Reflections on the Copenhagen “Agreement”

By: Shannon Gibson, Researcher

It’s been several days since the close of the COP15’s final plenary, yet the dust still fails to settle. First, we have the Copenhagen Accord, a document of barely 3 pages which has little to no legal standing yet all the backing of the industrialized world.  Further, no one is quite sure of the process by which the UNFCCC will now have to deal with this “miscellaneous” document (though many certainly have their ideas). Second, is the “blame game” that has been unleashed in the days after, as world leaders, negotiators, ministers and pundits from the industrialized world attempt to place all the blame for not reaching a legally binding international treaty on China (and a few other accomplices such as Sudan, Tuvalu, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, etc.). Finally, hundreds of climate justice activists who converged with the thousands to protest in Copenhagen are just now starting to deal with the criminal charges and police repression they received for their collective acts of non-violent civil disobedience in the days before, after and during the COP15.

For all the brouhaha in the media and by world leaders that this conference was to be a monumental gathering of nations from around the world working and collaborating together in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, world leaders (particularly from the North) clearly didn’t get that idealistic memo.   

Because if there is anything certain to be taken away from Denmark…Hopenhagen it was not. 

While the policy and procedural failures are many, the highs experienced by (un)civil society and the burgeoning global climate justice movement were plentiful. I wish I could review, summarize, evaluate, comment on ALL that went on in Copenhagen, but in sticking to what I know best, what follows are my summary / impressions of the Copenhagen Accord (how it came to be, what’s in it, and what are the implications of this ridiculous “document” ?!?!)

The Copenhagen Accord

Basically this 3 page document, written and negotiated in a closed meeting of delegates from only 26 of the 194 nations attending the UNFCCC, has effectively hijacked and scoffed at the negotiations and draft writing that has occurred over the last two+ years under the two-track negotiation system laid out by the Bali Action Plan  at the COP 13 in 2007. While the document is not yet legally binding and has merely been taken note of by the COP, the implications of this document are alarming for several reasons. 

First, its mere existence is completely antithetical to the procedures of the United Nations which are based on consensus and multilateralism. Instead the sort of backroom dealing that went on in a meeting arranged by Danish Prime Minister Rasumussen and U.S. President Barack Obama on the second to last day of the conference was much more reminiscent of the Green Rooms of WTO ministerials. This meeting was convened unilaterally without the mandate (much less the knowledge) of all parties to the Convention.  This group was guided by political and financial interest only and included no representatives from civil society or other international governmental observers. And instead of working from the documents previously drafted in the two-track working groups, this exclusive meeting of high-level officials drafted a document (perhaps based on the earlier rumored “Danish Text”  which is devoid of national targets, compliance mechanisms, and commitments of non-conditional climate debt repayment. Second, beyond what’s NOT in the text, what IS IN this 3-page Accord itself is disquieting. Below I repeat some of the actual text, followed by my assessment of its implications:

Accord says: “we shall, recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change.”

 
Should be below? What about must be? Since words are everything in legal documents let’s take a look at the difference.  According to freedictionaryonline.com “should is a verb used to express probability or expectation; conditionality or contingency; or to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement.” Whereas “must is to be obliged or required by morality, law, or custom.” So in a word, the Accord moves us away from the legally-binding requirement of Annex 1 (industrialized countries) emissions reductions inherent in the Kyoto Protocol and instead is setting the stage for a new process whereby countries will submit voluntary national mitigation plans which will be assessed informally over the coming years. As for noncompliance, well of course there’s nothing in the Accord about that…it’s voluntary.

 
Accord says: “We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible…”
 

As soon as possible? While the Accord does provide a mechanism for submitting voluntary reduction targets for 2020, it does not yet provide a timeline for long-term emission reduction targets. Instead it states that the first review of this Accord will occur in 2015 at which time they will pick up the discussion of strengthening long-term goals. Further, it allows states to pick their own baseline date for emission reductions.  Rather than all reducing on the 1990 baseline as was the process under the Kyoto Protocol (except for a few such as economies in transition/Eastern Europe who didn’t have appropriate 1990 data), baseline dates are subject to national decision. This allows the U.S. for example to pledge cuts of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 which roughly translates to a 4% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, which is even less than what the U.S. would have had to reduce had it ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Further, paragraph 5 of the Accord briefly covers mitigation actions by Non-annex I parties (developing nations).  While these actions are voluntary, once submitted to the COP, these mitigation plans are subject to international review. Specifically, those mitigation plans requiring financial support will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification. While it is not implicit here, I would wager that this may be one of the ways in which adaptation/mitigation funding flowing from the North to the South will be conditionalized so as to stem and direct the flow of funds as it suits the industrialized world.

 
Accord says: “We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions.”

 
This is once again a reiteration of the “business as usual” market-based mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism and carbon trading, which were previously enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol and have done nothing to curb carbon emissions.  Basically, these market mechanisms allow for polluters in the North to ‘offset’ their carbon emissions by ‘investing’ in carbon emission reduction projects in cheaper economies (i.e., the Global South and Eastern Europe). These false solutions not only allow rich countries to continue delaying domestic shifts to low carbon, locally sustainable economies, often these projects (such as the conversion of forests to plantations for the purpose of producing agrofuels) have extremely negative effects on those already most at risk from climate change — Indigenous Peoples, fisherfolk, forest dwelling communities, women, children and the elderly – as corporations and states work together in order to snatch land away from marginalized groups in their efforts to commodify what natural resources remain.

Accord says: “Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus), adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention….This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.”

 
The paragraph goes on to state that these resources should amount to 30 billion USD for the period 2010-2012 with the goal of globally mobilizing 100 billion USD by 2020.  First, this is nowhere near the amount of funds that will be needed to appropriately assist the developing world in adapting to the effects of climate change and implementing their own mitigation plans. Even the nefarious World Bank estimates that in the medium term, mitigation costs in devel­oping countries should range between $140 billion and $175 billion annually by 2030. Second, these funds will not paid be in the form of reparations for climate or ecological debt owed to the Global South by the Global North for the roll they have played first in ravaging rich natural resources from the Global South in their imperialistic pursuits during colonial times and second in creating today’s climate crisis as a result of their mass overproduction and consumption. As of now, there are many indications that much of this funding may be conditional.  First, it will certainly be conditional on developing countries agreeing to, signing and submitting national mitigation plans under the Copenhagen Accord. Again, this is the arm twisting and bribing we’re accustomed to seeing in closed rooms of the WTO meetings, not at the United Nations.  Second, much of this funding could end up being project-specific. Meaning that government officials may attempt to funnel funds primarily through REDD-plus projects (a virtual land grabbing scheme by multinational corporations and governments) as opposed to funneling funds for technology transfer or capacity-building. Finally, though it says these funds will be new and additional, the Accord goes on to indicate that they will come from a wide variety of sources — public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources.  In essence, this means that much of these funds could come from regional development banks, via trade agreements or as a percentage of proceeds generated by carbon credit sales (as done currently in the Kyoto Protocol’s Adaptation Fund which receives 2% of all Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) produced via the Clean Development Mechanism).  Again, what we’re seeing is a manipulation of the capitalist market by industrialized nations in order to avert them having to pony up the cash that they are responsible for paying in mitigation and adaptation costs for the developing countries.

Accord says: “A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.”

 
Although, not much is said about this fund, it raises eyebrows because in informal talks it was mentioned that the World Bank might end up being the facilitating body for this Fund.  No need to go into why that might be a bad idea (their environmental development track record speaks for itself). But just a heads up that this is something to be on the lookout for should this fund be operationalized in the future.

Not “Legally Binding” so what’s the big deal?

Even though the document isn’t legally binding or an official agreement in the eyes of the COP (hell, it wasn’t even “welcomed” a different sort of recognition of proposals commonly employed within the UN), there are certainly moves being made right now to make this document an international reality. In the final closing plenary, several developed countries (led primarily by the United States) urged the President of the COP to facilitate the Accord’s implementation under Article 7.2(c) of the Convention, which states that the COP in upholding and promoting the implementation of the Convention should facilitate, at the request of 2 or more states, the coordination of measures adopted by them to address climate change. In attempting to employ this article in this manner, states are essentially trying to move the UN away from a process based on consensus building to one in which bilateral, multilateral and plurilateral agreements will be the way to “effectively make decisions” (i.e., skirting the need to get input and approval from all 194 countries party to the Convention).
There are 6 months now until Bonn and one can be sure that a lot of finagling, lobbying, arm twisting, and bribing will be done in order to get those pesky Southern dissenters on board with this Accord by then.  Yet, signs are that many are not backing down.  Already, President Morales of Bolivia has called for a World Conference of Social Movements to take place on April 22nd as a response to the failure of the COP 15. The opinions about this document are many and varied.  From it being praised as a “major step forward” by multiple world leaders to Economist Jeffrey Sachs claiming that it is “insincere, inconsistent, and unconvincing…[it] will probably strengthen the forces of opposition to emissions reductions” to members in the global justice movement being pleased that in the end they were successful because no deal would be better than a bad deal.  I would caution those notions that this document is an ultimate “non-deal”.  Certainly, the world is far better off in the sense that Copenhagen did not produce a watered-down unanimous agreement. However, my guess is that much will be done in the next few months in order to transition this “non-deal” into an official COP agreement by the COP16.  Civil society’s work is not done and the fight must surely go on as what little democracy the United Nations once prided itself in upholding, is being quickly eroded by the interests of those with the most power and financial resources to do so.