Journalists view proceedings from the screen

 The arrival of United States President Barack Obama in Copenhagen this morning has added new optimism that world leaders may finally come up with a deal to control global warming.

The talks had deadlocked until yesterday when leaders of key countries especially in Europe, the US arrived at the Bella centre – venue for climate talks.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had announced in the afternoon that the US would back a fund to raise some US 100 billion by 2020. She didn’t elaborate on where the money would come from or whether it would be new money as many NGOs are demanding

But if there is any chance of a meaningful deal at all, credit should go French President Nicholas Sarkozy who called for a late night meeting of 22 countries to try to solve the impasse.

Civil Society protest after they were chased from the talks

Sources say the meeting ended at around 1pm and that some form of agreement was reached.

A document leaked late last evening suggesting that developed countries would agree to capping their emissions at 3 degrees.

African countries, NGOs and IPCC scientists had insisted this would be catastrophic for countries in Africa and in the Oceans that are at the forefront of climate change. It is said that at 2 degrees, temperatures in Africa will be 3.5 degrees higher.

China is also said to have relaxed its opposition to the highly controvercial clause that demands full transparency in monitoring whether or not countries stick to their commitments in reducing emissions.

An estimated 2000 journalists are waiting anxiously in and outside the media centre. But NGOs were chassed away following Wednesday’s bloody protests.

It is understood that some disagreement remains over the management of funds. US wants the money to be managed by the World Bank, but several NGOs including Action aid Denmark have put up a spirited fight to oppose that.

The clear thing is that it is very uncertain how talks could end. Today is the last day and negotiations have ended.  All that is left is to announce how talks have ended.

 By Henry Lutaaya

Connie Hedegaard, the president of Conference of Parties (COP 15) at the Copenhagen talks has resigned.

This was after ministers failed to reach agreement on two negotiation processes.

Under the Long term Cooperative Action (LCA) which includes all 193 countries, all the text remained in brackets – meaning that there has not been agreement whatsoever. In another process called Kyoto track (KP), developed countries refused to put numbers on targets to reduce emissions.

Ms. Hedegaard has been replaced with Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen, who will now take chair the high-level meeting of heads of state.  

In the KP plenary, South Africa, on behalf of G77+China, asked for another day for KP work before sending the document to ministers.

The vulnerable groups (AOSIS / LDCs – not sure about Africa Group or China / India / Brazil) supported South Africa but European Union (EU) and other developed countries rejected the idea.

EU leaders say that the document is ready for a political decision now. Denmark and other developed countries do not want a legally binding document now. They want a political agreement with no targets and no commitments, which has been rebuffed by most people pressing for a Fair, Ambitious and Binding deal.

G77 are apparently furious that Hedegaard and the UNFCCC secretariat lied from the beginning that they were committed to a legally binding agreement. This after they discovered that Denmark has decided to table two new documents before Heads of State that will be debated in an effort to have the political agreement they’ve been looking for.

By Henry Lutaaya in Copenhagen

Perhaps the two best placed people to judge the tempo of the ongoing Copenhagen talks say there is a huge amount of work facing ministers over the next 24 hours if there is any chance of reaching an agreement in Copenhagen.

Danish minister and the President of  COP 15, Connie Hedegaard said: “Ministers must be extremely busy and very focused in the next 24 hours, if we have to see success,” said Hedegaard.

She was supported by UNFCCC Secretary General Yvo de Boer who said: “There is still an enormous amount of work that has to be done in order to achieve the ambitious targets on reducing emissions, immediate and robust financing. We need to nail that down in the next 24 hours.”

Wednesday December 16, marks the formal opening of high level negotiations between ministers, before an estimated 115 heads of state are scheduled to pronounce whether or not the world will be able to produce a meaningful deal on curtailing global warming.

“We are in a very important phase,” de Boer hinted amidst mounting pressure from many recognised personalities of the world who are in Copenhagen beginning Monday.

