The efforts towards Copenhagen must succeed

THE United Nations Climate Conference being convened in Copenhagen in December is at times described as 'a last chance to avert catastrophe on a global scale'. That is now viewed as the less extreme end of the international debate. A lot rides on the success of the summit, but analysts and environmentalists feel that despite some movement forward during the UNGA in New York, the prospects of a deal are not as forthcoming as was expected.
The Copenhagen conference is supposed to negotiate a replacement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the landmark deal that first bound nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The importance of the current effort lies in the fact that its provisions start expiring in 2012. There is also general scientific consensus that Kyoto's successor should aim at reducing carbon emissions so that average temperatures do not rise by more than two degrees celsius. It is felt that higher rates of increase would risk ecological changes of serious proportions. In practical terms, such an equation would mean binding targets so that 'the rate of emissions stops growing immediately and starts falling by 2015'. Scientists associated with the environment and climate change within the United Nations framework believe that by 2050 such cuts should reach 80%.
We all know that various obstacles still exist within the negotiations paradigm. However, the main one appears to be the global fault line between developed and developing worlds. Countries with unfulfilled industrial potential -- mainly China and India -- have not yet agreed to compromise in concrete numbers pertaining to eco-austerity. One can understand their dilemma. Both have announced major commitments to renewable energy and are looking at the equation from the perspective of their strategic planning. They hold the already industrialised countries responsible for the legacy of carbon in the atmosphere. On the other hand, the industrialised countries are reluctant to bind themselves to targets that do not restrain countries they see as competitors.
The initiative and discussions that have taken place within the United Nations General Assembly (with Bangladesh being an active participant under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina) have made it clear that the theoretical framework for a compromise is broadly in place. This format expects the developed world to accept its responsibility for old pollution and make amends by subsidising low-carbon energy in the developing world. In exchange for transfer of green technology from rich to poor, the developing world will also consider implementing significant emissions targets.
It is true that translating such a framework into a treaty will be hard. However, I am optimistic that with sufficient political will, the wrinkles can be ironed out. We have already seen how difficulties can be overcome. This has been exemplified through the response of the global leaders to the financial crisis. This is proof that fear of a trans-border crisis can galvanise co-ordinated and collective action.
One could describe the United Nations' current efforts as a form of diplomatic shock therapy for world leaders. The UN Secretary General is trying to inject badly needed urgency into the negotiations, presently adrift. It is clear that the world leaders have to be converted into committed advocates of radical action. Without this, it will be difficult to reach a credible and enforceable agreement. We have already had the World Water Forum in Istanbul in May, the World Water Week in Stockholm in August and the meeting in Geneva in September. The UNGA session is being followed by the G-20 Summit in Pittsburg and another important summit in Stockholm in October. All these conferences have and are giving special attention to the different aspects of climate variability ahead of the digital counter, ticking off the hours to the Copenhagen summit.
The world leadership has to understand that the impacts of climate change will be inequitable and will particularly affect harshly some of the poorest in the world. One can only hope that this spurt of interaction between the environmentalist activists, chief executives of corporations and the political leadership will facilitate in the identification of least common denominators, the taking of necessary action and the leadership being imbued with a new sense of common purpose.
Barrack Obama has indicated America's commitment. China's President Hu Jinato has also assured reduction of gas emissions by a 'notable margin'. One hopes that this will be followed up with more concrete details ahead of the Copenhagen meeting. This will help boost negotiations.
On a parallel track we also need to agree on how we are going to close the 'finance gap' and the failure of industrialized states to come up with a package on how to compensate poor countries (like Bangladesh) that are expected to suffer the most devastating consequences. Negotiators on more than one occasion have pointed out that major industrialised states have yet to set clear figures on how much they are willing to commit, or how they will provide the funding. This has resulted in climate change experts planning a fallback position should the December Copenhagen summit fail to produce a strong enough agreement. It is good that Plan-B is being thought of, but that should not be seen as an alternative.
Right now, the draft agreement for Copenhagen runs to more than 200 pages -- including what negotiators estimate are a couple of thousand brackets denoting points of differences. Negotiators are also anxious about the unwieldy nature of the document and some of the still outstanding issues. Limiting the temperature rise to two degrees celsius is an accepted goal but there is still no consensus on how to get there. The industrialized nations have also not agreed on midterm targets. They have made pledges of roughly half the target set by the IPCC, a 25 per cent to 40 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020.
Developing countries on the other hand have agreed on the need to mitigate their emissions, but have rejected any mandatory limit with regard to agriculture. Unfortunately, the contentious aspects within the debate and differences within the poorer nations and island states might eventually affect the complex issue of aid for the poorest countries.
Finally, between now and Copenhagen, we also need to agree on what institutions would verify how targets are being met and which will supervise the finances.
There are unresolved issues. However I tend to agree with President Obama's comment that we must all take responsibility and view this as an effort in global problem solving rather than as global negotiation.
Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador and can be reached at [email protected]