|
Developing
Countries Advised Caution
BY
IDN CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT 
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.
[Source:
IDN-InDepthNews
| Analysis That Matters]
|
