Norges Naturvernforbund : Sena: Tuesday 2nd of December

Du er kommet til Naturvernforbundet sine gamle nettsider, sannsynligvis fordi du har fulgt en utdatert lenke. Gå til naturvernforbundet.no.

Sena: Tuesday 2nd of December

The weather was terribly cold today. As my bus was going through the roads of Poznan, my memories went far back to the 1940 and especially to all those innocently exposed to this terrible climate. I am thus very appreciative of the motto set by the Poland to the COP ‘climate changes, let’s make a climate of change’.

By the way, why we are here? Craft a comprehensive post-Kyoto climate regime which takes into consideration past agreement namely the Bali Action Plan and the Nairobi framework. For me particularly three fields are of great importance: adaptation, especially the operationalization of the adaptation fund, technology transfer and finance.
After the opening ceremony of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), various subsidiary bodies opened as well: the Ad hoc working group on long term cooperative action (AWG-LCA), the ad hoc working group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), the subsidiary body on implementation (SBI) and the subsidiary body on scientific and technological advice (SBSTTA).

It was obvious what every one is expecting from this conference. While developing countries are keen to see greater progress on the Bali Action Plan which stressed the need for developed countries to reduce drastically their GhG emissions and provide adequate funding and technology for emerging and developing countries, if the world is to avoid some drastic catastrophe.


	02.12.2008

That is where, I was surprised to see the European Union, after the sectoral approach broadly discussed in Accra, came out with a new baby: shared vision focused on a global goal of emissions reduction by 2050. It is as if we went back to the Nairobi COP as this issue of shared vision is overwhelmingly ignoring the BAP and putting too much stress on having every country-irrespective of part in the global warming problem – be obliged to some emission reduction. For instance, the work of the AWG-LCA was suspended because of this issue of shared too much dominating the debates, until a consensus was reached. Actually, the EU supported by other has been advocating for a long term global goal of emissions reduction by 50% by 2050. Developping countries, on their part, knowing that this strategy would oblige them to have an emission reduction target want to defer a discussion on this until they know whether the finance and technology commitments of developed countries will fulfilled and to what extent.

Four main elements of the Bali Action Plan will be the main issue of discussion during this cop namely Adaptation, Mitigation, Finance, Technology transfer, Shared vision along with emerging agreements on Forests and REDD (Reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation).

The main challenge for me, as stressed by the delegates of Maldives (the country is currently looking for a land where to transfer its inhabitants as sea level rise may jeopardize their life on the island), on behalf of LDC, is – no matter the type of the shared vision – to ensure that global temperature rise be limited to 1,5 degree centigrade and GhG emissions be kept necessarily to 350 parts per million, in respect of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

The shared vision will not be about mitigation only (as this is the main interest of rich nations) but also adaptation and particularly sustainable development.

This is where developing countries, especially African are to be blamed for their evident inaction in this regard. Most convergent document like the Poverty reduction strategy papers does not take adaptation or climate change into consideration. This will understandably be difficult for Environment Ministers to integrate adaptation measures into countries policies in the future. Adaptation is not about climate change only, but rather about development. It must feature in all country relevant sectoral and cross sectoral development strategies.
As well as the UN needs a new face, so is the same for the G77 and China group (actually, they are even more than 77 now). The interests of its members are so diverse and terribly different that all attempts to be together will prove counter productive for LDC: between China and Swaziland, Brazil and Togo or India and Liberia there is a huge difference.
This may explain the absence of important and vital issues from these negotiations namely biodiversity, energy and especially agriculture. By being part of the big picture African countries sacrifice their number one priority: food for all!

On a more technical and scientific base, one big absent of the negotiation is CH4: METHANE. From what I know, I have the feeling that the calculations around methane are wrong, now that the target year is brought to 2050. Initially, the first targets were fixed in consideration of year 2100. Taken that way, CO2 come as the main danger and this explained why the equivalence of all GhG was made in relation to carbon dioxide. But if 2050 is to be the next target, then things must change; Methane must become the main base of calculations as it has a shorter life expectancy. Well calculated, 1 t CH4 will be as dangerous as 72 t of CO2. This calls for reflection and attention; especially since it is possible to make of that gas an agent of development. Examples of methane capture and use in South Africa and Tunisia must inform the negotiators.

Anyway, the world itself is full of contradictions!

Kommenter her:

Legg til nytt innlegg