|
It was so much simpler this time last year. The only measure of success or failure for the Copenhagen summit was whether or not an international deal could be finalised. In the end things were not quite so clear cut, with the meeting ending in an international deal in the form of the Copenhagen Accord that fudged so many of the main issues it was still largely deemed a failure. But at least in the run-up to the summit we knew where we stood.
This year the build-up to the UN's annual climate change jamboree is very different. With everyone agreed that a binding international deal will not be reached, it remains unclear what constitutes a success for the fortnight of talks. We all know what failure looks like – the collapse of the talks following another two weeks of intransigence from the key players – but what would represent a good result for green businesses and the planet as a whole? We run down the 10 questions the Cancun climate summit must answer if it is to deliver meaningful progress towards a deal next year.
Will there be progress on climate finance?
It is highly unlikely that the countries gathered in Cancun will finalise a deal on how to deliver the $100bn (£63bn) a year of climate financing promised as part of the Copenhagen Accord. But will countries seriously consider the recommendations set out by the UN working group on how to raise the necessary finance, and will they start to map out a final set of proposals that still incorporates the more controversial ideas on the table, such as international levies on aviation and shipping?
Equally, will the industrialised nations be able to convince the poorer countries that they are making good on their Copenhagen pledge to deliver $30bn of fast-start financing between 2010 and 2012?
Should the World Bank or an alternative body manage climate funding?
Once the climate financing has been raised, how will it be distributed? Will the World Bank take up a more central role in defiance of the protests of those developing nations that loathe the institution, or will a new body come to the fore? Will donor nations insist that the financing takes the form of loans or comes with strings attached, and will recipient countries accept the conditions? These questions will need to be discussed and Cancun will have to deliver some form of consensus even if it cannot come up with all the answers.
Can we get a deal on REDD?
For much of the past two years the Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD) negotiating track has been the star pupil of the UN talks – the one area where there is some form of consensus between the main players and genuine optimism that a workable agreement can be reached. Moreover, it is a mechanism that is being built on a foundation of relative success, given that recent figures have shown that while there are still grave threats to the world's forests, protection measures have helped to curb the rate of forest loss over the past decade.
But now it is crunch time – can the talks deliver a draft deal that will simply need rubber-stamping next year? If not, the prospects for the more contentious parts of the negotiations do not look good.
Will there be action on fossil fuel subsidies?
The G20, the International Energy Agency, president Obama – pretty much everyone bar the fossil fuel industry – agrees that phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is one of the quickest and easiest ways of delivering deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. And yet despite repeated commitments to tackle the problem, very little progress has been delivered. Will Cancun grab the bull by the horns and deliver some real commitments to cut subsidies to harmful industries?
What is happening to the Clean Development Mechanism?
Supporters claim Clean Development Mechanism projects will have delivered emission cuts equivalent to 1.2 Gt of CO2 by 2012, making it arguably the single most successful initiative for reducing emissions in the developing world while driving investment for low-carbon technology. Critics claim the scheme is fundamentally flawed, rife with fraud and in urgent need of root-and-branch reform. The Executive Board in charge has been mulling major reforms to the scheme for months, causing yet more uncertainty. Participants in the market urgently need some guidance on the future of the scheme and the rules by which they will be required to abide.
Will controversial carbon credits based on HFC gases be restricted? Will the EU move to ban credits about which it has concerns? Will proposed reforms damage a market that has provided incentives for investment in clean technologies?
s it time to focus on adaptation?
The next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to make for terrifying reading and even if global emissions peaked tomorrow, average temperatures would continue to rise for several decades. There is a growing sense among environmental, business and development groups that while every effort must be made to cut emissions, there also needs to be an increased focus on climate adaptation. Will the negotiators heed this message and deliver tangible commitments on adaptation or is the focus on mitigation hardwired into the negotiations?
Will there be any movement on emission targets?
The general feeling is that the standoff over emissions targets was always likely to continue in Cancun and that outcome has been made all but inevitable by the Democrats' defeat in the mid-term elections. The US is not in a position to deliver deeper cut commitments than the measly 17 per cent reduction by 2020 (about four per cent against 1990 levels) that is already on the table. China and others are unwilling to make any meaningful concessions unless the US shoulders more of the responsibility for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Deadlock is inevitable, but at the same time the chances of finalising a deal next year will be all but non-existent unless Cancun delivers an indication that a compromise of some sort could be reached. Will we get that signal or not?
Can there ever be a deal on emissions measurement, reporting and verification?
Similarly, no one expects China and the US to resolve their row over how promised emission cuts should be measured, reported and independently verified, with both countries continuing to regard the issue as a line that cannot be crossed. But, again, without some indication that the so-called MRV issue can be settled, next year's negotiations will feel like an exercise in futility.
What is the mood like?
The atmosphere around the climate change negotiations has long been about as predictable and stable as the Irish economy. At one meeting everyone is at each other's throats, the next the rumour mill insists they are all getting on handsomely. Feelings matter in diplomacy so all eyes will be on the tenor in which the negotiations are undertaken. Will we get consensus and professionalism or are we heading for another bout of tears and vandalism?
Do we need a plan B?
It is the question that no one wants to talk about publicly, but everyone must be working on privately. What happens if we cannot get an agreement to replace or extend the Kyoto Protocol? On a practical level, what happens to those initiatives that are legally dependent on Kyoto, such as the CDM, and on a philosophical level how do we combat the climate crisis without a binding international agreement to curb emissions? Do we need a deadline for these negotiations that will allow us to avoid a repetition of the never-ending Doha Trade Talks, and switch focus to an alternative approach if a deal is not reached next year? And most importantly, what should that alternative approach look like?
By James Murray - Source: www.Businessgreen.com
|