Among these are, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, Former Ireland President Mary Robinson, Former Vice President Al Gore and Califonia governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

While the sense of urgency for a binding agreement has been growing since the conference opened 10 days ago, many are amazed at the diabolical lack of progress towards resolving many outstanding problems.

Hedegaard recognized this much when she said that there are still many obstacles that stand in the way of reaching agreement.

For once, it is the way the UN system and its 193 member countries, operates.

All countries have to agree to everything.

“This is utterly complicated, we have to find another way of doing things differently,” Hedegaard recognized.

She and her country Denmark have tried to do it differently, by inviting ministers from all over the world to get engaged in the process to have a political agreement, rather wait for them to deal with the complicated issues in the last two days when the conference is about to end.

She pointed to disagreements over the unwillingness by countries to commit money to the adaptation fund to support poor countries.

She particularly pointed to the absence of the US in the talks over the past 17 years, for having stalled the process, because many of the rich countries, she observed, which had committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto protocol, have used the absence of the US as an excuse not to move.

Other key issues yet to be discussed regard governance of climate change. This is a vast problem. It relates to how the billions being demanded  – if they ever come, will be governed. Many are opposed to having the World Bank and the IMF to take charge of the money because they fear red tape will frustrate supposed beneficiaries. But also many fear the money will go back to the rich countries through paying for WB consultants.

The governance problem also relates to how will countries be policed to ensure that they stick to commitments to cut their emissions.

China and India do not want to be policed, and many are weary that developing countries will not submit to monitoring in the way they use money given to them.  

henrylutaaya@hotmail.com

Environment Minister Maria Mutagamba with PS David Obong in Copenhagen

By Henry Lutaaya in Copenhagen 

Uganda’s delegation at the climate change talks in Copenhagen wants to make sure that no matter the outcomes of the global negotiations, they should have something to take home. 

During her first official briefing on Monday December 14, Water and Environment Minister Maria Mutagamba told the delegation that they must ensure they look for alternative funding opportunities and knowledge from some of the successful projects that have been implemented in other countries. 

Mutagamba argued that even if world leaders were to agree on raising billions of dollars for combating climate change in developing countries this week, the money may take long to arrive in the coffers of government and yet climate change in already having its toll on Uganda. 

Mutagamba said: “Even if this money is to come, we all know that it may take sometime. So we need to devise ways of getting projects to start adapting. 

She added: “We should use this golden opportunity to meet with our friends [referring to rich countries with whom Uganda has good ties] and other organizations to propose projects that they can finance.” 

A number of countries mostly from Asia, such as Bangladesh, and India are already benefiting significantly from international financing arrangements such as the Global Adaptation Fund and the Global Environmental Facility. China is the largest beneficiary under the market-driven Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Non-governmental organizations such as Action Aid are also engaged in supporting communities in Bangladesh to combat climate change. 

Uganda is yet to record a single project that is funded to specifically target reducing vulnerability of poor people to climate change. 

Signs of hope? 

There are signs however that very soon, money will start flowing into the country to facilitate major efforts to combat climate change. 

Fred Machulu from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and one of Uganda’s key negotiators in the ongoing talks told Mutagamba that the World Bank has expressed interest in funding sensitization programmes in Uganda. 

According to Machulu, first priority in the planned massive sensitization campaign will be given to Members of Parliament and District chairpersons. 

Uganda’s chief climate negotiator Ambassador Philip Gwage told The Sunrise that the government of Belgium has promised to support capacity building to enable Uganda benefit from CDM funding. 

Mutagamba has already hooked up with the World Food Programme (WFP) to implement an energy efficient cooking stoves which minimize the amount of carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere from wood and charcoal. 

The view among members of Uganda’s delegation is that sensitization of the masses about climate change must be taken as priority and embarked on immediately after Copenhagen. 

henrylutaaya@hotmail.com

Happy Protester? She was one of the people who prested last week to ensure that rights of indiginous forest communities are recognised

The text of the draft agreement on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) leaked late on Friday December 11, and reportedly contains no targets for ending deforestation.

Community and biodiversity activists have reacted furiously to the new text for what they say is its failure to set targets as well as for failing to provide sufficient safeguards for indigenous communities that utilise the forests.

“Without targets, REDD becomes toothless,” said Peg Putt of the Wilderness Society. “The so-called safeguards will be nothing but fancy window dressing unless they are given legal force.”

Targets for deforestation in the prior REDD text, which is expected to be one of the stronger parts of a climate deal, aimed to cut deforestation by 50 percent by 2020 and eliminate it by 2030. Start-up costs for REDD are estimated to be €15-25 billion (£13.6-22.7 billion; $22.4-37.3 billion) from 2010-15 to support preparatory activities, although some experts challenge those figures as far too low.

“It’s hardly surprising that developing countries won’t commit to global targets for deforestation when rich countries haven’t yet provided the necessary financing for REDD or global targets for deep reductions of industrial emissions,” said Nathaniel Dyer of Rainforest Foundation UK.

Of equal concern, activists say, the language ensuring critical safeguards for biodiversity, forest conversion, indigenous rights and monitoring has moved from operational text into the preamble.

“Limiting safeguards to the preamble weakens the agreement and deprives it of any assurance of compliance,” said Dr. Rosalind Reeve of Global Witness.

Despite the support of key countries, current text on the underlying drivers of tropical deforestation is among language moved to the preamble, recognizing consuming countries’ role in fueling deforestation but putting no obligation on them to address the problem.

“Global demand for forest commodities like illegal timber and palm oil is one of the leading causes of tropical deforestation around the world,” said Andrea Johnson of Environmental Investigation Agency. “If we don’t address the causes of the problem, how can we find a solution?”

Protection of natural forests appears explicitly in the text for the first time, and a safeguard on conversion of natural forests to plantations has reappeared, but both are still not required actions.

Still missing in the text is any provision to protect and restore the world’s peat soils, which account for 6 percent of all global C02 emissions

“Peat soils are a key part of many countries’ plans to reduce their emissions, including large emitters like Indonesia,” said Susanna Tol of Wetlands International. “If peat soils are not in REDD, these efforts will go unsupported.”

A weak REDD deal will fail to reduce emissions from deforestation, threaten the indigenous peoples who rely on forests for their livelihoods, and have severe negative impacts on biodiversity.

“Currently, an acre of forest is cut down ever second, depriving the world of critical carbon reservoirs and creating huge emissions bursts into the atmosphere,” said Stephen Leonard of the Australian Orangutan Project. “A REDD without global deforestation targets or safeguards makes it much more likely that the orangutan and other critical species that rely on the forest will become extinct.”

While text can still be changed, ministerial level actions beginning next week may be required to reinsert targets and safeguard language.

“Clearly, everyone agrees that the world’s tropical forests need to be protected,” said Bill Barclay of Rainforest Action Network. “But good intentions aren’t enough, they have to be paired with action. Ministers must act to strengthen the REDD text next week if we have any hope of a REDD that will be effective in protecting tropical forests.”

Author, Alexander Müller IISD photo

By Alexander Müller 

Across the vast rangelands of West Africa, pastoralist farmers have long kept herds of cattle, sheep and goats, but the livestock, and herders incomes, are starting to decrease in many areas. 

Drought, rising population pressure and inadequate management have contributed to widespread depletion of soils – with nutrients being sucked out of the earth. 

Largely gone, too, is the land’s ability to hold large amounts of carbon. It’s no small loss. The beaten-down land here and around the world, along with degraded farmland, are an open wound not only because of the loss of productive land but also because it is a lost opportunity to slow and reverse climate change. 

With negotiators gathering now in Copenhagen to try to work out a new global climate deal, a key question is whether transforming the use of agricultural lands, such as those on the West Africa rangelands, will be included.  

Negotiators need to look to farmers—and the use of farmland—for help. There should be no doubt today that climate change, agricultural lands, and food production are all inextricably linked. There is no separating these powerful factors that are elemental to our survival.  

First, let’s think about food. The world’s population is expected to grow to 9 billion people by the year 2050—a 50 percent increase. It means we’ll need to produce 70 percent more food by then. How do we do that?  

The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that $210 billion is needed in agricultural investments every year in order to produce the required amount of food. However investments in agricultural practices that promote soil carbon capture can make agriculture part of the solution in the climate change fight, rather than part of the problem, while increasing production and improving livelihoods of small scale farmers.  

Now, agriculture is one of the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions producing, according to IPCC, roughly 12 to 14 percent of all emissions. But healthy soils, like trees, can be great carbon capturers. Farmers and herders need to use new practices—or adapt centuries-old practices—to put more organic matter in soils, and then keep it there. More organic content holds more carbon; and more carbon in soils boosts agricultural production by creating higher levels of nutrients in plants and retaining greater amounts of water.  

This is where the Copenhagen climate-change negotiators need to step in. The question now doesn’t involve science—we understand the value of better soils for food production and to capture more carbon. The question in Copenhagen should be how to finance needed innovations in agriculture to unleash these multiple benefits.  

What’s needed is a way to create a carbon-financing scheme in which new funding streams are literally put back into the land—funneled into wise agricultural investments to improve farming and agroforestry practices that both increase food production and combat climate change.  

Part of the beauty in this is that this change won’t take years. This isn’t like developing alternative energy sources that require huge infrastructure investments, or installing new technologies to reduce emissions from current energy sources. Instead, this new green agriculture movement can begin right away.  

There are several entry points. One is a massive effort to help farmers and herders build up organic matter in soils. It could mean taking herds of sheep or goats off overgrazed rangelands in Africa for several years; it could mean more careful measuring of carbon in soils to detect successes and failures and to determine where to focus efforts; and it could mean that farmers till the soil less and apply more organic fertilizers such as manure and mulch.  

In many of the world’s degraded agricultural lands, much has been lost. Now it’s time to bring life back to these lands. Not only do we need better soils for food production, but we also need the soils to lock up carbon. Better soils will give life.  

Alexander Müller is Assistant Director-General of the Natural Resources Management and Environment Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

By Henry Lutaaya, in Copenhagen

Declaring that climate change is the most important spiritual and moral issue of our time, religious leaders from over nine faiths groups called for radical action by politicians to halt the rate at which the globe is warming.

On Wednesday December 9, religious leaders shared the podium with scientists and declared that this is not the debate about creation but rather that it is a debate about values.

On the same day however, other religious leaders including Philip Foster, a retired clergyman from Cambridge, joined other climate change skeptics in one of the many press briefings here to claim that man kind is not behind climate change.

The scientists and religious leaders who believe that climate is happening, twere joined by the campaign group 350.org under the banner, Interfaith Declaration on Climate Change.

Their message was largely the same; that politicians need to take radical steps to stop the globe from further warming. They argued that the world is warming because of greed by corporate bodies and because of neglect of values by humanity.

They cited verses from the different faith books showing that man has the responsibility to care for the earth and also that the destiny of every human being is shared.

They reasoned that it is a moral issue for developed countries to raise money needed to support vulnerable people in developing countries who are suffering from the effects of global warming that has largely come from over a century of industrialization in the west.

While making pleas to negotiators to fix the problems arising from climate change, many of them expressed the view that politicians will not do much unless they get pressured by the publics in their own countries.

“Our planet is now being ruled by money, by greed and by conglomerates. They have no shame, they have no humility and we have to reclaim our planet,” declared Imam Abdul Wahid Padersen, who lives in Copenhagen.

L-R: Venerable Chang Ji, Dr. Stephen Schneider, Imam Abdul and Sister Brown

While Sister Joan Brown from the Franciscan sisters in the United States alluded to a message by Saint Francis, who, as Sr. Brown put it: “Called on everyone to care for mother earth who governs us.”

Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the scientists who wrote the first assessment of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned: “We are very to the end of the time that we have to fix the problem after which climate change will become unfixable.”

It is interesting to note though that some religious leaders like the Buddhist Lakha Lama Rinpoche used the event  to blame science for enabling man, as he put it, ‘to steal resources from the earth than God has allowed us to’ to pollute the environment.

According to organizers of the interfaith declaration, this weekend as hundreds of churches around the world are preparing to ring bells 350 times. They hope this will raise awareness among believers and help create grassroots action that will force politicians to act.

Dr. Schneider agreed that scientists have only succeeded in identifying the problem, and that the remaining job of shaping the values of society will largely be carried by religious leaders.

 henrylutaaya@hotmail.com

Semi-naked protesters braved freezing cold to call for radical action in climate negotiations

By Henry Lutaaya in Copenhagen 

Chanting “We are in the Cold to stop the Heat,” about a dozen protesters put up a show of bravely this morning by removing nearly all their clothes in zero degree temperatures in an effort to press for radical cuts in greenhouse gas emissions during ongoing negotiations for climate change in Copenhagen. 

While everyone else wrapped themselves in thick coats, the semi-nude protesters jumped and chanted outside the Bella Centre, Copenhagen, for radical decisions to be taken by negotiators to reverse the rate of global warming. 

Emissions of greenhouse gasses, blamed for many of the world’s ills such as droughts and floods, are one of  the issues of intense debate by delegates to the 15^th Conference of Parties taking place in the Danish capital. 

The campaigners are part of the 350 group – which is calling for radical cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. 350 refers to ‘Parts Per million’ or the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere beyond which, scientists say, reversing the consequences of climate change will be nearly impossible. 

350 is used interchangeably with 1.5 degrees of warming compared to pre-industrial levels. Currently, the world’s temperature is estimated to be about 0.7 degrees warmer or 387 PPM, compared to pre-industrial levels, but it is warming up faster than before because of increasing amounts of carbon that is pumped into the atmosphere. 

Developed countries are only aiming to achieve the target of limiting emissions to 450 PPM or 2 degrees by 2020, which makes the 350 demand really radical. Developing countries like Uganda and Small Island nations that are highly vulnerable, are pressing for the 350 PPM target. 

On Wednesday December 9, the 350 campaign group staged another radical move by bringing together scientists and religious leaders from about 9 faiths including a Muslim Imam, a catholic sister, Buddhist monks, Rabbis and many others. 

Please stay tuned to this site for more coverage of Copenhagen news and updates. 

More reports can be seen on www.sunrise.ug

Leader of LDC bloc, Bruno Sekoli from Lesotho

By Henry Lutaaya in Copenhagen

Divisions have emerged within the G77/China group of countries as well as between the African bloc threatening to make the possibility of reaching a deal next week the more difficult.

Dr. Aryamanya Mugisha, the Executive Director of the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) and a member of Uganda’s negotiation team told me that African countries have begun to shift positions and are now pursuing economic interests rather than environmental goals that have largely bound them together for over a decade when the talks begun.

The split arose from a new position that has been adopted by the Least Developed Countries supported by the Small Island Nations (OASIS) that sets a new and more ambitious target that would ensure that global temperatures don’t go beyond 1.5 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels.

The global temperature is estimated to be about 0.7 higher than pre-industrial levels and is rising fast. A new report released Tuesday by the World Meteorological Organization said that the decade 2000 – 2010 is on track to recording the warmest temperatures ever.

LDCs and Oasis also insist they will settle for nothing less than a legally binding agreement as opposed to a political agreement that seems to be taking shape. The chair of the LDC group Bruno Sekoli down played the split but stressing that all LDCs are committed to a 1.5 degree target.

But according to many journalists following the negotiations, there is no ambition particularly by the major players, Europe, China and the US to have a legally binding agreement.

Mugisha cited China, Brazil, South Africa and India as not ready to move in tandem with the common position agreed by majority of the G77 membership. The G77 group comprises 130 countries, but has sub-groups such as LDCs, Africa and Oasis.

“The say that they are still part of the G77 but when you read their text, it says something different,” one senior member of the Ugandan delegation said: “It is clear that economic interests have over-taken environmental interests.”

Within the African bloc Nigeria and Sudan, according to the Ugandan delegate, appear to be shifting away from the position favored by the most vulnerable countries to climate change including LDCs and Small Island Nations (Oasis). Instead, the two countries are said to be moving in the direction preferred by Oil producing countries (OPEC).

George Wamukoya, an advisor to the African Union however argues that new position of 1.5C has further reduced the chances of reaching an agreement between developed and developing countries. The new target is also higher than what the Kyoto protocol had set.

Under the Kyoto protocol, developed countries, apart from the US which is not part of it, had agreed to limit greenhouse gases at 2 degrees before the year 2020.

Senior members of the Ugandan delegation have said they stand by the 1.5 degree target, beyond which they say Uganda’s economy will face serious problems as economic activities like coffee growing will become nearly impossible.

The African position comes two days after Achim Steiner, the executive director of the UN Environment Programme noted that the 2C target which many countries say is the safe permissible limit of global temperature rise may not be enough.

Steiner told a news conference at COP-15 this week: “I think a 50% probability of staying below 2C is a hell of a risk to take, and in the future the science may well say a 1.5C limit would be safer. But 2C gives us a basis for negotiation here in Copenhagen.” Among those urging the adoption of a 1.5C limit are AOSIS and the respected climate scientist Professor James Hansen of the US.

The G77/China group is the largest bloc recognized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the body that is responsible for the ongoing talks in Copenhagen.

A team of journalists and facilitators of the Climate Change Media Partnership arriving in Copenhagen on Saturday ahead of the UNFCCC talks

By Henry Lutaaya in Copenhagen

It has been a rather unfriendly one and a half day of stay in Copenhagen. The extreme cold and strong winds have conspired with very high cost of almost everything the malls to ensure that we remain indoors.

I and a colleague of mine Emmanuel Okella who works with Radio Simba in Kampala jetted into Copenhagen from Entebbe through London, on Saturday afternoon.

We are part of the Climate Change Media Partnership (CCMP) that is sponsoring over 40 journalist fellows from the developing world with the view of increasing the coverage of the forthcoming climate change negotiations starting December 7, 2009, from a developing world perspective.

With registration badges already around our necks, we’ve spent much of Sunday, acquiring tips on how to find a good story amidst what someone has called a shower of information.

As you would expect, the run-up to Copenhagen has generated immense interest from across the world with most people talking about the meeting nearly as the one that’s gonna decide the fate of the world. 

That’s pretty much where the expectations have reached and it may explain the huge media interest in the negotiations. It is said that about 5000 journalists from around the world were accredited to cover this COP 15 meeting. This represents about 33 percent of all total number of participants.  Alex Kirby, a veteran journalist in climate negotiations reveals for example that unlike previous meetings, quite a number of journalists from his home country Britain who used to turn up during the second week of talks, are already here before the conference is even underway.

But the meeting isn’t short of delegates from other spheres of society. In fact, to say that the civil society, who comprise NGOs and campaign groups have a heavy presence already at the COP 15 is an understatement.

On top of a strong army of journalists and civil society experts and campaigners, you have quite a significant number of government representatives who are the principal negotiators as well as the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat staff.

Rumour has it that the host city has been overwhelmed by the number of guests and they simply don’t have enough accommodation for all the 15,000 plus delegates.

Many of them, I established, managed to find accommodation across the border in Sweden from where they commute every morning to attend the negotiations and return for sleep.

