Poznan Talks Conclude
With the lame-duck Bush administration still in place, and simultaneous negotiations within the European Union to settle their climate "package," the overall outcome of the UN climate negotiations held in Poznan, Poland, December 1-12, was disappointing. Though little to no progress was made on emissions reductions targets in developed countries, there were a few accomplishments. A mechanism to support reducing deforestation in developing countries, and expanded financing for adaptation was solidified, a work plan for next year was agreed upon and a number of developing countries offered plans to reduce their emissions. Meanwhile, people looked eagerly to the incoming Obama administration to provide the leadership necessary to reach a deal in 2009.
No progress on emissions reductions targets was made. The EU, which had promised a target of 30 per cent if other developed nations followed said little about that commitment in finalizing a 20 per cent reduction target for itself in Brussels on Friday. Australia kept quiet on its 2020 target during the Poznan talks and has come out days after to announce a modest 5 per cent cut, perhaps 15 per cent if other rich countries set stronger targets. In the end, the targets agreed to in the Bali Action Plan were copied verbatim into the Poznan text.
Similarly, agreement was not reached for a funding mechanism for rich countries to pay local forest communities in developing countries to not to cut down their forests. The main sticking point was how to treat rights for indigenous peoples.
The slide of the developed world into recession has not helped. Positive talk of the opportunities the situation provides for a 'green-led recovery' were taken up at Poznan by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Overcoming the financial and economic crisis would require a "massive stimulus," and "a big part of that spending should be an investment in a green future," Ban said. There was little acknowledgement, however, from governments very nervous of the cost impact of curbs on emissions on flattened economies.
Also under discussion in Poznan was whether projects to CCS projects would be accepted under the Clean Development Mechanism. This was left unresolved by negotiators, with Brazil leading the fight against inclusion while Saudi Arabia and Australia arguing for it.
One of the few small examples of forward progress at the talks was that the Adaptation Fund Board became operational. Funding for the Adaptation Fund Board, which collects between $200 million and $300 million annually, comes from a 2 percent levy on the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows nations to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments by reducing emissions in developing countries. Early legal analysis of this decision indicates that by granting legal status to the Board developing nations can directly access the money, rather than have to go through an institution like the World Bank.
But that victory soured as negotiations dragged past midnight over extending that levy to projects in former communist countries and the European Union's larger Emission Trading Scheme, a proposal which the European Union firmly opposed. Developing countries most impacted by climate change hinted that they might walk out of the negotiations without further commitments from developed countries on financing. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), suggested that "a number of industrialized countries see financing...as part of a larger package to be delivered at Copenhagen."
Despite these many disappointments, negotiators developed a work program that will lead the UNFCCC into a new negotiating phase in which countries must put real targets on the table. Countries will be expected to announce midrange emission reduction targets for 2020 by June.
Contributing positively towards momentum was a Proposal by the G-77 and China for a Technology Mechanism, which has so far largely gone unanswered by developed countries, and a number of domestic actions put forward by developing countries. Brazil, one of the top four emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide, set a target for reducing deforestation by 70 percent over the next decade. Peru, which has the fourth largest amount of tropical forests in the world, announced that it could reach 0% deforestation in 10 years with aid from industrialized countries. China set itself a nationally binding goal to reduce energy consumption per unit of economic output by 20 percent in 2010 from 2005. South Africa said it will peak its emissions by 2025, with cuts starting a decade later. And Mexico said it intends to halve its emissions by 2050. These commitments put the onus on developed countries to take the next step.
Despite the lack of progress in Poznan, hopes remain high that a deal can be reached in Copenhagen in December 2009, in large part because of the incoming Obama administration's promise to engage vigorously on this issue. Former Vice President Al Gore, addressing the conference one day after meeting with Obama, tried to rally the crowd with, "yes we can," Obama's campaign slogan. Promising to report back to Obama on the conference, incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), argued that a deal in Copenhagen in December 2009 is possible.
Also of note, while Obama has said he wants to return to 1990 greenhouse-gas emissions levels by 2020, but Mr. Kerry said he personally felt the cuts should be deeper. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said nations would need to reduce emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to avert the serious and potentially disastrous consequences of climate change.
For more information, see Carbon Positive or Washington Post.
