In the leadup to the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December to finalise the next global agreement to cut greenhouse emissions, there are a series of meetings to thrash out the detail of the negotiating text.
I must admit that everytime anyone tries to explain the detail of the negotiations my ears start to bleed. Worthy but dull is the best way of describing it. Actually, it is more than worthy. It is crucial for any hope of maintaining a stable biosphere. Greenpeace have a team on the ground in Bonn and here is a quick update from Stephanie Tunmore from Greenpeace International.
“If you are expecting to hear that not much progress is being made, you won’t be disappointed.
This meeting is all about narrowing down options for a range of issues in order to create negotiating text. Of course, there is a tremendous reluctance to get to grips with the ‘narrowing down’. The longer you can keep your preferred option on the table, the greater chance you have of seeing it in the final agreement. No-one wants to lose out at this stage.
Rumours had been circulating all week that G77 would come out with an aggregate target for industrialised countries but the OPECs managed to block agreement and each day passed without the expected announcement. Finally, on Wednesday, China, Brazil and India all put the figure of ‘’at least” 40% on the table. It is clear the OPECs have managed to stop this becoming a G77 position but I guess we take what we can get.
Unfortunately there has been a worrying development around the ‘commitment periods’. These are the blocks of time – currently five years – given to countries to reach their agreed targets before the targets are reviewed and renegotiated. We are currently in the first commitment period (2008-2012) and negotiating the second. There is now a move to extend these periods to eight years, which would mean the targets being negotiated now would run to 2020.
There are several reasons why this would be a bad thing:
1. The next IPCC assessment (AR5) is due in 2013/14 and is very likely to be more alarming than the last and point towards the need for far greater reductions. If we are locked into an eight year commitment period it will be impossible to adjust targets or add more countries to the Kyoto group
2. Big developing countries are not ready to take on absolute targets now so they would not get them until after 2020 instead of in a third commitment period which would be negotiated from 2014
3. Without commitments from developing countries many industrialised countries will lower their ambition, using the excuse that they could not ‘sell’ the deal back home.
4. Five years is within the political frame of reference for most governments.Longer than that means it’s someone else’s problem
At the moment only Tuvalu and AOSIS support the 5 year commitment period and they are being heavily leant on.”
The negotiations run until Wednesday next week.
