on levies on air travel, shipping, and financial transactions appear to all but disappeared from the texts of the COP decisions. Based on the track record of developed countries and the private sector on financing mitigation and adaptation, a fund with woefully inadequate funds may turn out be a pyrrhic victory for Africa and other developing countries.
Cutting Emissions
Most disappointing to the ambitions of Africans, however, must undoubtedly be the lack of progress towards their third goal, ambitious emissions limits. The failure of COP17 to agree to any emissions limitations is perhaps the greatest blow to hosts South Africans pride.
At stake was the challenge, in the words of the UNFCCC,  of acting to keep the gases produced by human beings at a level that is not dangerous to our planet's atmosphere while ensuring equitable and sustainable development. This required meeting the two-prong challenge of ensuing that emissions would be cut to appropriate levels after reaching their peaks no later than 2015 while at the same time ensuring that the burden for making these cuts did not fall on developing countries in such a manner that it would handicap their development.
The decision adopted concerning a second commitment to the Kyoto protocol does not include any figures defining the ambition of States to cut emissions. A column in the table that lists the Annex I countries has yet to be filled in and it is not clear how or when it will be completed. As a result the level of ambitions for emission cuts coming out of Durban can be described as very low and inadequate for achieving a level that prevents dangerous interference with the planet’s atmosphere.
Nevertheless, the European Union made a significant effort to describe their agreement to discuss a second commitment period as an agreement to cut emissions. It is, however, extremely difficult to see the logic of this reasoning. While it is true that European Union States are obliged to cut their emissions by 20% as required by EU legislation, other major emitters among developed States have either agreed to no or much lower emission cuts. As a result, and although they have no legally binding obligations to cut emissions, developing countries have been placed in the position of being expected to provide most of the global emission cuts.
To justify there position developed countries often pointed to the fact that China, a non-Annex I country is the largest aggregate polluter and that other developing countries are also becoming major emitters. Such finger pointing, however, appears to have a discriminatory undertone.
Calculated per capita China's emissions are insignificant. In fact the emissions of all the developing world are a fraction of those of the developed world when they are calculated per capita. The gap between material resources is even greater. While the per capita GDP on the United States is about $46,860 USD per year and the average GDP per capita in Europe is $30,388, China's per capita GDP is only $7,544 USD per year and for India only $3,408 USD per year according to the World Bank. Why should Chinese citizens be entitled to less emissions or less resources than an European or an American?
The Decision-Making Procedure at COP17
Perhaps most disturbing about the decisions taken by COP17 was the way the decision making process worked in Durban. While several States praised the South African government for being more inclusive than the Danish and Mexicans in the past two COPs, few meetings took place in public where NGOs and the press could keep watchful eyes on the negotiators.
This was troubling to both NGOs and States who often complained of not knowing what was really going on and what appeared to be going on did not look good. Small Island states were being showered with gifts, including pro bono advisers that would tell them how to act and sometimes even what to say and when. African States were being threatened with no money if they did not bow to the demands of the EU. And strong-minded ALBA States were threatened with isolation if they blocked agreements that were not as ambitious as they and most of civil soeicty had called for.
Despite the careful effort to negotiate behind closed doors evidence of inappropriate interference sometimes made it into the public domain.
During the AWG-LCA plenary in the late evening of 10 December the Venezuelan Special Representative of the President on Climate Change Ms Claudia Salerno Caldera exposed threats that had been directed against her stating that "in the corridor I have received two threats. One, that if Venezuela do not adopt the text they will not give us the second commitment period … [s]econdly, and the most pathetic and the most lowest threat that if we don’t give them their comfort zone with no rules, flexible, in which they are going to do what they want when they want to head us to four degrees we are not going to have the Green Climate Fund.”
While several States spoke boldly during the AWG-LCA debate calling the agreement “a very watered down text,” “unbalanced,” “biased against developing countries,” “expressed great concerns,” and “not adequately capturing the essential elements” discussed in Durban, it appeared that the threats from developed countries had their intended effect when it came time to adopt the text. No State objected to the text. The only concessions that they had managed to extract seemed to be that an earlier more elaborated text would also be forwarded to COP18 and that the outcome documents were so inconclusive that perhaps negotiations would start over in Doha next year.
One young activist observing the proceedings wondered why the Venezuelan allegation of what was in effect corruption of the UNFCCC process did not lead to an immediate investigation and at least the temporary suspension of the process. Instead, the process continued as if nothing had been said.
Similarly when questioned about the lack of transparency in COP17 processes such as the mainly closed door meetings both Costa Rican Executive Director Cristiana Figueres and the South African hosts defended the secrecy. South African Minister Ms Edna Molewa could only explain this as "it has to be that way." It is also unlikely that the UNFCCC Secretariat will take any action as it supported the closed door processes.
The best control on State action, the more than 10,000 civil society participants who had converged on the COP17 were often kept in the dark about negotiations and prevented from exercising their watchdog function.
On the last Tuesday night, NGOs were excluded en masse from the International Conference Centre. UN Security guards came through the massive Center telling NGO representatives that they had to leave while meetings were still going on. UN Security claimed that had to sweep the area for bombs using dogs, in the UN Security Chief's words, that "were vicious and would bite people." The UN’s rationale that required believing that the dogs were trained to only bite NGO representatives or that UN Security merely did not care whether State representatives were bitten, was not convincing.  Instead the exercise looked like just another effort to keep civil society at a distance from the talks.
Some NGOs observers who did stay until the very end were surprised at the failure of the developed countries, including the hosts, to fight for a stronger agreement. Instead of fighting for Africa's interests as the Danish Prime Minister had for European interests when his country hosted COP15 by taking over the Presidency of the COP himself in the closing days, South African President Jacob Zuma declined to apply his respected negotiating skills to the climate talks and instead travelled abroad during the closing days. ALBA, African and G77 countries that were approach by civil society representatives urging them to stand for a strong agreement during the closing COP plenary seemed more concerned with not upsetting the developed countries then with fighting for the interests of Africa.
While the Western media either through ignorance or intentional malice might deliver to the EU, the US and their allies a rhetorical victory, little was done in Durban to combat climate change and that is something of which we should all be ashamed.
Leaving the Inkosi Albert Luthuli International Convention Centre early Sunday morning and walking through the early morning crowds that  were starting to gather with their sleepy but always smiling faces, it was difficult for any of the delegates to raise their heads to look these hard working and friendly Africans in the eye and it surely wasn't just because of sleep deprivation.       

Dr. Doebbler is a well-known international lawyer and professor at Webster University and the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations in Geneva Switzerland. He is a frequent commentator on events in the Middle East in particularly and on international affairs more generally. He is also the UN representative of Nord-Sud XXI and the President of the NGO International-Lawyers.Org.





Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & &