back to Manchester Climate Fortnightly.
Email Interview about UNFCCC
(the interviewee, who wishes to remain anonymous, has intimate and long-term knowledge of the UNFCCC negotiations)
May 2009
1. What is "broken"
about the UNFCCC negotiations?
I
don’t think that the UNFCCC negotiations are broken. I think
they are fairly typical of the post-WWII UN international law-making
process. Bringing nearly 190 sovereign states to consensus on
issues that are highly politicised due in large part to their economic
importance (yes, it’s an environmental treaty), is a slow and quite
often frustrating process, but we don’t have any real alternatives at
this point.
2. Who or what is to
blame for it being broken?
Please
see my answer to 1. above. If anything is to ‘blame’ for the
lack on progress in the UNFCCC negotiations, we might want to look to
the international law-making process. Our world and global
relations have changed fundamentally since 1949, and even since 1992
when the UNFCCC was agreed. For one thing, in many ways the
UNFCCC negotiations are stuck with a paradigm that was created on the
eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the agreement to establish
a World Trade Organisation, as a result of these and other
contemporaneous events, there has been a real paradigm shift.
Nevertheless, in many ways we continue to negotiate using the paradigm
that was relevant in 1992 – and many countries use this to their
advantage, but is it real and will it produce the right results?
3. If we gave you a
magic wand, how would you fix it (don't say "by magic"!)
Barring a complete shift in the international order (which might be a bit ‘by magic-ish’), I’d
a) abolish the G77 and China and break the group up into smaller groups aligned along vulnerability and responsibility lines;
b) make the US a party to the Kyoto Protocol; and
c) remove any
mention of ‘response measures’ from the Convention and the KP.
4. What would the
shape of a global deal look like if AOSIS was in charge/what is AOSIS
pushing for?
Very
briefly: All Annex I countries would agree to a 45% reduction in GHG
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 and a 95% reduction below 1990
levels by 2050. The emerging emitters would take on voluntary
targets which would phase to mandatory targets over time. An
insurance / risk management / compensation mechanism would be
established as part of a larger financing mechanism which is free of
the tyranny of the Bretton Woods institutions. An adaptation
framework with an institutional home in the Convention would be
established.
5. What are the
current and future climate impacts for small island states?
To
name a few:
Sea level rise;
Coral bleaching;
Ocean acidification;
More frequent extreme weather events (e.g. droughts, floods, cyclones);
Salinisation of the water table;
Loss of culture and traditional livelihoods;
Loss of land for agriculture and other economic and social uses;
Forced
migration.
6. What are the likely
scenarios for Copenhagen- an expanded Bali Action Plan, a weak deal, a
bis meeting?
If
the two tracks (AWG-KP and –LCA) stay separate, I think that there is a
possibility that the AWG-KP discussions will continue beyond
Copenhagen, which could mean that the 1(b)(i) text under the AWG-LCA
remains open. A bis meeting would allow the COP to meet and
decide on something in 2010 before December of that year. I
do believe that there will be enough political pressure for some form
of outcome at Copenhagen, so likely an expanded Bali Action Plan (see
the just released AWG-LCA Chair’s text), but maybe with some bits
missing around comparable efforts on Annex I mitigation.
7. What would you like
to see climate activists interested in the international negotiations
focussing their energies on?
Well
informed support of vulnerable country positions, rational lobbying of
relevant government officials, accurate reporting of negotiating
results which is accessible to society at large.
8. What would you like
to see "ordinary people" doing on climate change?