The Danish government is providing transportation free of charge to all delegates and those sleeping over in Sweden have to top up with about 100 Cronos (Danish currency equivalent to Ushs 37,000) to enable them make daily trips – very cheap, considering that a handful of potato fries cost 20 Cronos.

Many close followers of past climate negotiations, particularly those that have covered previous Conference of Parties or COPs, say there has been great progress in terms of political will to have an agreement.

Lowered expectations

Experts on climate negotiations including, Mike Shanahan from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), who spoke to our group on Sunday as part of the orientation programme, laboured to explain that the likelihood of achieving a legally binding agreement at the end the next two-weeks process, are very slim.

Their argument is that there are still some fundamentally intractable problems over which many countries in the 192 UN family don’t agree.

Quite a number of countries under their groupings such as the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island Nations (Oasis) insist that the United States – which is the second biggest polluter after China, commits to some meaningful target of reducing its emissions if the world is to avoid a catastrophe because of global warming.

On the other hand the US, which, as I understand has a historical record of not signing up to many of similar legally binding global treaties, except the WTO, wants fast developing countries like China, Brazil, South Africa and India to make serious commitments of making targets in limiting their emissions, before it improves its target of reducing it by about 17% of 2005 levels.

China and India are not moving in that direction and are giving rather interesting proposals that they will reduce emissions through increased efficiency i.e producing more goods per a certain quantity of carbon than before.

Danes throw up some confusion

The urge to squeeze success out of this meeting is weighing heavy on the Danish government and the whole process of negotiations.

 Over the past several hours, the Danish government has introduced a new text that is totally different from what negotiators have been working on since the COP 13 that was held in Bali in 2007 and subsequently improved upon in Born, Poznan and Barcelona.

 Dr. Saleem Huq, a senior fellow with the International Institute for Environment and Development expressed concern that a number of experts are quite puzzled as to whether politicians are going to throw out the UNFCCC text that has taken years to frame in exchange for a political agreement which they say will not help solve the key questions arising from climate change that are facing humanity.

 For now, the Danish government has tired to keep the contents of the text secret by introducing it to Parties and taking it back. But reports say that the Danes want everyone to agree some emissions reductions and have every country open to inspection.

 The G77/China led by China have rejected the Danish proposal. China has said it will not open up to inspection, unless developing countries are willing to put some money on the table.

African perspective

UGANDAN CONNECTION: L-R, Ugandan journalists Sunrise's Henry Lutaaya, NTV's Kevin Doris Ejon and Simba's Emmanuel Okella stand besides an enlarged logo of the conference.

From the African perspective, things don’t look very exciting.
According to Shanahan, Africa should focus its attention on getting money for adaptation as opposed to focussing on mitigation since it has contributed almost nothing in terms of emissions to the problem.

However, unlike China which is a big polluter and a fast-growing economy, Shanahan argues, Africa has very little to put on table to boost its bargaining position.

Africa is part of a bigger negotiations group called the G77/China which actually has 133 countries in it including nearly all the developing countries and China.

However while speaking to a delegate from Kenya, Heads of State under the African Union umbrella recently decided that Africa negotiates as a single block. To this end, Ethiopia, whose Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has been at the forefront of the push for a single African position, is leading the African group together with the DR Congo.

The Kenyan official however hinted that Africa will equally be interested in ensuring that developed countries actually stop their emissions, because, as he put it, the effect of their increased emissions ends up disproportionately hurting the poor who are the majority in developing countries than the rich countries.

Well, having listened to the experts, the world may not get the announcement they have probably waited for in as many months. Rather, it may be a number of declarations that are not legally binding but can lead to more negotiations in the coming year where a legally binding agreement may arise.

But talk of serious diplomatic fights are forecast nonetheless, with a number of groups like the Oasis and the African group threatening to cause a stir if they don’t get commitments on mitigation targets and money for adaptation respectively.

henrylutaaya@hotmail.com